text:
# On the Space-Time Symmetries of Non-Commutative Gauge Theories

## I Introduction

The idea of non-commuting space-time coordinates was first considered by Heisenberg and written about by Snyder . The geometry was widely developed in recent years by Connes . Following the discovery of Seiberg and Witten  of a map (SW map) that relates non-commutative to commutative gauge theories, there has been an increasing interest in studying non-commutativity from a theoretical point of view, as well as its impact on phenomenology , . Our purpose is to study the space-time symmetry properties of the U(1) non-commutative gauge theory. The extension of our analysis to other gauge groups is straightforward.

The most common explicit realizations of the non-commutative nature of space-time coordinates are : the canonical structure, the Lie algebra structure, and the $`q`$-deformed space structure. In all cases the algebraic structure is associative.

We shall work with the canonical structure, given by

$$x^\mu x^\nu x^\nu x^\mu =i\theta ^{\mu \nu },$$
(I.1)
where the Moyal-Weyl $``$-product of two fields $`\varphi (x)`$ and $`\chi (x)`$ is defined as

$`(\varphi \chi )(x)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{exp}\{{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\theta ^{\mu \nu }_\mu ^x_\nu ^y\}\varphi (x)\chi (y)|_{yx}`$ (I.2)
$`=`$ $`\varphi (x)\chi (x)+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\theta ^{\mu \nu }_\mu \varphi (x)_\nu \chi (x){\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\theta ^{\mu \nu }\theta ^{\lambda \kappa }_\mu _\lambda \varphi (x)_\nu _\kappa \chi (x)+\mathrm{},`$ (I.3)
$`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ is $`c`$-number valued, the Greek indices run from $`0`$ to $`n1`$, and $`n`$ is the dimension of the space-time.

The action for the non-commutative Abelian gauge theory in four dimensions is

$$\widehat{I}=\frac{1}{4}d^4x\widehat{F}^{\mu \nu }\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu },$$
(I.4)
where $`\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }=_\mu \widehat{A}_\nu _\nu \widehat{A}_\mu i[\widehat{A}_\mu ,\widehat{A}_\nu ]_{}`$, $`\widehat{A}_\mu `$ can be expressed in terms of a U(1) gauge field $`A_\mu `$ and of $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ by means of the SW map, $`\widehat{A}_\mu (A,\theta )`$. Note that $`\widehat{A}_\mu (A,\theta )A_\mu `$ as $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }0`$, hence, in that limit, $`\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu `$.

The action (I.4) arises either as the non-commutative analog of a standard gauge theory or as the low energy limit of some string theory . In both cases the physical nature of the gauge field $`A_\mu `$ and of $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ is not clear, and has to be investigated. For instance, one sees that within the $`C^{}`$ algebra defined by (I.1), the $``$-multiplication by $`x_\mu `$ (thought as an adjoint action) is a derivation $`_\mu `$. It is this derivative that one makes covariant by introducing the field $`\widehat{A}_\mu `$ :

$$x^\mu x^\mu +\theta ^{\mu \nu }\widehat{A}_\nu $$
(I.5)
while, in the standard case, the gauge prescription acts on the momentum $`p_\mu `$: $`p_\mu p_\mu +A_\mu `$. Thus, even if the formal resemblance entitles us to treat $`\widehat{A}_\mu `$ as the four-potential of electrodynamics , , one has to perform an open minded investigation of the properties of the theory (I.4). An issue is the nature of $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$. Some recent investigations have considered $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ as a second rank tensor under Lorentz transformations, with scaling properties imposed by demanding the action to be scale invariant . In this paper we would like to address the problem of the space-time symmetries and transformation properties of the theory (I.4) from a dynamical perspective, namely by using the Noether charges. This will allow us to have stronger constraints on the possible ways $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ can transform.

## II Dynamically Consistent Transformations

There are various ways to represent the conformal algebra as transformations acting on fields. An example are the the so-called geometric transformations, namely the effect of the infinitesimal variation of the coordinates

$$x_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }x^\mu =\delta _fx^\mu f^\mu (x),$$
(II.6)
on the fields, evaluated at the same point $`x`$ (for a review see e.g. ). Since we shall be dealing with the action (I.4) we are interested in the transformations of the gauge field and the field strength

$$\delta _fA_\mu A_\mu ^{}(x)A_\mu (x)\mathrm{and}\delta _fF_{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }^{}(x)F_{\mu \nu }(x),$$
(II.7)
A separate issue are the transformations of $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$, on which we shall concentrate in the next Section.

The infinitesimal quantities $`f^\mu `$ take the following form

$$f^\mu =a^\mu \mathrm{or}f^\mu =\omega _\nu ^\mu x^\nu \mathrm{or}f^\mu =ax^\mu \mathrm{or}f^\mu =a^\mu x^22axx^\mu ,$$
(II.8)
for infinitesimal translations, rotations (and boosts), dilations, and special conformal transformations, respectively, where, as usual, $`\omega ^{\mu \nu }=\omega ^{\nu \mu }`$.

It can be easily shown that the geometric transformations (II.7) can be written as

$$\delta _fA_\mu =𝐋_fA_\mu \mathrm{and}\delta _fF_{\mu \nu }=𝐋_fF_{\mu \nu }=_\mu 𝐋_fA_\nu _\nu 𝐋_fA_\mu ,$$
(II.9)
where $`𝐋_f`$ is the standard Lie derivative

$$𝐋_fX_{\mu \mathrm{}\nu }^{\lambda \mathrm{}\kappa }=f^\alpha _\alpha X_{\mu \mathrm{}\nu }^{\lambda \mathrm{}\kappa }+(_\mu f^\alpha )X_{\alpha \mathrm{}\nu }^{\lambda \mathrm{}\kappa }+\mathrm{}+(_\nu f^\alpha )X_{\mu \mathrm{}\alpha }^{\lambda \mathrm{}\kappa }(_\alpha f^\lambda )X_{\mu \mathrm{}\nu }^{\alpha \mathrm{}\kappa }\mathrm{}(_\alpha f^\kappa )X_{\mu \mathrm{}\nu }^{\lambda \mathrm{}\alpha }.$$
(II.10)
Note also that one can write the identity

$$\delta _fA_\mu =𝐋_fA_\mu f^\alpha F_{\alpha \mu }+D_\mu (f^\alpha A_\alpha ),$$
(II.11)
where $`D_\mu =_\mu iA_\mu `$ is the covariant derivative. Since

$$[\delta _f,\delta _g]A_\mu =\delta _{[f,g]}A_\mu \mathrm{and}[\delta _f,\delta _g]F_{\mu \nu }=\delta _{[f,g]}F_{\mu \nu },$$
(II.12)
one sees that indeed this is a representation of the conformal algebra.

On the other hand, one can also introduce the covariant geometric transformations , namely the transformations $`\overline{\delta }_f`$ obtained by gauge-transforming $`\delta _f`$. For instance the transformation of the gauge field given in (II.11) becomes

$$\overline{\delta _f}A_\mu =f^\alpha F_{\alpha \mu }.$$
(II.13)
This time one has

$$[\overline{\delta }_f,\overline{\delta }_g]A_\mu =\overline{\delta }_{[f,g]}A_\mu +D_\mu X\mathrm{and}[\overline{\delta }_f,\overline{\delta }_g]F_{\mu \nu }=\overline{\delta }_{[f,g]}F_{\mu \nu }+D_\mu X_\nu ,$$
(II.14)
thus, as a representation of the original algebra, it closes only up to a gauge transformation, that one is free to perform. For a generalization of the latter to the non-commutative counterparts see .

In these two examples there is no need to refer to an action to obtain the way the fields have to transform. In this sense there is a certain amount of arbitrariness, and there is no need for these transformations to be symmetries. For instance, one can easily check that the scaling properties of fields of arbitrary spin obtained via geometric transformations (either $`\delta _f`$ or $`\overline{\delta }_f`$) do not always agree with the standard scaling properties. Note that this is not the case for $`A_\mu `$ and $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ in four dimensions, where the geometric scaling properties agree with the standard ones.

Another possible way to represent the conformal algebra acting on the fields is via Noether charges. This (infinite dimensional, reducible) representation has a very important role among the various representations because is the form of the action that dictates the transformations of the fields, whether or not they are symmetries. We shall call these transformations $`\mathrm{\Delta }_f`$.

In a theory with Lagrangian density $`(\mathrm{\Phi }_i,\mathrm{\Phi }_i)`$ (where the collective index $`i`$ takes care of the different fields, as well as their spin type) the Noether current for space-time transformations has the form

$$J_f^\mu =\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu i}\delta _f\mathrm{\Phi }_i+\delta _fx^\mu ,$$
(II.15)
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu i}=\delta /\delta _\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_i`$, and, as in (II.7), $`\delta _f\mathrm{\Phi }_i=\mathrm{\Phi }_{}^{}{}_{i}{}^{}(x)\mathrm{\Phi }_i(x)`$. With the current (II.15) one can: i)test whether the given transformation is a symmetry by picking the correspondent $`f^\mu `$ in (II.8), and checking whether $`_\mu J^\mu =0`$, by using the equations of motion; ii) use the Noether charges $`Q_fd^3xJ_f^0`$, and the canonical equal-time Poisson brackets $`\{\mathrm{\Phi }_i(x),\mathrm{\Pi }^j(y)\}=\delta _i^j\delta (\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y})`$, to generate the transformations of an arbitrary function of the canonical variables

$$\{G(\mathrm{\Phi }_i,\mathrm{\Pi }_i),Q_f\}\mathrm{\Delta }_fG(\mathrm{\Phi }_i,\mathrm{\Pi }_i).$$
(II.16)
Note also that, for $`f^0=g^0=0`$,

$$\{Q_f,Q_g\}=Q_{[f,g]},$$
(II.17)
and Eq.s (II.16) and (II.17) hold whether or not $`_0Q_f=0`$.

Of course, when $`Q_f`$ acts on the fields it must reproduce the transformations one started with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_f\mathrm{\Phi }_i=\delta _f\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$. We call $`\mathrm{\Delta }_f`$ the dynamically consistent transformations.

The expression for the current (II.15) has been obtained by varying the action, including the measure, under an arbitrary space-time transformation, and only afterwards one tests the invariance, following the above described procedure. Sometimes the Noether theorem is used in a somehow different perspective, namely by checking that $`\delta =_\mu V^\mu `$, which is only true for invariant actions, and then writing the current as $`J^\mu =\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu i}\delta ^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_iV^\mu `$, where in this case $`\delta ^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_i=\mathrm{\Phi }_{}^{}{}_{i}{}^{}(x^{})\mathrm{\Phi }_i(x)`$, hence $`\delta ^{}\delta _f`$. The choice $`\delta ^{}`$ is the most useful in the case of gauge transformations and supersymmetry , while for standard space-time transformations, as the ones we are considering in this paper, it is more convenient to use (II.15). Of course, the two procedures are consistent , .

## III Non-Commutative U(1) Gauge Theory

For sake of clarity, let us now write down the terms in the action in (I.4) up to first order in $`\theta `$

$$\widehat{I}=\frac{1}{4}d^4x[F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}\theta ^{\alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \beta }F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }+2\theta ^{\alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \mu }F_{\beta \nu }F^{\mu \nu }]+O(\theta ^2),$$
(III.18)
although the following results hold to any order in $`\theta `$. The $`\theta `$-dependence in (III.18) is obtained from the $``$-product in $`\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }`$, and by using the SW map

$$\widehat{A}_\mu (A,\theta )=A_\mu \frac{1}{2}\theta ^{\alpha \beta }A_\alpha (_\beta A_\mu +F_{\beta \mu })+O(\theta ^2),$$
(III.19)
which solves the Seiberg-Witten equation

$$\widehat{A}(A+\delta _\lambda A)=\widehat{A}(A)+\widehat{\delta }_{\widehat{\lambda }}\widehat{A}(A),$$
(III.20)
where $`\delta _\lambda A_\mu =_\mu \lambda `$, $`\widehat{\delta }_{\widehat{\lambda }}\widehat{A}_\mu =_\mu \widehat{\lambda }i[\widehat{A}_\mu ,\widehat{\lambda }]_{}`$, and $`\lambda `$, $`\widehat{\lambda }(\lambda ,A)`$ are the parameters of the gauge transformations for standard and non-commutative U(1) gauge group, respectively.

The Noether current for space-time transformations that we obtain from the action (III.18) is then

$$J_f^\mu =\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }\delta _fA_\nu f^\mu ,$$
(III.21)
where the $`f^\mu `$’s are given in (II.8), $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }=\delta /\delta _\mu A_\nu `$, and, being $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\alpha \beta }^\mu =\delta /\delta _\mu \theta ^{\alpha \beta }=0`$, the transformations $`\delta _f\theta ^{\alpha \beta }`$ do not enter the Noether current.

Let us now analyze the symmetry properties by writing the divergence of this current as

$$_\mu J_f^\mu =\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }F_{\alpha \nu }_\mu f^\alpha _\mu f^\mu .$$
(III.22)
We obtain that $`_\mu J_f^\mu =0`$ for infinitesimal translations $`f^\mu =a^\mu `$, but

$$_\mu J_f^\mu =\omega _\mu ^\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }F_{\alpha \nu },_\mu J_f^\mu =a(\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }4),_\mu J_f^\mu =2\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }F_{\alpha \nu }(a^\alpha x_\mu a_\mu x^\alpha ax\delta _\mu ^\alpha )+8ax,$$
(III.23)
for infinitesimal Lorentz transformations, dilations and special conformal transformations, respectively. In absence of the non-commutative corrections, $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }=0`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }=F^{\mu \nu }`$, and from (III.23) one immediately sees that $`_\mu J_f^\mu =0`$ for all $`f^\mu `$’s in (II.8), and the theory is invariant under the full conformal transformations***Since $`A_\mu `$ is a spin 1 field, and we are in four dimensions, for $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }=0`$, scale invariance alone implies special conformal invariance ..

On the other hand, the action $`\widehat{I}`$, for $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }0`$, is only invariant under translations. Of course, this leaves room to special choices of the parameters and/or of the field configurations, to obtain conserved currents. For instance, if one performs two dependent infinitesimal boosts with parameters $`\omega _1^0=\omega _2^0=\omega `$, from the first condition in (III.23) one obtains $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{12}(E_2E_1)=E_3(\mathrm{\Pi }^{13}+\mathrm{\Pi }^{23})`$. Thus, for instance, one finds conservation if the electric field $`\stackrel{}{E}`$ lives in the $`(1,2)`$-plane, and has equal components.

It is crucial to notice that the results in (III.23) hold for the full theory (I.4), to all orders in $`\theta `$. As a matter of fact, to obtain (III.23) we have only used the conditions

$$_\mu \theta =0,\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{\Pi }^{\nu \mu },_\mu \mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }=0.$$
(III.24)
i.e. i) $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ does not depend on the coordinates $`x^\mu `$; ii) $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }`$ is antisymmetric, which is a consequence of the antisymmetry of $`F_{\mu \nu }`$; iii) the equations of motion for $`A_\mu `$ are satisfied in the form $`_\mu \mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }=0`$, where the latter expression is valid to all orders in $`\theta `$ provided one changes $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }`$ accordingly. Furthermore $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\alpha \beta }^\mu =0`$ to all orders.

We now want to check the dynamical consistency of the transformations, along the lines of what explained in Section II. It is straightforward to see that for $`A_\mu `$ and $`F_{\mu \nu }`$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_fA_\mu =\delta _fA_\mu \mathrm{and}\mathrm{\Delta }_fF_{\mu \nu }=\delta _fF_{\mu \nu },$$
(III.25)
while for $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_f\theta ^{\mu \nu }=0,$$
(III.26)
for all $`f^\mu `$’s in (II.8).

At this point one has to investigate whether $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ could be treated as a dummy field $`D`$, in the spirit of what happens in supersymmetric models. The answer in no. In both cases $`\delta _f\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\delta _{\mathrm{SUSY}}D`$ do not explicitly enter the expression of the Noether current, hence one can arbitrarily choose them. Nonetheless, in supersymmetric models: i) one fixes $`\delta _{\mathrm{SUSY}}D`$ by demanding the action $`I_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ (which contains the dummy fields explicitly) to be invariant; ii) even if $`\mathrm{\Pi }_D=0`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{SUSY}}D0`$ due to the fact that $`D`$ can be properly expressed in terms of the dynamical fields by means of the constraint $`\delta I_{\mathrm{SUSY}}/\delta D=0`$ . Therefore $`\delta _{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ represents the SUSY algebra off-shell, while $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ represents the SUSY algebra on-shell, and both are symmetries of the action. On the contrary, in our case, if one uses

$$\frac{\delta \widehat{I}}{\delta \theta ^{\mu \nu }}=0,$$
(III.27)
as a constraint, then one obtains different dynamical transformations of $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ at different orders, and trivial theories. For instance, for the first order action (III.18), one cannot express $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ in terms of the dynamical fields, hence there is no contribution to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_f\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ from $`\mathrm{\Delta }_fA_\mu `$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }_fF_{\mu \nu }`$. While, at higher orders, there are not simple expressions for $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ in terms of $`A_\mu `$ or $`F_{\mu \nu }`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_f\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ has different expressions for different orders. Furthermore, the constraints imposed on $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ by (III.27) make the theory trivial. For instance, at first order, (III.27) implies $`F_{\mu \nu }=0`$, which is too trivial a theory. Note also that if one uses (III.27) the expressions of $`_\mu J_f^\mu `$ in (III.23) are trivially zero for all conformal transformations.

We conclude that $`\delta _f\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ cannot be fixed by any symmetry requirement (with the only exception of translations), and that to have a physical meaningful theory one should not make use of the ”equations of motion” (III.27). Therefore, among all possible $`\delta _f\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$’s that represent the conformal algebra, the most natural choice seems to us $`\delta _f\theta ^{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{\Delta }_f\theta ^{\mu \nu }=0`$ (which agrees with the translation invariance), and $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ does not transform under dynamically consistent space-time transformations. This choice is also consistent with considerations in .

## IV conclusions

We have studied the space-time symmetries and transformation properties of the non-commutative U(1) gauge theory, from the dynamical point of view. The same analysis applies to other gauge groups.

We carried out our analysis by keeping an open view on the possible ways $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ could transform. A possible scenario is the one with $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ behaving like a second rank tensor under Lorentz transformations . Another possibility is to see $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ as a back-ground metric, therefore reduce the space-time transformations to the isometries of this metric which would leave the theory invariant.

¿From our analysis it clearly follows that there is no reason for $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ to transform under any space-time transformation since the theory is not invariant under the conformal transformations, with the only exception of translations, and special choices of the parameters and/or of the field configurations. This implies that $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ is an invariant constant matrix in any frame of reference.

Since there is no invariant constant antisymmetric second rank tensor in four dimensions, the physics necessarily depends on the frame of reference. Examples, for special choices of $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$, are given in  and , where it is shown that, in such a theory, the velocity of light depends on the direction of motion, like in an anisotropic medium.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to R. Jackiw for introducing us to the subject of symmetries in non-commutative gauge theories, and for very enjoyable discussions. A.I. has been partially supported by the Fellowship “Theoretical Physics of the Fundamental Interactions”, University of Rome Tor Vergata. T.S. was supported by the program “Research Centres” project n. LN00A006 of the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport of the Czech Republic. This work was also supported in part through funds provided by the U. S. Department of Energy (D.O.E) under cooperative research agreement DF-FC02-94ER40818.


format: text

text:
# Interferometry in astrophysics as a roadmap for interferometry in multiparticle dynamics

## 1 Introduction

The reason for presenting interferometry as a tool of modern astrophysics at a symposium on multiparticle dynamics arises from the similarity of terms and methods used in both disciplines. It is impossible to cover the whole subject of astrophysical interferometry in one brief presentation. By necessity, it will be only a glimpse of the subject; readers interested in a deep and comprehensive view on the astrophysical interferometry are referred to the monograph by Thompson et al.. A historical overview of the development of interferometry in radio astronomy has been given recently by Kellermann & Moran.

The method descends from the seminal work by Michelson. Using a two-slit optical interferometer he succeeded in measuring the diameter of stars. Over the following century, the method broadened its application in the wavelength domain from the ultraviolet ($`\lambda 10^7`$ m) to decametric radio waves ($`\lambda 10`$ m) and in baseline length from several meters to $`10^4`$ km.

The main motivation for exploiting interferometry in a variety of astronomical applications is illustrated in Fig. 1. To achieve the desired angular resolution at a particular wavelength $`\lambda `$ one has to place detectors of the emission at a particular distance dictated by the diffraction. This distance could be either a “diameter” of a conventional (“single-dish” in radio astronomical slang) telescope, $`D`$, or a baseline of a two-element interferometer, $`B`$. In many cases, technological complexity and cost of the former option are prohibitively high; the only remaining possibility is to create an interferometer. Of course, it comes at a price: the sensitivity of the system is roughly proportional to its collecting area, which is much smaller for the interferometer comparing to a “full aperture” telescope of the same angular resolution.

An important generalization of the interferometric technique is the method of aperture synthesis. Its essence is in combining as many interferometric pairs as possible, each of different length and/or orientation. A certain calculation involving the responses of each pair makes it possible to reconstruct (or, rather, to approximate) a response of a telescope with a filled aperture. The method of aperture synthesis was pioneered for radio astronomical applications in 1950’s in Cambridge by Ryle & Hewish and their students and in Australia by Christansen & Warburton.

At present, the interferometry and aperture synthesis are amalgamated in one of the most productive astronomical techniques. Arguably, its highest achievements so far are in the radio domain where modern technology enables to operate Very Long Baseline Interferometers (VLBI) with baselines comparable to an Earth diameter (see review by Kellermann & Moran) and even exceeding the size of our planet by placing one radio telescope in space (Hirabayashi et al.). VLBI routinely achieves milli-arcsecond ($`1\mathrm{mas}4.8\times 10^9`$ radian) and sub-milliarcsecond angular resolution and is moving toward the micro-arcsecond angular scale by observing at frequencies of tens and hundreds GHz (mm radio waves). Optical interferometry is heading toward a milliarcsecond-scale imaging with baselines of hundreds of meters (Lena & Quirrenbach).

## 2  How it works: a simplistic view

The output signal of a simple single-baseline (two-element) broad-band interferometer observing a point-like source could be presented as

$$r(\tau )=\underset{T\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{2T}_T^TV(t)V(t\tau )𝑑t,$$
(1)
where $`V`$ is the voltage delivered by each element in response to the source radiation, $`2T`$ is the integration interval, $`t`$ is the time, and $`\tau `$ is the time delay between the signal detections by the two elements. Obviously, $`r(\tau )`$ is an unnormalized autocorrelation function. The power spectrum of a signal is the Fourier transform (shown below by the “bi-directional harpoon”) of the autocorrelation function of that signal, thus

$$V_{1T}V_{2T}\widehat{V}_{1T}\widehat{V}_{2T},$$
(2)
where the left side represents the cross-correlation of the two voltages at the telescopes, “1” and “2”, while the right side is the cross power spectrum of the signals $`V_{1T}(t)`$ and $`V_{2T}(t)`$, represented by their Fourier images $`\widehat{V}_{1T}`$ and $`\widehat{V}_{2T}`$, respectively. The usefulness of the relation (2) is in the possibility to estimate the cross power spectrum by measuring the output signal of the correlator. The equation (2) is a generalization of the Wiener–Khinchin relation.

In most astrophysical experiments the goal is to obtain a source brightness distribution, $`I(x,y)`$, – a function which formally represents an image of the source in any arbitrary coordinate frame $`(x,y)`$ (e.g. Cartesian coordinates in the plane tangent to the celestial sphere at the position of the source). An ideal aperture synthesis system measures the mutual coherence function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(u,v)`$ which is related to the brightness distribution of the source as follows:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(u,v)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}I(x,y)e^{i2\pi (ux+vy)}𝑑x𝑑y,$$
(3)
where $`u`$ and $`v`$ are the Fourier conjugates (spatial frequencies) of the coordinates $`x`$ and $`y`$, respectively. The equation (3) represents the van Cittert–Zernike theorem (Born & Wolfe). The mutual coherence function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(u,v)`$ properly normalized (the process called “calibration” in practical interferometry) is nothing but the cross-correlation function of the signals detected by the two elements of the interferometer.

Equations (2) and (3) form the foundation of interferometry and aperture synthesis. Note, that the mutual coherence is a complex function. For convenience, it is usually represented as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(u,v)A(u,v)e^{i2\pi \varphi (u,v)}`$, where $`A(u,v)`$ and $`\varphi (u,v)`$ are the amplitude and phase, respectively. In principle, the problem of reconstructing $`I(x,y)`$ requires a simple inverse Fourier transformation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(u,v)`$. However in practice, due to a variety of reasons (telescope-specific instrumental and propagation effects, to mention just a few), the measurement of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(u,v)`$ is neither complete nor unbiased. The most serious problems surround measurements of the phases of the interferometric response.

## 3  Closure relations in interferometry

In the early days of radio interferometry, an ingenious method of intensity interferometry had been introduced by Hanbury Brown & Twiss (see also Hanbury Brown and references therein). In this method, the signals from two telescopes were first square-law detected and filtered and then correlated. Problems with measuring phases (as well as accurate synchronization of the receivers at different telescopes) were thus eliminated. As a result, no proper image could be produced, but the output of the correlator was proportional to $`<V_1V_2>^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(u,v)^2`$. It was certainly better than nothing as far as the structural properties of the source were concerned. However, the method had a serious disadvantage – a lack of sensitivity. Signal handling by the intensity interferometers requires amplification of the signals before correlation, making the signal-to-noise detection threshold in the incoming data considerably inferior to that of “conventional” interferometers. Nevertheless, this problem did not prevent successful application of intensity interferometry in optical domain (also known as speckle interferometry, see review by Bates).

The intensity interferometry is perhaps worth mentioning here since it resembles some techniques used in detection of particle production and particle interferometry (see Csörgő and references therein).

The next breakthrough in interferometry came with the introduction of the so called “closure” relations. First, Jennison conceived the idea of phase closure. It is based on the fact, that in any interferometric triangle, the sum of the three interferometer phases for a point-like source must be zero (see the interferometric triangle “1–2–3” in Fig. 2; the closure phase is $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{123}\varphi _{12}+\varphi _{23}+\varphi _{31}`$). If any disturbance is imposed on the signal phase generated at an antenna in such the triangle, it will be impressed on the interferometer phase on two baselines linked to that antenna with opposite signs, thus leaving the closure phase unchanged. For a non-point-like source, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{123}0`$, but it remains invariant to any telescope-dependent instrumental phase disturbances:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{123}\varphi _{12}+\varphi _{23}+\varphi _{31}=\psi _{12}+\psi _{23}+\psi _{31},$$
(4)
where $`\psi _{ij}`$ are measured (i.e. biased) interferometer phases. The equation (4) is a powerful constraint in recovering true “structural” phases which represent the source structure via equation (3). Note, that baseline-dependent errors cannot be cured by the closure phase relation (4).

Smith and Twiss et al. applied the idea of closure relations to amplitudes. They showed that the value $`𝒢A_{12}A_{34}/(A_{13}A_{24})`$ (dubbed “closure amplitude”; Fig. 2) is independent of the gain (i.e. amplitude) uncertainties.

## 4  In place of conclusion

This short presentation in no way is a complete description of the broad and versatile technique of interferometry able to study electromagnetic emission of celestial sources with unrivaled angular resolution. Instead, I hope, it can trigger further investigation of possibly deep and potentially fruitful analogies between “classical” interferometry and multiparticle dynamics. It has to be noted that not all possible parallels between the two disciplines have been mentioned here. For example, the idea of correlation of photons produced in W pair production has been suggested earlier by Chapovsky et al..

The following questions seem to be of interest:
1). What is the correspondence (if any) between measurable parameters in astrophysical interferometry and particle dynamics experiments?
2). If the parallel between intensity interferometry and some “correlation” detections in particle collisions is indeed meaningful, what is needed for the particle experiments to be treated as a “conventional” interferometer? The answer on this question could bring about applications of, e.g., closure relations, proven to be extremely valuable in astrophysical interferometry.

In this publication I have chosen not to describe some recent highlights of astrophysical interferometry reviewed in the verbal version of this presentation. Those interested in the state-of-the-art achievements of interferometers in various fields of astrophysics are referred to the recent reviews in the Proceedings of the Symposium “Galaxies and Their Constituents at the Highest Angular Resolution” and references therein.

## Acknowledgments

I am grateful to the organizers of the Symposium and especially Wolfram Kittel, Tamás Csörgő and Šarka Todorova for the stimulating opportunity to look on the subject of interferometry from a rather unusual (for the author) perspective. I thank Ian Avruch for useful comments. I acknowledge the exchange programme of the Chinese and Dutch Academies of Sciences.


text:
# European Perspectives for Electron-Nucleon Scattering at the Luminosity Frontier

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Over more than two decades the momentum and spin structure of single partons in the nucleon has been investigated by now, preferentially using charged leptons as probe(s). A great variety of measurements, performed in fixed-target and collider experiments, turned Quantum Chromo Dynamics (QCD) from a candidate theory into the widely accepted field theory of strong interactions. Large enough photon virtualities $`Q^2`$ were required to successfully test the abilities of perturbative QCD to describe short-range phenomena. In contrast, the description of long-range phenomena and especially of parton correlations in hadrons, over a broad range in $`Q^2`$, is still in its infancy. It may be expected that contemporary theoretical developments will at some moment evolve into a calculable field theoretical description of hadronic structures. It is hence vital to maintain in this process a permanent confrontation of theoretical ideas to measurements.

In this paper possible ways are discussed how to acquire in the future adequately precise experimental data to test different approaches and to eventually be able to select the correct method describing hadronic structure on the basis of fundamental interactions.

## 2 PHYSICS MOTIVATION

Deep inelastic lepton-nucleon scattering (DIS) continues to be a very successful tool to explore perturbative QCD. On the one hand, a wealth of inclusive data from ‘unpolarized’ fixed-target and collider experiments at CERN, DESY and FNAL allowed a rather accurate determination of the quark distributions $`q(x,Q^2)`$ through precise QCD fits of the unpolarized nucleon structure function $`F_2(x,Q^2)`$. Here $`x`$ is the Bjorken scaling variable describing the constituent’s momentum fraction in a fast moving hadron. On the other hand, results from several ‘polarized’ fixed-target experiments at CERN, DESY and SLAC measuring double spin asymmetries in inclusive DIS cross sections led to the determination of the polarized structure function $`g_1(x,Q^2)`$ with modest accuracy. Although this data is limited to moderate values in $`Q^2`$, it constrains the contribution of the quark spin to the nucleon’s helicity on the 10-20% level of accuracy.

Recent and near-future measurements at CERN (COMPASS), DESY (HERMES) and JLab are changing the emphasis from inclusive DIS to semi-inclusive (SIDIS) measurements. The main thrust of COMPASS will be a determination of the polarized gluon distribution $`\mathrm{\Delta }G(x)`$ , over a limited range of $`x`$ with about 10% accuracy (cf. Fig. 3). Helicity distributions $`\mathrm{\Delta }q(x)`$ will be available from HERMES, on the few % level for valence quarks and for the first time for sea quarks . A first measurement of the transversity $`\delta q(x)`$ , characterizing the distribution of the quark’s spin in a transversely polarized nucleon, is the main goal of HERMES in 2002-03 . Accomplishing a complete understanding of the nucleon structure on the twist-2 level requires precise experimental data for all parton distribution functions mentioned above.

A few years ago Generalized Parton Distributions (GPDs) , a set of non-perturbative distribution functions, were introduced in the description of several processes ranging from inclusive to hard exclusive scattering. GPDs embody ordinary parton distribution functions and nucleon form factors. They depend on $`Q^2`$, two longitudinal momentum fractions and $`t`$, the momentum transfer at the nucleon vertex. GPDs can in principle be revealed from a set of different cross sections and asymmetries for various exclusive processes.

The recent strong interest in GPDs was stimulated by the finding  that the total angular momentum carried by partons of a certain type is given by the second moment of the sum of the unpolarized GPDs describing this type of partons, in the limit of small $`t`$. The total angular momenta carried by quarks and gluons in the nucleon, $`J_q`$ and $`J_g`$, constitute the hitherto missing pieces in the puzzle representing the momentum and spin structure of the nucleon.

Nowadays hard exclusive lepton-nucleon processes appear as a viable tool to access quark GPDs by measuring a photon or a scalar, pseudo-scalar or vector meson in the final state. Very recently, first experimental results on Deeply Virtual Compton Scattering (DVCS) have been obtained. The fixed-target data from HERMES  and CLAS (JLab)  exhibit significant asymmetries in the distribution in the azimuthal angle between lepton and hadron planes, thereby confirming the expected interference between the dominating DVCS handbag diagram and the background Bethe-Heitler process. H1 measured the DVCS cross section at the HERA collider  and found agreement with QCD-based calculations .

Even after completion of the present series of lepton-nucleon SIDIS measurements111The RHIC $`pp`$ spin program  will provide precise and complementary data on $`\mathrm{\Delta }G`$ and $`\delta q`$. The comparison of these measurements to SIDIS data will allow for very important consistency checks, in particular for a test of factorization in spin-dependent processes. both helicity and transversity quark distributions as well as the polarized gluon distribution will remain clearly inferior in accuracy compared to the unpolarized distributions. Concerning GPDs it is generally agreed that because of their complexity every attempt to really measure them will require a huge common effort of theory and experiment.

## 3 EXPERIMENTAL FACILITIES

The above envisioned ‘complete’ determination of the momentum and spin structure of the nucleon (and other hadrons) clearly calls for new experimental facilities which, in comparison to existing experiments, include

* an accelerator with a high duty factor of at least 5-10% allowing for hitherto unprecedented luminosities of $`10^{35}`$ cm-2s-1 or more;
* beams of electrons and, if possible, positrons222In the following only the term ‘electron’ will be used, although most experiments can either be done with electrons or positrons, or with muons in a future high intensity muon collider or neutrino factory. with an energy definition better than $`𝒪`$ $`(10^4)`$ and a high degree of polarization;
* beam energies above 25-30 GeV to reach the perturbative regime of a few GeV2 in $`Q^2`$, over the full kinematically accessible $`x`$-range;
* radiation-tolerant (cryogenic) solid-state targets that can achieve high degrees of longitudinal and transverse polarization;
* a spectrometer that combines very fast, $`𝒪`$(1-2 ns) triggering with high-precision tracking and full particle identification.

These requirements are the basis for two proposals, TESLA-N and ELFE@DESY, described in the addendum to the Technical Design Report  for the TESLA project, a 250 $`\times `$ 250 GeV super-conducting linear $`e^+e^{}`$ collider.

In the case of TESLA-N  it is foreseen to inject separately produced (polarized) electron bunches into the positron arm of the TESLA machine and to extract them at one of several possible locations, thereby realizing a beam energy range between 30 and 250 GeV. The (polarized) electrons would be directed towards a separate experimental hall. Here a new experiment would combine a (polarized) solid-state target with a new multi-stage spectrometer required due to the large energy range of the produced particles.

In the case of ELFE@DESY , separate electron bunches would be accelerated in the first part of TESLA to about 30 GeV, transported back and subsequently injected into the HERA-$`e`$ ring. The latter would serve as stretcher to increase the low TESLA duty cycle of 0.5% by a substantial factor, whereby keeping a precise energy definition of the beam. In the experiment a (polarized) solid-state target would be combined with a new high-resolution spectrometer that will allow for a clear separation of the nucleon ground state from isobars. Its projected performance is illustrated for the exclusive channel $`epeK^+Y^0`$ in Fig. 1 , assuming that electron and kaon were measured in the spectrometer while the missing mass of the hyperon had to be calculated.

Both concepts may be profitably combined: The technical solution suggested for the beam part of TESLA-N in conjunction with a (polarized) solid-state target and a high-resolution ELFE@DESY-type spectrometer would be ideal to pursue the complex physics programme outlined above. This option could also be realized sharing a lower-energy, 30-50 GeV TESLA-like accelerator that is presently discussed to feed the X-Ray Free Electron Laser facility .

In the case that HERA running should be extended beyond 2006, a certain part of this physics programme could already be realized with an upgraded HERMES apparatus.

The envisioned luminosities of both projects, TESLA-N and ELFE@DESY, are depicted in Fig. 2 compared to existing and other possible future facilities. The planned TESLA duty cycle of 0.5% is the only reason for the lower luminosity limit of TESLA-N in comparison to ELFE@DESY. In any case a luminosity limit of a few times $`10^{35}`$ cm-2s-1 is imposed by the target cryogenic system when using a polarized solid-state target. This determines also the maximum possible luminosity for a polarized combined TESLA-N/ELFE@DESY experiment once a duty cycle of a few % is available.

Note that the effective luminosity of any experiment using a polarized solid-state target, such as the polarized NH3-target of SMC, is lower by a factor of about 25 compared to an electron-proton collider (HERA, EIC) or an internal-proton-target experiment (HERMES), due to the large dilution factors involved. This dilution effect is not included in Fig. 2.

## 4 PROJECTIONS FOR FUTURE
MEASUREMENTS

### 4.1 Polarized Gluon Distribution

In Fig. 3 representative projections are shown for future results on the polarized gluon distribution. Highly precise measurements as planned for

RHIC and proposed for TESLA-N are eventually needed to map out the full $`x`$-dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }G(x)`$ with reasonable precision. The soon expected COMPASS results (including the not shown results from open charm production) will provide very valuable information on $`\mathrm{\Delta }G(x)`$ due to their completely different systematics as compared to RHIC. No projections exist up to now for the accuracy of measurements of $`\mathrm{\Delta }G(x,Q^2)`$.

The RHIC projections shown in Fig. 3 were calculated for a given final state and $`\sqrt{s}=200`$ GeV, i.e. for $`Q^2=𝒪`$(100 GeV2). They will exhibit larger error bars, when evolved down to $`Q^2=10`$ GeV2. At the same time, $`\mathrm{\Delta }G(x)`$ will be determined from other final states and at two different energies. Still, a measurement of $`\mathrm{\Delta }G(x)`$ at RHIC is not without problems in view of the large theoretical uncertainties in direct photon and heavy quark-pair hadroproduction. Hence a statistically highly precise and systematically independent determination of $`\mathrm{\Delta }G(x,Q^2)`$ through an electron-nucleon scattering experiment is clearly needed.

### 4.2 Transversity Distributions

In Fig. 4 the projected statistical accuracy is shown for a measurement of the $`(x,Q^2)`$-dependence of the $`u_v`$-quark transversity distribution through single-spin azimuthal cross-section

asymmetries in semi-inclusive charged pion production at TESLA-N . In the simulated analysis it was assumed that transversity and helicity distributions coincide at photon virtualities of the order of 1 GeV2 and valence-like $`x`$-values. Fig. 4 shows that a broad $`x`$-range ($`0.003<x<0.7`$) can be accessed while $`Q^2`$ is in between 1 and 100 GeV2, with an impressive statistical accuracy over almost the full range. Because of $`u`$-quark dominance in pion electro-production a lower accuracy is attained in the reconstruction of the other transversity distributions, $`\delta d_v`$, $`\delta \overline{u}`$, and $`\delta \overline{d}`$.

Measuring the transversity distributions for quarks and anti-quarks of a given flavor would allow for the first time to determine the tensor charge $`\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }(Q^2)`$ of this flavor. This would give access to the hitherto unmeasured chirally-odd operators in QCD which are of great importance to understand the role of chiral symmetry in the structure of the nucleon . A fit to a simulated data sample, as described in Ref. , also provides projections for the accuracy of the $`u`$\- and $`d`$-quark tensor charges: $`0.88\pm 0.01`$ and $`0.32\pm 0.02`$ at a scale of 1 GeV2. Note that the absolute values of the tensor charges are determined to a large extent by the input distributions used, although their values are rather close to those predicted by lattice QCD calculations.

### 4.3 Generalized Parton Distributions

The following discussion focuses on DVCS as a tool to derive $`J_q`$ through the determination of GPDs. HERMES plans for 2004-2006 to use an unpolarized target in conjunction with a new recoil detector . As can be seen from the anticipated statistical precision, evaluated in Ref. , rather accurate data can be expected on the azimuthal dependence of the asymmetries in beam helicity and beam charge. In addition, for the first time the dependence of these asymmetries on $`t`$, the third variable on which GPDs depend, may become accessible. Even a first approximate determination of the GPD $`H^u`$ may be tried on the basis of $`u`$-quark dominance.

Explicit formulae for azimuthal DVCS asymmetries on the twist-2 level are given e.g. in Ref. . In case of measurements with a polarized beam and an unpolarized target the generalized parton distribution function $`H`$ dominates, while the two other involved functions, $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ and $`E`$, are suppressed relative to $`H`$ by kinematic factors.

Determining through Ji’s relation  the total angular momentum $`J_q`$ carried by quarks of flavor $`q`$ requires data not only on the helicity-conserving GPD $`H`$, but as well on the helicity-flip GPD $`E`$. Access to $`E`$ may be achieved through DVCS measurements with an unpolarized beam and a transversely polarized target. Also, important additional knowledge on $`E`$ can be expected from exclusive vector meson production.

Running with a polarized internal target is presently still technologically disfavored, because the maximum achievable instantaneous luminosity falls short by about two orders of magnitude compared to unpolarized targets. In the case of HERMES running beyond 2006, a polarized target with a density improvement by about a factor of two may become available.

From Fig. 5 it can be seen that the statistical precision, achievable after three years of HERMES running with an unpolarized beam and a transversely polarized target, would be sufficient to measure the azimuthal dependence of the DVCS asymmetry $`A_{UT}`$ . The curve depicts the behaviour of the chosen GPD parameterization (B), as explained in detail in Ref. . Note that its missing periodicity in $`\varphi _\gamma `$ is due to a particular way of integrating over one of the azimuthal angles in Ref. . It remains to be shown that, even using the approximation of $`u`$-quark dominance, this data set would allow simultaneous access to the GPDs $`H`$ and $`E`$. Extrapolating them to $`t=0`$ and simultaneously calculating the integral over $`x`$ would make it possible in principle to obtain a first glimpse of the total angular momentum carried by $`u`$-quarks, $`J_u`$. However, this may not be feasible because of lack of statistics and several theoretical uncertainties that have to be quantified reliably.

A real breakthrough towards a determination of GPDs can be expected only from high-statistics measurements at a future high-luminosity facility, as outlined above. A typical rather conservative assumption on integrated luminosity is 100 fb-1 per year of running (cf. Ref. ). As explained above, a key experiment would consist in measuring DVCS with an unpolarized beam and a transversely polarized target. In this case a typical observable would be the $`\mathrm{cos}(\varphi /2)`$ moment of the cross section asymmetry that projects out the set of GPDs as discussed above.

In Fig. 6 the statistical accuracy is illustrated for a measurement of DVCS in a 30 GeV electron beam with a high-resolution spectrometer, combined with a NH3-target (80% polarization, dilution factor 17.6%) and applying the same cuts as used in the analysis of Ref. . The error bars show the projected statistical

accuracy achievable in 1 year of running for the $`x_B`$-dependence of the moment $`A_{UT}^{\mathrm{cos}(\varphi /2)}`$ introduced above. The curve again represents the behaviour of the GPD parameterization (B) . The statistical errors clearly show that an acceptable precision can be reached and that even the measurement of 2-dimensional dependences (e.g. on $`x_B`$ and $`t`$) are within reach. It remains to be shown by a careful analysis of simulated data that the ultimate goal, the above envisioned ‘complete’ determination of the angular momentum structure of the nucleon, can be experimentally achieved and that the most complex variety of theoretical uncertainties can be brought under control to make this high-statistics result meaningful.

## 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

In the context of the proposed TESLA/FEL project, a new high-luminosity high-resolution electron-nucleon facility may be accommodated. This would pave the way for a great variety of measurements, ranging from inclusive scattering through semi-inclusive final states to hard exclusive processes. On the basis of the anticipated statistical accuracies, shown for various key experiments, it appears justified to expect that many questions on the structure of hadronic matter, especially on its momentum and spin structure, can be successfully answered.

It goes without saying that there will be lots of further extremely interesting physics results beyond those discussed above. Among the published HERMES results, after 5 years of running, only 10-20% had been anticipated in the proposal.

## ACKNOWLEGDEMENTS

I am deeply indebted to V.A. Korotkov for calculating new DVCS projections, to A. Miller for a very careful reading of the manuscript and to D. von Harrach for an update of Fig. 1. Many thanks to them and to S. Bass, M. Diehl, P. Hoyer, D. Müller, D. Ryckbosch and G. van der Steenhoven for very valuable comments. The help of R. Kaiser in the preparation of Fig. 2 is acknowledged.


text:
# Growth of a Bose-Einstein condensate: A detailed comparison of theory and experiment

## 1 Introduction

The process by which a Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) forms from a non-equilibrium thermal vapour is an important question in finite temperature field theory. Before the first observations of condensates , estimates for the characteristic time of formation varied dramatically (eg see discussion in ). However, more recently the quantum kinetic theory of Gardiner and Zoller  has resulted in quantitative predictions that can be compared with experimental data.

Until recently the only experimental study of the process of condensate formation was that performed by Miesner et al in the group of Ketterle at MIT. In these experiments a cloud of sodium atoms was cooled to just above the BEC transition temperature, before the high-energy tail of the distribution was quickly removed by a rapid sweep of the rf field frequency. The resulting dynamics lead to the formation of a condensate, with the observation of characteristic S-shaped growth curves.

Before the first measurements of condensate growth, a quantitative prediction of the growth rate was presented in , in which a condensate was assumed to form from contact with a thermal bath below the transition temperature. In order to give a simple estimate of the rate constant, the approach was greatly simplified and had several limitations—the most important being the use of a Maxwell-Boltzmann rather than Bose-Einstein distribution function for the thermal bath. However, it gave a good qualitative prediction of the general shape and order of magnitude of the growth rate later observed.

This model was soon extended to include both Bose-Einstein statistics for the thermal bath of atoms, and the dynamics of the lowest lying quasiparticle levels above the condensate . The picture was of a condensate band in contact with a “supersaturated” thermal cloud, and the assumptions of the model matched the experimental conditions realized at MIT quite closely. A comparison of the theoretical predictions with experimental data was in good agreement at higher temperatures; however, at lower temperatures there was some discrepancy—the experimental growth rate appeared to be about three times too fast.

In further development, this model was again extended to include the dynamics of the evaporative cooling in . While this predicted faster growth in some circumstances as compared to the simpler model, it did not occur in the parameter regime of the MIT experiment and thus the discrepancy remained. In addition, the necessary experimental data for a proper theoretical treatment was not available. It was concluded that for a rigorous comparison with theory it was necessary for further experiments to be carried out with all relevant data recorded. The same conclusion was reached in a similar calculation by Bijlsma et al.

Recently a carefully controlled study of condensate formation in a rubidium vapour was carried out by Köhl et al in Munich. They used a different cooling scheme from that used in the the MIT experiment—instead of a rapid rf sweep after cooling to near the transition temperature, they turned on a constant frequency rf field. This allowed them to vary the rate of evaporative cooling by changing the rf frequency between experiments, and they report their growth curves, initiation times, and growth rates in . Most importantly, the Munich group measured all the relevant theoretical parameters, so that calculations with *no free parameters* can be carried out.

This paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we summarize the theoretical model of , before describing the extensions necessary to model the experiments of Köhl et al and discussing the validity of the approximations made. In section 3 we investigate the effect of the model extensions on condensate growth as compared to the earlier calculations in , and then compare the results of the model to the experimental data and discuss their implications. Finally, our conclusions are presented in section 4.

## 2  Theoretical model

The model we use to simulate the experiments of Köhl et alis described fully in reference . The description is based on quantum kinetic theory , but essentially reduces to solving a modified ergodic quantum Boltzmann equation (MQBE) that assumes the distribution function depends only on energy. Our method makes the additional assumptions that:

* The condensate wave function and energy eigenvalue \[the condensate chemical potential $`\mu _\mathrm{C}(n_0)`$\] are given by the solution of the time-independent Gross-Pitaevskii equation with $`n_0`$ atoms. We assume that the growth of the condensate is adiabatic and that its shape is always well-described by the Thomas-Fermi wave function.
* The excited states above the condensate are the quasiparticle levels appropriate to the condensate wave function, leading to a density of states for the system that is substantially modified from the non-interacting case. We use a particle-like density of states, thus neglecting any specifically quasiparticle behaviour, whose effects are expected to be minor .

To model the MIT experiments, the simulations were begun with an initial distribution truncated at an energy $`ϵ_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ and so the process of atom loss during the evaporative cooling did not need to be included. However, as the Munich experiment involves continuous evaporative cooling, it must be included in the simulation. To do so we solve the effective MQBE

$`g_n{\displaystyle \frac{f_n}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8ma^2}{\pi \mathrm{}^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{pqm}{}}g_{\mathrm{min}}\delta (ϵ_p+ϵ_qϵ_mϵ_n)`$ (1)
$`\times \left\{\beta _nf_pf_q(1+f_m)(1+f_n)f_mf_n(1+f_q)(1+f_q)\right\}`$
where $`a`$ is the *s*-wave scattering length, $`m`$ is the atomic mass, $`f_nf(ϵ_n)`$ is the distribution function, $`g_ng(ϵ_n)`$ is the density of states, and $`g_{\mathrm{min}}`$ is the density of states of the minimum energy particle participating in the collision. The quantity $`\beta _n`$ takes account of the evaporative cooling—it is one if the energy $`ϵ_nϵ_{\mathrm{cut}}`$, and zero otherwise.

There is, however, another effect that must be taken account of at low temperatures. The trapping potential that the atoms experience is due to not only the applied magnetic field, but also the gravitational potential. While gravity does not change the shape of the trapping potential, it shifts the minimum of the trap away from the minimum of the magnetic field. This has important consequences for the evaporative cooling of the cloud. Before we describe this further, however, we summarize the initial parameters of the experiment we are modelling so we can quantitatively discuss the magnitude of the effect.

### 2.1  Experimental summary

The magnetic trap used by Köhl et alis well approximated by a cigar-shaped harmonic potential with trapping frequencies $`\omega _x=\omega _z=2\pi \times 110`$ Hz, $`\omega _y=14`$ Hz, with a geometric mean frequency of $`\overline{\omega }=(\omega _x\omega _y\omega _z)^{1/3}=2\pi \times 55.3`$ Hz. They begin their growth experiments with a cloud of $`N_i=4.2\pm 0.2\times 10^6`$ atoms of 87Rb trapped in the $`|F=1,m_F=1`$ hyperfine ground state, cooled to a temperature of $`640\pm 30`$ nK giving an initial chemical potential of $`\mu _{\mathrm{init}}300\mathrm{}\overline{\omega }`$. The rf fields they applied to their cloud for which a condensate was observed to form were between 2000–2090 kHz, corresponding to $`0.92\eta ϵ_{\mathrm{cut}}/k_BT_i4.62`$.

### 2.2 Gravitational sag of the trapped atomic cloud

By including the effect of gravity, we find that the trapping potential the atoms experience is given by

$$V(𝐫)=\frac{m}{2}\left[\omega _x^2x^2+\omega _y^2y^2+\omega _z^2(z+A)^2\right]$$
(2)
where the origin is defined as the minimum of the magnetic field, and $`A=g/\omega _z^2=20.5`$ $`\mu `$m is the sag of the atom cloud below the origin. This situation is illustrated in figure 1.

The sag of the atomic cloud has important consequences for evaporative cooling at low temperatures. In figure 1 the solid dot represents the centre of the atomic cloud, while the dashed grey curves represent magnetic field equipotentials. The innermost corresponds to an rf field frequency of 1955kHz, which was determined to be the minimum of the trap by atom laser output coupling . The outermost dashed grey curve represents an rf field frequency of 2090 kHz applied to the system, and all atoms that cross this surface will be quickly ejected from the trap.

By considering the intersection of the equipotentials of the atomic cloud with the evaporative cooling surface, we find that all atoms with an energy less than $`ϵ_{\mathrm{cut}}=4.62k_BT_i`$ will remain trapped. However, not all atoms with higher energy will be ejected—as can be seen by considering the equipotential corresponding to $`ϵ=8k_BT_i`$. Atoms with this energy in a horizontal orbit will not cross the evaporative cooling surface, and hence will remain trapped at least until they suffer another collision.

#### 2.2.1 Inclusion of sag in model

One of the limitations of our theoretical model is that the distribution function of the gas is assumed to be ergodic—that is, all states of the gas with the same energy are assumed to have the same occupation. This obviously cannot hold rigorously in this situation, where atoms of the same energy will be ejected depending on orientation of their orbit. However, the effect of the sag of the cloud can be included in the model, if not entirely rigorously.

We proceed to calculate the fraction of atoms of a given energy that will remain trapped during the application of a fixed frequency rf field, and use this as our function $`\beta (ϵ_n)`$ in equation (1). As the hottest atoms are ejected from the trap it is reasonable to assume that they can be treated as being non-interacting. Indeed, we found in reference  that the density of states we use is not greatly altered from the non-interacting case for energies larger than about three times the condensate eigenvalue, which in these calculations never exceeds $`45\mathrm{}\overline{\omega }`$. In comparison the minimum energy for ejection is about $`k_BT_i240\mathrm{}\overline{\omega }`$ so this approximation does seem reasonable.

While it is possible to write down an integral describing the total number of states of a given energy in phase space that will remain trapped, it is not possible to to give an analytic expression for this quantity. Instead we proceed using a Monte Carlo simulation of non-interacting particles in the trap. For each energy we populate the initial states at random and then follow the trajectories in time, removing each that crosses the evaporative cooling surface. After a sufficiently long period we determine the proportion that remain trapped.

The curves we have calculated are illustrated in figure 2 as a function of the applied frequency of the rf field. For comparison we also plot the initial distribution function of the cloud. We can see that for all applied fields the region where a finite fraction of atoms is trapped is quite wide, and therefore this effect is important for the experiment we are considering here.

#### 2.2.2 Validity of the model of the sag

The inclusion of the function $`\beta (ϵ_n)`$ in equation (1) relies on two approximations. The first is that an atom gaining an energy higher than $`ϵ_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ is equally likely to enter any region of phase space available to it. This should be reasonable, as most collisions that result in one particle entering this region will occur between two atoms with energies less than $`ϵ_{\mathrm{cut}}`$, where the distribution function should be ergodic. The second assumption is that non-ergodicity of the levels above $`ϵ_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ will not have a significant effect on the calculation. This remains unproven—however, it could be tested via Monte Carlo simulations of evaporative cooling well above the BEC transition.

### 2.3 Other effects

A further measurement reported by Köhl et alis a drift in the magnetic field due to heating in the coils in the experiment, equivalent to a linear decrease in the rf field frequency of 5 kHz s-1. This is easily included in our model by making the function $`\beta (ϵ_n)`$ time dependent.

Another factor that we include in our simulations is the loss of condensate atoms due to three body processes, via the rate

$$\frac{dn_0}{dt}=K_3d^3𝐱[n(𝐱)]^3,$$
(3)
where $`n(𝐱)`$ is the condensate density, and $`K_3`$ is the three body loss coefficient. Using the Thomas-Fermi profile for the condensate density we find

$$\frac{dn_0}{dt}=K_3\frac{15^{4/5}}{168\pi ^2}\left(\frac{m\overline{\omega }}{\mathrm{}\sqrt{a}}\right)^{12/5}n_0^{9/5},$$
(4)
where loss processes involving thermal cloud atoms have been neglected. This should be a reasonable approximation, as although such losses are enhanced by a factor of 3!, the density of the thermal cloud is significantly less than that of the condensate. We use a value of $`K_3=5.8\times 10^{30}`$ cm6 s-1 for the hyperfine state $`|F=1,m_F=1`$ as reported by JILA .

## 3  Results

In this section we begin our simulations with the initial conditions as reported by Köhl et aland summarized in section 2.1, and use a scattering length for 87Rb of $`a=110a_0`$. Note that this value is subject to an uncertainty of a few percent and this could have a effect on the results, mainly through a scaling of the time axis.

### 3.1  Consequences of the trap sag and magnetic field drift

The offset of the atomic trap from the mininum of the magnetic field has a significant quantitative effect on the resulting growth curves, and this is illustrated in figure 3 for the initial condition $`N_i=4.2\times 10^6`$, $`T_i=640`$ nK and an applied rf field of 2015 kHz. This gives a minimum energy of atoms to be lost from the trap of $`ϵ_{\mathrm{cut}}/(k_BT_i)=1.43`$ at $`t=0`$ s.

If *all* atoms above the energy $`ϵ_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ are continuously removed from the trap (dot-dash curve) \[as if both the trap and magnetic field equipotentials were concentric\], then the resulting condensate is much smaller than is predicted if we include the effects of the trap sag (dashed line). This is because such a heavy cut into the cloud removes a large proportion of the initial number of atoms; however, the final condensate fractions for both curves are similar. The further inclusion of the magnetic field drift (dotted line) has only the effect of making the final condensate slightly larger—easily understood as this evaporatively cools the cloud further. Finally, including three body loss from the condensate makes the growth curve start to level off once $`n_03\times 10^5`$. The same qualitative behaviour is observed for all values of the rf field.

If a similar experiment to those carried out by Miesner et al at MIT was performed with this initial condition—all atoms above $`ϵ_{\mathrm{cut}}/(k_BT_i)=1.43`$ are removed but with the rf field turned off at $`t=0`$ s—then no condensate is observed to form. This is because the initial cloud is sufficiently far from the transition point that this single truncation cools the cloud from $`\mu _{\mathrm{init}}=300\mathrm{}\overline{\omega }`$ to $`\mu _{\mathrm{init}}0`$, just before condensation occurs.

### 3.2  Trends in the theoretical data

We now present the theoretical predictions for all experimental rf frequencies in figure 4, including the effects of all of: Trap sag, magnetic field drift, and three body loss from the condensate. We show these on the same figure for comparison of time scales—in the comparison with experimental data below we show only single curves on each graph.

These curves show the expected behaviour—the fastest evaporative cooling generally results in a shorter initiation time and more rapid initial growth. However, because the fastest evaporative cooling initially loses a large number of atoms without any collisions (the cloud is simply truncated, rather than collisions causing atoms to be evaporated), this results in smaller condensates. This is the behaviour that was observed in the MIT-style simulations performed in .

### 3.3 Comparison with experimental data

In this section we compare the results of our simulations as described above with the experimental data provided by the Munich group. In figures 5 and 6 we show the condensate growth data for all experimental runs, along with four corresponding theoretical curves for each run. The solid lines are for the initial conditions reported by Köhl *et al*, and the others are within the statistical error with a chemical potential slightly closer to zero (ie lower temperatures and larger number of atoms). Thus we do not present curves within the statistical error that begin *further* from the transition than the central value. We do not include background loss in the simulations as the trap lifetime was more than 40 seconds .

Considering the fact that there are *no free parameters* in these calculations, the fits of the theoretical curves to the experimental data are impressive. For the rf frequencies 2000–80 kHz the initiation times for condensate growth are predicted extremely well, along with the initial rates of condensate growth. It does seem for the slower growth curves with rf frequencies 2060–80 kHz that the condensate occupation curve levels off somewhat faster than the model predicts. Unfortunately there is no experimental data at later times to determine whether the condensate continues to grow.

The cause of the flattening of these growth curves for these rf frequencies is as yet undetermined. It was originally suggested that there could be a small amount of heating present in the system that only becomes apparent in the longer experiments. However, careful analysis of the experimental data  has ruled out this mechanism as an explanation for the slow down of condensate growth. A second possibility is that the three body loss coefficient $`K_3`$ for this experimental set up may be different from that reported in ; however, this is difficult to estimate.

The one instance where theory and experiment differ strongly is for the slowest cooling experiment with an rf frequency of 2090 kHz, for which the comparison is plotted in figure 6(d). The experimental data has the peculiar feature that there is an apparent sudden increase in the growth rate just over four seconds after the beginning of the experiment. In  it is suggested that this jump is due to strong phase fluctuations in the initial elongated condensate . This feature, also known as quasicondensation, was first suggested as a stage in the growth of a BEC by Kagan et al. Recently phase fluctuations have been observed experimentally in elongated condensates .

This behaviour can be explained physically as follows. The initially strong phase fluctuations can be thought of as the condensate having been seeded in several parts, and thus bosonic stimulation occurs for each part separately. Therefore, the initial growth rate will be slower than would otherwise be predicted theoretically. As the phase coherence length grows, however, suddenly a true condensate will form from the parts and there will be a corresponding jump in the growth rate.

The lack of agreement between theory and the experimental data for the rf frequency of 2090 kHz suggests that an effect not included in our model is becoming important. The experimentally observed initiation time is close to that predicted by the theory, however the initial growth rate is much reduced. Our model of condensate growth makes the assumption that only a single condensate forms in the system, and this is represented by a single quantum level. Therefore, the model currently cannot represent slower initial growth due to the presence of any quasicondensate. However, once the “true” condensate forms the observed growth rate does appear to be similar to that predicted by the simulations, but at a later time.

## 4  Conclusions

We have extended our model of condensate growth  to take into account the sag of the atomic trapping potential due to gravity, and the effect this has on evaporative cooling at low temperature. We have described the effect this has on growth experiments, and carried out a comparison with all available experimental data taken by the Munich group and presented in . We have found that despite the many approximations made, the theoretical model is, for the most part, in good agreement with the experimental data. It has been suggested for the one case in which there is a discrepancy that this is due to the effects of quasicondensation—a hypothesis that is not contradicted by our calculations.

The authors would like to thank Michael Köhl for many useful discussions and for the provision of the experimental data before publication. This work was supported by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council in the United Kingdom, and by the Royal Society of New Zealand under the Marsden Fund Contract No. PVT-902.

## References


text:
# Tunneling-assisted impact ionization fronts in semiconductors

## I Introduction

Impact ionization and tunneling (Zener breakdown) are the two most fundamental mechanisms capable of creating high concentrations of free carriers in a semiconductor within a short time interval. The respective threshold electrical fields differ by almost one order of magnitude, e.g., $`210^5\mathrm{V}/\mathrm{cm}`$ and $`10^6\mathrm{V}/\mathrm{cm}`$ for impact and tunneling ionization in Si, respectively . Avalanche impact ionization can be easily achieved by applying a sufficiently strong external electrical field. This process underlies the operation of many semiconductor devices such as avalanche transistors, IMPATT and TRAPATT diodes, etc. . The most interesting scenario corresponds to the propagation of a superfast ionization front: a narrow impact ionization region travels from the cathode to the anode with a velocity $`v_f`$ much higher than the saturated drift velocity $`v_s`$, leaving a high density plasma behind . In contrast to impact ionization, direct tunneling of electrons from the valence to the conductance band is hard to archieve in the bulk of uniformly doped semiconductor layers: while the applied external voltage is being increased, impact ionization typically sets in first, inducing an avalanche multiplication of free carriers. This causes the conductivity to increase and prevents further increase of the applied voltage. For this reason, tunneling ionization is generally assumed to be relevant only in heavily doped $`pn`$junctions due to the strong internal electrical fields .

In this article we demonstrate that the threshold of tunneling ionization in the bulk of a Si $`p^+nn^+`$structure can be reached under the same experimental conditions as for triggering impact ionization fronts . Typically a solitary ionization front is triggered by applying a sharp voltage ramp ($`1\mathrm{kV}/\mathrm{ns}`$) to the $`p^+nn^+`$structure in reverse direction . In structures with kilovolt $`pn`$junctions and large cross-sections, this process is used for sharpening electrical pulses . This technique allows one to reach voltage ramps of up to $`10\mathrm{kV}/\mathrm{ns}`$, the state of the art in modern pulse power electronics. We demonstrate, that when such a sharp ramp $`A\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}10}\mathrm{kV}/\mathrm{ns}`$ is applied to a fully depleted reversely biased Si $`p^+nn^+`$structure, the threshold of tunneling ionization $`10^6\mathrm{V}/\mathrm{cm}`$ is reached after less than 1 ns, which turns out to be faster than the initiation of avalanche impact ionization. The resulting breakdown takes the form of an ionization front that propagates due to the combined effect of tunneling and impact ionization. Compared to the traditional impact ionization fronts in pulse sharpening diodes  and TRAPATT-diodes , these tunneling-assisted impact ionization fronts are expected to be much faster and generate higher plasma concentrations. Their practical application may set new frontiers in pulse power electronics.

## II The model

We consider a Si $`p^+nn^+`$structure with sharp $`p^+n`$ and $`nn^+`$transitions and the following parameters: the width of the $`n`$base is $`W=100\mu \mathrm{m}`$, the cross-section area is $`S=0.002\mathrm{cm}^2`$, the doping levels are $`N_d10^{14}\mathrm{cm}^3`$ in the $`n`$base and $`N_{a,d}^+10^{19}10^{20}\mathrm{cm}^3`$ in the contact $`p^+`$ and $`n^+`$layers, respectively. These parameters correspond to a typical Si power diode with a stationary breakdown voltage $`1.5\mathrm{kV}`$ . We choose the initial bias of $`V_0=1\mathrm{kV}`$, closely below the voltage of stationary avalanche breakdown. For this bias, the $`n`$base is fully depleted from major carriers (electrons) and equilibrium minor carriers (holes).

The device is connected to a voltage source $`V(t)`$ in series with a load resistance $`R=50\mathrm{\Omega }`$ as sketched in Fig. 1. Since it is convenient to work with a positive electrical field $`E`$ for the reverse bias, we put the $`nn^+`$junction on the l.h.s. at $`z=0`$ and the $`p^+n`$junction on the r.h.s. at $`z=W`$. The voltage $`V(t)`$ applied to the structure and the load is in linear approximation

$$V(t)=V_0+At,$$
(1)
where $`A`$ is the voltage ramp. Hereinafter we keep $`A=10`$ kV/ns. The voltage on the device is denoted as $`U(t)`$ and related to $`V(t)`$ through the Kirchhoff equation $`V=U+RI`$, where $`I`$ is the total current.

We use a minimal model which accounts only for the basic transport processes, for band-to-band impact ionization and tunneling ionization. The continuity equations for electrons and holes $`n`$ and $`p`$ are written in one-dimensional approximation

$`_tn_z\left(v_n(|E|)n\right)`$ $`=`$ $`G(n,p,|E|),`$ (2)
$`_tp+_z\left(v_p(|E|)p\right)`$ $`=`$ $`G(n,p,|E|).`$ (3)
and complemented by the Poisson equation

$$_zE=\frac{q}{\epsilon \epsilon _0}\left(pn+N_d(z)N_a(z)\right)$$
(4)
and the Kirchhoff equation. We assume drift-dominated transport and approximate the carrier velocites as

$`v_n(|E|)=v_s{\displaystyle \frac{|E|}{E_{sn}+|E|}},`$ $`v_p(|E|)=v_s{\displaystyle \frac{|E|}{E_{sp}+|E|}},`$ (5)
$`\text{where }v_s`$ $`=`$ $`10^7\mathrm{cm}/\mathrm{s},`$ (6)
$`E_{sn}=8.010^3\mathrm{V}/\mathrm{cm},`$ $`E_{sp}=2.3210^4\mathrm{V}/\mathrm{cm}.`$ (7)
Since the ionization processes are fast and develop in the bulk of the device, we solve these equations in the $`n`$base only. The different effect of $`p^+n`$ and $`nn^+`$junctions on electron and hole concentrations in the $`n`$base is modelled by mixed boundary conditions: $`_zn=0`$, $`p=0`$ at $`z=0`$ and $`_zp=0`$, $`n=0`$ at $`z=W`$ . The generation term $`G(n,p,|E|)`$ contains band-to-band tunneling and impact ionization terms:

$$G(n,p,|E|)=G_T(|E|)+G_I(n,p,|E|),$$
(8)
The tunneling term $`G_T(|E|)`$ models electron tunneling from the valence band to the conduction band

$`G_T(|E|)=\alpha _TE^2e^{b_T/|E|},`$ (9)
$`\alpha _T={\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{3\pi ^2\mathrm{}^2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{E_g}}},b_T={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4q\mathrm{}}}\sqrt{2mE_g^3},`$ (10)
where $`q`$ and $`m`$ are electron charge and effective mass, respectively, $`E_g`$ is the bandgap, and $`\mathrm{}`$ is Planck’s constant. The impact ionization term $`G_I(n,p,|E|)`$ is chosen as

$`G_I(n,p,|E|)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _n(|E|)v_n(|E|)n\mathrm{\Theta }(nn_{cut})`$ (12)
$`+\alpha _p(|E|)v_p(|E|)p\mathrm{\Theta }(pp_{cut}),`$
$$\alpha _n(|E|)\alpha _{ns}e^{b_n/|E|},\alpha _n(|E|)\alpha _{ps}e^{b_p/|E|},$$
(13)
where the impact ionization coefficients and the characteristic fields are given by

$`\alpha _{ns}=7.410^5\mathrm{cm}^1,`$ $`\alpha _{ps}=7.2510^5\mathrm{cm}^1,`$ (14)
$`b_n=1.110^6\mathrm{V}/\mathrm{cm},`$ $`b_p=2.210^6\mathrm{V}/\mathrm{cm},`$ (15)
and $`\mathrm{\Theta }(x)`$ is the step-function. The cut-offs $`n_{cut}`$ and $`p_{cut}`$ have been introduced in (12) to mimic the discreteness of the charge carriers. The purpose is to exclude unphysical ionization avalanches initiated by tiny fractions of electrons or holes that can cause premature triggering of the front in the simulations. We chose $`n_{cut}=p_{cut}=10^9\mathrm{cm}^3`$ in the simulations and discuss the effect of this and other choices in Section V and Fig. 6.

Since we shall investigate processes on a sub-nanosecond time scale, we neglect all types of recombination and thermal generation. We also assume that the n-base is free of deep-level defects or parasitic impurities that can assist tunneling or serve as deep-level electron traps capable to release electrons or holes in high electric field . We discuss these model assumptions in detail in Sections IV and V.

We use a uniform space-time grid with the number of points of the order of several thousands both in time and space. The spatial discretization is based on a conservative formulation, in terms of fluxes describing the inflow and outflow over cells $`[x\mathrm{\Delta }x/2,x+\mathrm{\Delta }x/2]`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ is the grid width in space. Whereas the diffusive fluxes have been approximated in a standard fashion  with second order accuracy, for the convective fluxes a third order upwind biased formula has been chosen in order to reduce the numerical oscillations. Time discretization is based on a second order backward differentiation formula. The temporal backward differentiation formula gives an implicit system that is solved at each time step. For reasons of accuracy the time step $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is chosen small compared to $`\mathrm{\Delta }x/v_s`$, where $`v_s`$ is the upper bound of the drift (convective) velocity, and with such small step size that the implicit system can be solved by a straightforward functional iteration. Details on these spatial and temporal discretizations can be found in Ref. .

## III Numerical solutions

The basic features of the numerical solutions are summarized in Figures 2 and 3. They show the external characteristics of the transient and the internal dynamics, respectively. The voltage on the device first increases and reaches the maximal value 8 kV, several times higher than the voltage of stationary breakdown. During this stage, the electrical field in the structure increases like

$$E(x,t)\frac{V(t)}{W}\frac{bW}{2}+bx,b\frac{qN_d}{\epsilon \epsilon _0},$$
(16)
in the same manner as in the TRAPPAT-diode . (Here we assume that the displacement current is small and hence $`V(t)U(t)`$). Though the electrical field $`E`$ at the right boundary exceeds the effective threshold of impact ionization $`210^5\mathrm{V}/\mathrm{cm}`$ already at $`t>30\mathrm{ps}`$, impact ionization does not develop due to the absence of initial carriers. At $`t720\mathrm{ps}`$ the electrical field at the right boundary $`x=W`$, near the $`p^+n`$junction, becomes sufficient for tunneling of electrons from the valence to the conduction band (Fig. 3(a), curve 1). At this time, the field is above the threshold of impact ionization in the whole $`n`$base, so impact ionization starts as soon as electrons and holes are supplied by tunneling. The rate of impact ionization increases with concentration and eventually overheads tunneling at the carrier density $`np10^{13}\mathrm{cm}^3`$ (see Fig. 4). The rapid ionization process near the right boundary forms an initial nucleus of dense electron-plasma with concentration $`n,p210^{17}\mathrm{cm}^3`$ that is capable to fully screen the electrical field (Fig. 3(a), curves 2, 3). The screening is accomplished at $`t=750\mathrm{ps}`$. It is accompanied by a fast drop of the voltage on the device and an increase of current in the circuit (Fig. 2). This drop corresponds to the first step in the falling $`U(t)`$-curve.

Consecutively, the highly conducting plasma region expands to the left in the form of a superfast ionization front (Fig. 3(b)). The velocity of the front $`v_f`$ is approximately 40 times faster than the saturated drift velocity $`v_s`$ of the individual carriers; hence the carrier motion is negligible. The front propagates due to the combined effect of tunneling and impact ionization, followed by Maxwell relaxation in the generated plasma and consecutive electric screening. Snapshoots of the field and concentration profiles together with respective generation rates at some instant of time are shown in Fig. 5. Here tunneling generates initial carriers in the high field region at the edge of the ionization front. These carriers are multiplied further by impact ionization. A narrow region of strong impact ionization is localized at the edge of the visible concentration front. The rate of impact ionization in this region is by many orders of magnitude higher than the rate of tunneling ionization. Therefore impact ionization dominates the overall increase of the concentration. However, the superfast propagation would not be possible without the initial carriers generated by tunneling. Hence both tunneling and impact ionization are essential for the propagation mechanism. This type of an ionization front can be called a tunneling-assisted impact ionization front.

As the front propagates, the current $`I`$ increases and the voltage on the device $`U`$ decreases due to the interaction with the external load. The maximum value of the electrical field and the front velocity slightly increase during the passage (Fig. 3(b)). As the front comes closer to the left boundary, the field in the high-field region of the $`n`$base increases and the region of tunneling impact ionization becomes wider. This effect also contributes to the acceleration of the front, and causes the front interface to become smoother (compare curves 1,2 and 3,4 in Fig. 3). Eventually, the tunneling process becomes efficient in the whole region between the moving front and the $`n^+`$contact. As a result, the front ceases to propagate. Rather the rest of the $`n`$base breaks down by nearly uniform impact ionization.

The switching takes 30 ps and fills the $`n`$base with electron-hole plasma of concentration $`510^{17}\mathrm{cm}^3`$. The voltage drops from 8 kV to the residual value of 10 V, applying an average voltage ramp $`300\mathrm{kV}/\mathrm{ns}`$ to the load. The falling part of the $`U(t)`$dependence in Fig. 2 has a plateau that reflects the transition from the formation of the initial nucleus of electron-hole plasma to the stage of front propagation. During the front propagation stage, the voltage drops from $`7.4\mathrm{kV}`$ to 10 V within less than 15 ps. Hence the ”effective” voltage ramp is much higher than the average one and reaches 500 kV/ns.

## IV The effect of random thermal generation

The triggering of the tunneling-assisted impact ionization front might fail due to the thermal generation of free carriers in the depleted layer. If during an early stage of development, thermal carriers lead to an avalanche breakdown and to the formation of local conducting channels between the $`p^+`$ and $`n^+`$layers, the conductance might increase and prevent the voltage $`U(t)`$ from increasing further. In this case, a front cannot start. Therefore the related time scales and their temperature dependence have to be estimated.

The characteristic rate of thermal generation of electron-hole pairs can be deduced from the value of the leakage current density. It is $`10^7\mathrm{A}/\mathrm{cm}^2`$ at room temperature . Hence on average, one thermal electron-hole pair per ns is generated in the whole volume of the $`n`$base. Depending on the position of the generation, the carriers need 0.5 to 1 ns to leave the $`n`$base of length 100 $`\mu `$m with saturated drift velocity $`10^7`$ cm/s. If the field is still low, they will simply leave the base, but if they are generated in a region with $`E>210^5\mathrm{V}/\mathrm{cm}`$ or pass through such a region, they will create an impact ionization avalanche on their path. After 0.7 ns, the tunneling-assisted impact ionization front leads to the breakdown of the voltage. Though the probability that one ionization avalanche will be initiated during the delay time is close to one, this avalanche in most cases cannot form a conducting channel before the front is triggered. The probability for more avalanches decreases exponentially with their number.

However, even if a single conducting channel has developed, its cross-section is too small compared to the cross-section of the system to influence the triggering of the superfast front. Typical diameters of local conducting channels created by solitary avalanches are about $`10\mu \mathrm{m}`$ , so the cross-section is about 1/1000 of the total cross-section of the semiconductor structure. Assuming concentrations of $`n,p10^{18}\mathrm{cm}^3`$ and high-field transport with saturated velocities $`v_s`$, we evaluate the maximum current that can flow through such channel as $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}`$ A . This is comparable to the displacement current in the structure during the delay stage, and far too small to prevent the further increase of the voltage on a structure with large cross-section.

The generation rate depends exponentially on the temperature :

$$\nu (T)=\nu (T_0)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{E_g}{kT_0}\frac{E_g}{kT}\right),$$
(17)
where $`k`$ is Boltzmann’s constant and $`T_0`$ is room temperature. For $`T=70K`$ and $`T=400K`$, we find characteristic times of $`\tau 10\mathrm{ms}`$ and $`\tau 1\mathrm{ps}`$, respectively. Hence the triggering mechanism is very sensitive to the temperature of the structure: cooling the sample is favorable whereas triggering of tunneling-assisted fronts is likely to be impossible at high temperatures.

We conclude that the tunneling-assisted impact ionization front can be triggered only, if the applied voltage increases sufficiently fast and the threshold of tunneling ionization is reached faster than 1 ns. At room temperature and below, the triggering mechanism is robust with respect to random initiation of impact ionization avalanches by thermal carriers. This conclusion is also supported by experimental data for common impact ionization fronts: for comparable experimental set-up and the lower voltage ramp of $`A1\mathrm{kV}/\mathrm{ns}`$, the delay in deterministic triggering of the impact ionization front could be as large as 3 ns.

## V Limitations of the drift-diffusion model

In this section, we discuss the applicability of the minimal drift-diffusion model to the rapid high-field process described in Sec. III. Let us first briefly summarize the characteristic scales of the obtained numerical solution: the front length is $`\mathrm{}_f3\mu \mathrm{m}`$, the front velocity $`v_f410^8\mathrm{cm}/\mathrm{s}`$, the total switching time $`30\mathrm{ps}`$, the concentration behind the front $`510^{17}\mathrm{cm}^3`$, and the current density $`J10^5\mathrm{A}/\mathrm{cm}^2`$.

Relaxation time and electro-magnetic propagation time. A simple evaluation in the spirit of Drude theory and based on the low-field mobility, estimates the upper bound for the electron mean free path and the lower bound for the electron momentum relaxation time as 20 nm and 0.2 ps, respectively. The electro-magnetic propagation time is $`W/c=0.5\mathrm{ps}`$, where $`c`$ is the speed of light. These scales are considerably smaller than the respective scales of the process under study.

Recombination. In Si for concentrations $`n=p=10^{18}\mathrm{cm}^3`$, the inverse rate of Auger recombination is $`10\mu \mathrm{s}`$; the thermal recombination life-time is also of the order of microseconds . Thus recombination can be neglected.

Electron-hole scattering. For current densities above $`10^2\mathrm{A}/\mathrm{cm}^2`$, electron-hole scattering which is not accounted for in our model, becomes important . Due to the electron-hole scattering, the resistivity $`\rho `$ of the dense plasma behind the front substantially decreases. For $`J10^3\mathrm{A}/\mathrm{cm}^2`$ and $`n,p10^{18}\mathrm{cm}^3`$ we estimate the order of the magnitude as $`\rho 1\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{cm}`$ . Hence the voltage drop across the $`n`$base after switching can be estimated as $`J\varrho W10V`$. This value should be added to the 10 V obtained in our simulations. (Note that in our model the residual voltage is mostly due to the recovery of the electrical field on the $`p^+n`$junction during the front propagation.) This difference of 10 V is negligible compared to the kilovolt voltage drop during the front passage, and does not change other characteristics of the switching process.

Continuum approximation. The continuum treatment of electron and hole concentrations is the major limitation of the standard drift–diffusion model in application to the present problem. Both tunneling and impact ionization terms ignore the discrete nature of the ionization process: The tunneling term predicts a small but steady increase of the concentration even for electrical fields that are far below the effective threshold of tunneling ionization. In turn, the impact ionization generation term (13) models the multiplication of any concentration of free carriers, even if these concentrations physically correspond to a tiny fraction of an electron or hole in the whole volume of the device. Since, first, these small concentrations of initial carriers are inherently present in the system at the early stages of the process and, second, the system is very sensitive to the appearance of free carriers in the high field region, the unreflected use of an continuum approximation leads to physically meaningless results: triggering of the front is observed at very low electrical fields due to the multiplication of unphysically small concentrations of free carriers. Such an unphysical solution that predicts premature triggering of the front is depicted by the dashed line in Fig. 6: the front is triggered at $`t300\mathrm{ps}`$ when the maximum electrical field is not more than $`E(W,t)=510^5\mathrm{V}/\mathrm{cm}`$, which is too low for tunneling ionization.

These unphysical solutions can be eliminated by introducing the cut-offs for low concentrations in the impact ionization generation term (12). The cut-off concentrations $`n_{cut}`$ and $`p_{cut}`$ approximate the range of validity of the continuum approximation. Carefully chosen cut-offs allow to avoid the artifacts and to provide qualitatively relevant results. In Fig. 6, we show the transient characteristics for different cut-offs $`n_{cut}`$. In a wide range of physically meaningful parameter values of $`n_{cut}`$, the front triggering and propagation is qualitatively the same. However, the time delay in the front triggering somewhat depends on the cut-off level, thus making the continuum model unsuitable for accurate quantitative predictions. The delay time shifts by approximately 50 ps when the cut-off level changes by one order of magnitude in both directions, whereas the triggering time remains approximately the same. A quantitative analysis would demand a more elaborate stochastic microscopic model.

## VI Discussion

Tunneling-assisted impact ionization fronts are quite similar to the well studied case of superfast impact ionization fronts that underly the operation of TRAPPAT-diodes  and sharpening diodes . In both cases we deal with a collective phenomenon of superfast propagation. It is based on avalanche multiplication of the already existing carriers due to impact ionization in a finite narrow region of the device, followed by screening of the electrical field due to Maxwell relaxation in the adjacent spatial region. The important difference is the source of the free carriers that initiate the avalanche impact ionization process. TRAPATT-like fronts propagate into a depleted $`n`$base with a certain concentration of initial carriers, often referred to as ”pre-ionization” . The physical mechanism that creates ”pre-ionization” then is unrelated to the front propagation mechanism, e.g., in the case of the TRAPPAT-diode, these are non-equilibrium carriers left behind after the previous front passage. In the case under consideration here, there is no pre-ionization and the initial carriers are generated during the front passage by tunneling in a region just ahead of the impact ionization front. Hence tunneling and impact ionization coherently cooperate in the superfast propagation of the tunneling-assisted impact ionization front.

For impact ionization fronts that propagate into homogeneously pre-ionized media, an essential ingredient is the spatial profile of the electrical field: the field should be below the threshold of impact ionization at a certain distance from the front . This keeps the ”active” region where the impact ionization develops, finite and prevents a quasi-uniform blow-up of the concentration in the whole sample. For ionization fronts in $`p^+nn^+`$structures this profile is due to the doping of the $`n`$base that gives a slope of the electrical field $`qN_d/\epsilon \epsilon _0`$ in the depleted layer. In contrast, for the tunneling-assisted front, the electrical field is well above the threshold of impact ionization in the whole $`n`$base. The size of the ”active” region is controlled by the threshold of tunneling ionization. This allows for much higher electrical fields, increasing the front velocity and the concentration of the generated plasma by orders of magnitude.

The possibility of tunneling ionization fronts has been discussed before in Ref. . The theoretical investigation in Ref.  takes only tunneling ionization into account, assuming that in high fields the impact ionization component can be neglected. Our results show that this is not possible for electrical fields of the order of $`10^6\mathrm{V}/\mathrm{cm}`$: the importance of impact ionization increases with concentration and dominates tunneling ionization already for concentrations of free carriers as low as $`n,p>10^{13}\mathrm{cm}^3`$, as can be read from Fig. 4. Thus impact ionization is the dominant mechanism of free carrier generation even in the range of fields where tunneling is possible, after a sufficient carrier concentration is reached. Accordingly, simulations with the impact ionization term set to zero show that the tunneling ionization alone does not lead to front propagation; rather the breakdown of the sample becomes quasi-uniform. We suggest the following explanation for this observation: the appearence of the traveling front solutions is known to be due to an auto-catalytic dependence of the impact ionization generation rate on the concentration of initial carriers . It leads to the exponentially fast increase of the concentration with time in a given electrical field. The rate of tunneling ionization lacks this auto-catalytic dependence on the concentration, predicting an algebraically slow growth of concentration with time.

## VII Summary

We have described the theory of a new type of ionization fronts in layered Si semiconductor structures. These are superfast tunneling-assisted impact ionization fronts that propagate due to the coherent effect of tunneling and impact ionization. The front propagates into the fully depleted $`n`$base of a $`p^+nn^+`$structure. The region of tunneling ionization in electrical fields higher than $`10^6\mathrm{V}/\mathrm{cm}`$ has a characteristic length of dozens of micrometers. The generated carriers initiate an avalanche impact ionization process that becomes much more efficient than tunneling as concentration increases. The concentration front has a characteristic width of several micrometers. Within this length the concentration of free carriers increases to the level of $`n,p>510^{17}\mathrm{cm}^3`$. Maxwell relaxation in the generated electron-hole plasma leads to the full screening of the applied electrical field. The front propagation is a collective phenomenon based on ionization and screening, and its velocity $`v_f`$ is not limited by the high-field drift velocity of individual carriers $`v_s`$. We observe $`v_f40v_s`$ in our simulations.

The front triggering becomes possible if the threshold of tunneling ionization $`10^6\mathrm{V}/\mathrm{cm}`$ is reached after a delay shorter than 1 ns. This ensures that random thermal ionization in the depleted layer does not spoil the triggering. This condition is met at room and lower temperatures when a voltage ramp $`10\mathrm{kV}/\mathrm{ns}`$ is applied to the structure connected in series with a load. Such voltage pulses are state of the art in modern semiconductor pulse power electronics . The passage of the tunneling-assisted impact ionization front switches the structure into the conducting state with a residual voltage of several dozens of volts. The transient $`U(t)`$characteristic is nonlinear: the total duration of the switching process observed is 30 ps, whereas the effective switching time that corresponds to the major voltage drop is below 15 ps. Hence a voltage pulse of rise rate $`500\mathrm{kV}/\mathrm{ns}`$ and an amplitude of several kilovolts is applied to the load. These values set new frontiers in pulse power electronics.

We finally remark, that the standard drift-diffusion model has serious limitations when applied to models of superfast ionization fronts. These limitations are due to the continuum approximation. They manifest themselves in a premature unphysical triggering of the front at low electrical fields due to avalanche processes initiated by tiny fractions of electrons or holes. We have eliminated these unphysical solutions by introducing a cut-off in the impact ionization term. For further progress towards a fully quantitative description, microscopic stochastic model have to be investigated.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by the Dutch physics funding agency FOM and the program “Generation of high power pulses of electrical energy, particles and electro-magnetic radiation” of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences. P.R. also acknowledges support of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.