text:
# Charge Densities and Charge Noise in Mesoscopic Conductors

## I Local partial density of states

It is the purpose of this work to present a discussion of the charge distribution  and the charge noise  based on the scattering approach. Similar to the discussion of linear transport , we view the sample as a target which transmits or reflects electrical carriers into the contacts connected to the sample. A particular example  of a structure of interest here is shown in Fig. 1. For purely elastic scattering the sample is described by a scattering matrix $`𝐬`$. We label the different contacts to the sample by $`\alpha =1,2,\mathrm{}`$. Each contact is treated as perfect wave guide which permits the definition of incoming and out-going quantum channels. Each contact has at a given energy a set of quantum channels with quantum numbers labeled $`m`$. The scattering matrix element $`s_{\alpha m,\beta n}`$ relates the out going current amplitude in contact $`\alpha `$ in channel $`m`$ to the incoming current amplitude in contact $`\beta `$ in channel $`n`$. For the following discussion it is useful to introduce the submatrice $`𝐬_{\alpha \beta }`$ which combines all scattering matrix elements with the same contact indices. This is a matrix of dimension $`M_\alpha xM_\beta `$ for a conductor with $`M_\alpha `$ open scattering channels in contact $`\alpha `$ and $`M_\beta `$ open channels in contact $`\beta `$. We will now show that the equilibrium and non-equilibrium charge distribution can be described with the help of a hierarchy of density of states. On top of this pyramid is the local density of states. At the bottom of this pyramid are the local partial density of states

$$\nu (\alpha ,𝐫,\beta )=\frac{1}{4\pi i}Tr\left[𝐬_{\alpha \beta }^{}\frac{\delta 𝐬_{\alpha \beta }}{e\delta U(𝐫)}\frac{\delta 𝐬_{\alpha \beta }^{}}{e\delta U(𝐫)}𝐬_{\alpha \beta }\right]$$
(1)
which give the contribution to the local density of states at point $`𝐫`$ of carriers incident in contact $`\beta `$ and leaving the conductor through contact $`\alpha `$. In Eq. (1) the trace

represents a summation over channel indices. In the partial density of states we specify both the incident contact (a pre-selection) and the exiting contact (a post-selection). The local partial density of states is obtained by investigating the change of the scattering matrix due to a small additional potential perturbation $`\delta U(𝐫)`$ at point $`𝐫`$.

On the next higher level in the pyramid of density of states are the injectivities and emissivities. The injectivity of contact $`\beta `$ gives the contribution to the density of states of carriers entering the conductor through $`\beta `$ irrespective of the contact through which they leave the sample. The injectivity $`\nu (𝐫,\beta )`$ into point $`𝐫`$ of contact $`\beta `$ is obtained by summing all partial density of states $`\nu (\alpha ,𝐫,\beta )`$ over the first contact index,

$$\nu (𝐫,\beta )=\frac{1}{4\pi i}\underset{\alpha }{}Tr\left[𝐬_{\alpha \beta }^{}\frac{\delta 𝐬_{\alpha \beta }}{e\delta U(𝐫)}\frac{\delta 𝐬_{\alpha \beta }^{}}{e\delta U(𝐫)}𝐬_{\alpha \beta }\right].$$
(2)
Using the unitarity of the scattering matrix we can also write for the injectivity,

$$\nu (𝐫,\beta )=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\underset{\alpha }{}Tr\left[𝐬_{\alpha \beta }^{}\frac{\delta 𝐬_{\alpha \beta }}{e\delta U(𝐫)}\right].$$
(3)
The emissivity of point $`𝐫`$ into contact $`\alpha `$ is that portion of the local density of states which consists of carriers which leave the sample through contact $`\alpha `$ irrespective of the contact through which they entered the sample. It is obtained by summing the partial density of states over the second contact index $`\beta `$. Taking into account the unitarity of the scattering matrix $`𝐬`$ we find,

$$\nu (\alpha ,𝐫)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\underset{\beta }{}Tr\left[𝐬_{\alpha \beta }^{}\frac{\delta 𝐬_{\alpha \beta }}{e\delta U(𝐫)}\right].$$
(4)
At the top of this pyramid of density of states is the local density of states. For the local density of states we impose no restriction as to where the carriers come from nor as to where they will go in the future. The local density of states is thus the sum over all local partial density of states. In particular it is also the sum of all injectivities or the sum of all emissivities,

$$\nu (𝐫)=\underset{\beta }{}\nu (𝐫,\beta )=\underset{\alpha }{}\nu (\alpha ,𝐫).$$
(5)
and is thus given by

$$\nu (𝐫)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\underset{\alpha \beta }{}Tr\left[s_{\alpha \beta }^{}\frac{\delta s_{\alpha \beta }}{e\delta U(𝐫)}\right].$$
(6)
We will later show the usefulness of these density of states. Here we only briefly mention the magnetic field symmetry. Since in a uniform field the scattering matrix has the reciprocity symmetry $`𝐬_{\alpha \beta }(B)=𝐬_{\alpha \beta }(B)`$, we see that the partial density of states have the symmetry $`\nu _B(\alpha ,𝐫,\beta )=\nu _B(\beta ,𝐫,\alpha )`$. Similarly, the injectivities and emissivities are related by reciprocity $`\nu _B(𝐫,\alpha )=\nu _B(\alpha ,𝐫)`$ whereas the local density of states is an even function of magnetic field $`\nu _B(𝐫)=\nu _B(𝐫)`$. Fig. 2 shows the local density of states, the injectivity and the ratio of the injectivity to the local density of states for the simple case of a delta function barrier in an otherwise perfect ballistic one-channel wire connecting contacts $`1`$ and $`2`$. For additional simple examples we refer the reader to Refs. . Partial density of states in disordered structures are evaluated numerically in Ref.

## II Global partial density of states

Often we are interested not in the density of states at a given point but in a certain volume $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Of course the partial density of states in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are obtained simply by integrating the local partial density of states over the volume of interest. Of particular interest are the density of states of the entire sample. In this case the surface of the volume $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ will intersect the leads connected to the sample. Suppose now that these intersections coincide with our specification of the scattering matrix. The phases which occur in the scattering matrix $`𝐬_{\alpha \beta }`$ are the phases which are accumulated through scattering between the intersection $`S_\alpha `$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in lead $`\alpha `$ and the intersection of $`S_\beta `$ in lead $`\beta `$. Under these circumstances a simplification of the above expressions is possible, since the functional derivative with respect to the local potential and the integration over $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ can be replaced by an energy derivative,

$$_\mathrm{\Omega }𝑑𝐫^3\frac{\delta }{e\delta U(𝐫)}\frac{d}{dE}.$$
(7)
For the global density of states (density of states of the entire sample) we find the partial density of states,

$$N(\alpha ,𝐫,\beta )=\frac{1}{4\pi i}Tr\left[𝐬_{\alpha \beta }^{}\frac{d𝐬_{\alpha \beta }}{dE}\frac{d𝐬_{\alpha \beta }^{}}{dE}𝐬_{\alpha \beta }\right]$$
(8)
from which we obtain the injectance of contact $`\alpha `$

$$N(𝐫,\beta )=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\underset{\alpha }{}Tr\left[𝐬_{\alpha \beta }^{}\frac{d𝐬_{\alpha \beta }}{dE}\right]$$
(9)
the emittance into contact $`\alpha `$,

$$N(\alpha )=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\underset{\beta }{}Tr\left[𝐬_{\alpha \beta }^{}\frac{d𝐬_{\alpha \beta }}{dE}\right]$$
(10)
and the global density of states

$$N=\underset{\alpha }{}N(\alpha )=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\underset{\alpha \beta }{}Tr\left[𝐬_{\alpha \beta }^{}\frac{d𝐬_{\alpha \beta }}{dE}\right].$$
(11)
The scattering matrix is unitary and all its eigenvalues $`\lambda _i=exp(i\zeta _i)`$ are thus on the unit circle. In terms of these eigenvalues we have

$$N=\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{i}{}\frac{d\zeta _i}{dE}=\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{d}{dE}\mathrm{log}[det(𝐬)]$$
(12)
where $`det(𝐬)`$ is the determinant of the scattering matrix.

Eq. (12) is a familiar expression of the density of states . We recall it here to emphasize that it is an approximate expression for the density of states of a mesoscopic conductor. In nuclear scattering theory  it is turned into an exact expression by considering not the total density of states like we have done but the excess density of states in comparison to a free problem and by taking the volume of interest to infinity (The problem with and without a scattering object are compared). In contrast for our type of scattering problems (for instance for a multiprobe mesoscopic conductor) there is no reasonably defined free problem and similarly it would be meaningless to consider the volume of interest to become infinitely large. Therefore in mesoscopic physics the exact expression for the density of states of the sample is

$$N=_\mathrm{\Omega }𝑑𝐫^3\nu (𝐫)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}_\mathrm{\Omega }𝑑𝐫^3\underset{\alpha \beta }{}Tr\left[s_{\alpha \beta }^{}\frac{\delta s_{\alpha \beta }}{e\delta U(𝐫)}\right]$$
(13)
whereas the more familiar expression Eq. (12) is an approximation.

Except in very special cases the two expressions for the local density need not to be distinguished. However the difference is important when WKB does not hold. For instance using Eq. (12), the density of states inside a rectangular tunneling barrier of height $`U_0`$ diverges like $`E^{1/2}`$ as the energy kinetic energy $`E`$ of the incident particles tends to zero whereas if one uses Eq. (13) one finds (the much more reasonable result) that the density of states is finite and vanishes like $`E^{1/2}`$ for small energies . The distinction between energy derivatives and potential derivatives is familiar from the discussion of characteristic tunneling times . For a discussion of the connection between the local partial density of states and characteristic tunneling times we refer the reader to Ref. .

## III Absorption and Emission of Particles: Injectivities and Emissivities

We next present a simple example which illustrates the usefulness of the densities of states introduced above. Suppose that the potential has in some small volume element $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ a small imaginary part . Thus the potential is $`U(𝐫)`$ out-side $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ but is $`U(𝐫)i\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ inside $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. To proceed we take into account that the scattering matrix is a functional of the potential and expand the scattering matrix to first order in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. This gives for the transmission and reflection probabilities in the presence of a small absorption

$$T_{\alpha \beta }(\mathrm{\Gamma })=T_{\alpha \beta }\left(1_\mathrm{\Omega }𝑑𝐫\mathrm{\Gamma }\nu (\alpha ,𝐫,\beta )\right)$$
(14)
where $`T_{\alpha \beta }`$ is the transmission probability of the scattering problem without absorption if $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are different. If $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are equal, we find a reflection probability

$$R_{\alpha \alpha }(\mathrm{\Gamma })=R_{\alpha \alpha }\left(1_\mathrm{\Omega }𝑑𝐫\mathrm{\Gamma }\nu (\alpha ,𝐫,\alpha )\right).$$
(15)
Thus in the presence of absorption the reflection and transmission probabilities are ”diminished” according to the partial density of states. Consider now the carriers streaming from contact $`\beta `$ into the sample in a narrow energy interval $`dE`$. The incident current $`I_{in}`$ must be equal to the sum of the transmitted current $`I_T`$, the reflected current $`I_R`$ and the absorbed current $`I_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$,

$$I_{in}=I_T+I_R+I_\mathrm{\Gamma }.$$
(16)
Taking into account that the total incident current from contact $`\alpha `$ is $`I_\beta =(e/h)M_\beta dE`$, and taking into account that $`_{\alpha \beta }T_{\alpha \beta }+R_{\beta \beta }=M_\beta `$ we find that the total abosrbed flux is given by the sum

$$I_\mathrm{\Gamma }=_\mathrm{\Omega }𝑑𝐫\mathrm{\Gamma }\nu (𝐫,\beta ).$$
(17)
Thus the absorbed flux is determined by the injectivity of contact $`\beta `$ into the volume of interest.

Another way of determining the absorbed flux proceeds as follows. The absorbed flux is proportional to the integrated density of particles in the region of absorption. The density of particles can be found from the scattering state $`\psi _{\beta m}(𝐫)`$ which describes carriers incident from contact $`\beta `$ in channel $`m`$. The wave function is normalized such that it has unit amplitude in the incident channel. We assume that all incident channels in contact $`\beta `$ are filled equally. The absorbed flux is thus

$$I_\mathrm{\Gamma }(\beta )=𝑑𝐫\mathrm{\Gamma }\underset{m}{}\frac{1}{hv_\beta }|\psi _{\beta m}(𝐫)|^2.$$
(18)
Note that here the density of states $`1/hv_{\beta m}`$ of the asymptotic scattering region appears. $`v_{\beta m}`$ is the velocity of carriers in the incident channel. Thus we have found a wave function representation for the injectivity. Comparing Eq. (15) and Eq. (14) gives

$$\nu (𝐫,\beta )=\underset{m}{}\frac{1}{hv_{\beta m}}|\psi _{\beta m}(𝐫)|^2.$$
(19)
The total local density of states $`\nu (𝐫)`$ at point $`𝐫`$ is obtained by considering carriers incident from both contacts.

There is now an interesting additional problem to be addressed. Instead of a potential which acts as a carrier sink (as an absorber) we can ask about a potential which acts as a carrier source. Obviously, all we have to do to turn our potential into a carrier source is to change the sign of the imaginary part of the potential. As a consequence of a carrier source in the volume $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ we should observe a particle current into all contacts of our sample. To find these currents we consider a small energy interval at the energy of interest. The total current injected into the sample in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is

$$I_{in}(y)=_\mathrm{\Omega }𝑑𝐫\mathrm{\Gamma }\nu (𝐫).$$
(20)
Taking into account that the incident current is normalized to $`1`$ the current $`I_{out}(\beta )`$ in contact $`\beta `$ due to a carrier source in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is given by

$$I_{out}(\alpha )=(e/h)dE[M_\alpha R_{\alpha \alpha }(\mathrm{\Gamma })\underset{\beta \alpha }{}T_{\alpha \beta }(\mathrm{\Gamma })]$$
(21)
due to the modification of both the transmission and reflection coefficients. Using Eqs. (14) and (15) (with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ replaced by -$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$) gives

$$I_{out}(\alpha )=_\mathrm{\Omega }𝑑𝐫\mathrm{\Gamma }\underset{\beta }{}\nu (\alpha ,𝐫,\beta )=_\mathrm{\Omega }𝑑𝐫\mathrm{\Gamma }\nu (\alpha ,𝐫).$$
(22)
The current in contact $`\alpha `$ is determined by the emissivity $`\nu (\alpha ,𝐫)`$ of the region $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ into contact $`\alpha `$.

We conclude this section with a remark of caution. The partial densities are not necessarily positive as we would expect from a usual density of states. (The simple example of an (asymmetric) resonant double barrier shows that one of the diagonal elements $`\nu (\alpha ,𝐫,\alpha )`$ has a range of energies where it is negative . Note that this implies that a small absorption inside a sample can increase a reflection probability). The fact that the partial density of states are not necessarily positive is a consequence of over specification: both the incident and the exiting channel are prescribed. In contrast, the injectivities and emissivities are, however, always positive. The proof is given by Eq. (17).

## IV Generalized Bardeen formulae

It is well known that with a scanning tunneling microscope (STM) we can measure the local density of states . STM measurements are typically performed in a two terminal geometry, in which the tip of the microscope represents one contact and the sample provides another contact . Here we are interested in the transmission probability from an STM tip into the contact of a sample with two or more contacts as shown in Fig. 1. Geometries which use more than one tunneling tip are also of interest . Thus we deal with a multiterminal transmission problem . If we denote the contacts of the sample by a Greek letter $`\alpha =1,2,..`$ and use tip to label the contact of the STM tip, we are interested in the tunneling probabilities $`T_{\alpha tip}`$ from the tip into contact $`\alpha `$ of the sample. In this case the STM tip acts as carrier source. Similarly we ask about the transmission probability $`T_{tip\alpha }`$ from a sample contact to the tip. In this case the STM tip acts as a carrier sink. Earlier work has addressed this problem either with the help of electron wave dividers , or by applying the Fermi Golden Rule . Recently, Gramespacher and the author  have returned to this problem and have derived expressions for these transmission probabilities from the scattering matrix of the full multiprobe problem  (sample plus tip). For a tunneling contact with a density of states $`\nu _{tip}`$ which couples locally at the point $`x`$ with a coupling energy $`|t|`$ these authors found

$$T_{tip,\alpha }=4\pi ^2\nu _{tip}|t|^2\nu (x,\alpha ),$$
(23)
$$T_{\alpha tip}=4\pi ^2\nu (\alpha ,x)|t|^2\nu _{tip}.$$
(24)
In a multiterminal sample the transmission probability from a contact $`\alpha `$ to the STM tip is given by the injectivity of contact $`\alpha `$ into the point $`x`$ and the transmission probability from the tip to the contact $`\alpha `$ is given by the emissivity of the point $`x`$ into contact $`\alpha `$. Eqs. (23) and (24) when multiplied by the unit of conductance $`e^2/h`$ are generalized Bardeen conductances for multiprobe conductors. Since the local density of states of the tip is an even function of magnetic field and since the injectivity and emissivity are related by reciprocity we also have the reciprocity relation $`T_{tip,\alpha }(B)=T_{\alpha ,tip}(B)`$.

The presence of the tip also affects transmission and reflection at the massive contacts of the sample. To first order in the coupling energy $`|t|^2`$ these probabilities are given by

$$T_{\alpha \beta }^{tip}=T_{\alpha \beta }4\pi ^2\nu (\alpha ,x,\beta )|t|^2\nu _{tip}.$$
(25)
Here the upper index $`tip`$ indicates that this transmission probability is calculated in the presence of the tip. $`T_{\alpha \beta }`$ without an upper index is the transmission probability in the absence of the tip. The correction to the transmission probabilities $`\alpha \beta `$ and reflection probabilities $`\alpha =\beta `$ is determined by the partial densities of states, the coupling energy and the density of states in the tip. Note that if these probabilities are placed in a matrix then each row and each column of this matrix adds up to the number of quantum channels in the contacts.

## V Voltage probe and inelastic scattering

Consider a two probe conductor much smaller than any inelastic or phase breaking length. The conductance of such a conductor can then be said to be coherent and its conductance is at zero temperature given by the Landauer formula $`G=(e^2/h)T`$, where $`T`$ is the probability for transmission form one contact to the other. How is this result affected by events which break the phase or by events which cause inelastic scattering? To investigate this question Ref.  proposes to use an additional (third) contact to the sample. The third probe acts as a voltage probe which has its potential adjusted in such a way that there is no net current flowing into this additional probe, $`I_3=0`$. The current at the third probe is set to zero by floating the voltage $`\mu _3=eV_3`$ at this contact to a value for which $`I_3`$ vanishes. The third probe acts, therefore, like a voltage probe. Even though the total current at the voltage probe vanishes individual carriers can enter this probe if they are at the same time replaced by carriers emanating from the probe . Entering and leaving a contact are irreversible processes, since there is no definite phase relationship between a carrier that enters the contact and a carrier that leaves a contact. In a three probe conductor, the relationship between currents and voltages is given by $`I_\alpha =_\beta G_{\alpha \beta }V_\beta `$ where the $`G_{\alpha \beta }`$ are the conductance coefficients. Using the condition $`I_3=0`$ to find the potential $`V_3`$ and eliminating this potential in the equation for $`I_2`$ or $`I_1`$ gives for the two probe conductance in presence of the voltage probe

$$G=(G_{21}+\frac{G_{23}G_{31}}{G_{31}+G_{32}}).$$
(26)
For a very weakly coupled voltage probe (see Fig. 1) we can use Eqs. (23 \- 25). Taking into account that $`G_{\alpha \beta }=(e^2/h)T_{\alpha \beta }^{tip}`$ for $`\alpha \beta `$ we find

$$G=\frac{e^2}{h}(T4\pi ^2|t|^2[\nu (2,x,1)\frac{\nu (2,x)\nu (x,1)}{\nu (x)}]).$$
(27)
Here $`\nu (x)`$ is the local density of states at the location of the point at which the voltage probe couples to the conductor. Eq. (27) has a simple interpretation . The first term $`T`$ is the transmission probability of the conductor in the absence of the voltage probe. The first term inside the brackets proportional to the local partial density of states gives the reduction of coherent transmission due to the presence of the voltage probe. The second term in the brackets is the incoherent contribution to transport due to inelastic scattering induced by the voltage probe. It is proportional to the injectivity of contact $`1`$ at point $`x`$. A fraction $`\nu (2,x)/\nu (x)`$ of the carriers which reach this point, proportional to its emissivity, are scattered forward and, therefore, contribute to transport. Notice the different signs of these two contributions. The effect of inelastic scattering (or dephasing) can either enhance transport or diminish transport, depending on whether the reduction of coherent transmission (first term) or the increase due to incoherent transmission (second term) dominates.

Instead of a voltage probe, we can also use an optical potential to simulate inelastic scattering or dephasing. However, in order to preserve current, we must use both an absorbing optical potential (to take carriers out) and an emitting optical potential (to reinsert carriers). The absorbed and re-emitted current must again exactly balance each other . From Eq. (15) it is seen that the coherent current is again diminished by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\nu (2,x,1)`$, i. e. by the partial density of states at point $`x`$. The total absorbed current is proportional to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\nu (x,1)`$, the injectance of contact $`1`$ into this point. As shown in section 3 a carrier emitting optical potential at $`x`$ generates a current $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\nu (1,x)`$ in contact $`1`$ and generates a current $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\nu (2,x)`$ in contact $`2`$. It produces thus a total current $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\nu (x)`$. In order that the generated and the absorbed current are equal we have to normalize the emitting optical potential  such that it generates a total current proportional to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\nu (x,1)`$. The current produced by an optical potential normalized in such a way is thus $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\nu (2,x)\nu (x,1)/\nu (x)`$. The sum of the two contributions , the absorbed current and the re-emitted current gives an overall transmission (or conductance) which is given by Eq. (27) with $`4\pi |t|^2`$ replaced by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

Thus the weakly coupled voltage probe (which has current conservation built in) and a discussion based on optical potentials coupled with a current conserving re-insertion of carriers are equivalent . There are discussions in the literature which invoke optical potentials but do not re-insert carriers. Obviously, such discussions violate current conservation. Even if current is conserved, the partitioning of the reinserted carriers has to be done as described above. Otherwise such fundamental properties like the Onsager symmetry are violated .

We would like to point out that there is in general no reason that tunnel contacts and absorption and re-emission with the help of imaginary potentials lead to identical results. The equivalence rests on a particular description of the voltage probe. There are many different ways of coupling a tunnel contact and our description of the voltage probe given here is not unique. The claim can only be that for sufficiently weak optical absorption and re-insertion of carriers there exits one voltage probe model which gives the same answer.

## VI The Friedel sum rule

The connection between the phase shift of scattering elements and the charge is known as Friedel sum rule. It is most often stated as a global relation between the charge in an energy interval $`dE`$ and the derivatives of the scattering phases with respect to energy as

$$dQ/dE=\frac{e}{2\pi }\underset{i}{}\frac{d\zeta _i}{dE}=\frac{e}{2\pi }\frac{d}{dE}\mathrm{log}[det(𝐬)].$$
(28)
From the discussion at the end of Section II it is evident that this relation is not exact since in the applications envisioned here the scattering matrix and the phases are calculated for a finite volume $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Thus whenever WKB does not hold Eq. (28) will not hold. The exact relation follows from Eq. (19) and Eqs. (5) and (6) and is given by

$$\nu (𝐫)=\underset{\beta m}{}\frac{1}{hv_{\beta m}}|\psi _{\beta m}(𝐫)|^2=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\underset{i}{}\frac{\delta \zeta _i}{e\delta U(𝐫)}$$

$$=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\underset{\alpha \beta }{}Tr\left[s_{\alpha \beta }^{}\frac{\delta s_{\alpha \beta }}{e\delta U(𝐫)}\right].$$
(29)
This relation is exact locally and by integration can be applied to any volume of interest. Application of Eq. (28) to situations in which WKB does not hold has already given rise to statements in the literature that the Friedel sum rule does not apply in mesoscopic conductors .

## VII The charge response to an internal potential

We next discuss problems for which the self-consistent adjustment of the potential is important. With this goal in mind we first investigate the variation of the local carrier density $`\delta n(𝐫)`$ in response to a local potential variation $`\delta U(𝐫^{})`$ at a point $`𝐫^{}`$. This variation is given by the Lindhard function, $`\delta n(𝐫)=𝑑𝐫_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐫,𝐫^{})e\delta U(𝐫^{})`$. This function plays an important role if we want to determine the carrier distribution self-consistently. Since the local charge density at equilibrium is $`n(𝐫)=𝑑E\nu (𝐫)f(E)`$, it follows immediately that the Lindhard function is given by

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐫,𝐫^{})=𝑑E\frac{\delta \nu (𝐫)}{e\delta U(𝐫^{})}f(E).$$
(30)
This response now involves second order functional derivatives of the scattering matrix. It can be simplified, if we are interested in potential variations not on the microscopic scale but only over distances large to a Fermi wave length $`\lambda _F`$. In that case we can integrate the Lindhard function over its second argument over a volume that is large compared to a Fermi wave length and use the WKB formula which replaces the functional derivative with respect to $`U(𝐫^{})`$ with an energy derivative. This gives

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐫,𝐫^{})=\delta (𝐫𝐫^{})𝑑E\frac{d\nu (𝐫)}{dE}f(E).$$
(31)
Partial integration with respect to the energy $`E`$ gives

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐫^{},𝐫)=\delta (𝐫^{}𝐫)𝑑E\nu (𝐫)\left(\frac{df(E)}{dE}\right).$$
(32)
Over sufficiently large distances the Lindhard function is determined by the local density of states.

## VIII The local charge response of a mesoscopic conductor

Consider a small deviation $`\delta \mu _\alpha =\mu _\alpha \mu `$ of the electrochemical potential $`\mu _\alpha `$ of contact $`\alpha `$ away from its equilibrium value $`\mu `$. At fixed internal potential this increases the carrier density inside the conductor by $`\delta n(𝐫)=\nu (𝐫,\alpha )\delta \mu _\alpha `$. This injected charge generates due to the Coulomb interaction an electrostatic response $`\delta U(𝐫)`$ which via the Lindhard function will also give a contribution to the charge density. Thus the local carrier density is

$$\delta n(𝐫)=\underset{\alpha }{}\nu (𝐫,\alpha )\delta \mu _\alpha 𝑑𝐫_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐫^{},𝐫)\delta U(𝐫^{}).$$
(33)
Suppose that all potentials $`\delta \mu _\alpha `$ applied to the conductor are rised by the same amount $`\delta \mu `$. Since the state of a conductor can only be changed by voltage differences it follows that the electrostatic potential increases also by $`\delta U(𝐫^{})=\delta \mu `$ and that $`\delta n(𝐫)=0`$. As a consequence of this gauge invariance we have

$$\underset{\alpha }{}\nu (𝐫,\alpha )=\nu (𝐫)=𝑑𝐫_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐫^{},𝐫).$$
(34)
The spatial integral over one of the arguments of the Lindhard function is equal to the local density of states. Note that Eq. (30) is a symmetric function of its spatial arguments.

To bring the determination of the local charge response to an end, we must now insert Eq. (33) into the Poisson equation and solve for the potential $`\delta U(𝐫^{})`$. Suppose that a test charge at point $`𝐫^{}`$ generates at point $`𝐫`$ a potential $`g(𝐫,𝐫^{})`$. Here $`g(𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ is the Green’s function of the Poisson equation with a non-local screening kernel determined by the Lindhard function mentioned above. The injected charge $`e\nu (𝐫,\alpha )\delta \mu _\alpha `$ generates the potential $`u_\alpha (𝐫)\delta \mu _\alpha `$ where the characteristic potential  $`u_\alpha (𝐫)`$ is given by

$$u_\alpha (𝐫)=𝑑𝐫_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}g(𝐫,𝐫^{})\nu (𝐫^{},\alpha ).$$
(35)
The injectivity is the source term of the characteristic potential $`u_\alpha (𝐫)`$. With the help of the characteristic potentials the internal potential can be expressed in linear response to the applied electrochemical potentials. Using this, the local carrier distribution is found to be

$$\delta n(𝐫)=\underset{\alpha }{}\nu ^{tot}(𝐫,\alpha )\delta \mu _\alpha $$
(36)
with a screened density of states

$$\nu ^{tot}(𝐫,\alpha )=\nu (𝐫,\alpha )𝑑𝐫_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}𝑑𝐫_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐫,𝐫^{})g(𝐫^{},𝐫^{\prime \prime })\nu (𝐫^{\prime \prime },\alpha ).$$
(37)
Eq. (36) provides a gauge invariant description of the local carrier density in response to small variations of the potentials applied to the contacts of the sample. The total variation of the charge is zero, $`_\mathrm{\Omega }𝑑𝐫\delta n(𝐫)=0`$, for a volume $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ that is sufficiently large (encloses the entire sample).

## IX Dynamic Conductance

In this section we discuss as an additional application of partial density of states briefly the ac-conductance of mesoscopic systems. We consider a conductor with an arbitrary number of contacts labeled by a Greek index $`\alpha =1,2,3\mathrm{}`$. The problem is to find the relationship between the currents $`I_\alpha (\omega )`$ at frequnecy $`\omega `$ measured at the contacts of the sample in response to a sinusoidal voltage with amplitude $`V_\beta (\omega )`$ applied to contact $`\beta `$. The relationship between currents and voltages is given by a dynamical conductance matrix  $`G_{\alpha \beta }(\omega )`$ such that $`I_\alpha (\omega )=_\beta G_{\alpha \beta }(\omega )V_\beta (\omega )`$. All electric fields are localized in space. The overall charge on the conductor is conserved. Consequently, current is also conserved and the currents depend only on voltage differences. Current conservation implies $`_\alpha G_{\alpha \beta }=0`$ for each $`\beta `$. In order that only voltage differences matter, the dynamical conductance matrix has to obey $`_\beta G_{\alpha \beta }=0`$ for each $`\alpha `$. We are interested here in the low frequency behavior of the conductance and therefore we can expand the conductance in powers of the frequency ,

$$G_{\alpha \beta }(\omega )=G_{\alpha \beta }^0i\omega E_{\alpha \beta }+K_{\alpha \beta }\omega ^2+O(\omega ^3).$$
(38)
Here $`G_{\alpha \beta }^0`$ is the dc-conductance matrix. $`E_{\alpha \beta }`$ is called the emittance matrix and governs the displacement currents. $`K_{\alpha \beta }`$ gives the response to second order in the frequency. All matrices $`G_{\alpha \beta }^0,E_{\alpha \beta }`$ and $`K_{\alpha \beta }`$ are real.

We focus here on the emittance matrix $`E_{\alpha \beta }`$. The conservation of the total charge can only be achieved by considering the long-range Coulomb interaction. To first order in frequency it is precisely the charge distribution given by Eq. (36) which counts. Ref.  finds for the emittance matrix

$$E_{\alpha \beta }=e^2[𝑑𝐫\nu (\alpha ,𝐫,\beta )𝑑𝐫^{}𝑑𝐫\nu (\alpha ,𝐫^{})g(𝐫^{},𝐫)\nu (𝐫,\beta )]$$
(39)
Here the first term proportional to the integrated partial density of states is the ac-response at low frequencies which we would have in the absence of interactions. The second term has the following simple interpretation: an ac-voltage applied to contact $`\beta `$ would (in the absence of interactions) lead to a charge built up at point $`𝐫`$ given by the injectivity of contact $`\beta `$. Due to interaction, this charge generates at point $`𝐫^{}`$ a variation in the local potential which then induces a current in contact $`\alpha `$ proportional to the emissivity of this point into contact $`\alpha `$. Note, that if screening is local (over a length scale of a Thomas Fermi wave length) we have $`g(𝐫^{},𝐫)=\delta (𝐫^{}𝐫)\nu ^1(𝐫)`$. In this limit the close connection between Eq. (39) and Eq. (24) is then obvious. We have to refer the reader to a review  for a more extended discussion and for references to specific applications of Eq. (39).

A closely related development which could be discussed here is a theory of quantum pumping in small systems. In quantum pumping one is interested in the current generated as two parameters (like gate voltages, magnetic flux) which modulate the system are varyed sinusoidally but out of phase. Brouwer , Avron et al. , and Polianski and Brouwer  develop a theory which is based on the slow modulation of the partial densities of states.

## X Partial Density of States Matrix

Thus far we have been interested in the charge distribution inside a mesoscopic conductor which is established in response to changes in external parameters, such as a voltage applied to the contact of the sample. Similar to the dynamic fluctuations of the current away from its average value, we can also ask about the fluctuations of the charge away from its average value. Spontaneous dynamic fluctuations of current and charge can have many sources in an electrical conductor. Here we are concerned with contributions which are fundamental in the sense that they can not be avoided. Nyquist or thermal noise can not be avoided at any elevated temperature. A second source, shot noise results from the granularity of charge (the charge quantization) and the quantum mechanical uncertainty which arises whenever there are different possible outcomes of a scattering process (such as the possibility of a particle to be either reflected or transmitted).

To describe the charge fluctuations due to carriers in the conductor , we consider the Fermi-field

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}(𝐫,t)=\underset{\alpha m}{}𝑑E\frac{\psi _{\alpha m}(𝐫,E)}{(hv_{\alpha m}(E))^{1/2}}\widehat{a}_{\alpha m}(E)exp(iEt/\mathrm{}),$$
(40)
which annihilates an electron at point $`𝐫`$ and time $`t`$. The Fermi field Eq. (40) is built up from all scattering states $`\psi _{\alpha m}(𝐫,E)`$ which have unit incident amplitude in contact $`\alpha `$ in channel $`m`$. The operator $`\widehat{a}_{\alpha m}(E)`$ annihilates an incident carrier in reservoir $`\alpha `$ in channel $`m`$. $`v_{\alpha m}`$ is the velocity in the incident channel $`m`$ in reservoir $`\alpha `$. The local carrier density at point $`𝐫`$ and time $`t`$ is determined by $`\widehat{n}(𝐫,t)=\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}(𝐫,t)\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}(𝐫,t)`$. We will investigate the density operator in the frequency domain, $`\widehat{n}(𝐫,\omega )`$. Using the Fermi-field we find,

$$\widehat{n}(𝐫,\omega )=\underset{\alpha m\beta n}{}𝑑E\frac{1}{(hv_{\alpha m}(E))^{1/2}}\frac{1}{(hv_{\beta n}(E+\mathrm{}\omega ))^{1/2}}$$

$$\psi _{\alpha m}^{}(𝐫,E)\psi _{\beta n}(𝐫,E+\mathrm{}\omega )\widehat{a}_{\alpha m}^{}(E)\widehat{a}_{\beta n}(E+\mathrm{}\omega ).$$
(41)
This equation defines a density of states matrix $`\nu _{\beta \gamma }(𝐫)`$ with elements

$`\nu _{\gamma \delta mn}(𝐫,E,E+\mathrm{}\omega )=`$ $`h^1(v_{\gamma m}(E)v_{\delta n}(E+\mathrm{}\omega ))^{1/2}`$ (43)
$`\psi _{\gamma m}^{}(𝐫,E)\psi _{\delta n}(𝐫,E+\mathrm{}\omega ).`$
If we form a vector $`𝐚_\alpha `$ with the annihilation opertors of the (incoming) channels in contact $`𝐚_\alpha `$ the local density operator in the low frequency limit can be expressed with the help of this matrix in the following way,

$`\widehat{n}(𝐫,\omega )=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta }{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑E\widehat{𝐚}_\alpha ^{}(E)\nu _{\alpha \beta }(𝐫)\widehat{𝐚}_\beta (E+\mathrm{}\omega )}.`$ (44)
It is now very convenient and instructive to consider an expression for the density operator not in terms of wave functions but more directly in terms of the scattering matrix. In the zero-frequency limit, Ref.  introduces the matrix

$$\nu _{\beta \gamma }(\alpha ,𝐫)=\frac{1}{4\pi i}[𝐬_{\alpha \beta }^{}\frac{\delta 𝐬_{\alpha \gamma }}{e\delta U(𝐫)}\frac{\delta 𝐬_{\alpha \beta }^{}}{e\delta U(𝐫)}𝐬_{\alpha \gamma }].$$
(45)
All quantities in this expression are evaluated at the Fermi energy $`E`$. The matrix elements of Eq. (43) are connected to the matrices $`\nu _{\beta \gamma }(\alpha ,𝐫)`$ (and thus to wave functions) via

$$\nu _{\gamma \delta }(𝐫)=\underset{\alpha }{}\nu _{\beta \gamma }(\alpha ,𝐫)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\underset{\alpha }{}\left(s_{\alpha \beta }^{}\frac{\delta s_{\alpha \gamma }}{e\delta U(𝐫)}\right).$$
(46)
Eq. (46) is a local Wigner-Smith life-time matrix .

Eq. (46) was given in Ref.  and a derivation of this relation with the help of an optical potential is given in detail in Ref. . The relation between scattering states and the Green’s function of the Schroedinger equation on one hand and its connection to the scattering matrix on the other hand can also be used . Recently Schomerus et al.  proposed still another way to proceed by using not the overall scattering matrix but scattering matrices for different portions of the system.

It is important to realize that in an electrical conductor charge fluctuations are not free but are screened like the average charge density. Inserting Eq. (44) into the Poisson equation with the non-local screening kernel determines a potential operator

$`\widehat{u}_{\alpha \beta }(𝐫,\omega )={\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫^{}g(𝐫,𝐫^{})\widehat{𝐚}_\alpha ^{}(E)\nu _{\alpha \beta }(𝐫^{})\widehat{𝐚}_\beta (E+\mathrm{}\omega )}.`$ (47)
In random phase approximations the potential fluctuations give rise to induced charge fluctuations. Thus the true low frequency charge fluctuations in a conductor are determined by the contribution of the bare charge fluctuations and the induced charge fluctuations. This gives rise to a charge fluctuation operator

$`\widehat{\nu }_{\alpha \beta }^{tot}(𝐫,\omega )=\widehat{\nu }_{\alpha \beta }(𝐫,\omega ){\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫^{}\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐫,𝐫^{})\widehat{𝐮}_{\alpha \beta }(𝐫^{},\omega )}.`$ (48)
Eq. (48) permits a gauge invariant dsicussion of charge fluctuations in mesoscopic conductors. Eq. (48) has been used in Ref.  to obtain the second order in frequency term of the ac-conductance (see Eq. (38)). For a capacitive structure this defines a novel resistance which determines the dissipative effects in charging and decharging a mesoscopic conductor. Pedersen and van Langen and the author  investigated the current induced into a nearby gate due to charge fluctuations in quantum point contacts and chaotic cavities. More recently, the charge fluctuations in two nearby mesoscopic conductors  was treated and the effect of quantum dephasing due to charge fluctuations was calculated within this approach . Often self-consistent effects are neglected . Charge correlations at two contacts capacitively coupled to a mesoscopic structure are investigated in Ref. .

Integration of Eq. (46) over the volume of the sample gives the global Wigner-Smith life-time matrix. In contrast to the local Wigner-Smith matrix the properties of the (global) Wigner-Smith life-time matrix have received wider attention. In recent years the focus has been on the calculation of the entire distribution function of delay times  for structures whose dynamics is in the classical limit chaotic (chaotic cavities) and of one-dimensional wires . While in many cases an analysis of the global density is quite sufficient, in disordered structures, since screening is local, it is clearly desirable to proceed from the local density and to investigate the properties of the local Wigner-Smith matrix given here.

## XI Discussion

We have discussed a hierarchy of density of states as they occur in open multiprobe mesoscopic conductors. We have illustrated that a small absorption or a small emission of particles leads naturally to the appearance of these density of states. We have shown that the transmission probabilities through weakly coupled contacts, like the STM, is related to these densities. We have shown that a weakly coupled voltage probe, describing inelastic scattering or a dephasing process can be described in terms of these densities. We have given a formulation of the Friedel sum rule which holds even when the conditions for the WKB approximation do not apply. We have also pointed out that the ac-conductance of a mesoscopic conductor at small frequencies can be formulated in terms of these densities of states. Furthermore, we have indicated that it is useful to consider also the off-diagonal elements of a partial density of states matrix since this permits a description of fluctuation processes. This consideration has led us to a local Wigner-Smith life-time matrix. We have emphasized that for many problems in electrical conductors, it is necessary to consider the effect of screening. We have treated screening in a simple one-loop random phase approximation.

The partial density of states which we have used here provide a classification with respect to the contact (and or channel) index of the scattering matrix. In problems with high spatial symmetry  we can envision also a classification with respect to the local momentum. Interest in spin transport will require spin resolved partial density of states. In hybrid normal superconducting systems  a resolution of both electron and hole density of states is conceptually useful .

The description of electrical conduction processes in terms of transmission and reflection probabilities has become very well known. The fact that we can also express densities with the help of scattering matrices makes the scattering approach applicable not only to dc-transport but to a much wider range of electrical transport phenomena.

## Acknowledgement

This paper is in honor of Professor Dr. N. Kumar on the occasion of his 60th birthday. This work was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation.


format: text

text:
# Mesoscopic molecular ions in Bose-Einstein condensates

## Abstract

We study the possible formation of large (mesoscopic) molecular ions in an ultracold degenerate bosonic gas doped with charged particles (ions). We show that the polarization potentials produced by the ionic impurities are capable of capturing hundreds of atoms into loosely bound states. We describe the spontaneous formation of these hollow molecular ions via phonon emission and suggest an optical technique for coherent stimulated transitions of free atoms into a specific bound state. These results open up new interesting possibilities for manipulating tightly confined ensembles.

PACS numbers(s): 33.90.+h, 34.10.+x, 36.40.-c, 51.90.+r

The experimental realization of Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) in atomic samples  have stimulated a new wave of theoretical and experimental studies of degenerate systems in the dilute and weakly interacting regime. A broad range of techniques from atomic physics and optics have allowed the accurate manipulation of ultracold samples of neutral atoms. In particular, various properties of degenerate gases have been explored, such as their excitation modes , superfluidity phenomena , and controlled vortex creation . Recent studies are probing ultracold atomic systems in which electric charges may play an important role . These include ultracold plasmas , ultracold Rydberg gases , as well as ionization experiments in BEC .

In this Letter, we explore theoretically the behavior of a dilute atomic Bose-Einstein condensate doped with ionic impurities. We show that the polarization interaction in a condensate can lead to the capture of large numbers of atoms into weakly bound states, resulting in the rapid formation of mesoscopically large molecular ions. We study the spontaneous dynamics of the molecular ion formation and show that the degenerate nature of the condensate, as well as the properties of collective excitations (phonons), play an important role. We further describe a coherent optical technique to prepare molecular ions in specific states. Beside the fundamental interest of studying the formation of such large many-body objects, the effects described here may open up new ways to manipulate cold atoms. In particular, the charged and tightly trapped atomic cloud represents a microtrap that could easily be manipulated and “transported” by external fields. Controlled mechanisms to manipulate tightly confined, strongly interacting atoms may also allow for new approaches for quantum information processing and for studies of other fascinating phenomena such as quantum phase transitions. Before proceeding we note an interesting analogy to early studies involving charged impurities in superfluid helium, where electron bubbles and ion “snowballs” were predicted and observed .

We consider the situation in which few ions with ultralow kinetic energy are introduced into an atomic BEC. This can be realized, e.g., by rapidly ionizing atoms from the condensate using lasers in a process where the ejected electrons carry essentially all the kinetic energy. This would leave the BEC doped with few ions, and the BEC-ion system in a non-equilibrium state. Alternatively, it could be possible to introduce charged impurities via controlled processes involving either a combination of ion and atom traps, or using surface traps on semiconductor surfaces. As a relaxation process, large numbers of atoms from the condensate can be captured into loosely bound states of the polarization potentials, rapidly forming shells of atoms around ions. Such a process occurs spontaneously through collisions of condensate atoms in which atoms are stimulated down into the molecular ion bound state, and the excess energy is carried away by the condensate collective excitations.

We are interested in the limit $`T0`$, and for simplicity, we consider a homogeneous BEC with the neutral gas being the parent atom of the doping ion . The ion will polarize a nearby atom (separated by a distance $`r`$) and the two will interact via a polarization potential behaving asymptotically as $`C_4/2r^4`$, where $`C_4`$ is the dipole polarizability of the neutral atom.

Under the conditions mentioned above, two types of scattering processes involving the ion are possible: elastic and super-elastic collisions. The energy of the colliding partners is not changed in the first type, while kinetic energy is released in the second type. Elastic scattering of an atom and an ion is often described as the contributions from two separate processes : resonant charge transfer scattering (the electron changes center after the collision), and pure elastic scattering (the electron remains with the same center). According to Wigner’s threshold laws , the rate of all elastic processes vanishes as $`T0`$. The second type of scattering process, i.e. super-elastic scattering, corresponds to an inelastic process where one condensate atom is captured by the ion and where kinetic energy is released via the emission of phonons. Here, condensate atoms are accelerated by the ionic field (see Fig. 1a), and after the collision, one of the neutral atoms is captured by the polarization potential, and the kinetic energy released is shared by the remaining free condensate atoms and the newly formed molecular ion . Inelastic collisions with excitations of BEC collective modes usually cannot be decribed by simple binary collisions, unless in the limit where the binding energy of the uppermost bound level of the molecular ion is much larger than the chemical potential of the BEC. According to Wigner’s threshold laws , the rate for super-elastic processes tends to a constant at zero temperature, and this scattering process will be dominant at $`T0`$. Contrary to the slow-down of impurities in condensates, where phonon radiation is not possible below some critical velocity (because of momentum-energy conservation ), the capture of atoms by the long range potential created by the ion corresponds to free-bound transitions, and does not suffer from this restriction: phonon emission takes place at any velocity.

We describe the evolution of the number of atoms $`N_v`$ in the bound level $`v`$ of the polarization potential by a kinetic equation (see Fig. 1a)

$$\frac{dN_v}{dt}=W_v^{\mathrm{cap}}(N_v+1)(W_v^{\mathrm{down}}+W_v^{\mathrm{up}})N_v,$$
(1)
where $`W_v^{\mathrm{cap}}`$ is the capture rate from the condensate, and $`W_v^{\mathrm{down}}`$ and $`W_v^{\mathrm{up}}`$ are the loss rates to more deeply bound states and back to the condensate, respectively. The factor $`N_v+1`$ comes from the bosonic nature of the atoms: the capture will be bose-enhanced (or stimulated), as opposed to the depletion of the level (proportional to $`N_v`$).

Let us first calculate $`W_v^{\mathrm{cap}}`$. As mentioned above, the capture rate is equal to the phonon emission rate. For Bogoliobov quasi-particles (or phonons), the emission rate of phonons with momemtum $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ and energy $`\mathrm{}\omega _\stackrel{}{q}`$ can be estimated using the Fermi Golden rule

$$w_{\mathrm{emis}.}(\stackrel{}{q})=\frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mu _c^2}{nV}\frac{\mathrm{}^2q^2}{2m}\frac{(n_\stackrel{}{q}+1)}{\mathrm{}\omega _\stackrel{}{q}}\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon \mathrm{}\omega _\stackrel{}{q})I(\stackrel{}{q}),$$
(2)
where $`V`$ is the volume occupied by the condensate, $`\mu _c=4\pi \mathrm{}^2na/m`$ its chemical potential ($`n`$, $`m`$, and $`a`$ are the density, mass, and scattering length of the condensate atoms, respectively), and $`n_\stackrel{}{q}`$ the phonon occupation number. Here, $`I(\stackrel{}{q})`$ is the square of the form factor for transitions from a continuum to a bound state. If we represent the initial condensate state by the single particle wavefunction $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0(\stackrel{}{r})`$ and the final bound state by the wavefunction $`\mathrm{\Psi }_v(\stackrel{}{r})`$, with energy difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon =\epsilon _0\epsilon _v=\mathrm{}\omega _\stackrel{}{q}`$, then

$$I(\stackrel{}{q})=N\left|d^3r\mathrm{\Psi }_v^{}(\stackrel{}{r})e^{i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{r}}\mathrm{\Psi }_0(\stackrel{}{r})\right|^2,$$
(3)
where $`N=nV`$ is the number of atoms in the condensate.

At zero-temperature in an infinite homogeneous system, we set $`\epsilon _0=0`$ ($`\stackrel{}{k}=0`$), and we have

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_0(\stackrel{}{r})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{V}}\text{and}\mathrm{\Psi }_v(\stackrel{}{r})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi a_v}}\frac{e^{r/a_v}}{r},$$
(4)
where the binding energy of the final bound state is related to the extent of the $`s`$-wavefunction $`\mathrm{\Psi }_v(\stackrel{}{r})`$ via $`\epsilon _v=\mathrm{}^2/2\mu a_v^2`$, with $`\mu `$ being the system reduced mass. Note that we have $`\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon =\mathrm{}^2/2\mu a_v^2`$. In an isotropic Bose gas, $`I(\stackrel{}{q})`$ depends only on the magnitude of $`\stackrel{}{q}`$, and with Eq.(4), $`I(\stackrel{}{q})=8\pi a_v^3n/(1+q^2a_v^2)^2`$.

The capture rate is obtained by integrating over all possible phonon states, i.e. $`d^3qw_{\mathrm{emis}.}(\stackrel{}{q})V/(2\pi )^3`$, and

$`W_v^{\mathrm{cap}}=4{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _c}{\mathrm{}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\mu }}}{\displaystyle \frac{a}{a_v}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\sqrt{1+\xi ^2}\xi )^{3/2}}{\sqrt{1+\xi ^2}}}(n_{q_0}+1)I(q_0),`$ (5)
where $`\mathrm{}\omega _{q_0}=\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon `$, and $`\xi =\mu _c/\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon =8\pi na_v^2a\mu /m`$. For Bogoliobov phonons, $`\mathrm{}\omega _q=\mathrm{}qs\sqrt{1+(\mathrm{}q/2ms)^2}`$, and we can express $`q_0`$ as

$$q_0^2a_v^2\frac{\mu }{m}=\sqrt{1+\xi ^2}\xi ,$$
(6)
where the sound velocity $`s`$ is related to the chemical potential by $`\mu _c=ms^2`$, and $`W_v^{\mathrm{cap}}`$ becomes

$`W_v^{\mathrm{cap}}`$ $`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _c}{\mathrm{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{\mu }}\right)^{3/2}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi (\sqrt{1+\xi ^2}\xi )^{3/2}}{\sqrt{1+\xi ^2}}}`$ (8)
$`\times \left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\mu }}\left(\sqrt{1+\xi ^2}\xi \right)\right]^2(n_{q_0}+1).`$
For infinitly massive ions, we have $`m/\mu =1`$ . Note that the two limiting values of $`\xi `$ correspond to two different physical conditions: $`\xi \mathrm{}`$ implies $`q_00`$, i.e. a phonon-like regime, and $`\xi 0`$ implies dilute conditions with a binary collision regime. In Fig. 2, we illustrate $`W_v^{\mathrm{cap}}`$ as a function of $`\xi `$, and show its behavior for the asymptotic regimes: $`W_v^{\mathrm{cap}}n^2a_v^2a^2`$ for small $`\xi `$, and $`W_v^{\mathrm{cap}}1/a_v^3\sqrt{na}`$ for large $`\xi `$. The binary regime $`(\xi 1)`$ is proportional to $`n^2`$ as expected. The $`n^{1/2}`$ dependence for $`\xi 1`$ clearly indicates the dominant contribution of phonon assisted transitions . The increase in sound velocity $`s\sqrt{n}`$ with the condensate density $`n`$ reduces the rate of phonon emission (and $`W_v^{\mathrm{cap}}`$) .

As an example, we consider a sodium ion (Na+) in a condensate of sodium atoms at $`T=0`$, with $`n10^{14}`$ cm-3 and $`a=52`$ $`a_0`$  ($`a_0`$: bohr radius). For the uppermost bound state of the polarization potential, $`a_v`$ is well approximated by the atom-ion scattering length $`a_i2000`$ $`a_0`$ , and assuming $`m/\mu 1`$ , we obtain $`\xi 0.066`$, and neglecting $`n_{q_0}`$, $`W_v^{\mathrm{cap}}600`$ s-1 (see Fig. 2). Under these conditions, roughly 600 atoms will be captured by the ion, and another 600 will be emitted as phonons (excited out of the condensate) per second. In view of typical condensate lifetimes, this represents a sizable transfer mechanism that should be observable.

By comparison, the capture rate into more deeply bound states will be much smaller. E.g., using the approach of LeRoy and Bernstein , we find for the second uppermost level of the pure polarization potential

$$a_{v1}^2=\frac{a_v^2}{1+(2\mu a_v^2/\mathrm{}^2)^{1/4}K_4}$$
(9)
where $`K_4=4\sqrt{2\pi \mathrm{}^2/\mu }\mathrm{\Gamma }(5/4)/[\mathrm{\Gamma }(3/4)C_4^{1/4}]`$. Because $`a_{v1}<a_va_i`$, the capture rate will be accompanied by atom-like excitations with $`W_v^{\mathrm{cap}}a_v^2`$, and

$$\frac{W_v^{\mathrm{cap}}}{W_{v1}^{\mathrm{cap}}}\frac{a_v^2}{a_{v1}^2}1+\left(\frac{2\mu a_v^2}{\mathrm{}^2}\right)^{1/4}K_4.$$
(10)
For Na, $`C_4=162.7`$ a.u. , and assuming $`m/\mu 1`$, we find that $`W_v^{\mathrm{cap}}`$ is about ten times larger for the uppermost level than $`W_{v1}^{\mathrm{cap}}`$ for the second uppermost level. The ratio is even larger for deeper levels: spontaneous capture is important mostly in the uppermost level.

Let us now examine the escape rates out of the bound states $`v`$, $`W_v^{\mathrm{up}}`$ and $`W_v^{\mathrm{down}}`$. Since only the capture in the uppermost level is relevant, we consider only this level. At very low temperatures, $`k_BT\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon `$, and there are no thermal phonons with sufficient energy to promote bound atoms to the free condensate state, and non-equilibrium phonons emitted from the capture process are moving far away from the location of the ion and can be neglected. Hence, because of energy conservation, transitions from bound levels to the continuum (into the condensate) are not allowed, and $`W_v^{\mathrm{up}}0`$. The collision of atoms within the upper bound level (or condensate atoms with the trapped ones) may result in the decay of the upper level to a lower level. The rate of this process ($`W_v^{\mathrm{down}}`$) is inversely proportional to the binding energy of the deeper level: $`W_v^{\mathrm{cap}}/W_v^{\mathrm{down}}a_v^2/a_{v1}^2`$. Hence, $`W_v^{\mathrm{down}}`$ is of the same order as $`W_{v1}^{\mathrm{cap}}`$, and is at least one order of magnitude smaller than $`W_v^{\mathrm{cap}}`$.

As the number of trapped atoms $`N_v`$ within the uppermost bound level $`v`$ increases, the atom-atom repulsive meanfield energy  will grow, and will eventually “push” the energy level up. Using a simple treatment based of the Gross-Pitaevskii equation, one can show that the binding energy of the uppermost level $`v`$, for $`N_v1`$, is approximately given by $`\epsilon _v(N_v)(ma_v/6\mu aN_v)^{2/3}\epsilon _v`$. Although the number of atoms trapped in the level $`v`$ would apparently grow to extremely large numbers (since the decay rates out of it are much smaller), other effects, such as charge hopping  or thermal fluctuations, will limit that maximum number. The most important one is related to thermal fluctuations. If their energy ($`k_BT`$) is equal to $`|\epsilon _v(N_v)|`$, thermal equilibrium is reached, and as many atoms get kicked out of the level as there are being captured. In other words, $`W_v^{\mathrm{up}}`$ will be equal to $`W_v^{\mathrm{cap}}`$. At that point, $`N_v^{\mathrm{max}}`$ can be found from $`\epsilon _v(N_v^{\mathrm{max}})k_BT`$, and $`\xi `$ will have reached its maximal value $`\xi \mu _c/k_BT`$. For a BEC of Na atoms with $`a_vR_c2000a_0`$ and $`T`$ 100 nK, we get $`N_v^{\mathrm{max}}600`$. In Fig. 2, we illustrate the trajectory of the system as a function of $`\xi `$ for various initial values of $`a_v`$, for both sodium and rubidium condensates. In all cases, as $`\xi `$ grows from its initial to its final equilibrium value, the capture rate $`W_v^{\mathrm{cap}}`$ passes through a maximum before reaching its final value: then the rates “in” and “out” of the uppermost level are equal, and the system has reached thermal equilibrium.

Lasers can also be used to control coherent stimulated transitions of free condensate atoms into a specific bound state $`v`$ of the molecular ion. Two off-resonant laser fields with a frequency difference matching the transition energy into a specific bound state $`v`$ cause a stimulated two-photon transition from the condensate into the bound state of molecular ion (see Fig. 1b). We assume that two laser beams are co-propagating, hence negligible momentum is transfered to the atoms by the lasers. In the limit of sufficiently slow excitation, the atom-laser field interaction is described by $`H_{\mathrm{int}}=\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }d^3r\mathrm{\Psi }_v(\stackrel{}{r})^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_0(\stackrel{}{r})\widehat{b}_v^{}\widehat{b}_0+h.c.,`$ where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the Rabi-frequency of the two-photon transition proportional to the laser intensity, and $`\widehat{b}_0,\widehat{b}_v`$ are bose annihilation operators for the condensate and bound atoms, respectively. The resulting dynamics corresponds approximately to that of a two-component condensate with effective coupling. The number of atoms stimulated into the bound state can be estimated by solving the equations of motion for $`\widehat{b}_0,\widehat{b}_v`$. For a sufficently short interaction time $`\tau `$, assuming an undepleted condensate $`\widehat{b}_0^{}\widehat{b}_0=N`$, and neglecting spontaneous relaxation, we obtain for $`N_v=\widehat{b}_v^{}\widehat{b}_v`$

$$N_v(\tau )|\mathrm{\Omega }|^2\tau ^2I_v(0)=8\pi a_v^3|\mathrm{\Omega }|^2\tau ^2N/V.$$
(11)
The rate of stimulation $`W_v^{\mathrm{st}}`$ is therefore proportional to the laser power with a characteristic frequency scale given by $`W_v^{\mathrm{st}}(\mathrm{\Omega }\sqrt{a_v^3N/V})`$, which can be easily made larger than spontaneous capture rate $`W_v^{\mathrm{cap}}`$.

In practice, very fast excitation by lasers might result in heating of the condensate. The heating rate $`W_v^{\mathrm{heat}}`$ is given by the transition probability from the bound state into continuum (Fig. 1c). This rate is also proportional to the laser power and can be estimated using Fermi’s Golden rule. Taking $`1/W_v^{\mathrm{st}}`$ as a characteristic transition time, we find that heating is negligible in dilute condensate ($`Na^3/V1`$): $`W_v^{\mathrm{heat}}W_v^{\mathrm{st}}`$ provided that

$$W_v^{\mathrm{st}}\mathrm{}/m(N/V)^{2/3}.$$
(12)
For realistic parameters, such as those of a sodium condensate used above, the stimulated rate $`W_v^{\mathrm{st}}`$ can be in the range of 100KHz - 1 MHz without substantial heating of the condensate. For weakly bound states, such rates are achievable with modest laser powers used, e.g., in Bragg spectroscopy experiments . It is important to note that as the number of bound atoms increases, atom-atom interaction can shift the bound state energy out of resonance, thereby inhibiting coherent transitions. This is directly analogous to the recently proposed “dipole blocade” in Rydberg atoms , and can be potentially used for non-trivial manipulation of quantum states in a BEC.

In conclusion, we predicted the possiblity of forming large molecular ions in a BEC, analyzed the dynamics of their spontaneous growth and proposed a technique for their fast and coherent generation in specific states. Such mesoscopic molecular ions could be observed, e.g., in experiments involving weak ionization of BECs. Of further interest are experiments in which charged impurities are introduced via controlled processes involving either a combination of ion and atom traps, or using surface microtraps. The present work suggests that in such situations, ionic impurities can be used as a new tool for the accurate manipulation of condensates, including their quantum state. Finally we note that one could manipulate, using external electric and magnetic fields, the position of the atomic cloud trapped around a charged particle.

The work of R.C. was supported by the National Science Foundation through the Grant PHY-9970757. The work of V.K. and M.L. was supported by National Science Foundation through ITAMP. This work was also partially supported by MIT-Harvard Center for Ultracold Atoms.


text:
# Propeller vs. Magnetar Concepts for SGR/AXPs

## 1. Magnetar & Fallback Accretion Disk Concepts

Magnetars, defined to be neutron stars possessing dipole magnetic fields in excess of the quantum critical value of 4.4$`\times `$1013 Gauss, constitute a proposed class distinct from radio and x-ray pulsars, in which magnetic energy, rather than rotational energy, plays the dominant role in powering emissions. The strong magnetic dipole radiation (MDR) would spin-down magnetars quite rapidly leaving them with spin periods of a few seconds after $``$103 years. Repetitive soft gamma-ray bursts are interpreted as due to crust cracking events in the neutron star surface, whereas the super busts seen from SGR0525-66 and SGR1900+14 would result from sudden large-scale magnetic reconnection. Problems replicating the estimated ages of SGR/AXPs in this model have led to modeling extra sources of torque on the system, but with the magnetic energy remaining as the dominant power source (Kouveliotou et al. 1999).

Alternatively, the rapid spindown rates, young ages inferred from the SNR ages, long spin periods clustered around 5-10 s, and $``$ 1035 erg/s x-ray luminosities for SGR/AXPs can all be explained by models involving the propeller effect on inflowing material as the dominant spindown torque. This material comes from a small accretion disk formed around the neutron star very early in its life. Such a disk can form in several ways: from the inner most ejecta material falling back within a few hours of the initial supernova explosion (Michel 1988; Chatterjee et al 2000); from the reversal of slower-moving inner ejecta by the Sedov phase reverse shock relatively soon after the blast wave hits the progenitor winds (Truelove & McKee 1999); or from high velocity neutron stars capturing comoving ejecta (van Paradijs et al. 1995). Only a very small fraction of the ejecta is needed to form a fossil disk of 10$`{}_{}{}^{6}M_{}^{}`$ which is all that is required to explain the spindown of SGR/AXPs via the propeller mechanism. In this model, the exceedingly rapid spindown causes crust cracking and subduction to provide both the energy and mechanism for the very energetic bursts.

## 2. Observational Constraints

Observations of SGRs and AXPs have revealed many of the characteristics of these objects that must be explained by a successful theory (Rothschild, Marsden & Lingenfelter 2002). Additionally, the theory must predict or be consistent with ideas of the histories of such objects, such as conditions surrounding their birth and their galactic inventory. Table 1 gives a list of constraints and whether or not they are explained by either of the two concepts for SGR/AXPs. We discuss each of these constraints below.

A basic property of AXP/SGRs is their narrow range of spin periods from 5 to 10 s. Such a clustering is a natural result of the equilibrium period reached by the propeller effect in low luminosity accretion disks around neutron stars with the pulsar distribution of magnetic fields, but is not consistent with the magnetars, which should show a much wider range of values, even with field decay.

Another basic property of the AXP/SGRs is their measured spin-down rates and periods, which give MDR spin-down ages ($`P/2\dot{P}`$) expected in the magnetar model that are much shorter and not consistent with the ages of the associated supernova remnants. Therefore, another source of torque on the neutron star must be present in the magnetar model. Addition of propeller driven spin-down can give ages that are quite consistent with the associated supernova remnants. The original magnetar model has been modified to include a torque component from a relativistic wind in order to correct age predictions. But such a wind must have nearly a 100% efficiency for x-ray production, to be consistent with the quiescent flux and still require super-critical magnetic fields. Rothschild, Marsden & Lingenfelter (2000) have shown that an x-ray production efficiency of a few percent or less for the wind implies sub-critical fields consistent with typical pulsar values. The measured $`P`$s and $`\dot{P}`$s of the SGRs together with their ages also give braking indices which are significantly different than the value of 3, predicted for MDR alone, but are quit consistent with that expected from propeller driven spin-down.

The timing noise in AXP/SGRs is much larger than that found in radio pulsars from MDR, although additional mechanisms have been proposed by Thompson et al. (2000) that might account for such noise for magnetars. The timing noise is comparable to that seen in accreting binary x-ray pulsars (Woods et al. 2000), as would also be expected from variable accretion in the propeller model.

Most, if not all, of the AXP/SGRs are associated with known supernova remnants to a high degree of statistical significance (Marsden et al. 2001; see Gaensler et al. 2001 for a contrary opinion). One can use these SNRs to probe the density of the environment in which the AXP/SGRs were born. While 80-90% of neutron star-producing core-collapse SNae occur in the hot tenuous medium of superbubbles, the SNae associated with AXPs and SGRs show the opposite tendency, i.e., $`>`$80% occur in the denser ISM. Such higher densities will confine the massive progenitor winds much closer to the star and these will decelerate the blast wave much more rapidly and initiate the reverse shock in the remnant (Truelove & McKee 1999). This can create the fallback disks to spin-down the neutron star to the narrow, 5-10 s period range. Thus, the fallback disk accretion model naturally explains high ISM density at the birth sites. Nothing in the magnetar model requires, or explains why the ambient density need be any different than that for neutron stars in general.

The dense ISM accretion models predict that a dozen AXP/SGRs have been formed in the last 20 kyrs, assuming 20% as the fraction of new neutron stars born in dense ISM, 10% for the fraction of massive, rapidly evolving progenitors that experience mass loss sufficient to form a pushback disk in dense ISM environments (Marsden et al. 2001), and a SNae rate of 1/40 yr-1 over the last 20 kyr. Thus, the fallback disk scenario can successfully predict the numbers seen. The magnetar model provides no such estimate.

High sensitivity optical observations of particular SGR/AXPs have set strong limits on the size of accretion disks assuming the standard disk model (e.g. Kaplan et al. 2001; Hulleman et al. 2000). However, Menou et al. (2001) have modeled the dusty, metal-rich disks expected from supernova fallback and they find that these upper limits are consistent with such disks. Observations in the infrared are required to test for the presence of such disks that will cool by very different means than the standard hydrogen/helium alpha disks.

The total energy of SGR bursts amount to about 1044 ergs for the rare super bursts and about 1041 ergs for the weaker more frequent bursts. In the propeller model, it is proposed that the rapid spin down of the star creates dynamical stresses within the crust to produce frequent crustal quakes that provide the energy for the weaker bursts, while rarer, much stronger quakes from compressive phase changes in subducted crust can provide the energy for the super bursts. Vibrations excited by these quakes will be transmitted into magnetospheric Alvèn waves which accelerate particles, producing the x-ray/gamma-ray emission. In the magnetar model, it is proposed that the weaker frequent bursts are also caused by quakes, but ones resulting from crustal cracking produced by magnetar fields. The rarer super bursts come from magnetic reconnection.

The short durations, typically about 0.2 s, of most of the weaker bursts, as well as the impulsive phase of the super bursts, have been attributed to either the gravitational radiation damping time of neutron star vibrations (Ramaty, Bussard & Lingenfelter 1980) which provide an extended energy source in sub-critical field models, or the storage time for energy in the neutron star crust (Blaes et al. 1989) for a much briefer energy input in the magnetar model. Assuming nearly instantaneous injection of all of the super burst energy into a pair plasma in the magnetar model, a superstrong magnetic field would be required in order to contain that energy. In subcritical field models, where the both the spectral hardness and luminosity of super bursts can be explained (Ramaty et al. 1981; Lindblom & Detweiler 1983) by synchrotron emission in $`10^{12}`$ G fields, most of the energy is stored in the neutron star vibrational modes so that the energy in the radiating pair plasma can easily be confined by the $`10^{12}`$ G field.

The spin-down rate of SGR 1900+14 measured after the super burst on August 27, 2000, increased by a factor of 2 over that prior to the burst. Such an increase would imply an increase in magnetic field energy in a magnetar, which is just the opposite of what would be expected if the burst were powered by magnetic reconnection which should reduce the field. For the propeller model, assuming a “standard” hydrogen disk, Thompson et al. (2000) suggested that the burst would have disrupted the inner portions of an accretion disk, reducing spin-down. But a thin, high metallicity fallback disk could easily survive the burst, because the total energy deposited in the disk would be much less than its gravitational binding energy, and heating of the inner edge of the disk can temporarily increase the propeller torques, as is observed.

## 3. Conclusions

The success of the accretion models is that they require only the well-studied properties of neutron stars and supernovae, and they can be applied beyond AXP/SGRs to clarify contradictions in interpretations of other neutron stars. These models predict the non-bursting attributes — luminosity, spin period, spin-down rate — as well as the low number seen in the Galaxy. Spin-down driven quakes can also power both the repetitive bursting and the super bursts, and the durations of these bursts are consistent with postquake vibrational damping times. Direct observations of the disks, however, are needed to establish their existence.

The magnetar model with relativistic winds can also explain both the persistent and bursting x- and gamma-ray emission from SGRs, and the spin-down of both the SGRs and AXPs, if the wind x-ray emission efficiency is near 100%. The magnetar model, however, does not explain the clustering of spin periods observed in these sources, even with magnetic field decay. Theoretical arguments suggest that magnetic fields can exist far above the critical field, but observational evidence from all of the radio pulsars, whose implied fields from $`P`$ and $`\dot{P}`$ span over 5 orders of magnitude, show a clear cutoff just short of the critical field.

## References

Alpar, M. 2001, ApJ, 554, 1245

Blaes, O. et al. 1989, ApJ, 343, 839

Chatterjee, P., Hernquist, L. & Narayan, R. 2000, ApJ, 534, 37

Duncan, R. & Thompson, C. 1992, ApJ, 392, L9

Gaensler, B.M., Slane, P.O., Gotthelf, E.V. & Vasisht, G. 2001, ApJ, 559, 963

Hulleman, F. et al. 2000, A&A, 358, 605

Kaplan, D. et al. 2001, ApJ, 556, 399

Kouvelioutou, C. et al. 1999, ApJ, 510, L115

Lindblom, L. & Detweiler, S. 1983, ApJS, 53, 73

Marsden, D., Rothschild, R.E., Lingenfelter, R.E. & Higdon, J.H. 2001, ApJ, 550, 397

Marsden, D., Rothschild, R.E. & Lingenfelter, R.E. 2000, ApJ, 520, L107

Menou, K., Perna, R. & Hernquist, L. 2001, ApJ, 559, 1032

Michel, F.C. 1988, Nature, 333, 644

Ramaty, R. Bussard, R. & Lingenfelter, R.E. 1981, Ap&SS, 75, 193

Ramaty, R. et al. 1980, Nature, 287, 122

Rothschild, R.E., Marsden, D. & Lingenfelter, R.E. 2000, in Gamma-Ray Bursts: 5th Huntsville Symposium, ed. R.M. Kippen, R.S. Mallozzi & G.J. Fishman (Melville: AIP), 526, 842

Rothschild, R.E., Marsden, D. & Lingenfelter, R.E. 2002, in SGRs: The Rome 2000 Mini-Workshop, ed. M. Feroci, & S. Mereghetti, Mem. S. A. It., in press

Thompson, C, & Duncan, R. 1995, MNRAS, 275, 255

Thompson, C. et al. 2000, ApJ, 543, 320

Truelove, J. & McKee, C. 1999, apjs, 120, 299

van Paradijs, J., Taam, R. & van den Heuvel, E. 1995, A&A, 299, L41

Woods, P. et al. 2000, ApJ, 535, L55


text:
# The high-field magnetic white dwarf LP790-29: not a fast rotator Based on observations collected at the European Southern Observatory, Chile, under programme ID 64.H–0311.

## 1 Introduction

The large majority of white dwarfs are slow rotators with equatorial velocities $`v_{\mathrm{rot}}`$ sin i $`<\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}15}`$ km s-1 and rotational periods $`P_{\mathrm{rot}}`$$`1`$ hr (Heber et al. 1997, Koester et al. 1998). Much slower rotation is not detectable in non-magnetic white dwarfs, but easily measureable in magnetic ones by polarimetric monitoring (Schmidt & Norsworthy 1991, Berdyugin & Piirola 1999).

Among the magnetic white dwarfs, there is a surprising dichotomy in the distribution of $`P_{\mathrm{rot}}`$ for magnetic white dwarfs with all stars having either $`P_{\mathrm{rot}}`$$`<\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}20}`$ d or $`P_{\mathrm{rot}}`$$`>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}100}`$ yrs (Schmidt & Norsworthy 1991). Some magnetic white dwarfs rotate surprisingly fast while others are apparently extremely slow. Among the fast ones are the DA white dwarf RE0317-853 with $`B500`$ MG, $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$$`\mathrm{40\hspace{0.17em}000}`$ K, and $`P_{\mathrm{rot}}`$ = 12 min (Barstow et al. 1995, Ferrario et al. 1997, Burleigh et al. 1999), the DA star PG1015+014 with $`B120`$ MG, $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$$`\mathrm{14\hspace{0.17em}000}`$ K, and $`P_{\mathrm{rot}}`$ = 99 min (Wickramasinge & Cropper 1988, Schmidt and Norsworthy 1991), and the DAB white dwarf Feige 7 with $`B35`$ MG, $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$$`\mathrm{20\hspace{0.17em}000}`$ K, $`P_{\mathrm{rot}}`$ = 2.2 hr (Liebert et al. 1977, Achilleos et al. 1992). Five systems seem to be very slow rotators with $`P_{\mathrm{rot}}`$$`>100`$ yr (Schmidt & Norsworthy 1991), among them the proven systems, GD229, G240-72 (Berdyugin & Piirola 1999), and Grw+$`70^{}8247`$ (Friedrich & Jordan 2001), as well as a suspected one, LP790-29 (Liebert et al. 1978).

Slow rotation may be caused by coupling of angular momentum into the giant envelope of the progenitor star or the interstellar medium during later stages (Schmidt & Norsworthy 1991). Fast rotation may be achieved in a double degenerate which ends as a merger (e.g. Segretain et al. 1997) or in a magnetic cataclysmic variable which loses synchronism (Meyer & Meyer-Hofmeister 1999). If the donor in a mass-transfer binary is nearly substellar and hydrogen rich (short-period AM Herculis binary), the white dwarf is expected to be of spectral type DA which is not the case for LP790-29. Cataclysmic variables with a (partially) degenerate low-mass donor (AM CVn binaries) transfer helium or carbon and typically end as CO white dwarfs, possibly with a substellar companion (Iben & Tutukov 1991). The hot white dwarf RE0317-853 has been suggested to be the result of a merger (Barstow et al. 1995, Ferrario et al. 1997) or a mass-transfer binary (Meyer & Meyer-Hofmeister 1999). The former appears more likely because the primary in RE0317-853 is hot with $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$$`\mathrm{40\hspace{0.17em}000}`$ K and all white dwarfs in short-period cataclysmic variables are cool with $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$$`\mathrm{9\hspace{0.17em}000}\mathrm{15\hspace{0.17em}000}`$ K (Gänsicke 2000). Although definite conclusions in any individual case may be problematic, the detection of rapid rotation of magnetic white dwarfs would clearly help to elucidate their evolutionary history. It also helps to understand the physical processes by which angular momentum is coupled into the environment of the star (Schmidt & Norsworthy 1991) and may help to define sources of gravitational wave radiation (Heyl 2000).

LP 790-29 = LHS 2293 was discovered by Liebert et al. (1978) and found to be a highly circularly polarized cool white dwarf which shows the Zeeman shifted C2 Swan bands. It has Stokes $`V+8`$% and +9% at wavelengths shortward of 4300 Å and longward of 5500Å, respectively, (Liebert et al. 1978, West 1989) which decreases to nil inbetween and to 2% in the J–band. Bues (1999) refined its temperature to $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$$`7800`$ K. The field strength was originally quoted as $`B200`$ MG (Liebert et al. 1978, Schmidt & Smith 1995), while Bues used 50 MG in her spectral fitting, and Wickramasinghe & Ferrario (2000) quoted an uncertain 100 MG. LP 790-29 is also linearly polarized at the level of $`1`$ % (West 1989). Polarimetric observations (Liebert et al. 1978, Robert & Moffat 1989, West 1989) have shown that the level of circular polarization has stayed constant over 10 years, excluding rotation periods in the range of $``$20 min $`P_{\mathrm{rot}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}100}`$ yrs (Schmidt & Norsworthy 1991). In a non-axisymmetric field geometry, the circular polarization will depend on rotation phase and a short rotation period should be readily detectable in time series of the circular polarization, provided the magnetic axis is inclined for more than a few degrees against the rotational axis and the latter does not point directly at the observer. In this communication, we report results of a search for rapid rotation in LP 790-29, using photometric and polarimetric data taken in the Bessell $`R`$band. Given the observed spectral dependence of Stokes $`V`$ (Liebert et al. 1978, Schmidt et al. 1995), the $`R`$band provides the best polarimetric signal of the standard photometric bands.

## 2 Observations and Results

We observed LP 790-29 on February 4, 2000, with the ESO 3.6m telescope equipped with the focal-reducer spectrograph and camera, EFOSC2, and a user-supplied superachromatic quarter-wave plate which was produced by Halle/Berlin and is of the same type as used in the ESO VLT FORS1 spectrograph. Flux and circular polarization were measured in the photometric Bessell R-band with a time resolution of $``$30–40 sec for a total of 1.5 h. Pairs of images with the retarder-plate position angle alternating between $`45\mathrm{°}`$ and $`+45\mathrm{°}`$ were taken with exposure times of 2 s, 3 s, 5 s, and 10 s chosen in random order. The dead time between two exposures was 28–32 sec due to readout and instrument-setup times. Reading out single exposures guaranteed the best possible $`S/N`$ ratio for Stokes $`V_\mathrm{R}`$. The $`R`$band was chosen because of the higher level of circular polarization compared with that at the shorter wavelengths (Liebert et al. 1978). The measured values of $`V_\mathrm{R}`$ have been corrected for instrumental biases and linear-polarization cross-talk, $`1.3\pm 0.3`$%, which was determined to the first order from each pair of observations. The error in $`V_\mathrm{R}`$ is dominated by this systematic uncertainty, its statistical error is $`<0.1`$ %.

Figure 1 shows the resulting time series. The $`R`$band magnitude was measured against two comparison stars with similar brightness, USNO 0675\_11099946 and USNO 0675\_11100282, located 14 arcsec SW and 34 arcsec NE of LP 790-29. In order to search for periodicities, we computed the Analysis of Variance statistics implemented in the European Southern Observatory Munich Image Data Analysis System (MIDAS) software package (Schwarzenberg-Czerny 1989) for periods between the Nyquist limit of $`P_{\mathrm{rot}}`$ = 4 sec and a maximum period $`P_{\mathrm{rot}}`$ = 1.5 h (Figure 2). The expected value of this statistic for pure noise is $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{AoV}}=1`$. The critical value of the Fisher-Snedecor distribution for a 3-$`\sigma `$ detection of a periodic signal in the data is $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{cr}}=2.96`$ for 9 and 140 degrees of freedom in the numerator and the denominator, respectively. The lack of a slope or curvature in the data excludes periods up to $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}`$ h.

In order to estimate the upper limit on the amplitude of any periodicity in the range of 4 sec to 1.5 hour, we added artificial sinusoidal signals with various periods to the data and repeated the periodogram analysis. Amplitudes in excess of $`\mathrm{\Delta }R=`$ 0.006–0.009 mag and $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_\mathrm{R}=`$ 0.5–0.7 % can be excluded, with the lowest sensitivity corresponding to periods close to the local maxima of the spectral window function. Hence, we find that any coherent periodicity present must have a fractional modulation of Stokes $`V_\mathrm{R}<0.7`$%.

No significant photometric or polarimetric variability was detected. The periodogram in Fig. 2 is divided into two sections of which the left-hand one covers the more relevant longer periods that might be expected for a merger. The right-hand panel demonstrates that no periodicity is found down to $`P_{\mathrm{rot}}`$ = 4 sec, the break-up period of a 1.2 $`M_{}`$ white dwarf. For 6.950 trial periods each, in the photometric and in the polarimetric data, only a few frequency bins reach a significance above $`3\sigma `$, entirely consistent with expectation for the detection of spurious lines in a wide frequency band. Folding of the data on the frequencies with $`3\sigma `$ significance uncorrected for bandwidth demonstrates that none yields a sinusoidal modulation with an amplitude exceeding either 0.004 mag in $`I_\mathrm{R}`$ or 0.4% in $`V_\mathrm{R}`$. Since the addition of an artificial sinusoidal signal to the data produces a peak in the periodogram with FWHM $``$ 3 pixels, the number of independent trial periods within the total bandwith is reduced to $`2.300`$. Corrected for the bandwith, the Fisher-Snedecor critical value for a 3-$`\sigma `$ detection of a periodic signal in the data then is $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{cr}}=4.39`$. We conclude that there is no evidence for periodic variation in both the photometric and the polarimetric variation.

The mean of our $`R`$band circular polarization values is $`V_\mathrm{R}=9.1\pm 0.3`$%. We summarize this and other published polarization measurements in the red part of the spectrum (quasi R–bands) in Tab. 1. The spectropolarimetric observations of Liebert et al. (1978) and Schmidt et al. (1995) have been averaged over pass bands as close as possible to the Kron-Cousins $`R`$-band. Since the circular polarization falls off from a maximum at 5750 Å towards longer wavelengths (Schmidt et al. 1995, their Fig. 2), the values quoted in Table 1 are not strictly comparable. We have tried to account for this uncertainty in assigning the errors. The quoted circular polarizations are consistent with each other, except for the low value measured from the polarization spectrum of Schmidt et al. (1995). Taken at face value, the data in Table 1 suggest that there is a variation over the time span of 23 years with a period of this order. The sparcity of the data calls, however, for more extensive polarimetric monitoring with a single instrument, either broad band polarimetry or preferably spectropolarimetry as described by Jordan & Friedrich (2001)

## 3 Discussion and Conclusion

We have performed a sensitive search for short periodicities in the $`R`$-band flux and circular polarization of the highly magnetic white dwarf LP790-29 which was previously thought to have a rotational period $`P_{\mathrm{rot}}`$ $`>100`$ yrs (Schmidt & Norsworthy 1991). We undertook this search because the sparse data available so far may have prevented the discovery of short periods.

Rapid rotation would be the signature of a white dwarf spun up in a cataclysmic variable of the AM Herculis type (Meyer & Meyer-Hofmeister (1999), of the AM Canes Venaticorum type (Iben & Tutukov 1991), or in a double degenerate merger (e.g. Segretain et al. 1997, Ferrario et al. 1997). A merger may rotate at the disruption limit. Segretain et al. argued, however, that the merger loses 90% of the initial angular momentum by a strong wind, yielding an initial rotational period $`P_{\mathrm{rot}}`$$`1`$ min. At an effective temperature of about 8000 K (Liebert et al. 1978, Bues 1999) the cooling age of LP 790-29 is $`t_{\mathrm{cool}}2\times 10^9`$ yrs (Anselowitz et al. 1999), but may be shorter if it originated from the merger of a cool white dwarf with its companion (Segretain et al. 1997). Hence, even a cool white dwarf might still be a fast rotator, although over the time the original rotational velocity may have been reduced by magnetic braking.

Our principal result is the absence of variability in LP 790-29 with periods between 4 sec and about 3 hours and amplitudes $`\mathrm{\Delta }R>0.009`$ mag and $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_\mathrm{R}>0.7`$ %. This includes the absence of photometric variability of the type one might expect in a short period binary. Hence, there is no positive evidence for fast rotation and no evidence for any of the above scenarios.

The only remaining possibilities which could mask rapid rotation in LP 790-29 are (i) the almost perfect alignment of the rotational and magnetic axes of an azimuthally symmetric field or (ii) a rotational axis oriented directly towards the observer, leading to rotational variability below our detection limit of the circular polarization.

Previous circular polarimetry excludes periods longer than $`P_{\mathrm{rot}}`$ $`1`$ h, although the limit $`P_{\mathrm{rot}}`$ $`>100`$ yrs set by West (1989) and Schmidt & Norsworthy (1991) may be premature in view of the low level of the 1994 circular polarization by Schmidt et al. (1995). Nevertheless, these results suggest that LP 790-29 is, in fact, an exceedingly slow rotator. It seems worthwhile to follow up the possibility of a period of about a quarter of a century (see also the paper by Jordan & Friedrich 2001) by monitoring the level of circular polarization.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Stefan Jordan, Boris T. Gänsicke, Frederic V. Hessman for valuable comments on the manuscript. This work was supported in part by BMBF/DLR grant 50 OR 9903 6.