text:
# Thermally-Activated Magnetic Reversal Induced by a Spin-Polarized Current

## Abstract

We have measured the statistical properties of magnetic reversal in nanomagnets driven by a spin-polarized current. Like reversal induced by a magnetic field, spin-transfer-driven reversal near room temperature exhibits the properties of thermally-activated escape over an effective barrier. However, the spin-transfer effect produces qualitatively different behaviors than an applied magnetic field. We discuss an effective current vs. field phase diagram. If the current and field are tuned so that their effects oppose one another, the magnet can be driven superparamagnetic.

A spin-polarized current traversing a magnetic multilayer can, through exchange interactions, alter the orientation of ferromagnetic moments, producing domain reversal or exciting spin waves. Following early predictions , these spin-transfer effects have been observed  and they are generating interest as an alternative to the use of magnetic fields for switching elements in magnetic memories. Competing theories of the effect have thus far considered only the limit when the temperature $`T=0`$. The initial theories, which we shall call the torque model , predict that domain reversal should occur when spin transfer from the current produces a torque that exceeds the magnetic damping. The switching current is therefore not determined by an energy barrier. Alternative approaches have predicted that the spin-polarized current may provide an effective magnetic field favoring parallel or antiparallel alignment of adjacent magnetic layers, thereby altering an energy barrier for reversal . Here we report, for measurements of spin-transfer-driven reversal near room temperature, broad distributions of switching currents that depend strongly on temperature, similar to the familiar distributions of switching fields measured when an applied magnetic field drives thermally-activated magnetic reversal . This indicates that the primary effect of spin transfer near room temperature is to alter a thermally-activated over-barrier switching process. Nevertheless, by comparing the effects of applied currents and applied magnetic fields, we demonstrate that the spin-transfer effect cannot be understood as an effective magnetic field favoring parallel or antiparallel magnetic alignment . If we extrapolate our switching currents and fields to $`T=0`$, we find qualitative agreement with the torque model.

Figure 1(a) is a schematic of our device geometry. The fabrication process employs electron beam lithography and ion milling to form a pillar with cross section ranging from $`50\times 50`$ nm (sample 1) to $`130\times 60`$ nm (sample 3) from a multilayer of 80 nm Cu/40 nm Co/6 nm Cu/3 nm Co/10 nm Au. The milling step is timed so

that the thicker Co layer is left as an extended film. The differential resistance $`dV/dI`$ as a function of bias current $`I`$ perpendicular to the layers is plotted in the inset to Fig. 1(b). If the moments of the two magnetic layers are initially parallel (P) and the current is swept from negative to positive, $`dV/dI`$ jumps at a critical current $`I_c^+`$, where the moment of the small Co nanomagnet is driven antiparallel (AP) to the thicker Co film. The device remains in this AP state until the current is swept down past a negative value $`I_c^{}`$, at which point the spin-transfer effect drives the nanomagnet back parallel to the thicker film. This asymmetry in $`I`$ is in agreement with the theories , and with previous switching studies .

The value of current at which the magnet reverses varies from sweep to sweep. A histogram of $`I_c^+`$ at room $`T`$ is shown in Fig. 1(b) for a current-sweep rate of $`80\mu `$A/s. Similar histograms are found for all of the eight samples we have studied in detail. The stochastic nature of the switching is confirmed in experiments in which we hold the sample at a fixed $`I`$ near a switching threshold; there is a waiting time before switching that also displays a broad distribution . Probabilities $`P(t)`$ that the magnet has not reversed in a time $`t`$ are plotted in Fig. 1(c) for a second sample and compared to exponential decay. As a function of either decreasing $`T`$ or increasing sweep rate $`dI/dt`$, the distributions of $`I_c`$ shift strongly to larger values of $`|I|`$ (Fig. 1(d)). At temperatures below 100-150 K, the switching events generally consist of multiple jumps in resistance rather than a single jump. Related multiple jumps have been observed previously , and they indicate that the reversal mechanism is not coherent rotation but rather a more complicated process like domain wall nucleation .

Our main focus in this Letter will be on the statistical distributions of switching currents and switching fields as both $`I`$ and magnetic field $`H`$ are applied to the sample. By studying the interplay between spin transfer and $`H`$, we can gain new insights into the mechanism underlying spin transfer. Fig. 2(a) shows the mean values of the current-induced reversal distribution as a function of constant $`H`$ at room $`T`$ measured with a current-sweep rate of $`80\mu `$A/s. $`H`$ for all data in the paper is applied within 5 of the easy axis of the nanomagnet. Both critical currents, $`I_c^+`$ and $`I_c^{}`$, shift towards more positive $`I`$ as a function of $`H`$, with the AP$``$P transition $`I_c^{}`$ eventually shifting more rapidly until it intersects $`I_c^+`$ and the nanomagnet is no longer bistable . In Fig. 2(b) we show the corresponding standard deviations for the switching currents, $`\sigma _{I_c}^+`$ and $`\sigma _{I_c}^{}`$. These show unexpected differences. At low fields, $`\sigma _{I_c}^+`$ and $`\sigma _{I_c}^{}`$ are roughly equal to one another. However, as $`H`$ increases near the values required for a field-driven transition to the parallel state, $`\sigma _{I_c}^{}`$ increases by more than threefold, while $`\sigma _{I_c}^+`$ decreases slightly.

If the roles of $`I`$ and $`H`$ are reversed, the results give a first indication that spin transfer acts quite differently than the magnetic field. The inset to Fig. 2(c) shows a plot of $`dV/dI`$ near zero current bias versus $`H`$ along the easy axis for the same device as that used for Figs. 2(a) and 2(b). The low-field transition to the higher-resistance state is due to the reversal of the lower-coercivity extended Co film, while the higher-field transition to low resistance corresponds to the switching field

of the nanomagnet, $`H_c`$. $`H_c`$ and $`\sigma _{H_c}`$ as a function of $`I`$ are shown in Fig. 2(c). While $`H_c`$ monotonically increases with $`I`$, there is a distinct peak in $`\sigma _{H_c}`$, occurring at $`0.2`$ mA.

The striking behavior exhibited in Fig. 2 can be explained by extending the theory of thermally-activated magnetic-field-induced switching. We will employ the Kurkijärvi approach, in which the effective activation barrier to reversal is tuned by varying an external parameter at a constant rate. For generality we will call the barrier-reducing parameter $`D`$, and we will apply the theory when $`D=I`$ as well as $`D=H`$. The Kurkijärvi calculation assumes that the activation barrier has the approximate form of a power law $`U(D)=U_0(1D/D_{c0})^{a_D}`$ where $`D_{c0}`$ is the parameter at which the barrier vanishes at $`T=0`$, and $`a_D`$ is a constant. The mean and standard deviation of the distributions for the switching point $`D_c`$ are, to leading order,

$$D_c=D_{c0}\left[1\left(\frac{k_BT}{U_0}A(T,\dot{D})\right)^{1/a_D}\right],$$
(1)
$$\sigma _{D_c}=\frac{|D_{c0}|}{a_D}\left(\frac{k_BT}{U_0}\right)^{1/a_D}\left[A(T,\dot{D})\right]^{(1a_D)/a_D},$$
(2)
$$A(T,\dot{D})=ln\left[\frac{1}{\tau _0a_D}\frac{k_BT}{U_0}\frac{|D_{c0}|}{|\dot{D}|}\left(\frac{|D_{c0}|}{|D_{c0}D_c|}\right)^{a_D1}\right],$$
(3)
where $`\dot{D}`$ is the sweep rate and $`\tau _0`$ is the attempt time.

We should note that, in addition to reducing the barrier to reversal, the application of current could also heat the device. However, by comparing the magnitude of $`I`$-dependent changes in DC resistance at the relevant current levels (a few mA) to the $`T`$-dependence of the low-bias resistance, we estimate that the devices are heated by at most 2-3 K above room temperature. This corresponds to a 1% effect on $`I_c`$, which can be neglected in our analysis.

If we apply a fixed magnetic field while sweeping $`I`$, $`H`$ has two effects on the $`I_c`$ distributions. First, $`H`$ alters the effective zero-current barrier height $`U_0`$. For the AP$``$P transition, the barrier is reduced from $`U_0`$ to $`U_0(1H/H_{c0})^{a_H}`$, while the P$``$AP barrier is increased to $`U_0(1+H/H_{c0})^{a_H}`$. Second, the magnetic field can modify the zero-temperature critical currents $`I_{c0}^\pm `$ for the two transitions; the form will depend on the microscopic model. However, in the models proposed to date, this dependence is linear, so that we will take $`I_{c0}^\pm (H)=I_{c0}^\pm (0)(1H/H_s^\pm )`$, where $`H_s^\pm `$ are model-dependent. Inserting these two quantities into Eq. (2) and neglecting the weak $`H`$-dependence of A yields

$$\sigma _{I_c}^\pm (H)(1H/H_s^\pm )/(1\pm H/H_{c0})^{a_H/a_I}.$$
(4)
If spin transfer merely acted as an additional effective field in the direction of $`H`$, then we should have $`a_I=a_H`$ and $`H_s^\pm =H_{c0}`$. In this case the numerator and denominator in Eq. (4) cancel and $`\sigma _{I_c}^\pm `$ should be $`H`$-independent. This does not describe the data. In contrast, within Slonczewski’s torque model, $`H_{c0}`$ and $`|H_s^\pm |`$ differ. For a thin-film nanomagnet, $`H_{c0}`$ is set by the small in-plane anisotropy $`H_{coercive}150`$ mT, while the field intercept $`|H_s^\pm |H_{coercive}+H_{demag}`$, where $`H_{demag}`$ represents the additional effect of the demagnetizing field as the moment precesses out-of-plane (for single-domain magnets undergoing coherent rotation, $`\mu _0H_{demag}=\mu _0M/2850`$ mT for Co) . As a result, within this approach $`\sigma _{I_c}^{}`$ diverges at $`H=H_{c0}`$, while $`\sigma _{I_c}^+`$ slowly decreases, in excellent agreement with the data. The lines in Fig. 2(c) illustrate the results of this model using $`\mu _0H_{c0}`$ = 150 mT, $`|\mu _0H_s^\pm |`$ = 230 mT, $`a_I=a_H`$, and the scale factors $`\sigma _{I_c}^+(H=0)=0.007`$ mA, $`\sigma _{I_c}^{}(H=0)=0.0065`$ mA. The fact that $`|H_s^\pm |`$ is less than $`M/2`$ may be due to non-single-domain dynamics.

The dependence of $`\sigma _{H_c}`$ on $`I`$ can be understood within the same model by considering the nature of the $`T=0`$ stability boundaries for P and AP alignment. A simple relation allows us to connect the measured histogram means and widths to the $`T=0`$ stability boundaries: from Eqs. (1)-(3), since the function $`A`$ depends weakly on its

variables, to a good approximation $`\sigma _{I_c}^\pm |I_{c0}I_c^\pm |`$ and $`\sigma _{H_c}H_{c0}H_c`$. We can estimate the proportionality constant self-consistently as follows. The normalized sweep rate $`\frac{|\dot{D}|}{|D_{c0}|}`$ 0.05–0.1 s<sup>-1</sup> and we use an attempt time $`\tau _0100`$ ns . By fitting the dependence of $`I_c`$ on sweep rate for this sample to Eq. (1)-(3), assuming the barrier exponents to be $`a_I=a_H`$ 1.5, we find an $`H=0`$ effective barrier of $`U_0=`$ 1.5 - 2 eV. Inserting these values into Eq. (1)-(3) yields a proportionality constant $`0.1`$, with the dominant uncertainty associated with $`\tau _0`$. The resulting estimates for the $`T=0`$ stability boundaries, extrapolated from the room-$`T`$ measurements of $`I_c^\pm `$ and $`H_c`$, are marked by the crosses in Fig. 3(a). The maximum in $`\sigma _{H_c}`$ is associated with the knee in the stability diagram where the critical-current line $`I_{c0}^{}(H)`$ joins the critical-field line $`H_{c0}(I)`$. In this region the magnet is maximally subject to thermally-activated reversal, through the combined effects of $`I`$ and $`H`$, and therefore $`\sigma _{H_c}(I)`$ is a maximum. If spin transfer worked as an effective field, $`I_{c0}^{}(H)`$ and $`H_{c0}(I)`$ would fall on one line, and there would be no maximum in $`\sigma _{H_c}(I)`$.

In order to compare these results to the torque model, we have calculated the stability boundaries within the $`T=0`$ Slonczewski picture by numerically integrating the Landau-Lifschitz-Gilbert equation with a spin-torque term for a single-domain magnet with easy-plane and in-plane anisotropies (Fig. 3(b)). Although we do not expect this model to be quantitatively accurate if the rever-

sal mechanism is not single-domain, it has the qualitative features needed to understand the data. It predicts that the $`I_{c0}^{}(H)`$ and $`H_{c0}(I)`$ lines are distinct, and intersect at a knee located at a negative value of $`I`$.

If we bias the sample near the point $`\mu _0H=140`$ mT and $`I=+0.5`$ mA where the spin-transfer effect and $`H`$ oppose each other, we observe telegraph-noise-type switching between resistance states (inset, Fig. 4(a)). Unlike previous telegraph-noise studies in nanomagnets, which were done by applying $`H`$ perpendicular to the easy axis so that the moment jumped between two closely-separated angles, the jump here is between approximately full P and AP alignment. Most remarkably, the mean switching times for the two types of transitions depend very differently on $`H`$ and $`I`$. If $`H`$ is held fixed along the easy axis and $`I`$ is increased (Fig. 4(a)), $`\tau _{PAP}`$ decreases exponentially, while $`\tau _{APP}`$ increases only slightly. Varying $`H`$ while holding $`I`$ fixed (Fig. 4(b)), on the other hand, decreases $`\tau _{APP}`$ exponentially, while $`\tau _{PAP}`$ increases much more slowly. These differences provide independent evidence that the spin-transfer effect and $`H`$ alter the switching of the nanomagnet in largely independent ways. By tuning $`I`$ and $`H`$ along the easy axis, both switching times can be shortened until the nanomagnet is effectively superparamagnetic.

In summary, magnetic reversal driven by spin-polarized currents exhibits statistical properties of thermal activation over an energy barrier. This might appear to favor an effective-magnetic-field model  over the torque model . However, our data show that the spin-transfer effect acts in a fundamentally different way than in the effective field models, while features of the torque model provide natural explanations for (1) the different dependence on $`H`$ and $`I`$ of $`\sigma _{I_c}^\pm `$ and $`\sigma _{H_c}`$, (2) the shape of the $`T=0`$ stability diagram for P and AP orientations, and (3) the distinct difference between the effects of $`I`$ and $`H`$ on switching times in the telegraph-noise regime. Our data do not rule out a small effective-field contribution in addition to the torque term .

We thank Piet Brouwer, Xavier Waintal, and Mandar Deshmukh for discussions. Funding was provided by ARO (DAAD19-01-1-0541) and NSF through the Nanoscale Science and Engineering Initiative, the Cornell Center for Materials Research, and the use of the National Nanofabrication Users Network.


format: text

text:
# CPT Violation and the Nature of Neutrinos

## 1 Introduction

In recent years, stronger and stronger experimental evidence for neutrino oscillations has been accumulating. As is well-known, this evidence would extend the Standard Model by requiring neutrino masses and mixings. While knowing the values of the mass and mixing parameters may be an important clue to physics beyond the Standard Model, more information is needed. For example, it is presently unknown whether neutrino processes violate lepton number or not, or whether the neutrinos are their own antiparticles or not.

Neutrino masses and mixings can be straightforwardly included in the Standard Model, as can the choice of Majorana or Dirac neutrinos. But in fact, the present neutrino oscillation evidence may imply more profound extensions to the Standard Model. With three neutrinos, there are only two independent mass-squared differences. However, since the mass-squared differences required by the solar, atmospheric , and LSND  neutrinos are $`\delta m^2`$ $`10^5`$ eV2, $`10^3`$ eV2, and $`1`$ eV2, respectively, three different mass-squared scales are needed to explain all the data. The usual way out is to postulate a fourth neutrino, thus allowing three independent mass-squared differences. This fourth neutrino must be sterile under the weak interactions since the invisible width of the $`Z^{}`$ only allows three light active neutrinos.

The LSND results are based on an appearance experiment, namely $`\overline{\nu }_\mu \overline{\nu }_e`$. For years, the solar and atmospheric neutrino results only gave clear evidence for the disappearance of $`\nu _e`$ or $`\nu _\mu ,\overline{\nu }_\mu `$, respectively. Thus one or the other could have been accommodated by oscillations to sterile neutrinos. However, the difficulties that seem to require the introduction of a fourth neutrino have recently become more acute as the combined solar neutrino results from the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory and Super-Kamiokande indicate that $`\nu _e\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$, and the atmospheric neutrino results from Super-Kamiokande indicate that $`\nu _\mu ,\overline{\nu }_\mu \nu _\tau ,\overline{\nu }_\tau `$. Thus with three signals of neutrino oscillations among active flavors, there is not only a problem of not enough independent mass-squared differences, but also a problem of where to incorporate the required mixing with the sterile neutrino. While four-neutrino models may still work, it is only with difficulty (see, e.g., Ref. ).

Recently, an intriguing but speculative suggestion to accommodate these results has been made  (see also Ref. ). If CPT is violated in the neutrino sector, then the mixing parameters which govern solar neutrino oscillations of $`\nu _e\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$ do not have to be the same as those that govern $`\overline{\nu }_\mu \overline{\nu }_e`$ in LSND. Without introducing new particles or interactions to the Standard Model, this allows the introduction of a new mass-squared difference and it also solves the problem of which flavors are oscillating to which. In the simplest model, atmospheric neutrino oscillations of $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ behave the same as their antiparticles.

Thus, it is not merely that the Standard Model must be extended to accomodate neutrino mass and mixing. With the present data, taking all of the experimental results at face value, one can either introduce new particles (sterile neutrinos), or allow CPT violation. Either suggestion, if confirmed, would be an important clue for understanding physics well beyond the Standard Model. Large CPT violation in the neutrino sector, while a radical suggestion, should be easily testable in the upcoming experiments.

Previous papers have explored the consequences of large CPT violation in the neutrino sector . Here we explore the consequences for the Majorana or Dirac nature of the neutrinos (for an introduction in the CPT-conserving case, see Ref. ). For CPT-conserving neutrinos, it is frequently stated that “If neutrinoless double beta decay is observed, then neutrinos are Majorana particles,” meaning that a neutrino and its antineutrino are the same state. We show that for CPT-violating neutrinos, a more careful statement must be made, i.e., “If neutrinoless double beta decay is observed, then there must be Majorana neutrino mass terms,” and that in general, neutrinos are not equal to the corresponding antineutrinos as states. In either the CPT-conserving or CPT-violating case, the observation of neutrinoless double beta decay would of course imply the violation of lepton number. Needless to say, if one can determine the nature of the neutrino masses, light will be shed on the symmetries of fundamental particle interactions.

We also show that there are interesting practical consequences for neutrinoless double beta decay, a process that violates lepton number by two units. One way to explain the present null111Though evidence for neutrinoless double beta decay has very recently been claimed in Ref. , it has been disputed in Refs. . results  in the usual CPT-conserving scenario would be to say that the neutrino masses are all below say, 0.1 eV (larger masses can be accommodated if the mixing angles and Majorana phases cause cancellations). Given present constraints on the oscillation parameters, there can be a non-zero minimum allowed effective mass. In the CPT-violating model the overall scale may be set by the large LSND mass scale of $`1`$ eV, i.e., predicting a larger signal. However, a larger degree of suppression can occur, so that the effective mass can also be arbitrarily small.

## 2 CPT Violation and the Neutrino Masses

In the Standard Model, extended to include neutrino masses, the interactions are lepton-number (L) conserving. Any nonconservation of L would come from Majorana mass terms, which turn a neutrino into an antineutrino. When CPT is conserved and Majorana mass terms are present, the neutrino mass eigenstates $`\nu _i`$ are Majorana particles. That is, each $`\nu _i`$ is its own antiparticle in the sense that

$$CPT|\nu _i=e^{i\xi _i}|\nu _i,$$
(1)
where $`\xi _i`$ is a phase. Through the process pictured in Fig. 1, exchange of the Majorana $`\nu _i`$ leads to neutrinoless double beta decay ($`\beta \beta _{0\nu }`$). This is the L-nonconserving reaction in which one nucleus decays to another with the emission of two electrons. Conversely, even if $`\beta \beta _{0\nu }`$ should arise predominantly from some mechanism other than light neutrino exchange, the observation of this decay would imply that the electron neutrino $`\nu _e`$ has a nonzero Majorana mass. When CPT is conserved, this would in turn imply that the mass eigenstates $`\nu _i`$ are Majorana particles. In a CPT-conserving world, when there are no Majorana mass terms, L is conserved, $`\beta \beta _{0\nu }`$ is forbidden, and the mass eigenstates $`\nu _i`$ are Dirac particles. That is, each $`\nu _i`$ differs from its CPT conjugate by the value of the conserved quantum number L: $`\nu _i`$ has $`\mathrm{L}=+1`$ while $`\overline{\nu }_i`$ has $`\mathrm{L}=1`$.

To see what becomes of this picture when CPT is violated, we consider the simplest case of a single neutrino $`\nu `$ (i.e., $`\nu _e`$), coupled to the electron by the Standard Model weak coupling, and its CPT conjugate $`\overline{\nu }`$, coupled to the positron. When allowing CPT violation, we do not assume that $`\nu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }`$ have the same mass. Rather, we suppose that for a given spin direction, the $`\nu ,\overline{\nu }`$ mass matrix $`M_\nu `$ has the form

$$M_\nu =\left[\begin{array}{cc}\mu +\mathrm{\Delta }& y^{}\\ y& \mu \mathrm{\Delta }\end{array}\right]$$
(2)
where the first and second rows correspond to $`\nu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }`$, respectively. We neglect the possibility of neutrino decay, so that $`M_\nu `$ must be Hermitian, which implies that the mass parameters $`\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (Dirac masses) are real. Any nonvanishing $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a violation of the CPT constraint that a particle and its antiparticle must have the same mass. Any nonvanishing $`y`$ (Majorana mass), which mixes $`\nu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }`$, is a violation of L conservation. (Note that limits on CPT violation entering via a heavy Majorana mass have been considered in Ref. ).

The eigenstates of $`M_\nu `$ are

$$|\nu _+=\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\nu \overline{\nu }}|\nu +e^{i\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\nu \overline{\nu }}|\overline{\nu }$$
(3)
with mass $`m_+=\mu +\sqrt{|y|^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2}`$, and

$$|\nu _{}=\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\nu \overline{\nu }}|\nu +e^{i\varphi }\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\nu \overline{\nu }}|\overline{\nu }$$
(4)
with mass $`m_{}=\mu \sqrt{|y|^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2}`$. The neutrino-antineutrino mixing angle is given by

$$\mathrm{tan}2\theta _{\nu \overline{\nu }}=\frac{|y|}{\mathrm{\Delta }},$$
(5)
and $`\varphi =\mathrm{arg}(y)`$.

Under CPT, $`\nu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }`$ transform as

$$CPT|\nu =e^{i\xi }|\overline{\nu },CPT|\overline{\nu }=e^{i\xi }|\nu ,$$
(6)
where we have left the phase $`\xi `$ free. Since CPT is an antiunitary operator,

$$CPT(CPT|\nu )=CPT(e^{i\xi }|\overline{\nu })=e^{i\xi }CPT|\overline{\nu }=e^{i(\xi \xi )}|\nu =|\nu .$$
(7)
From Eqs. (3,4),

$$CPT|\nu _+=e^{i(\xi \varphi )}\left[\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\nu \overline{\nu }}|\nu +e^{i\varphi }\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\nu \overline{\nu }}|\overline{\nu }\right]$$
(8)
and

$$CPT|\nu _{}=e^{i(\xi \varphi )}\left[\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\nu \overline{\nu }}|\nu +e^{i\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\nu \overline{\nu }}|\overline{\nu }\right].$$
(9)
Comparing with Eqs. (3,4), one sees that the mass eigenstates $`\nu _\pm `$ are Majorana states (that is, CPT self-conjugate apart from a phase) if and only if $`\theta _{\nu \overline{\nu }}=\pi /4`$. But, from Eq. (5), this value of $`\theta _{\nu \overline{\nu }}`$ corresponds to $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$; i.e., to an absence of CPT violation. If $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$, so that CPT is not conserved, the neutrino mass eigenstates can no longer be Majorana particles. Nevertheless, if $`y`$ is nonzero, then there is $`\nu \overline{\nu }`$ mixing, L is not conserved, and $`\beta \beta _{0\nu }`$ can occur. But if it does occur, that would imply only that L is violated and that there is a “Majorana” (i.e., $`\nu \overline{\nu }`$ mixing) mass term, and not that the neutrino mass eigenstates are CPT self-conjugate.

It is interesting to compare this situation with the neutral kaon system when a possible CPT-violating term is introduced as a difference between the $`K^{}`$ and $`\overline{K}^{}`$ masses (e.g., see Ref. ). To compare to neutrinos, we neglect kaon decay. Then the kaon mass matrix is identical to the $`M_\nu `$ of Eq. (2), but with the first and second rows now corresponding to $`K^{}`$ and $`\overline{K}^{}`$, respectively. The neutral kaon mass eigenstates (these correspond to $`K_S`$ and $`K_L`$ in the usual case) are described by Eqs. (3) and (4), with $`\nu `$ replaced by $`K^{}`$ and $`\overline{\nu }`$ replaced by $`\overline{K}^{}`$. The CPT conjugates of these states are described by Eqs. (8) and (9), with the same replacements. Once again, the mass eigenstates are CPT self-conjugate if and only if the CPT-violating parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ vanishes. Otherwise, each of them differs from its CPT conjugate. Nevertheless, so long as the “Majorana” $`K^{}\overline{K}^{}`$ mixing term $`y`$ is present, then strangeness (playing the role of L) is not conserved. A kaon born as a $`K^{}`$ can evolve into a $`K^{}\overline{K}^{}`$ mixture. Observing, via the scattering of the kaon, that such evolution had occurred, would imply that strangeness is not conserved, and in particular, that $`K^{}`$ and $`\overline{K}^{}`$ mix, but not that the mass eigenstates are self-conjugate.

## 3 Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay

Neutrinoless double beta decay  is the process

$`(A,Z)(A,Z+2)+2e^{}`$ (10)
in which a nucleus decays into another nucleus with the emission of two electron; see Fig. 1. The emission of two $`W`$ bosons by the initial nucleus is described by a nuclear matrix element, not considered here. The full amplitude for this process is proportional to just the leptonic amplitude, which is

$$A=\underset{i,h}{}e^{}e^{}|H_W|e^{}\nu _iW^{}e^{}\nu _iW^{}|H_W|W^{}W^{},$$
(11)
where $`i`$ labels the neutrino mass eigenstates and $`h`$ their helicities. Each mass eigenstate can be represented as a superposition of neutrinos and antineutrinos, so that

$$|\nu _i=\underset{\alpha =e,\mu ,\tau }{}U_{\alpha i}|\nu _\alpha +\underset{\alpha =e,\mu ,\tau }{}\overline{U}_{\alpha i}^{}|\overline{\nu }_\alpha ,$$
(12)
which defines the matrices $`U`$ and $`\overline{U}`$ for neutrinos and antineutrinos, respectively. Absorbing a $`\nu _l`$ yields an $`l^{}`$, and similarly for a $`\overline{\nu }_l`$ and an $`l^+`$. Because of the helicity mismatch between the neutrino and antineutrino interaction, the leptonic amplitude is proportional to

$$A\underset{i}{}m_iU_{ei}\overline{U}_{ei},$$
(13)
where the sum is over mass eigenstates. In particular, for the one-flavor case discussed above,

$$A\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\nu \overline{\nu }}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\nu \overline{\nu }}(m_+m_{})=\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{\nu \overline{\nu }}\sqrt{|y|^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2}=|y|.$$
(14)
As expected, the Majorana mass term $`y`$ contributes to the amplitude. In fact, with just a single neutrino flavor, it is the only contribution, i.e., the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is irrelevant. In the more relevant case where more than one neutrino family is involved, there are in general contributions depending on the CPT-violating mass term $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and hence the LSND scale of 1 eV. We show this with an explicit example below. Even at this stage, it is easy to understand that if the neutrino and antineutrino mass matrices are different, the diagonalizing matrices must also be different. The difference will be reflected in the matrices $`U`$ and $`\overline{U}`$ in Eq. (13). The degree of difference depends on $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the CPT-violating mass term, and of course vanishes when $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$.

Note that the usual CPT-conserving amplitude is obtained with $`\overline{U}=U`$ in Eq. (13). At this point two remarks are in order. First, one should remember that in a CPT-violating world $`\overline{U}U`$ and second, Eq. (13) is obtained without depending on the usual Feynman rules by constructing the amplitudes from quantum mechanics and therefore is quite safe regardless whether our neutrinos conserve CPT or not. It must be emphasized that the same expression can also be obtained by using the method suggested in , i.e., by calculating the matrix elements as if they belonged to a CPT-conserving neutrino in an artificial background of matter. In this case (as it happens in field theory at finite temperature) the Feynman rules for the physical vertices are the same as those in the CPT-conserving theory. The propagators, however, are different. For momenta much higher than the neutrino masses, the propagator in matter can be written as an expansion in powers of the CPT violating mass term, whose first term is the standard propagator.

Double beta decay will have no manifest CPT violation, in the sense that the CPT-conjugated process involving two positrons will have exactly the same rate. This observation follows from the fact that the corresponding amplitude for two positrons is simply the complex conjugate of that for two electrons. However, CPT violation does have an experimentally observable consequence. Namely, since in the CPT-violating case the double beta decay amplitude involves two independent matrices $`U`$ and $`\overline{U}`$, the decay rate can reach values that are outside those allowed in the usual CPT-conserving case.

In order to make this statement even more transparent, we first recall the result for the CPT-conserving case. The usual expression (assuming only two flavors and degenerate masses) is

$`m_{\beta \beta }=m_0\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +\mathrm{sin}^2\theta e^{2i\alpha }`$ (15)
where $`\theta `$ is the angle involved in the solar neutrino solution and $`\alpha `$ is a CP violating phase characteristic of Majorana neutrinos which does not appear in oscillation-related phenomena. Since SNO sees 1/3 of the expected $`\nu _e`$ flux (i.e., less than 1/2), the mixing angle must be less than maximal (the best-fit value is about $`30^{}`$. Thus there is a minimum value for $`m_{\beta \beta }`$, obtained when $`\alpha =\pi /2`$. The range for $`m_{\beta \beta }`$ is thus

$$m_0\mathrm{cos}(2\theta _{})<m_{\beta \beta }<m_0.$$
(16)
Presently, $`\mathrm{cos}(2\theta _{})0.4`$, and the overall mass scale can be very small. In the more general three-flavor CPT-conserving case, the expression for $`m_{\beta \beta }`$ is more complicated, but it retains the feature of a minimum value (except at a singular point) .

When CPT is violated, the neutrino and antineutrino mixing matrices can be different, and so can the neutrino and antineutrino masses. If MiniBooNE confirms LSND, then we know that a mass of about 1 eV exists (this is the case of most interest to CPT violation). This mass scale is larger than required in the absence of the LSND oscillation signal, raising hope that it might give a large neutrinoless double beta decay signal. In general, it is much more complicated to treat the full problem, where there are now six mass eigenstates, each containing components of both neutrinos and antineutrinos of all three flavors. This can be visualized by merging the two spectra in Fig. (1) in Ref. , and allowing neutrino-antineutrino admixtures, permitted by the Majorana masses. That combined spectrum is consistent with the solar, atmospheric, and LSND data.

However, we know that for this spectrum the state with mass corresponding to the LSND mass scale is the dominant term in the sum for $`m_{\beta \beta }`$ given by Eq. (13), which is then reduced to

$$m_{\beta \beta }m_{LSND}U_{e,LSND}\overline{U}_{e,LSND}.$$
(17)
In this picture, $`|U_{e,LSND}|^2`$ represents the electron neutrino content of the highest mass eigenstate, and similarly for $`|\overline{U}_{e,LSND}|^2`$ and the electron antineutrino content. In order to explain all the data, the electron antineutrino content should be very large ($`99\%`$, and the remainder can be filled by other neutrino and antineutrino flavors. These proportions in particular can satisfy the bounds on reactor $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ disappearance. In the case where this remainder is mostly the electron neutrino component, then $`m_{\beta \beta }`$ reaches it maximal value, given by $`0.1m_{LSND}`$. On the other hand, there is no lower limit of the electron neutrino content, so finally,

$$0<m_{\beta \beta }<0.1m_{LSND}.$$
(18)
Though beyond the scope of this work, it would be very interesting to consider in more detail the allowed numerical range of $`m_{\beta \beta }`$ in realistic three-flavor models with CPT violation.

## 4 Conclusions

Present and forthcoming experiments devoted to studying neutrino oscillations should give us much more information about the neutrino mass-squared differences and mixing angles. However, in order to really understand the neutrino sector we will also need to know the absolute mass scale and the nature (Dirac or Majorana) of the neutrino mass terms. Neutrinoless double beta decay experiments are crucial in this respect, as well as for studying lepton flavor violation.

We have explored the nature of neutrinos when CPT is violated. Contrary to the widespread belief that CPT-violating neutrinos can have only a Dirac character and therefore no neutrinoless beta decay can be expected, we have shown that CPT violation can also be seen in neutrinoless double beta decay experiments. As an important general point, though Majorana neutrino masses are allowed, in general, there are no longer Majorana neutrino states in the conventional sense. If the CPT-violating neutrino mixing model is chosen to explain the LSND result, then at least one mass is of order the large LSND scale of 1 eV. This can increase the neutrinoless double beta decay rate relative to the usual case in which all neutrino masses can be small. On the other hand, due to the freedom in the mixing between the neutrino and antineutrino in each mass eigenstate, a greater degree of suppression in the effective mass that appears in neutrinoless beta decay is also possible.

### Acknowledgements

We thank J. Lykken for discussions. G.B., J.F.B (as the David N. Schramm Fellow), and B.K. were supported by Fermilab, which is operated by URA under DOE contract No. DE-AC02-76CH03000. J.F.B. was also supported by NASA under NAG5-10842. L.B. was supported by the Sloan Foundation.


text:
# The conjugacy and isomorphism problems for combable groups

## 1. The Seeds of Undecidability

The existence among combable groups of the undecidability phenomenon asserted in Theorem B will be established by means of a suitable encoding of the fact that many finitely presented groups $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ associated with non-positive curvature have the following property:

> $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$:  If $`X`$ is a finite generating set for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`m`$ is a sufficiently large integer, then there exists a recursive sequence $`(S_n)`$ of subsets of the free group $`F(X)`$ such that each $`S_n`$ has cardinality $`m`$ and there is no algorithm to determine whether or not $`S_n=\mathrm{\Gamma }`$; moreover if equality fails then $`S_n`$ is not finitely presented.

###### Proposition 1.1.

If $`F`$ is a non-abelian free group, $`F\times F`$ has property $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$.

This result is due to C.F. Miller III (,  page 194 and ).

###### Proof.

It is enough to consider $`X=\{(a,1),(1,a)aA\}`$ where $`A`$ is a basis for $`F`$. Associated to each finite group presentation $`𝒫=AR`$ one has the fibre product $`P=\text{gp}\{(a,a),(r,1)aA,rR\}F\times F`$. Let $`S(𝒫)`$ be (the obvious words representing) the given generators of $`P`$. If $`𝒫`$ is trivial then $`P=F\times F`$. If $`AR`$ is an infinite group then $`P`$ is not finitely presented (see ).

It is well known that there exist recursive sequences of finite presentations $`𝒫_n=AR_n`$, with $`R_n`$ of fixed cardinality, such that each group presented is either trivial or infinite and there is no algorithm to recognise which are trivial (see ). Define $`S_n=S(𝒫_n)`$. ∎

By applying a modification of the Rips construction  to the standard presentation of $`F\times F`$ one can translate the undecidability expressed in Proposition 1.1 into the realm of hyperbolic groups (cf.  and ).

###### Proposition 1.2.

There exists a compact negatively curved 2-complex whose fundamental group has property $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$.

Recall that a subgroup $`H`$ of a finitely generated group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is said to have an unsolvable membership problem if there does not exist an algorithm that takes as input words $`w`$ in the generators of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and decides whether or not $`wH`$.

Notation. We write $`Z_G(g)`$ to denote the centralizer in a group $`G`$ of an element $`gG`$ and $`Z_G(S)`$ to denote the centralizer of a subset $`SG`$.

###### Lemma 1.3.

If $`F`$ is a non-abelian free group then there exist finitely generated subgroups $`HF\times F`$ and elements $`hH`$ such that $`H`$ has an unsolvable membership problem and $`Z_{F\times F}(h)H`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`A`$ be a basis for $`F`$ and let $`AR`$ be a finitely presented group whose word problem is unsolvable. Consider the associated fibre product $`PF\times F`$, as in the proof of (1.1). Now, given a word $`w`$ in the letters $`A^{\pm 1}`$, ask if $`(w,1)P`$. The answer is YES if and only if $`w=1`$ in $`AR`$, and the validity of this equality cannot be determined algorithmically. Define $`H=P`$ and $`h=(a,a)`$, where $`aA`$. ∎

Once more, by applying the Rips construction one can translate the above phenomenon into the realm of hyperbolic groups — see  p.488.

###### Lemma 1.4.

There exists a compact negatively curved 2-complex whose fundamental group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has the following property: there is a finitely generated subgroup $`H\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and an element $`hH`$ such that $`H`$ has an unsolvable membership problem and $`Z_\mathrm{\Gamma }(h)H`$.

## 2. Further Preliminaries

This section contains four lemmas that we shall need in the proofs of Theorems A and B. The first two lemmas concern conjugacy and centralizers in amalgamated free products. These are special cases of standard results that are proved in a combinatorial manner in , for example; they also admit simple geometric proofs in the language of Bass-Serre theory.

Consider an amalgamated free product $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=A_CB`$.

###### Lemma 2.1.

For all $`a,a^{}AC`$ and all $`b,b^{}BC`$, if $`ab`$ is conjugate to $`a^{}b^{}`$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ then there exists $`cC`$ such that $`c(ab)c^1=a^{}b^{}`$.

###### Lemma 2.2.

If $`SAC`$ then $`Z_\mathrm{\Gamma }(S)=Z_A(S)`$.

Our third lemma also involves Bass-Serre theory. Recall that a group is said to have property FA if every action of the group on a tree has a fixed point (equivalently, the group cannot be written as a non-trivial amalgamated free product or HNN extension).

###### Proposition 2.3.

Let $`A`$ be a group that has property FA, let $`Q`$ be a group such that there are no non-trivial homomorphisms $`AQ`$, and let $`B`$ be a group that does not contain an isomorphic copy of $`A`$. Let $`G=(AB)\times Q`$, let $`\varphi :QB`$ be a homomorphism, and let $`\widehat{Q}=\{(\varphi (q),q)qQ\}G`$. Let $`D`$ be the amalgamation of two copies of $`G`$ along $`\widehat{Q}`$.

Then $`K_\varphi :=\mathrm{ker}\varphi \widehat{Q}`$ is a characteristic subgroup of $`D`$. More precisely, $`K_\varphi `$ is the intersection of the centralizers of those subgroups $`HD`$ that are isomorphic to $`A`$ and are not strictly contained in any subgroup isomorphic to $`A`$.

###### Proof.

First we claim that $`H`$ must lie in a conjugate of one of the obvious copies of $`G`$ in $`D`$. To see that this is the case, consider the action of $`D=G_{\widehat{Q}}\overline{G}`$ on the Bass-Serre tree associated to the given decomposition: $`HA`$ has property FA and hence is contained in a vertex stabilizer.

Now, since there are no non-trivial homomorphisms from $`A`$ to $`Q`$, if $`HG=(AB)\times Q`$ is isomorphic to $`A`$ then $`HAB`$. Since $`A`$ has property FA, it is a fortiori freely indecomposable, so the Kurosh subgroup theorem tells us that $`HA`$ is contained in a conjugate of one of the vertex groups $`A,BAB`$. And since $`B`$ does not contain a copy of $`A`$, only the former possibility can occur. It follows that if $`H`$ is maximal among subgroups isomorphic to $`A`$ then it must equal a conjugate of $`A`$. Thus the maximal $`HD`$ isomorphic to $`A`$ are exactly the conjugates of the obvious subgroups $`AGD`$ and $`\overline{A}\overline{G}D`$.

It remains to calculate the intersection of the centralizers of the conjugates of $`A`$ and $`\overline{A}`$. It is easy to check that this intersection contains $`\mathrm{ker}\varphi \widehat{Q}`$. For the reverse inclusion, note that since $`A\widehat{Q}`$ is trivial, the centralizer of $`A`$ in $`D=G_{\widehat{Q}}\overline{G}`$ is simply its centralizer in $`G`$ (Lemma 2.2), which is $`Z(A)\times Q`$. Likewise, if $`bB`$ is non-trivial, then the centralizer of $`A^b=bAb^1`$ in $`D`$ is $`Z_G(bAb^1)=bZ_G(A)b^1\times Q`$. Thus the centralizer in $`D`$ of $`AA^b`$ is $`Q`$. Similarly, the centralizer in $`D`$ of $`\overline{A}\overline{A}^{\overline{b}}`$ is $`\overline{Q}`$. And $`Q\overline{Q}=Q\widehat{Q}=\mathrm{ker}\varphi `$. ∎

In our proof of Theorem B we shall need the following variation on Rapaport’s Theorem .

###### Lemma 2.4.

Let $`Q`$ be a group generated by $`\{g_1,\mathrm{},g_m\}`$ and let $`F`$ be a free group with basis $`\{\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _m,\tau _1,\mathrm{},\tau _m\}`$. Let $`\varphi :FQ`$ be an epimorphism such that $`\varphi (\tau _i)=1`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$. Then there exists an automorphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }:FF`$ such that $`\varphi \mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _i)=1`$ and $`\varphi \mathrm{\Phi }(\tau _i)=g_i`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$.

###### Proof.

Since $`\varphi `$ is onto, for each $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$ there exists a word $`u_i`$ in the letters $`\sigma _j`$ and their inverses such that $`g_i=\varphi (u_i)`$ in $`Q`$. And since the $`g_j`$ generate $`Q`$, for each $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$ there exists a word $`v_i`$ in the letters $`g_j`$ and their inverses such that $`\varphi (\sigma _i)=v_i`$ in $`Q`$.

Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1:F_{2m}F_{2m}`$ be the automorphism that sends each $`\sigma _i`$ to itself and sends $`\tau _i`$ to $`\tau _i^{}:=\tau _iu_i`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$.

Let $`V_i`$ be the word obtained from $`v_i`$ by substituting the word $`\tau _j^{}`$ for each occurrence of the symbol $`g_j`$, for $`j=1,\mathrm{},m`$.

Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2:F_{2m}F_{2m}`$ be the automorphism that sends each $`\tau _i^{}`$ to itself and sends $`\sigma _i`$ to $`\sigma _i^{}:=\sigma _iV_i^1`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$.

(To see that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ are automorphisms, note that each is the composition of right Nielsen moves.)

Define $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_2\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$. ∎

## 3. Unsolvable Conjugacy Problems

In this section we shall prove Theorem A.

###### Definition 3.1.

Given a group $`G`$ and a subgroup $`HG`$, we write $`\mathrm{\Delta }(G;H)`$ to denote the double of $`G`$ along $`H`$, i.e. the free product of two copies of $`G`$, written $`G`$ and $`\overline{G}`$, with the subgroups $`H`$ and $`\overline{H}`$ amalgamated by the identification $`h=\overline{h}hH`$.

###### Theorem 3.2.

Let $`N`$ and $`F`$ be finitely generated groups and let $`\varphi :FN`$ be a homomorphism. Let $`\widehat{F}=\{(\varphi (x),x)xF\}N\times F`$.

If the membership problem for $`\text{im }\varphi `$ is unsolvable and there exists $`a_0N`$ such that $`Z_N(a_0)\text{im }\varphi `$, then $`D=\mathrm{\Delta }(N\times F;\widehat{F})`$ has an unsolvable conjugacy problem.

###### Proof.

Let $`I=\text{im }\varphi `$. We claim that our hypotheses imply that the following problem is algorithmically unsolvable:

Given222Here, as usual, “given $`bN`$” should be interpreted as meaning that one is given a word in a fixed finite generating set for $`N`$. $`bN`$, determine whether $`hI`$ with $`ha_0h^1=ba_0b^1`$.

To see this, first note that $`ha_0h^1=ba_0b^1`$ if and only $`h^1bZ_D(a_0)`$. Since $`h`$ and $`Z_D(a_0)`$ are assumed to lie in $`I`$, this means that such an $`h`$ exists if and only if $`bI`$. And we are assuming that there is no algorithm to decide whether $`bI`$.

We adopt the notation $`\widehat{x}=(\varphi (x),x)`$ for elements of $`\widehat{F}`$. Identifying $`N`$ and $`F`$ with their images in $`N\times F`$ we have

$$\widehat{x}n\widehat{x}^1=\varphi (x)n\varphi (x)^1nNxF.$$

To see that the conjugacy problem in $`D`$ is unsolvable we consider the following sub-problem:

given $`bN`$, decide if $`(ba_0b^1)(\overline{ba_0b^1})`$ is conjugate to $`a_0\overline{a}_0`$ in $`D`$.

Lemma 2.1 tells us that $`(ba_0b^1)(\overline{ba_0b^1})`$ is conjugate to $`a_0\overline{a}_0`$ in $`D=(N\times F)_{\widehat{F}}(N\times F)`$ if and only if there exists $`\widehat{x}\widehat{F}`$ conjugating one element to the other, i.e.

$$\widehat{x}a_0\overline{a}_0\widehat{x}^1=(ba_0b^1)(\overline{ba_0b^1}).$$

And noting that $`\widehat{x}=\overline{\widehat{x}}`$, we have

$$\widehat{x}a_0\overline{a}_0\widehat{x}^1=(\widehat{x}a_0\widehat{x}^1)\overline{(\widehat{x}a_0\widehat{x}^1)}=(\varphi (x)a_0\varphi (x)^1)\overline{(\varphi (x)a_0\varphi (x)^1)}.$$

Thus $`(ba_0b^1)(\overline{ba_0b^1})`$ is conjugate to $`a_0\overline{a}_0`$ in $`D`$ if and only if there exists an element $`hI`$ such that $`(ba_0b^1)(\overline{ba_0b^1})=(ha_0h^1)(\overline{ha_0h^1}).`$ Moreover, since $`N,\overline{N}D`$ do not intersect the amalgamated subgroup $`\widehat{F}`$, the subgroup they generate is the free product $`N\overline{N}`$. Therefore $`(ba_0b^1)(\overline{ba_0b^1})=(ha_0h^1)(\overline{ha_0h^1})`$ if and only if $`ba_0b^1=ha_0h^1`$.

Thus we have shown that, given $`bN`$, the elements $`(ba_0b^1)(\overline{ba_0b^1})`$ and $`a_0\overline{a}_0`$ are conjugate in $`D`$ if and only if there exists $`hI`$ such that $`ba_0b^1=ha_0h^1`$. In the first paragraph of this proof we explained that there is no algorithm to decide whether such an $`h`$ exists. ∎

We use the term semihyperbolic in the sense of . In particular, biautomatic groups are semihyperbolic, as are the fundamental groups of compact non-positively curved (orbi)spaces.

As a special case of the main construction in  we have the following:

###### Theorem 3.3.

Let $`N`$ and $`F`$ be groups, let $`\varphi :FN`$ be a homomorphism, and let $`\widehat{F}=\{(\varphi (x),x)xF\}`$.

If $`N`$ is semihyperbolic and $`F`$ is combable, then $`\mathrm{\Delta }(N\times F;\widehat{F})`$ is combable.

###### 3.4.

The Proof of Theorem A

Lemmas 1.3 and 1.4 provide examples of semihyperbolic groups $`N`$ and finitely generated subgroups $`HN`$ such that the membership problem for $`H`$ is unsolvable, and there exists $`hH`$ such that $`Z_N(h)H`$. Fix a surjection $`\varphi :FH`$, where $`F`$ is a finitely generated free group. Theorem 3.3 tells us that $`D=\mathrm{\Delta }(N\times F;\widehat{F})`$ is combable and Theorem 3.2 tells us that $`D`$ has an unsolvable conjugacy problem. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 3.5.

The results in  show that each of the examples $`D`$ constructed in the above proof has a cubic Dehn function and is Ind-combable, where Ind is the class of indexed languages. At the time of writing, I do not know of similar examples that are Reg-combable, i.e. automatic.

## 4. Unsolvable Isomorphism Problems

Our purpose in this section is to prove Theorem B. We shall achieve this by applying the following general criterion to the groups from Section 1 that satisfy Property $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$.

###### Theorem 4.1.

Let $`A`$ be a group with property FA and let $`B`$ be a finitely presented group that does not contain a subgroup isomorphic to $`A`$. If $`B`$ has property $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`F`$ is a finitely generated subgroup of sufficiently large rank $`2m`$, then there is a recursive sequence of subsets $`S_n=\{s_{n,1},\mathrm{},s_{n,m}\}B`$ such there is no algorithm to determine which of the groups

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_n=\mathrm{\Delta }((AB)\times F;\mathrm{\Sigma }_n)$$

are isomorphic, where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_nB\times F`$ is the subgroup $`(s_{n,i},\sigma _i),(1,\tau _i);i=1,\mathrm{},m`$, with $`\{\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _m,\tau _1,\mathrm{},\tau _m\}`$ a fixed basis for $`F`$.

Before turning to the proof of this result we note that the groups $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$ are obtained in a natural way from a fixed free group by adding a fixed number of relations. Specifically, if we fix a presentation $`𝒳`$ for $`(AB)\times F`$, with $`\{\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _m,\tau _1,\mathrm{},\tau _m\}𝒳`$ a basis for $`F`$, then

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_n=𝒳,\overline{𝒳},\overline{};\tau _i=\overline{\tau }_i,\sigma _is_{n,i}=\overline{\sigma _is_{n,i}}\text{ for }i=1,\mathrm{},m.$$

###### Proof.

$`F`$ is the free group with basis $`\{\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _m,\tau _1,\mathrm{},\tau _m\}`$. The subgroup $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_nB\times F`$ is $`\{(\varphi _n(x),x)xF\}`$, where $`\varphi _n:FB`$ is the homomorphism that sends each $`\sigma _i`$ to $`s_{n,i}S_n`$ and sends each $`\tau _i`$ to the identity. The hypothesis that $`B`$ has property $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ means that we may assume that there is no algorithm to determine which of the subgroups $`S_n`$ are equal to $`B`$; we may also assume that those which are not equal are not finitely presentable. We proceed with these assumptions in place. Scheme of Proof: In Step 1 we prove that if $`S_nB`$ is finitely presentable and $`S_n^{}B`$ is not, then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n\cong ̸\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^{}`$. In Step 2 we argue that if $`S_nB`$ and $`S_n^{}B`$ are both finitely presentable (hence equal to $`B`$) then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^{}`$. Since there is no algorithm to determine which of the subgroups $`S_nB`$ are finitely presentable, this will complete the proof.

Step 1: Proposition 2.3 tells us that any isomorphism from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$ to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^{}`$ must map $`\mathrm{ker}\varphi _n\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$ to $`\mathrm{ker}\varphi _n^{}`$ isomorphically. (We may apply Proposition 2.3 because no group with property FA admits a non-trivial homomorphism to a free group.) Thus we shall be done if we can prove that $`\mathrm{ker}\varphi _n`$ is the normal closure of a finite subset of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$ if and only if $`S_n`$ is finitely presentable.

$`\varphi _n`$ is an epimorphism from the finitely generated free group $`F`$ to the group $`S_n`$. Thus $`\mathrm{ker}\varphi _n`$ is the normal closure of a finite subset of $`F`$ if and only if $`S_n`$ is finitely presentable. (The finite presentability of a group is independent of the choice of finite generating set.)

There is a natural retraction of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$ onto $`F`$: first, writing $`G=(AB)\times F`$, retract $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n=G_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_n}\overline{G}`$ onto $`G`$ by sending both $`gG`$ and $`\overline{g}\overline{G}`$ to $`g`$ for every $`gG`$; now project onto the second direct summand in $`G`$.

If a subgroup $`H`$ is a retract of a group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, then the normal closure in $`H`$ of any subset of $`UH`$ is the same as the image in $`H`$ (under retraction) of the normal closure of $`U`$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Thus, combining the conclusions of the previous two paragraphs, we see that $`\mathrm{ker}\varphi _n`$ is the normal closure of a finite subset of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$ if and only if $`S_n`$ is finitely presentable.

Step 2: We now assume that $`S_nB`$ and $`S_n^{}B`$ are both finitely presentable. In this case $`\varphi _n`$ and $`\varphi _n^{}`$ have the same image, namely $`B`$. Thus we may apply Lemma 2.4. This lemma provides us with an automorphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }:FF`$ such that $`\varphi _n\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _i)=1`$ and $`\varphi _n\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau _i)=s_{n^{},i}`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$.

Consider the automorphism $`\alpha `$ of $`G=(AB)\times F`$ that is the identity on $`AB`$ and is defined on $`F`$ by $`\alpha (\sigma _i)=\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau _i)`$ and $`\alpha (\tau _i)=\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _i)`$. We claim that $`\alpha `$ sends $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n^{}`$ isomorphically to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$. Since these are free groups of equal rank, it suffices to check that $`\alpha (\mathrm{\Sigma }_n^{})\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$.

By definition, for $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$ we have $`\alpha (s_{n^{},i},\sigma _i)=(s_{n^{},i},\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau _i))`$, which is in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n=\{(\varphi (x),x)xF\}`$ because $`\varphi _n\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau _i)=s_{n^{},i}`$.

Because $`\alpha `$ maps $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n^{}`$ isomorphically onto $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$, we obtain an isomorphism from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^{}=G_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_n^{}}\overline{G}`$ to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$ by defining $`g\alpha (g)`$ and $`\overline{g}\overline{\alpha (g)}`$.

This completes the proof of Theorem 4.1. ∎

### 4.1. The Proof of Theorem B

There are many semihyperbolic groups that have property FA, for example finite groups, mapping class groups, higher-rank lattices, and hyperbolic groups that have property (T). To be definite, we take $`A`$ to be a finite group and we take $`B`$ to be a torsion-free semihyperbolic group that has property $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (examples are discussed below). By applying the construction of Theorem 4.1 to $`G:=(AB)\times F`$ we obtain a recursive sequence of groups $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n=\mathrm{\Delta }(G;\mathrm{\Sigma }_n)`$ for which the isomorphism problem is unsolvable. According to Theorem 3.3, the groups $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$ are all combable. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Example 4.2.

Let $`F`$ be a finitely generated free group of rank at least 2. The arguments in Section 1 yield explicit sequences of subsets $`S_nF\times F`$ of cardinality $`m`$ enjoying Property $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. Let $`F_m`$ be a free group of rank $`2m`$. Let $`G=[_2(F\times F)]\times F_m`$. The construction of Theorem 4.1 shows that there is a recursive sequence of free subgroups $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_nG`$ (each a retract of $`G`$ in fact) such that there is no algorithm to decide isomorphism among the combable groups $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n=\mathrm{\Delta }(G;\mathrm{\Sigma }_n)`$.

###### Example 4.3.

The arguments in Section 1 also yield torsion-free hyperbolic groups $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with explicit sequences of subsets $`S_n\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of cardinality $`m`$ enjoying Property $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. As above, in $`G=(_2\mathrm{\Gamma })\times F`$ one finds a recursive sequence of free subgroups $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_nG`$ (each a retract of $`G`$) such that there is no algorithm to decide isomorphism among the combable groups $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n=\mathrm{\Delta }(G;\mathrm{\Sigma }_n)`$.

###### Remark 4.4.

If one wishes to obtain torsion-free examples, one can replace $`_2`$ in the above constructions by a torsion-free hyperbolic group with Property (T).

###### Remark 4.5.

The results in  show that all of the groups in the sequences $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_n)`$ considered above satisfy a cubic Dehn isoperimetric inequality and are Ind-combable, where Ind is the class of indexed languages. At the time of writing, I do not know of such sequences in which all of the groups are Reg-combable, i.e. automatic.


text:
# Evidence for High-Momentum Enhancement in the Exclusive ³𝐻𝑒(𝑒,𝑒'𝑝) Reaction Below the Quasi-Elastic Peak

A1 Collaboration

## Abstract

New, high-precision measurements of the $`{}_{}{}^{3}He(e,e^{}p)`$ reaction using the A1 collaboration spectrometers at the Mainz microtron MAMI are presented. These were performed in parallel kinematics at energy transfers below the quasi-elastic peak, and at a central momentum transfer of 685 MeV/c. Cross sections and distorted momentum distributions were extracted and compared to theoretical predictions and existing data. The longitudinal and transverse behavior of the cross section was also studied. Sizable enhancements of the cross sections for missing momenta larger than 100 MeV/c as compared to Plane Wave Impulse Approximation were observed in both the two- and three-body breakup channels.

Renewed precision studies of few-nucleon systems has been fueled by recent developments on both the theoretical and experimental fronts. Theoretically, progress toward full microscopic calculations based on realistic $`NN`$ potential models has been achieved - for example, via nonrelativistic Faddeev-type calculations for three-body systems Golak:95 ; Kotlyar:00 , and via Monte Carlo variational calculations for three- and four-body systems Carlson:94 . Experimentally, new facilities such as the Mainz microtron MAMI and the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility provide access to high-quality continuous-wave electron beams, high-resolution magnetic spectrometers and fast data-acquisition systems. These features allow precision measurements of the nuclear electromagnetic response through coincidence proton-knockout electron scattering. Thus, the door is opened for detailed studies of unresolved issues relating to few-nucleon systems, some of which were first raised in inclusive $`(e,e^{})`$ measurements more than 20 years ago.

The experiment reported in this paper is part of an extensive and systematic program proposal  to study nucleon knockout reactions on $`{}_{}{}^{3,4}He`$ nuclei over the quasi-elastic (QE) peak at a fixed central momentum-transfer of $`|\stackrel{}{q}|`$ = 685 MeV/c. The specific measurements reported here were performed with $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$ on the low-energy side of the QE peak (fixed central energy-transfer, $`\omega `$ 158 MeV; $`x_B1.5`$), where the contributions from two-body mechanisms such as meson-exchange currents (MEC) and isobar currents (IC) are suppressed, thereby enhancing the possibility of observing the effects of short-range $`NN`$ correlations.

This low energy-transfer region was studied extensively in the 1970-80’s using inclusive electron scattering at $`|\stackrel{}{q}|k_F`$ McCarthy:76 ; Day:78 ; Sick:80 . The measured $`{}_{}{}^{3}He(e,e^{})`$ cross sections in this kinematical regime were much higher than theoretical impulse approximation (PWIA) predictions Sick:80 ; degliAtti:83 , and the discrepancy with prediction increased as $`\omega `$ decreased (i.e. as $`x_B`$ increased). Since these inclusive cross sections were measured over a wide range of momentum transfer and exhibited so-called “$`y`$-scaling” in this regime, it has been argued that the discrepancies cannot be accounted for by non-quasifree mechanisms such as MEC or IC Day:90 . Further, effects of final-state interactions (FSI) in this region were estimated to be small Sauer:89 . It was suggested Sick:80  that, as a possible solution to this discrepancy, the high-momentum components in the $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$ spectral function should be increased. Such an increase would be indicative of short-range NN correlations not accounted for in the theory. This suggestion came under scrutiny, and it was subsequently suggested degliAtti:83  that exclusive and semi-exclusive $`{}_{}{}^{3}He(e,e^{}p)`$ measurements were required to test such a modification, and to also examine the missing-energy ($`E_m`$) dependence of the spectral function. Thus, a later measurement of $`{}_{}{}^{3}He(e,e^{}p)`$ at high missing momenta was performed Marchand:88 . It was reported that the new data did not support ad hoc attempts to increase the spectral function high-momentum components - leading to the conclusion that the observed enhanced strength in the earlier inclusive data (as discussed in Ref. Sick:80 ) was more likely due to defects in the PWIA model assumptions, than to a lack of nucleon high-momentum components in the $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$ wave function. However, it should be noted that this exclusive data of Ref. Marchand:88  sampled the kinematical domain with $`\omega `$ above the QE peak, in the “dip” region, and not the low-energy side at which the inclusive data are discussed in Ref. Sick:80 . It had been in the low-energy region where $`y`$-scaling was observed, indicating that single-nucleon reaction mechanisms dominate. It can also be noted that none of the since-reported exclusive $`{}_{}{}^{3}He(e,e^{}p)`$ measurements Jans:87 ; Ducret:93 ; LeGoff:97 ; Florizone:99  have been carried out in the kinematical conditions studied by Ref. Sick:80 . In this work, we report the first $`{}_{}{}^{3}He(e,e^{}p)`$ measurements on the low-energy side of the QE peak. These new exclusive data were taken in “parallel kinematics” (central detected-proton angle equal to central angle of $`\stackrel{}{q}`$), and show an enhancement of strength in the high-momentum region of the spectral function. Due to the parallel nature of the measurement, this is directly related to the $`\omega `$-dependence. Therefore, the enhancement shows up on the low-energy side of the QE peak, similar to what was previously observed for the inclusive reaction.

The measurements utilized three incident beam energies $`E_i`$ = 495, 630, and 810 MeV with electron scattering angles $`\mathrm{\Theta }_e`$ = 109.28, 75.31, and 54.58, corresponding to virtual photon polarizations of $`ϵ`$ = 0.19, 0.44, and 0.64. The total systematic uncertainty of the measured cross sections was estimated to be $`\pm 3`$%. This uncertainty is dominated by the uncertainty in the density of the $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$ gas in the cold ($`T`$ = 20 K), high-pressure ($`P`$ = 18 atm) target. All error bars shown in the figures of this paper are statistical only. More details on the experimental setup, performance, and data-analysis procedure can be found in Ref.Blomqvist:98  and Kozlov:99 .

The $`(e,e^{}p)`$ cross section for $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$ was obtained as a function of missing energy and missing momentum ($`p_m`$). The radiative unfolding procedure using the Mainz version of RADCOR code Rokavec:94  was applied to correct for radiation in 2-D ($`E_m,p_m`$) space. The extracted $`(e,e^{}p)`$ cross section gradually approached zero at $`E_m`$ = 30 MeV. An alternative method was used to test this radiative unfolding procedure: radiative effects were included directly into a MC simulation code (“MCEEP” mceep ), following the method outlined in Ref. Templon:00 . This method confirmed that most of the measured $`(e,e^{}p)`$ strength beyond $`E_m`$ = 30 MeV arises from the processes at lower $`E_m`$, and that the actual (unradiated) strength at these high values of$`E_m`$ was too small to be extracted.

Distorted spectral functions, $`S^{dist}(E_m,p_m)`$, were extracted from the data according to:

$$S^{dist}(E_m,p_m)=\frac{1}{p_p^2\sigma _{ep}^{cc1}}\frac{d^6\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }_ed\mathrm{\Omega }_pdp_edp_p}.$$
(1)
Study of the longitudinal/transverse ($`L/T`$) behavior of the cross section was done by direct comparison to the $`ep`$ off-shell cross section on the moving proton, at each $`ϵ`$, since pure PWIA quasi-free knockout would follow the elementary $`ep`$ response. We chose the de Forest $`cc1`$ prescription Forest:83  for the elementary $`ep`$ cross section ($`\sigma _{ep}^{cc1}`$), mainly because of convenience to compare our results to earlier data from Ref. Florizone:99  and Ref. Jans:87 . A further benefit to dividing out of the cross section some well-defined form of $`\sigma _{eN}`$ is that the predominant kinematic ($`ϵ`$) dependence is removed from the data, enabling easier identification of residual nuclear dependencies.

The measured six-fold cross section for the reaction $`{}_{}{}^{3}He(e,e^{}p)X`$ as a function of $`E_m`$, averaged over one sample $`p_m`$ bin of 150$`\pm 10`$ MeV/c, is shown for the three different $`ϵ`$ values in Fig. 1(a). The two-body $`{}_{}{}^{3}He(e,e^{}p)d`$ breakup peak and the threshold for three-body $`{}_{}{}^{3}He(e,e^{}p)pn`$ breakup are at 5.49 MeV and 7.72 MeV respectively. The strong dependence of the cross section on the virtual-photon polarization is evident. This dependence, however, disappears by dividing out the elementary $`ep`$ cross section in the extraction of the measured spectral function, as can be seen from Fig. 1(b). The residual $`ϵ`$-dependence is less than 5% between the differing $`ϵ`$ measurements, and has no systematic trend, meaning that the $`L/T`$ behavior of the $`(e,e^{}p)`$ cross section is fully described by the $`\sigma _{ep}`$ cross section.

Two-body $`pd`$ distorted momentum distributions, $`\rho _2`$, were obtained by integrating the extracted $`S^{dist}`$ over the two-body breakup peak. The extracted $`\rho _2`$ distributions are shown in Fig. 2(a), which shows $`\rho _2`$ in terms of $`N=4\pi p_m^2\rho _2\mathrm{\Delta }_{p_m}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{p_m}`$ is the bin-size in $`p_m`$ (equal to 10 MeV/c here). Also shown in Fig. 2(a) are earlier data Florizone:99 ; Jans:87  and the spectral function calculation of Kievsky et al. Kievsky:97 . Like the spectral function, our data are independent of $`ϵ`$ for the entire $`p_m`$ range.

By plotting the data as a ratio with respect to the Kievsky spectral function, as is done in Fig. 2(b), several points are notable. First, the data of Ref. Jans:87  – which was taken on top of the QE peak, but is the only data set taken in transverse kinematics, thus at constant $`\omega `$ – display reasonable agreement with those of Ref. Florizone:99  for $`p_m`$ up to 95 MeV/c, but deviate both from our new data and those of Ref. Florizone:99  at higher $`p_m`$. Second, agreement is seen between the current measurement and the earlier parallel kinematics Mainz data of Ref. Florizone:99 , which was taken at the top of the QE peak. Third, a roughly constant 20% suppression of the data compared to the spectral function is seen for $`p_m`$ up to 100 MeV/c. This roughly 20% difference between data and the calculation at low $`p_m`$ has been previously observed (e.g. see Ref. Florizone:99 ) and results predominantly from the fact that the theoretical spectral function does not account for FSI while the data does.

The notable new feature observed in Fig. 2(b) is the significant relative increase in the measured cross section compared to the spectral function for $`p_m`$ above 100 MeV/c. The beginning of this phenomenon of relative increase can be also seen in the few highest $`p_m`$ points of Ref. Florizone:99 . It should be noted that the parallel kinematics data from Ref. Florizone:99  extend from the top of the QE peak to the low-energy side, and that, just as for our new data, higher $`p_m`$ corresponds to lower $`\omega `$. Similar decrease is not seen in Ref. Jans:87 , which in contrast to our new data, show a steady decrease for increasing $`p_m`$ with respect to the calculation. This suggests that the (relative) increase in the cross section is a phenomenon observed only at the low-energy side of the QE peak. Moreover, our observed enhancement in strength appears to be consistent with that observed in the earlier inclusive measurements McCarthy:76 ; Day:78 ; Sick:80 . This can be demonstrated by multiplying the spectral function of Kievsky et al. by the enhancement factor that was suggested in Ref. Sick:80 : $`f(k)=1+(k/\stackrel{~}{k})^n`$ (where $`n`$=2.5, $`\stackrel{~}{k}`$=285 MeV/c, and $`k`$ is the primordial proton momentum in the nucleus, using $`k`$ = $`p_m`$ here). When the theory is modified in this way, the $`\rho _2^{exp}/\rho _2^{th}`$ ratio for our new data becomes mainly constant at roughly 0.8 over the entire $`p_m`$ range up to 225 MeV/c. This is demonstrated in Fig. 2(c). Another possible explanation for the enhancement feature being manifest only at $`x_B>1`$ may be a non-quasifree reaction mechanism, such as a a QE reaction on a quasi-deuteron with subsequent rescattering; this would represent a longer-range nuclear correlation effect.

Distorted proton-momentum distributions for the three-body breakup channel, $`\rho _3`$, were obtained by integration of the experimental spectral function $`S^{dist}(E_m,p_m)`$ from 7 to 20 MeV in $`E_m`$. These extracted $`\rho _3`$ distributions are shown in Fig. 3(a), mutliplied by $`4\pi p_m^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{p_m}`$ as was done for the two-body channel. Again, no systematic $`ϵ`$-dependence is observed. The ratio $`\rho _3^{exp}`$/$`\rho _3^{th}`$ is shown as a function of $`p_m`$ in Figs. 3(b) and 3(c) using the unaltered and the modified calculation of Kievsky et al., respectively. These ratios for the continuum channel show a similar feature as seen in the two-body channel. The modification of the spectral function by the factor $`f(k)`$ leads to a better agreement with the data, but not as good as was observed for the two-body breakup channel.

In conclusion, we have performed measurements of the $`{}_{}{}^{3}He(e,e^{}p)`$ reaction on the low $`\omega `$ side of the QE peak. Cross sections, distorted spectral functions and distorted proton-momentum distributions were obtained as a function of $`E_m`$ and $`p_m`$ for both the two-body and continuum breakup channel for three $`ϵ`$ values. The $`(e,e^{}p)`$ cross section strength falls to near zero for $`E_m>`$30 MeV. The strong $`ϵ`$-dependence of the cross section, both for two- and three-body reaction channels, is due to the $`L/T`$ behavior of the elementary $`ep`$ cross section. The distorted proton-momentum distributions for both the two- and three-body breakup channels significantly deviate in shape from the PWIA predictions of Ref. Kievsky:97  for $`p_m`$ above 100 MeV/c. The correction function suggested in Ref. Sick:80  to enhance the high-momentum components of the spectral function, based on inclusive measurements in this same kinematical region ($`\omega <\omega _{QE}`$), is able to fully correct this deviation in shape for the two-body breakup channel, and largely for the three-body breakup channel. Such an enhancement of the spectral function’s nucleon high-momentum components could be indicative of the effects of short-range NN correlations. The remaining difference in amplitude is predominantly (though not necessarily exclusively) due to by FSI effects, which were not included into the calculations.

We would like to thank the MAMI staff for providing support for this experiment. This research was supported by the state of Rhineland-Palatinate and by grants from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB 443), by the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation, by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, and by the University of Melbourne.