text:
# Boundary-Layer Theory, Strong-Coupling Series, and Large-Order Behavior

## I Introduction

In this paper we report some major advances in understanding (albeit not a complete solution to) a difficult general class of problems in mathematical physics. We consider here the conversion of a continuum problem into a discrete problem by the insertion of a lattice spacing parameter $`a`$, the solution of the continuum problem on the lattice, and the subsequent extremely subtle continuum limit $`a0`$.

Almost every continuum physics problem is singular as a function of the parameters in the problem. As a result, only rarely does the perturbation series take the form of a Taylor series having a nonzero radius of convergence. As an elementary example, consider the algebraic polynomial equation

$`ϵx^3+x1=0.`$ (1)
This problem is singular in the limit $`ϵ0`$. In this limit, the degree of the polynomial changes from three to one and thus two of the roots abruptly disappear. As a consequence, a perturbative solution to this problem \[expressing the roots $`x(ϵ)`$ as series in powers of $`ϵ`$\] yields expressions that are more complicated than Taylor series.

A more elaborate example of a singular problem is the time-independent Schrödinger equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2M}}^2\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐱)+[V(𝐱)E]\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐱)=0.`$ (2)
In the classical limit $`\mathrm{}0`$ this differential equation abruptly becomes an algebraic equation, and thus the general solution no longer contains any arbitrary constants or functions and, as a result, it can no longer satisfy the initial conditions. We know that for small $`\mathrm{}`$ the solution is not Taylor-like but rather is a singular exponential in WKB form:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐱)e^{S(𝐱)/\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{}0).`$ (3)
In the study of quantum field theory, it is well known that infinities appear in the perturbative expansion in powers of the coupling constant. There are two kinds of infinities. The first kind, which is due to the point-like nature of the interaction, requires the use of renormalization. The second kind, which is due to singularities in the complex-coupling-constant plane, forces the perturbation series to have a zero radius of convergence.

A quantum field theory can be regulated by introducing a lattice spacing. The resulting discrete theory is completely finite and can be studied numerically by using various kinds of numerical methods such as Monte Carlo integration. However, the underlying singular nature of the continuum quantum field theory resurfaces in the continuum limit $`a0`$. The introduction of a lattice spacing and the singular nature of the continuum limit was investigated in a series of papers by Bender et al. .

A quantum field theory is just one instance in which discretization regulates and eliminates the singular nature of the problem. It is also known that introducing a lattice spacing converts a boundary-layer problem, which is a singular perturbation problem, into a regular perturbation problem . A boundary-layer problem is a differential-equation-boundary-value problem in which the highest derivative of the differential equation is multiplied by a small parameter $`ϵ`$. Consider as an example

$`ϵy^{\prime \prime }(x)+a(x)y^{}(x)+b(x)y(x)=c(x),`$ (4)
where the boundary conditions on the function $`y(x)`$ typically have a form such as

$`y(0)=A,y(1)=B.`$ (5)
This boundary-value problem is singular because in the limit $`ϵ0`$ one of the solutions abruptly disappears and the limiting solution is not able to satisfy the two boundary conditions in (5). The usual way to solve the boundary-value problem (4) – (5) is to decompose the interval $`0x1`$ into two regions, an outer region, in which the solution varies slowly as a function of $`x`$, and an inner region or boundary-layer region, in which the solution varies rapidly as a function of $`x`$. The boundary-layer region is a narrow region whose thickness is typically of order $`ϵ`$ or some power of $`ϵ`$ .

An important example of a boundary-layer problem is the instanton equation

$`ϵ^2f^{\prime \prime }(x)+f(x)f^3(x)=0,`$ (6)
with the associated boundary conditions

$`f(0)=0,f(\mathrm{})=1.`$ (7)
The exact solution to this instanton problem is

$`f(x)=\mathrm{tanh}{\displaystyle \frac{x}{ϵ\sqrt{2}}}.`$ (8)
Note that the solution $`f(x)`$ varies rapidly at the origin $`x=0`$ over a region of thickness $`ϵ`$; this is the boundary-layer region. The solution varies slowly (it is approximately $`1`$) outside of this region. The outer region consists of those $`x`$ not near the origin.

A novel way to solve the instanton problem is to discretize it by introducing a lattice. On the lattice, the differential equation becomes a difference equation that can easily be solved perturbatively. In the continuum limit, as the lattice spacing vanishes, we then obtain a strong-coupling expansion that must be evaluated by means of a Padé or a variational perturbation theory method. To illustrate the approach our objective will be to calculate the slope of the instanton at $`x=0`$, which from (8) has the value

$`f^{}(0)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ\sqrt{2}}}.`$ (9)
We introduce a lattice with lattice spacing $`a`$ so that the real axis is discretized in steps of width $`a`$. The spatial coordinate reads $`x_n=na`$, where the function $`f(x)`$ assumes the value $`f_n=f(x_n)`$. On the lattice the second spatial derivative in (6) becomes

$`f^{\prime \prime }(x){\displaystyle \frac{f_{n+1}2f_n+f_{n1}}{a^2}}.`$ (10)
Thus, from the instanton equation (6) we obtain the difference equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^2}{a^2}}(f_{n+1}2f_n+f_{n1})+f_nf_n^3=0,`$ (11)
where the boundary values follow from (7):

$`f_0=0,f_{\mathrm{}}=1.`$ (12)
The natural expansion parameter now is $`ϵ^2/a^2`$, to which we assign the name $`\delta `$:

$`\delta {\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^2}{a^2}}.`$ (13)
The singular perturbation problem in the continuum \[whose solution $`f(x)`$ in (8) does not possess a Taylor expansion in powers of $`ϵ`$\], has become a regular perturbation problem. That is, we can now expand the solution $`f_n`$ to the difference equation (11) as a Taylor series in powers of $`\delta `$:

$`f_n=a_{n,0}+a_{n,1}\delta +a_{n,2}\delta ^2+\mathrm{}.`$ (14)
We impose the boundary values (12) by requiring that

$`a_{0,0}0\mathrm{and}a_{n,0}1(n1).`$ (15)
Inserting the ansatz (14) into the difference equation (11), we get the recursion relation

$`a_{n,j}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_{n+1,j1}+a_{n,j1}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_{n1,j1}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{j1}{}}}a_{n,k}a_{n,jk}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{j1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{jk}{}}}a_{n,k}a_{n,l}a_{n,jkl}.`$ (16)
For the first derivative at the origin $`x=0`$ this leads to the series

$`f^{}(0)`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{a0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{f_1f_0}{a}}=\underset{a0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{f_1}{a}}=\underset{a0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_{1,j}\delta ^j`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`\underset{a0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2}{8}}+{\displaystyle \frac{11\delta ^4}{128}}+\mathrm{}\right).`$
We have calculated the coefficients $`a_{n,j}`$ with the help of Maple V R7 up to order $`j=200`$. The first 20 numbers are given in Table 1. A complete list of these coefficients can be found on the webpage of the author FW . Note that the expansion parameter $`\delta `$ in (17) is not small but rather tends to infinity in the limit as the lattice spacing $`a`$ approaches zero. Using the parameter $`\delta `$ defined in (13) we rewrite the series (17) as

$`f^{}(0)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}\underset{\delta \mathrm{}}{lim}\sqrt{\delta }\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2}{8}}+{\displaystyle \frac{11\delta ^4}{128}}+\mathrm{}\right).`$ (18)
Taking into account the exact result (9), we obtain the identity

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}=\underset{\delta \mathrm{}}{lim}\sqrt{\delta }\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2}{8}}+{\displaystyle \frac{11\delta ^4}{128}}+\mathrm{}\right).`$ (19)
The purpose of this paper is to examine equations like (19). This equation shows that the singular nature of the instanton problem has resurfaced in the continuum limit $`\delta \mathrm{}`$ of the lattice expansion. The expression on the right side of (19) should have the value $`1/\sqrt{2}=0.7071067812\mathrm{}`$, but it is not at all obvious why this is so, and the objective of this paper is to analyze this difficult and subtle limit.

This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we use Padé techniques to perform the limit in (19). We will see that while the results are not bad (the accuracy is about 1%), better methods are needed. We perform the Padé analysis to much higher order than has ever been done before and we discover a new qualitative behavior that has not yet been observed. In Sec. III we try the use of the variational perturbation theory techniques introduced by Kleinert to perform the sum in (19). These techniques increase the accuracy by a factor of about $`10`$, but they still do not give the exact result. While variational perturbation theory works very well in summing the strong-coupling series for the ground-state energy of the anharmonic oscillator , and for the critical exponents of second-order phase transitions , we show that the series in (19) is at the very edge of validity for Kleinert’s methods. We then examine the large-order behavior of the terms of the sum in (19) in Sec. IV. We show definitively that the Taylor expansion has a nonzero radius of convergence and thus, on the lattice, the instanton problem is a regular perturbation problem.

In Sec. V we turn to a more difficult singular perturbation problem; namely, the Blasius equation of fluid dynamics. We use the same approach as for the instanton equation. In Secs. VI, VII, and VIII we study the summation of the lattice perturbation expansion using Padé and variational methods and we examine the large-order behavior of the lattice perturbation series. We find that Padé methods give good but not excellent results and that variational perturbation theory is better than Padé. Again, the series we need to evaluate in the continuum limit lies at the very edge of validity for Kleinert’s methods. We also find that, unlike the lattice perturbation expansion coefficients for the instanton problem, the sign pattern of the Blasius weak-coupling series does not alternate. Rather, it is governed by a cosine function with a frequency different from $`\pi `$.

## II Padé Resummation for the Instanton Equation

In this section we examine what happens if we attempt to evaluate the right side of (19) by using Padé techniques. Padé resummation has already been applied to the instanton problem up to 50th order . However, we have been able to perform the procedures to much higher orders. We have discovered that remarkable and unsuspected new phenomena occur just a few orders beyond what has been computed.

The procedure is as follows. Consider the formal Frobenius series

$`S(\delta )=\delta ^M{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_n\delta ^n,`$ (20)
where $`M`$ is a non-negative number. Raising this series to the power $`1/M`$, inverting the right hand side and re-expanding, we obtain

$`S^{1/M}(\delta )={\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}b_n\delta ^n}},`$ (21)
with new expansion coefficients $`b_n`$. Assuming we know the first $`N+1`$ terms of the original power series in (20), we raise equation (21) to the power $`N`$. We then truncate the summation at $`n=N`$, finally getting

$`S^{N/M}(\delta )={\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^N}{{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}}c_n^{(N)}\delta ^n}},`$ (22)
where we have re-expanded and obtained new expansion coefficients $`c_n`$. In the limit $`\delta \mathrm{}`$, only the $`N`$th term in the denominator survives and we obtain the approximant

$`(S_N)^{N/M}\underset{\delta \mathrm{}}{lim}S^{N/M}(\delta )=\underset{\delta \mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^N}{{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}}c_n^{(N)}\delta ^n}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{c_N^{(N)}}}.`$ (23)
The approximant $`S_N=\left(c_N^{(N)}\right)^{M/N}`$ is the zeroth-order survivor of the limiting process. Also, taking into account the first-order correction we observe that, as in the case of variational perturbation theory (see Sec. III), there is an approach to scaling. In the limit $`\delta \mathrm{}`$ the Frobenius series $`S(\delta )`$ in Eq. (20) converges to a constant $`C`$. Additionally, the approach to scaling, following from the Padé resummation (23), reveals how fast it converges:

$`S(\delta )C+C^{}\delta ^1(\delta \mathrm{}).`$ (24)
We now apply this procedure to the boundary-layer problem (11). \[Recall that the weak-coupling coefficients for the first 20 coefficients $`a_{1,j}`$ obtained from (16) are shown in Table 1 and that more can be found in .\] Resumming the series (14) for $`n=1`$,

$`f_1={\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{N}{}}}a_{1,j}\delta ^j,`$ (25)
according to the Padé procedure (23) with $`M=1/2`$ as follows from (19) and evaluating the approximants $`S_N=\left(c_N^{(N)}\right)^{M/N}`$, we get the numbers listed in Table 2.

Compared with the numerical solution $`1/\sqrt{2}0.7171067812`$, this strong-coupling expansion seems to converge quite well. However, when we go to higher orders, we find that the numbers drop below the exact solution and assume a minimum at $`N=24`$, where the approximant has the value $`S_{24}0.70198319`$. The approximants then rise again, cross the exact solution at $`N=41`$ and become complex at $`N=52`$. The appearance of complex numbers is a consequence of taking the $`N`$th root in equation (23) when the coefficients $`c_N^{(N)}`$ become negative. This phenomenon has not been observed before in the course of using this Padé procedure. The imaginary part then becomes smaller and smaller as $`N`$ rises. Abruptly, at $`N=68`$, the approximants become real again. As one can see from the spikes in Fig. 1 this pattern is repeated for higher $`N`$. Note that the figure only shows the real part of the Padé approximant $`S_N`$.

Apparently, the sequence of approximants $`S_N`$ does not converge. The singular nature of the instanton equation has the effect of making the Padé approximants behave like the partial sums of a divergent (asymptotic) series; at first the partial sums appear to converge to a limit, and then they veer off. In the case of the Padé’s shown in Fig. 1 the approximants approach to within 1% of the correct limit before veering off. It appears that another more powerful resummation technique is needed to treat the expression in (19). In the next section we apply a technique due to Kleinert.

## III Variational Perturbation Theory for the Instanton Equation

Kleinert has developed a technique in the context of the ground-state energy of the anharmonic oscillator  and of critical exponents of second-order phase transitions  for summing divergent perturbation series. This technique, known as Kleinert’s square-root trick, is described below.

Consider a weak-coupling series

$`f_N(\delta )={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}}f_n\delta ^n,`$ (26)
which is truncated at order $`N`$. Rewrite this weak-coupling expansion by introducing an auxiliary scaling parameter $`\kappa `$ :

$`f_N(\delta )=\kappa ^p{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}}f_n\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\kappa ^q}}\right)^n|_{\kappa =1},`$ (27)
which is set to $`\kappa =1`$ later. The square-root trick now reads

$`\kappa \sqrt{K^2+\kappa ^2K^2}=K\sqrt{1+\delta r},`$ (28)
where $`K`$ is a “dummy” scaling parameter and

$`r={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\delta }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{K^2}}1\right).`$ (29)
In the case of the anharmonic oscillator, $`K`$ is the frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of a trial harmonic oscillator .

Substituting (28) into the truncated weak-coupling series (27), we obtain

$`f_N(\delta ,K)={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}}f_nK^{pnq}(1+\delta r)^{(pnq)/2}\delta ^n.`$ (30)
The factor $`(1+gr)^\alpha `$ with $`\alpha (pnq)/2`$ can be expanded by means of generalized binomials according to

$`(1+\delta r)^\alpha ={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{Nn}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha }{k}}\right)(\delta r)^k\delta ^n={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{Nn}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha }{k}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{K^2}}1\right)^k\delta ^n,`$ (31)
where we have used (29) and finally have set $`\kappa 1`$. The binomial is defined as

$`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha }{k}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha +1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(k+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha +k+1)}}.`$ (32)
We deduce that the function $`f_N(\delta ,K)`$ can now be written as

$`f_N(\delta ,K)={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{Nn}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\frac{1}{2}(pnq)}{k}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{K^2}}1\right)^kK^{pnq}\right]f_n\delta ^n.`$ (33)
To first order this expression reduces to

$`f_1(\delta ,K)=\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{p}{2}}\right)f_0K^p+{\displaystyle \frac{p}{2}}f_0K^{p2}+f_1\delta K^{pq}.`$ (34)
Applying the principle of least sensitivity  leaves us with

$`{\displaystyle \frac{f_1(\delta ,K)}{K}}p\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{p}{2}}\right)f_0+{\displaystyle \frac{p(p2)}{2}}f_0K^2+(pq)f_1\delta K^q0.`$ (35)
Next, making the strong-coupling ansatz

$`K^{(1)}(\delta )=\delta ^{1/q}\left(k_0^{(1)}+k_1^{(1)}\delta ^{2/q}+\mathrm{}\right),`$ (36)
we obtain the following equation from (35):

$`p\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{p}{2}}\right)f_0+{\displaystyle \frac{p(p2)}{2}}f_0(k_0^{(1)}\delta ^{1/q})^2+(pq)f_1\delta (\delta ^{1/q}k_0^{(1)})^q=0.`$ (37)
The second term is a subleading contribution in the limit as the coupling $`\delta `$ goes to infinity which we can neglect. Solving for $`k_0^{(1)}`$ we then get

$`k_0^{(1)}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{2f_1}{f_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{pq}{p(p2)}}\right)^{1/q}.`$ (38)
Assuming that the ansatz (36) for the variational parameter $`K(\delta )`$ also holds for higher orders we obtain from the function $`f_N(\delta ,K)`$ in (33)

$`f_N(\delta )=\delta ^{\frac{p}{q}}\left[b_0^{(N)}(k_0^{(N)})+b_1^{(N)}(k_0^{(N)},k_1^{(N)})\delta ^{2/q}+\mathrm{}\right],`$ (39)
where the leading strong-coupling coefficient $`b_0^{(N)}(k_0^{(N)})`$ is given by

$`b_0^{(N)}(k_0^{(N)})={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{Nn}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\frac{1}{2}(pnq)}{k}}\right)(1)^kf_n(k_0^{(N)})^{pnq}.`$ (40)
The inner sum can be further simplified, using

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{m}{}}}(1)^k\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha }{k}}\right)=(1)^m\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha 1}{m}}\right).`$ (41)
Thus the strong-coupling coefficient (40) reduces to

$`b_0^{(N)}(k_0^{(N)})={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}}(1)^{Nn}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\frac{1}{2}(pnq)1}{Nn}}\right)f_n(k_0^{(N)})^{pnq}.`$ (42)
So, looking at equation (39) we see that the fraction $`p/q`$ tells us the leading power behavior in $`\delta `$ and $`2/q`$ indicates the approach to scaling:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}f_j\delta ^j\delta ^{p/q}\left(b_0+b_1\delta ^{2/q}+\mathrm{}\right)(\delta \mathrm{}).`$ (43)
For the instanton equation we can determine the numbers $`p`$ and $`q`$ by re-obtaining the differential equation (6) from the difference equation (11). The positive real axis is discretized in steps of width $`a`$, so that we let $`x_nna`$. The power series expansion for the discrete function $`f_n=f(x_n)`$ has the form

$`f_{n\pm 1}=f(x_n)\pm f^{}(x_n)a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}f^{\prime \prime }(x_n)a^2\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}f^{\prime \prime \prime }(x_n)a^3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}f^{\prime \prime \prime \prime }(x_n)a^4\pm \mathrm{}.`$ (44)
Thus, the numerator of the second derivative (10) becomes

$`f_{n+1}2f_n+f_{n1}=f_n^{\prime \prime }a^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}f_n^{\prime \prime \prime \prime }a^4+\mathrm{},`$ (45)
so the zeroth-, first-, and third-order contributions cancel. Translating the lattice result for $`f_n`$ back to the continuous function $`f(x_n)=f_n`$, the difference equation (11) reads

$`ϵ^2\left[f^{\prime \prime }(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}f^{\prime \prime \prime \prime }(x)a^2+\mathrm{}\right]+f(x)f^3(x)=0.`$ (46)
Writing out the power series

$`f(x)=f_0(x)+a^2f_1(x)+a^4f_2(x)+\mathrm{},`$ (47)
and comparing even powers of $`a`$, we get from equation (46) for $`a^0`$

$`ϵ^2f_0^{\prime \prime }(x)+f_0(x)f_0^3(x)=0,`$ (48)
which is just the original instanton equation (6). For $`a^2`$ we have

$`ϵ^2f_1^{\prime \prime }(x)+f_1(x)\left(13f_0^2(x)\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}ϵ^2f_0^{\prime \prime \prime \prime }(x).`$ (49)
The boundary values read

$`f_0(0)=0,f_0(\mathrm{})=1,`$ (50)
and

$`f_1(0)=f_1(\mathrm{})=0,`$ (51)
respectively. The solution to equation (48) with the boundary values (50) is of course

$`f_0(x)=\mathrm{tanh}{\displaystyle \frac{x}{ϵ\sqrt{2}}}.`$ (52)
So, finally from (47) we get for the derivative at the origin $`x=0`$:

$`f^{}(0)=f_0^{}(0)+{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^2}{\delta }}f_1^{}(0)+\mathrm{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ\sqrt{2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^2}{\delta }}f_1^{}(0)+\mathrm{}.`$ (53)
Comparing equation (53) with (18), we resum the weak-coupling series in (18) as

$`1{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2}{8}}+\mathrm{}=\delta ^{1/2}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}+ϵ^3f_1^{}(0)\delta ^1+\mathrm{}\right].`$ (54)
Also, comparing with (43), we conclude that the leading power and the approach to scaling are given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{p}{q}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{2}{q}}=1,`$ (55)
respectively. So we identify $`p=1`$ and $`q=2`$.

We now evaluate the leading strong-coupling coefficient $`b_0`$ from (43) according to (42) with $`p=1`$ and $`q=2`$. To that end we substitute our 200 weak-coupling coefficients from  into the formula using a computer algebra program. We are now confronted with the following problem: The principle of least sensitivity cannot be unambiguously applied. Optimizing with respect to extrema, inflection points, or higher derivatives does yield converging results for the strong-coupling limit. However, all these strong-coupling series converge to the wrong values.

There is one particularly unpleasant case: The second derivative with respect to $`k_0`$ for the largest $`k_0`$ where this derivative exists (see Fig. 2) gives a convergent strong-coupling series. The numbers come extremely close to $`1/\sqrt{2}`$ as one can see from the 20 numbers in Table 3. The 200th leading strong-coupling coefficient is $`b_0^{(200)}=0.707417\mathrm{}`$. However, a Richardson extrapolation  based on the first 200 orders then unfortunately shows that variational perturbation theory produces a value slightly smaller than $`1/\sqrt{2}`$. The first six orders of Richardson extrapolations are presented in Table 4. Hence, the strong-coupling series $`b_0^{(N)}`$ does converge, but it converges to the wrong number, only one part per 1000 away from the true value:

$`f_1^{(\mathrm{VPT})}\underset{\delta \mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{200}{}}}a_{1,n}\delta ^n=b_0^{(\mathrm{})}=0.7063998320858845\pm 0.0000000000000001`$ (56)
compared with $`f^{}(0)=1/\sqrt{2}=0.7071067812\mathrm{}`$ . The deviation is just $`0.099\%`$, but $`1/\sqrt{2}`$ can unfortunately be ruled out.

Given that $`p=1`$ and $`q=2`$, the failure of variational perturbation theory is not surprising. According to Ref.  the fraction $`2/q`$ must lie within the open interval $`(1/2,1)`$. Otherwise, one cannot prove that variational perturbation theory converges. Thus, this problem lies exactly on the upper boundary of the region in which the summation method is known to work.

We can understand the upper edge of the range of the parameter $`2/q`$ that describes the approach to scaling $`2/q`$ by looking at the standard deviation from the actual limiting value. It turns out  that the deviation in the limit as the perturbative order $`N`$ goes to infinity assumes the shape

$`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{b_0^{(N)}b_0}{b_0}}\right|\mathrm{exp}\left(CN^{12/q}\right)(N\mathrm{}),`$ (57)
where $`C`$ is a constant. So, to obtain exponential convergence for the sequence formed by the $`b_0^{(N)}`$, we need $`12/q>0`$. In other words, the approach to scaling $`2/q`$ is bounded and it must be smaller than one. The lower edge is more subtle and is discussed in Ref. .

In conclusion, we have applied variational perturbation theory to a case that lies at the very edge of its applicability. We see that variational perturbation theory gives better results by about a factor of 10 than the Padé approximations examined in Sec. II. However, we have not yet found a systematic method for resumming (19) that enables us to perform the continuum limit of the discrete lattice theory. Therefore, we now lay the foundation for further investigations by analyzing the large-order behavior of the instanton series.

## IV Large-Order Behavior for the Instanton Equation

It can be seen from the numerical results in  that the instanton weak-coupling series is of Borel type. That is, it exhibits an alternating sign pattern. From the ratio test we can see that the coefficients $`a_{n,j}`$ do not grow factorially fast. The large-order behavior of $`a_{n,j}`$ has the general form

$`a_{n,j}(1)^{n+j+1}K_n^jj^{A_n}B_n(j\mathrm{}).`$ (58)
The constant $`A_n`$ can be obtained by evaluating the limit

$`A_n=\underset{j\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{a_{n,j+2}a_{n,j}}{(a_{n,j+1})^2}}}{\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{j(j+2)}{(j+1)^2}}}},`$ (59)
and the reciprocal of the radius of convergence is

$`K_n=\underset{j\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{a_{n,j+1}}{a_{n,j}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{j}{j+1}}\right)^{A_n}.`$ (60)
Also, the overall factor $`B_n`$ is determined from

$`B_n=\underset{j\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{|a_{n,j}|}{K_n^jj^{A_n}}}.`$ (61)
Using the 200 weak-coupling coefficients, we find that the exponent $`A_n`$ and the reciprocal radius of convergence $`K_n`$ are independent of $`n`$. The value of $`K_2=2.46682906`$ coincides with $`K_1=2.46682906`$ for all significant digits. The same is true for $`A_1=1.500000`$ and $`A_2=1.500000`$. Thus, it appears that we may omit the subscripts $`n`$ for $`K_n`$ and $`A_n`$. In contrast, the data suggests that $`B_n`$ strongly depends on $`n`$. $`B_n`$ is the numerical value associated with the largest uncertainty. In fact, Eq. (61) suggests that small deviations in $`K`$ and $`A`$ lead to dramatic changes in the value of $`B_n`$. We calculated $`A`$, $`K`$, $`B_1`$, and $`B_2`$ up to 200th order with the help of Maple V R7. We then extrapolated these 200 orders to infinity using Richardson extrapolation . We obtained

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`1.500000\pm 0.000001,`$
$`K`$ $`=`$ $`2.46682906\pm 0.0000001,`$
$`B_1`$ $`=`$ $`0.0171\pm 0.0001,`$
$`B_2`$ $`=`$ $`0.1190\pm 0.0001.`$ (62)
Detailed numerical results for the first six Richardson extrapolations for the exponent $`A`$, the inverse radius of convergence $`K`$, and the overall factors $`B_1`$ and $`B_2`$ can be found in Tables 5, 6, 7, and 8. The calculation of $`B_1`$ is extremely delicate; changing the inverse radius of convergence in the sixth decimal place influences the third significant figure of $`B_1`$. The same is true of $`B_2`$.

Unfortunately, there is no way to derive these values by applying asymptotic analysis to the recursion relation (16). The problem is that the double summation in this equation includes small $`j`$, so we cannot let $`j`$ go to infinity and use the large-order behavior (58). Substituting the ansatz (58) into equation (16) and taking the limit leads to contradictory results. For $`n=1`$ we get

$`Kj^AB_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(j1)^AB_2+(j1)^AB_1{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}B_1^2K{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{j1}{}}}k^A(jk)^A`$ (63)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}B_1^3K{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{j1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{jk}{}}}k^Al^A(jkl)^A.`$
Pulling out some factors and letting $`xk/j`$, we obtain for the first summation

$`\underset{j\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{j}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{j}}\right)^A\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{k}{j}}\right)^A={\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x[x(1x)]^A={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(A+1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2A+2)}},`$ (64)
if and only if $`A>1`$. For $`A<1`$ which is strongly favored by the data we obtain

$`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x[x(1x)]^A=2\zeta \left(A\right).`$ (65)
The double summation reduces to

$`\underset{j\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{j}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{jk}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{k^Al^A}{j^{2A}}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{k}{j}}{\displaystyle \frac{l}{j}}\right)={\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑y[xy(1xy)]^A={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^3(A+1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(3A+3)}},`$ (66)
where $`yl/j`$ and $`A>1`$. For $`A<1`$ the result is

$`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑y[xy(1xy)]^A=3\zeta ^2\left(A\right).`$ (67)
Substituting the results in (65) and (67) into (63) leads to a contradiction: The inverse radius of convergence then turns out to be

$`K={\displaystyle \frac{1+\frac{B_2}{2B_1}}{1+3\zeta \left(\frac{3}{2}\right)B_1+\frac{3}{2}\zeta ^2\left(\frac{3}{2}\right)B_1^2}},`$ (68)
which would imply that, given $`B_1=0.0171`$ and $`B_2=0.1190`$, the value of $`K`$ would be

$`K=3.940.`$ (69)
This result can be ruled out because of the numerical result (IV). Also, (68) does not contain the exponent $`A`$ because all the factors $`j^A`$ in (63) cancel. So $`A`$ cannot be determined analytically using this asymptotic analysis.

## V Boundary-Layers on the Lattice — Blasius Equation

The Blasius equation  arises in the study of fluid dynamics. It is a special limiting case of the Navier-Stokes equation and determines the flow of an incompressible fluid across a semi-infinite flat plate. The equation reads

$`2ϵy^{\prime \prime \prime }(x)+y(x)y^{\prime \prime }(x)=0.`$ (70)
Assuming that the tangential velocity $`y^{}(x)`$ at the outer limit of the boundary layer is constant, the boundary conditions read

$`y(0)=y^{}(0)=0,y^{}(\mathrm{})=1.`$ (71)
Our objective here is to calculate the second derivative $`y^{\prime \prime }(0)`$, which represents the stress on the plate. We discretize the Blasius equation (70) by introducing a lattice spacing $`a`$:

$`2\delta (f_{n+1}3f_n+3f_{n1}f_{n2})+f_n(f_{n+1}2f_n+f_{n1})=0,`$ (72)
where we define $`f_ny(na)/a`$ and $`\delta ϵ/a^2`$. The boundary conditions (71) now read

$`f_0=f_1=0,f_nn(n\mathrm{}).`$ (73)
Expanding $`f_n`$ as a series in powers of $`\delta `$ as in Eq. (14), we obtain the recursion relation

$`a_{n+1,j}2a_{n,j}+a_{n1,j}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{n}}\left(a_{n+1,j1}3a_{n,j1}+3a_{n1,j1}a_{n2,j1}\right)`$ (74)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{j1}{}}}a_{n,k}\left(a_{n+1,jk}2a_{n,jk}+a_{n1,jk}\right),`$
The boundary values are

$`a_{n,0}`$ $`=`$ $`n(n0),`$
$`a_{1,0}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`a_{n1,j}`$ $`=`$ $`a_{n,j}(n0).`$ (75)
Eq. (74) can be solved order by order by using a computer algebra program. Table 9 shows the first 20 weak-coupling coefficients $`a_{1,j}`$. All coefficients up to the 300th order can be found at .

## VI Padé Resummation for the Blasius Equation

We now resum the weak-coupling coefficients using the Padé method (23) with $`M=1/2`$. This value of $`M`$ will be derived in Sec. VII in Eq. (82). The exact solution  to the Blasius equation (70), obtained numerically up to five digits, is $`y^{\prime \prime }(0)=0.33206`$. Unfortunately, the sequence formed by the approximants $`S_N`$ appears to converge, but not to the correct value. According to Table 10 the sequence becomes very flat and Richardson extrapolation  shows that the $`S_N`$ approach the wrong limiting value (see Table 11). A third-order Richardson gives $`S_{\mathrm{}}=0.3430`$, based on the first 70 weak-coupling coefficients. This value is significantly higher than the correct value $`y^{\prime \prime }(0)=0.33206`$, the deviation is $`3.3\%`$.

The failure of the Padé resummation is not surprising because the Padé method assumes the approach to scaling $`\delta ^1`$ according to (24). However, in the case of the Blasius equation the approach to scaling is $`\delta ^{1/2}`$, as we will see in equation (82) in the next section.

## VII Variational Perturbation Theory for the Blasius Equation

Variational perturbation theory for the Blasius equation fails to converge to the correct answer in the same way as for the instanton problem. We determined the leading strong-coupling term (42) up to 200th order and again it was impossible to find extrema, inflection points, or higher derivatives that yield the correct result. Tables 12 and 13 show the last 20 strong-coupling coefficients $`b_0^{(N)}`$ and six orders of Richardson extrapolation. By determining the values of $`p`$ and $`q`$ we show why variational perturbation is likely to fail for this problem.

Consider again the Taylor expansions for $`f_{n\pm 1}`$ in (44) together with the Taylor series for $`f_{n2}=f(x_n2a)`$, namely

$`f_{n2}=f(x_n)2f^{}(x_n)a+2f^{\prime \prime }(x_n)a^2{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}f^{\prime \prime \prime }(x_n)a^3+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}f^{\prime \prime \prime \prime }(x_n)a^4\pm \mathrm{}.`$ (76)
Inserting these expressions into the difference equation for the Blasius problem (72) and translating back to the continuous function $`f(x_n)=f_n`$, we get

$`2ϵ\left(f^{\prime \prime \prime }(x)a{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}f^{\prime \prime \prime \prime }(x)a^2+\mathrm{}\right)+f(x)\left(f^{\prime \prime }(x)a^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}f^{\prime \prime \prime \prime }(x)a^4+\mathrm{}\right)=0.`$ (77)
Next we transform back to the function $`y(x)=af(x)`$ and assume the Taylor series

$`y(x)=y_0(x)+ay_1(x)+a^2y_2(x)+\mathrm{}.`$ (78)
To zeroth order in $`a`$ we obtain

$`2ϵy_0^{\prime \prime \prime }(x)+y_0(x)y_0^{\prime \prime }(x)=0,`$ (79)
which is just the Blasius equation (70). The small parameter $`a`$, which is the lattice spacing, relates $`ϵ`$ and $`\delta `$ by $`a=\sqrt{ϵ/\delta }`$. Thus, if we evaluate the Taylor series (78) for the second derivative at the origin, we see that

$`y^{\prime \prime }(0)=y_0^{\prime \prime }(0)+ay_1^{\prime \prime }(0)+\mathrm{}={\displaystyle \frac{0.33206}{\sqrt{ϵ}}}+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{\delta }}}y_1^{\prime \prime }(0)+\mathrm{}.`$ (80)
Comparing this series to the original weak-coupling series

$`y^{\prime \prime }(0)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{ϵ}}}\left(12\delta +2\delta ^2+\mathrm{}\right),`$ (81)
we can now determine the leading power $`p/q`$ and the approach to scaling $`2/q`$:

$`12\delta +2\delta ^2+\mathrm{}=\delta ^{1/2}\left(0.33206+\delta ^{1/2}ϵy_1^{\prime \prime }(0)+\mathrm{}\right),`$ (82)
so we obtain $`p=2`$ and $`q=4`$.

Again we find that the approach to scaling $`2/q=1/2`$ lies just on the boundary of the open interval $`(1/2,1)`$, for which the proof of convergence  holds. This situation here is the opposite of the instanton case in that it sits at the lower boundary of the open interval in which variational perturbation theory works.

## VIII Large-order Behavior for the Blasius Equation

The Blasius equation exhibits a large-order behavior which is a more subtle than for the instanton problem (58). The Blasius weak-coupling coefficients are not of Borel type; that is, the sign pattern is not alternating. Rather, the sign structure is governed by a cosine function with a frequency that is significantly different from $`\pi `$. Remarkably, it turns out that a pure cosine $`\mathrm{cos}(an)`$ cannot reproduce all signs correctly. Up to 300th order the sign structure given by $`\mathrm{cos}(an)`$ is broken twice: The signs at $`n=62`$ and at $`n=212`$ are not correct if we optimize with respect to $`a`$. So we must consider an additional phase shift $`\mathrm{cos}(an+b)`$. The parameter $`b`$ turns out to be slightly smaller than $`\pi `$, but it reproduces all 300 signs correctly.

In order to determine the numerical values of $`a`$ and $`b`$ we define

$`f(a,b){\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}(an+b)}{|\mathrm{cos}(an+b)|}}{\displaystyle \frac{a_{1,n}}{|a_{1,n}|}}.`$ (83)
The sum ends at $`N=300`$ because this is as high as we can calculate using Maple; we know the first 300 weak-coupling coefficients $`a_{1,j}`$. For the correct values of $`a`$ and $`b`$ the function $`f(a,b)`$ must be equal to 300. We then plot the function $`f(a,b)`$ over the $`a`$$`b`$ plane and search for peaks. A careful study of the peaks yields values for $`a`$ and $`b`$ which allow the function $`f(a,b)`$ to assume its maximum at 300. These numbers are given in Table 14.

The large-order behavior of the Blasius weak-coupling coefficients (unlike the large-order behavior of the instanton coefficients) has an additional overall factor $`\mathrm{cos}(an+b)`$, and we can now see that the remaining structure differs from the structure of the instanton weak-coupling coefficients. Dividing by the cosine, we observe that the coefficients

$`a_j^{}{\displaystyle \frac{a_{1,j}}{\mathrm{cos}(aj+b)}}`$ (84)
grow factorially fast. Thus, we also divide by $`j!`$:

$`b_j{\displaystyle \frac{a_{1,j}}{\mathrm{cos}(aj+b)j!}}.`$ (85)
The coefficients $`b_j`$ are unstable under a ratio test. That is, the ratio $`b_{j+1}/b_j`$ decreases and then begins to oscillate. This is the inaccuracy that results from the delicate sign pattern of the first 300 coefficients $`a_{1,j}`$.

## Acknowledgments

CMB is grateful to the U.S. Department of Energy for financial support. FW and AP wish to thank Hagen Kleinert for fruitful discussions on variational perturbation theory. Moreover AP acknowledges financial support from the German Research Foundation (DFG) under contract number KON 1823/2001.

## Tables

## Figures


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

An efficient positron source is one of the important components of future electron - positron colliders. Positrons are generated from electrons in the course of the $`e^{}e^+\gamma `$ \- shower developing in a medium. In high-energy region, the basic processes involved in the shower development are typically considerably enhanced in oriented crystals as compared with corresponding amorphous media . The most pronounced effects take place at axial alignment when initial electrons are moving along the main axes of a crystal. This alignment alone will be considered below. Then, according to ,the radiation intensity in a crystal exceeds that of the conventional bremsstrahlung starting with electron energies $`\epsilon `$ 1 GeV. Simple estimations of the width of the power spectrum performed in  indicate a soft character of this spectrum. Basing on these properties of the photon emission process, the use of this phenomenon in positron source for future accelerators was proposed . The pair production rate which is due to the coherent (crystal) effects exceeds that of the standard (Bethe-Heitler) mechanism starting with photon energies $`\omega \omega _{th}`$. The value of $`\omega _{th}`$ is about 22 GeV for the $`<111>`$ \- axis of tungsten being several times larger for another crystals. (See review  and recent book  for further details concerning QED - processes in crystals.) For energies well above $`\omega _{th}`$, the crystal effects become really strong and may be used to create effective and compact electromagnetic calorimeters . For very high energies ($`\epsilon \omega _{th}`$) of initial and created particles, kinetic equations describing the shower development were solved analytically . Though the initial electron energies were high enough in the first experimental investigation  of shower formation in crystals, energies of detected particles were too low to allow us the direct comparison with . To explain the results of , Monte-Carlo simulations were performed in . The probabilities of basic processes used in  were obtained within so-called constant field approximation. A good agreement was demonstrated in  with the results of  for Ge crystals.

When the initial electron energy is below $`\omega _{th}`$, photons are mainly emitted with energies $`\omega \omega _{th}`$ and so, up to minor modifications (see , ), the pair production process proceeds in a crystal as in an amorphous medium. The enhancement of radiation from initial electrons is thereby the main crystal effect in this energy region. A substantial advance in the description of shower formation at axial alignment was caused by the invention of the semi - phenomenological radiation spectrum  . This allows one to consider the relatively low (of a few GeV) energy range of the initial electrons which is presumed for the efficient positron source. The radiation intensity increases with the initial electron energy. As a result, at some energy the effective radiation length $`L_{ef}`$ in a crystal becomes smaller than the conventional radiation length $`L_{rad}`$ and continues its decrease at further increase of the energy. All numerical examples will be given below for the electron beam aligned with the $`<111>`$ \- axis of the tungsten crystals. Then we have for the quantity $`L_{ef}`$ defined as in Sec.3 of : $`L_{ef}`$(1 Gev) $``$ 0.166 cm, $`L_{ef}`$(4 Gev) $``$ 0.084 cm, and $`L_{ef}`$(8 Gev) $``$ 0.061 cm. In a hybrid target which consists of the crystal part followed by the amorphous one, a thickness of the crystal constituent of several $`L_{ef}`$ is obviously quite enough. Indeed, at the depth $`L_0(3÷4)L_{ef}`$ most of the particles, including the initial electrons, are sufficiently soft to reduce the coherent contribution to the radiation to the level of the incoherent one. Thereby, the further development of the shower proceeds more or less in the same way for the crystal or amorphous type of the remaining part of a target. We emphasize that the crystal part $`LL_0`$ of a target serves as a radiator, and secondary charged particles are still not so numerous at this stage of the shower development. Therefore only a small portion of the total energy loss is deposited in the crystal part of a target which considerably reduces a danger of its overheating. The softness of photon spectra is another important feature of the crystal radiator giving additional advantages for the positron production in comparison with the entirely amorphous target. To get more definite idea concerning a shape of the power spectrum one can use its explicit form given by Eq.(2) in . To present the scale, let us list some values $`\omega _{max}`$ where this spectrum is maximum: $`\omega _{max}(1GeV)`$31 MeV, $`\omega _{max}(4GeV)`$170 MeV, and $`\omega _{max}(8GeV)`$490 MeV. Note that a width of the spectrum is typically several times larger than $`\omega _{max}`$. The increase in the number of relatively soft photons turns out to be much more pronounced than that in the total radiation intensity. In the end, just this fact leads to the substantial enhancement of the positron yield from crystal targets.

Recently the positron production in axially aligned single crystals was studied in two series of experiments performed at CERN ,  and KEK , . The initial energy of electrons was 3 GeV , 6 and 10 GeV , 8 GeV , and 10 GeV . In all cases the initial electron beam was aligned with the $`<111>`$ \- axis of a tungsten crystal that sometimes served as the crystal part of a hybrid target which contained an additional amorphous tungsten target. A noticeable enhancement of the low-energy positron yield was observed in all experiments cited above when the yield from a crystal target was compared with that from an amorphous target of the same thickness. The experimental results and our theoretical estimations presented in the next Section display a rather good agreement with each other.

## 2 Comparison of theory with experiment

Theoretical results for the conditions of the experiments cited above were obtained using the approach developed in  and  where various positron and photon distributions as well as deposited energies in different crystals were calculated for the energy range of initial electrons from 2 to 300 GeV. In these papers, all the formulas used in Monte-Carlo simulations of the specific $`e^{}e^+\gamma `$ \- shower characteristics are given in the explicit form. Remember that our simplified description of the shower development takes into account coherent ( induced by the regular motion of particles in the field of crystal axes ) and incoherent ( like that in an amorphous medium ) mechanisms of photon emission and pair production processes. The multiple scattering and the ionization energy loss of electrons and positrons are taken into account neglecting crystal effects. The coherent radiation from channelling and moving not very high above the axis potential barrier particles is described using the semi - phenomenological spectrum suggested in . A corresponding computer code was developed. This allows one to calculate energy, angular, and coordinate distributions of positrons emergent from a crystal or hybrid target and to find an amount of the energy deposition. We think that the investigation of such distributions should be the main object of the experiments having a creation of the crystal assisted positron source as their ultimate aim.

### 2.1 Experiment (CERN) at $`\epsilon _0=10`$ GeV

Among experiments cited above, spectral - angular distributions of created positrons were measured only in WA103 experiment at CERN ( see , ) where our code was used in simulations as the event generator. This simulation allowed for the acceptance conditions and the efficiency of the detectors used. Shown in Fig.1 taken from  is one example of the measured and simulated distributions of positrons from 10 - GeV electrons aligned with the $`<111>`$\- axis of the 8 - mm - thick crystal tungsten.

The angular acceptance conditions in WA103 experiment were approximately $`|\vartheta _V^{out}|1.5^{}`$ for the vertical and $`0\vartheta _H^{out}25^{}`$ for the horizontal angle of outgoing positron with respect to the initial electron beam direction. We shell see below that a shape of the positron spectrum depends on a degree of collimation. The one-dimensional ( over $`\vartheta _H^{out}`$) angular distribution is presented for positrons having energies in the 5$`÷`$45 MeV range. We emphasize that a relative difference between measured and simulated results typically does not exceed 20 $`\%`$ in both spectral and angular distributions as seen in Fig.1. We are aware that preliminary results for another settings used in the same experiment do not contradict with the estimated scale of the difference between the data and theoretical predictions. We hope that this interrelation will not become worse after performing the complete analysis of the data which now is underway. This analysis will also give more detailed information concerning spectral - angular distributions of positrons depending on initial electron energies and target thicknesses.

### 2.2 Experiment (KEK) at $`\epsilon _0=3`$ GeV

The main goal of the experiment  was an attempt to apply the crystal target to a working electron/positron linac, the injector for the electron - positron collider B - Factory at KEK. Thus, the acceptance conditions for created positrons were determined by the momentum acceptance of the positron linac with a matching section which is 8.2 MeV/c $`<p<`$ 11.6 MeV/c and $`p_{}<`$ 2.4 MeV/c. The hybrid target used consists of 1.7 - mm - thick tungsten crystal followed by 7 - mm - thick amorphous tungsten. The observed positron yield was enhanced by the factor 1.40 when the $`<111>`$ crystal axis was aligned with 3 GeV incident electron beam as compared to the case of the disoriented crystal. Our number for this enhancement is 1.47 being only 5 $`\%`$ larger than the experimental one. Note that in the experiment  the crystal and amorphous parts of the hybrid target were separated by the distance of 70 mm. This circumstance, which, in principle, may slightly change the enhancement value, was not taken into account in our calculation. Recollect that an amount of the energy deposited in the crystal part ($`\epsilon _{dep}^{cr}`$ ) of a hybrid target may be much smaller than that ($`\epsilon _{dep}^{am}`$) in the amorphous one. Such interrelation of $`\epsilon _{dep}^{cr}`$ and $`\epsilon _{dep}^{am}`$ should take place in the case of , where the crystal thickness is about 1.8 $`L_{ef}`$ ( see discussion in the Introduction ). This is confirmed by our calculations which give $`\epsilon _{dep}^{cr}`$ 11 MeV and $`\epsilon _{dep}^{am}`$ 277 MeV per one incident electron.

### 2.3 Qualitative features of positron distributions and experiment (KEK) at $`\epsilon _0=8`$ GeV

In  the positron production efficiency from 2.2 - mm, 5.3 - mm and 9.0 - mm - thick tungsten crystals was measured using an 8 - GeV electron beam. Positrons produced in the forward direction with momenta 10, 15 and 20 MeV/c were detected by a magnetic spectrometer. Thus, only several points in the energy distribution were determined under hard collimation conditions. Therefore, before going on to the comparison of the experimental results with our, let us remind some important qualitative features of spectral - angular distributions using 8 GeV electrons and the $`<111>`$ \- axis of the tungsten crystals as an example. For the sake of comparison, the corresponding distributions for amorphous tungsten will be presented as well. Below all the quantities characterizing a positron yield are normalized per one incident electron.

The use of matching systems implies some collimation ( typically $`\vartheta _{out}25^{}`$ ) of outgoing positrons. Shown in Fig.2 is the energy dependence ( energy step is equal to 10 MeV ) of the positron yield from crystal (a) and amorphous (b) targets of the same thickness $`L=2.2`$ mm. In the case of the hard collimation, when $`\vartheta _{out}1^{}`$ ( open circles ), the yield is multiplied by 10 to make it visible. The larger a positron energy, the smaller is a typical value of $`\vartheta _{out}`$ since both production and multiple scattering processes are characterized by smaller angles for higher energies. This is seen in Fig.2 (a) where non-collimated spectrum joins that for $`\vartheta _{out}24^{}`$ at $`\epsilon _{cr}^{(1)}`$ 55 MeV. The latter, in turn, joins the spectrum for $`\vartheta _{out}12^{}`$ at $`\epsilon _{cr}^{(2)}`$ 110 MeV. Such behavior is also seen in Fig.2 (b) for the amorphous target where $`\epsilon _{am}^{(1)}`$ 50 MeV and $`\epsilon _{am}^{(2)}`$ 105 MeV.

In other words, positrons with energies $`\epsilon >\epsilon ^{(1)}`$ are practically concentrated within a cone $`\vartheta _{out}24^{}`$ and those with $`\epsilon >\epsilon ^{(2)}`$ have $`\vartheta _{out}12^{}`$. In accordance with this picture, the spectral maximum is shifted to the right while a width of the distribution increases when the collimation angle decreases. The enhancement $`\mu `$, being bin-by-bin ratio of the positron yield from a crystal target to that from an amorphous one at the same collimation, is almost constant for $`\epsilon <`$ 45 MeV and monotonically decreases with growing positron energy. This means that positron spectra from a crystal target are softer. Somewhat lower values of $`\epsilon ^{(1)},\epsilon ^{(2)}`$ in the amorphous case point at the same feature. For given collimation, a variation of the enhancement is about 20 $`\%`$ over the whole energy interval presented in Fig.2. The maximum values of the enhancement at different collimation are $`\mu _{max}(\vartheta _{out}180^{})6.09`$, $`\mu _{max}(\vartheta _{out}24^{})5.92`$, $`\mu _{max}(\vartheta _{out}12^{})5.67`$, and $`\mu _{max}(\vartheta _{out}1^{})5.29`$. Apparently, they diminish as a collimation angle does so.

Shown in Fig.3 is the same as in Fig.2 but for the target thickness $`L=9.0`$ mm. The yield at $`\vartheta _{out}1^{}`$ ( open circles ) is multiplied now by 30. A qualitative behavior of spectra depending on the collimation angle at $`L=9.0`$ mm is the same as at $`L=2.2`$ mm. However, all the spectra become softer for the larger target thickness. This is indicated already by the increase in $`\epsilon ^{(1)}`$, $`\epsilon ^{(2)}`$ values which are now $`\epsilon _{cr}^{(1)}`$ 85 MeV, $`\epsilon _{cr}^{(2)}`$ 185 MeV, $`\epsilon _{am}^{(1)}`$ 75 MeV, $`\epsilon _{am}^{(2)}`$ 165 MeV. It is clear that the magnitude of the yield from the thicker target is essentially larger but this increase is different in the crystal and amorphous cases. For example, in the energy range $`\epsilon <`$ 45 MeV the yield is increased by 6 $`÷`$ 7 times for a crystal and by 17 $`÷`$ 20 times for amorphous samples. As a result, the enhancement at $`L=9.0`$ mm is almost 3 times less than at $`L=2.2`$ mm in this energy range. At $`L=9.0`$ mm the enhancement is peaked in the first bin ( $`\epsilon (5÷15)`$ MeV) for every collimation. Its maximum values are $`\mu _{max}(\vartheta _{out}180^{})2.25`$, $`\mu _{max}(\vartheta _{out}24^{})2.15`$, $`\mu _{max}(\vartheta _{out}12^{})2.08`$, and $`\mu _{max}(\vartheta _{out}1^{})2.06`$. The enhancement monotonically decreases with growing positron energy and approximately halves at $`\epsilon `$ 250 MeV. Thus, positron spectra from a crystal target are softer at $`L=9.0`$ mm as well, and this property is much more pronounced in comparison with $`L=2.2`$ mm.

Matching systems can be characterized also by a maximum transverse momentum $`p_{}^{max}`$ of accepted positrons. In this connection, spectra of positrons having $`p_{}<p_{}^{max}`$ are of undoubted interest. Such spectra at $`L=2.2`$ mm (a) and at $`L=9.0`$ mm (b) from crystal and amorphous targets are shown in Fig.4

In contrast to the case of the pure angular selection ( cf. Figs.2,3), the position of spectral maxima at limited $`p_{}`$ values is always in the first bin ( $`\epsilon (7.5÷12.5)`$ MeV). Corresponding maximum values are $`\mu _{max}(5MeV/c)5.82`$, $`\mu _{max}(2.5MeV/c)5.62`$ at $`L=2.2`$ mm and $`\mu _{max}(5MeV/c)2.17`$ , $`\mu _{max}(2.5MeV/c)2.11`$ at $`L=9.0`$ mm. The enhancement monotonically decreases with growing positron energy. Its variation over the whole energy interval presented in Fig.4 is about 15 $`\%`$ at $`L=2.2`$ mm and 40 $`\%`$ at $`L=9.0`$ mm. So, for this selection too, positron spectra from crystal targets are softer than those from amorphous targets of the same thickness. The interesting feature of spectral curves in Fig.4 is the similarity of those obtained for two different values of $`p_{}^{max}`$ from the same target. The scaling factors $`\eta `$ are $`\eta _{cr}2.6`$, $`\eta _{am}2.5`$ at $`L=2.2`$ mm and $`\eta _{cr}3.1`$, $`\eta _{am}3.0`$ at $`L=9.0`$ mm. These factors turn out to be practically ( within an accuracy of a few percent ) independent of the total positron momentum $`p`$. This fact can be easily understood if we assume that a width of the angular distribution of positrons is completely due to multiple scattering being, thereby, proportional to $`p^1`$. Such assumption is confirmed by results of the calculation shown in Fig.5 for two groups of positrons. One of them contains positrons having momentum in the interval $`p(8.5÷11.5)`$ Mev/c , for another group $`p(17÷23)`$ Mev/c.

For a given target, a width of the angular distribution of positrons with $`p10`$ Mev/c is approximately twice as much that for $`p20`$ Mev/c as expected. The width of every distribution evidently increases when we go on to the thicker target of the same kind. Comparing angular distributions from crystal and amorphous targets of the same thickness, we find that at $`L=9.0`$ mm the distributions are somewhat ( about $`1.5^{}`$ ) wider in the crystal case for both groups. In units of FWHM of the distribution from the crystal target these differences are about 6.5 $`\%`$ at $`p10`$ Mev/c and 14 $`\%`$ at $`p20`$ Mev/c. At $`L=2.2`$ mm the distribution from the crystal target is wider by 15.5 $`\%`$ at $`p20`$ Mev/c whereas this is narrower by 10 $`\%`$ at $`p10`$ Mev/c.

Going on to a comparison of our results with those obtained in , let us remind that to perform an accurate comparison of such kind, exact information is needed concerning the acceptance conditions and registration efficiency of detectors in the experiment. As noted in , at $`p=20`$ Mev/c, the momentum acceptance ($`\mathrm{\Delta }p/p`$) was 3 $`\%`$ (FWHM) and the polar angle acceptance was less than 20 mrad (FWHM). Since the shape of the acceptance curves was unavailable to us, we have tried to simulate experimental conditions using the same angular collimation $`\vartheta _{out}\vartheta _{out}^{max}`$ and the same value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }p/p`$ for all momenta and targets. So, at the calculation of the magnitudes of positron production efficiency (PPE), we simply put $`\vartheta _{out}^{max}`$ to 20 mrad. The value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }p/p`$ was chosen to reproduce at applied collimation the experimental magnitude of PPE for the 9.0 - mm - thick amorphous target. Acting in this way, we have got $`\mathrm{\Delta }p/p=3.2`$ $`\%`$. We realize that our regard for the acceptance conditions is rather rough. An additional inaccuracy was introduced when we determined the PPE numbers from Fig.5 of . Note that the

experimental numbers obtained in such a way, which are presented by filled symbols in Fig.6, do not reproduce exactly the whole set of mean experimental values for the enhancement given in Table 1 of . Moreover, in Fig.5 of  there are no experimental points for 2.2 and 5.3 - mm - thick amorphous targets. In these cases the values of PPE given by smooth - curve fits presented in Fig.5 of  were used by us as experimental results. Bearing all this in mind, we, nevertheless, can assert that a rather good agreement is seen in Fig.6 of the experimental results and our estimations. Relative difference of them is better than 13 $`\%`$ everywhere except the values of PPE at $`p=`$ 10 and 15 Mev/c from both thinnest ( $`L=2.2`$ mm ) targets, where the experimental yield is underestimated by 19 $`\%`$ to 42 $`\%`$. Note that just for this thickness the largest inaccuracy was introduced while determining the PPE numbers from Fig.5 of  at $`p=`$ 10 and 15 Mev/c, as the magnitude of the yield is especially small in this case.

In contrast to the magnitude of the positron yield, the enhancement is not very sensitive to the acceptance conditions. The calculated values of the enhancement( theory ) are presented in Table 1 along with those taken from Table 1 of  ( experiment ). Purely statistical errors are figured in Table 1 as theoretical ones. The relative error in PPE was estimated as $`N_{ef}^{1/2}`$, where $`N_{ef}`$ is the mean number of events in the phase space corresponding to the acceptance conditions used in calculations. The total statistics was chosen so that approximately to equalize values of $`N_{ef}`$ for amorphous and crystal targets of the same thickness. At given total statistics, the quantity $`N_{ef}`$ increases with growing positron momentum in accord with a shape of the positron spectra at hard collimation shown in Figs. 2,3. This fact leads to a better statistical accuracy for larger momentum. We emphasize that the differences of the estimated and experimental enhancement values are smaller than corresponding experimental errors for all momenta and samples figured in Table 1.

## 3 Conclusion

Using a simple computer code suggested in  and , we have compared the theoretical predictions for some characteristics of the electromagnetic shower developing in axially aligned crystals with experimental results reported in , and ,. On the whole, theory and experiment are consistent within an experimental accuracy. From this comparison we also conclude that the accuracy provided by the existing simplified code is at least better than 20$`\%`$. This accuracy may be slightly improved if we include into consideration some processes like annihilation of positrons or Compton scattering of photons which were ignored as corresponding cross sections are small in the energy region of interest. However, the approximate character of the radiation spectra at axial alignment used in our calculations still provides the main theoretical uncertainty. Nevertheless, we believe that a level of the accuracy already achieved in the theoretical description is quite sufficient to make a reliable choice for optimal parameters of the positron source using axially aligned single crystals.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Prof. H.Okuno for providing us with details of the experiment  and to the authors of  for numerous fruitful discussions. Support of this work by the Russian Fund of Basic Research under Grants 00-02-18007, 01-02-16926, and 01-02-22003 is also gratefully acknowledged.


text:
# Measurement of the Casimir force between parallel metallic surfaces

thanks: Contact Information: giuseppe.ruoso@lnl.infn.it

## Abstract

We report on the measurement of the Casimir force between conducting surfaces in a parallel configuration. The force is exerted between a silicon cantilever coated with chromium and a similar rigid surface and is detected looking at the shifts induced in the cantilever frequency when the latter is approached. The scaling of the force with the distance between the surfaces was tested in the 0.5 - 3.0 $`\mu `$m range, and the related force coefficient was determined at the 15% precision level.

One of the most astonishing features of quantum physics is that, as an ultimate consequence of the uncertainty principle, the vacuum is not empty. The nontrivial structure of the quantum vacuum has profound implications at both the microscopic and macroscopic level. In particular, forces of extra-gravitational origin acting between neutral bodies have been predicted due to the deformation of vacuum fluctuations caused by the macroscopic boundary conditions. In recent years, a compelling motivation to better grasp the contribution of quantum vacuum to the space-time curvature Zeldovich ; Weinberg ; Witten  is provided by the reported evidence for an accelerating Universe Riess ; Garnavich ; Perlmutter . A first-principle calculation of the pressure due to zero-point electromagnetic fluctuations for the case of an indefinite plane cavity made of conducting materials spaced by a distance $`d`$ is obtained by summing all the vacuum modes contributions Casimir . This results in the prediction of the quantum vacuum pressure as $`P_C=K_C/d^4`$, where the coefficient $`K_C=\pi hc/480=1.310^{27}`$ N m2 has been introduced, with $`h`$ and $`c`$ denoting the Planck constant and the speed of light, respectively.

Several experimental attempts have been pursued during various decades for unambiguously verifying Casimir’s prediction Bordag . So far, this search has been successful only in a particular geometry, namely in a cavity constituted by a plane surface opposing a spherical one. Pioneering measurements by van Blokland and Overbeek Vanblokland  in such a configuration resulted in the observation of the associated Casimir force, and in its detailed comparison to the Lifshits theory Lifshits  taking into account finite conductivity effects. More recently, these measurements have been revived by using state of art torsion balances Lamoreaux , atomic force microscopes Mohideen , and high precision capacitance bridges Chan . The latter two experiments have reached 1 % precision, more precise determinations being limited by the theoretical uncertainty due to the so-called proximity force theorem (see section 4.3 in Bordag  for details). Regarding the Casimir force between two parallel conducting surfaces, the situation originally discussed by Casimir, no clear experimental result has been obtained so far. The only attempt in this configuration dates back to Sparnaay Sparnaay . The experimental data he obtained “do not contradict Casimir’s theoretical prediction” Sparnaay , but large systematic errors and uncontrollable electrostatic forces prevented a detailed quantitative study. In this Letter we report on the measurement of the Casimir force between parallel conducting surfaces in the $`0.53.0\mu `$m range with 15 % precision. Our results are expected to have far-reaching implications toward understanding the nature and role of quantum fluctuations at the macroscale, as well as for exploring gravity at the microscale.

In our experiment, the two parallel surfaces are the opposing faces of a cantilever beam, free to oscillate around its clamping point, and of another thicker beam rigidly connected to a frame with adjustable distance from the cantilever. Our apparatus has already been discussed in detail elsewhere Bressi , and a schematic of the experimental set-up is shown in Fig. 1. We use a rectangularly shaped cantilever made of silicon (resistivity 10 $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ cm), with optically flat surfaces of size 1.9 cm $`\times `$ 1.2 mm $`\times `$ 47 $`\mu `$m (average roughness $`10`$ nm), covered with a 50 nm thick chromium layer. The resonator is clamped to a copper base by which it can be rotated around the horizontal axis, parallel to its faces, by using a nanometer step motor. The resonator is faced on one side by another silicon beam (hereafter called the source), placed along the orthogonal direction and also covered by a (thicker) chromium layer. This beam has the same longitudinal dimensions of the first one (1.9 cm $`\times `$ 1.2 mm) but is much thicker (0.5 mm). The source beam can be rotated by using step motors around the two axes complementary to the one controlled by the resonator tilting, thus providing a fine control of the parallelism of the two opposing surfaces. The gap separation between the two surfaces is adjusted with a dc motor for the coarse movement, and finely tuned using a linear piezoelectric (PZT) ceramic attached to the source. The source and the resonator are electrically connected to a voltage calibrator for the electrostatic calibrations or, alternatively, to an ac bridge for measuring the capacitance of the system. We detect the motion of the resonator by means of a fiber optic interferometer Rugar  located on the opposite side of the resonator. The interferometer detects the relative displacement between the resonator and the detection fiber end, with a typical sensitivity of $`1.0\times 10^7`$ m/V. The lowest torsional mode of the cantilever is monitored, its free frequency being $`\nu _0=138.275`$ Hz and the mechanical quality factor $`10^3`$. The major problems, common to previous experimental efforts, are attributable to the difficulty to achieve and control the ideal conditions of parallel and neutral surfaces. The two surfaces must be kept parallel even at the smallest gaps investigated. Also, due to the presence of different metals in the electrical circuit connecting the two surfaces, an offset voltage $`V_0`$ is always present in the gap, even when the two surfaces are nominally short-circuited. This voltage prevents the possibility to obtain small gap separations because the electrostatic force will cause the resonator to attach on the source. For these reasons the measuring process can be divided into three stages: parallelization of the gap between the two surfaces, on-line estimate of the offset voltage $`V_0`$, and calibration with electrostatic fields, including one canceling the effect of $`V_0`$ at the leading order. This last stage allows to reach the small separations ($`1\mu `$m) at which the Casimir force, thanks to its favourable scaling, is expected to dominate over the residual electrostatic force.

A prerequisite for the parallelization procedure is the stabilization and the elimination of dust particles present on the two surfaces. A SiO2 surface etching and the evaporation of a deposit of chromium provide stable metallic surfaces, and also prevents a fast oxydation. For the cleaning, besides adopting standard procedures as a dust-free laminar air flow environment able to filter powders of less than 1 $`\mu `$m, and washing with proper solvents, we use a dedicated in-vacuum cleaning tool Bressi . The latter is made of a thin metallic wire which, under inspection at the SEM, is moved along three orthogonal axes through vacuum feedthroughs with micrometers. Dust grains of size between 0.5 and 3 $`\mu `$m, difficult to identify under the optical microscope used for the preliminary, in air, cleaning, are then removed. Once the surfaces are cleaned at the 0.5 $`\mu `$m level, we optimize their parallelism. A coarse arrangement is first done by using the SEM, i.e. viewing the gap at different magnifications on two orthogonal sides (see for instance Fig. 2). By means of the various motion controls it is possible to reach an almost parallel configuration (within a 1 $`\mu `$m resolution). The final parallelism is then obtained using the ac bridge by maximizing the capacitance at the minimum obtainable gap separation. A maximum value of 22 pF is obtained, corresponding to an average gap separation of about 0.4 $`\mu `$m. With an ac bridge sensitivity of $`0.4`$ pF and based on the expression for the capacitance between non parallel plates this guarantees a parallelism better than 30 nm over 1.2 mm, equivalent to an angular deviation of $`310^5`$ radians.

To control deviations from electrical neutrality of the two surfaces and to obtain a rough on-line determination of $`V_0`$, we measure the static deflection of the resonator versus the external voltage $`V_c`$ applied with the calibrator for various gap distances $`d_i`$. The bending is measured by looking at the dc level of the fiber optic interferometer signal, and a repetitive procedure (by alternating bias voltages and zero voltage measurements) is adopted to cancel out the effect of drifts in the laser frequency. The static displacement $`\mathrm{\Delta }x_i(V_c)`$ of the resonator at its top edge is given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }x_i(V_c)=K_i(V_cV_0)^2`$. Fitting the measured data for each distance $`d_i`$ with this law we obtain an average value of $`V_0=(68.6\pm 2.2)`$ mV. The parameter $`K_i=ϵ_0S/8\pi ^2m_{\mathrm{eff}}\nu _0^2d_i^2`$ can also be used to evaluate the effective mass of the torsional mode, which is $`m_{\mathrm{eff}}=(0.30\pm 0.05)m_0`$, with $`m_0`$ the physical mass, in agreement with theory Sader .

By canceling the leading contribution of the offset voltage $`V_0`$ through a counterbias voltage $`V_cV_0`$, it is possible to look for distance-dependent forces superimposed to the residual bias $`V_r=V_cV_0`$. This is done using a dynamical technique, i.e. by measuring the resonant frequency of the cantilever $`\nu `$ as the gap separation is reduced. Any spatially-dependent force is expected to induce a frequency shift whose sign is dependent on the attractive or repulsive nature of the force, negative frequency shifts signaling the presence of attractive forces. For a superposition of a residual electrostatic force contribution and the expected Casimir force the frequency shift is expressed as Bressi :

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\nu ^2(d)=\nu ^2\nu _0^2=C_{\mathrm{el}}\frac{V_r^2}{d^3}\frac{C_{\mathrm{Cas}}}{d^5},$$
(1)
where $`C_{\mathrm{el}}=ϵ_0S/4\pi ^2m_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and $`C_{\mathrm{Cas}}=K_CS/\pi ^2m_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, with $`ϵ_0`$ the vacuum dielectric constant, $`S`$ the effective area delimited by the cantilever and the source surfaces, and $`m_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ the effective mass of the resonator mode Sader .

In order to disentangle the two contributions in the right hand side of Eq. (1), the measurements are performed in four situations differing by the applied bias voltage $`V_c`$. A delicate issue is the determination of the distance: all the measurements with variable gap are done keeping the resonator fixed and moving the source by means of the linear ceramic PZT, always using increasing voltages to avoid hysteresis effects. The relative displacement between the source and the resonator is then expressed, in terms of the voltage $`V_{\mathrm{PZT}}`$ applied to the linear PZT, by $`d_r=d_r^0AV_{\mathrm{PZT}}d_s(V_{\mathrm{PZT}})`$, where we have introduced the distance corresponding to $`V_{\mathrm{PZT}}=0`$ V as $`d_r^0=1.210^5`$ m, the actuation coefficient $`A=(1.508\pm 0.002)\times 10^7`$ m/V, and $`d_s`$ which takes into account the static deflection of the resonator due to the force. These last two quantities are measured with the fiber optic interferometer. The precision on the determination of $`d_r^0`$ is very critical and we could not rely for its evaluation on the direct measurement at the SEM alone. For this reason the electrostatic calibration is also used to determine the correcting parameter $`d_0`$, such that $`d=d_r+d_0`$ is the actual gap separation. Three out of the four measurements are done at large values of the bias voltage $`(V_c=[205.8,137.2,+68.6\mathrm{mV}])`$ and large distances. Fig. 3 shows $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu ^2`$ versus the relative displacement $`d_r`$. The data are fitted with the function:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\nu ^2(d_r)=\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _{\mathrm{offset}}^2C_{\mathrm{el}}\frac{V_r^2}{(d_r+d_0)^3},$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _{\mathrm{offset}}^2`$ is a free frequency offset taking into account long term drifts. From a global fit we obtained the values $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _{\mathrm{offset}}^2=(6\pm 1)`$ Hz2, $`d_0=(3.30\pm 0.32)10^7`$ m, $`C_{\mathrm{el}}=(4.24\pm 0.11)10^{13}`$ Hz2 m3, and $`V_0=(60.2\pm 1.7)`$ mV, with a $`\chi ^2`$ probability of 85%.

It is now possible to analyze the data set for the fourth situation of bias voltage $`V_c=68.6`$ mV, corresponding to a quasi complete cancellation of the effect of the offset voltage. From the acquired knowledge of the electrostatic component of the force we subtract its contribution and look at the residual frequency shift. The result is shown in Fig. 4 together with the best fit with the function:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\nu ^2(d)=\frac{C_{\mathrm{Cas}}}{d^5}.$$
(3)
This results in a value for the parameter $`C_{\mathrm{Cas}}=(2.34\pm 0.34)10^{28}`$ Hz2 m5, its sign confirming the expectation for an attractive force. A final check on the parallelism between the surfaces is done by fitting the data with a function taking into account a deviation from the plane parallel geometry Bordag1 . The resulting deviation is $`0\pm 30`$ nm, in such a way that no change is observed for $`C_{\mathrm{Cas}}`$ \- this confirming the value estimated in the parallelization procedure. From the definitions of $`C_{\mathrm{el}}`$ and $`C_{\mathrm{Cas}}`$ the coefficient of the Casimir force can be expressed as:

$$K_C=\frac{ϵ_0}{4}\frac{C_{\mathrm{Cas}}}{C_{\mathrm{el}}}=(1.22\pm 0.18)10^{27}\mathrm{Nm}^2.$$
(4)
The value obtained agrees with the expected value of $`K_C`$ first evaluated by Casimir Casimir . It can be noted from Fig. 4 that the fitting curve does not describe systematically the experimental points in the 1-2 $`\mu `$m region. There are in principle several conventional effects which could be invoked to explain the observed deviation (see also Fig. 4 caption) - such as border effects, residual roughness of the surfaces, finite conductivity of chromium or finite temperature corrections Bordag ; Lambrecht . Work is in progress to refine the data analysis handling the Casimir term at a level necessary to further subtract its contribution from the data. The control of Casimir force at this level and the evaluation of the residuals is necessary to test predictions, based on unification models of gravity to the electroweak and strong interactions, on new forces with intensity close to the gravitational force and acting below the millimeter range Fischbach ; Antoniadis ; Arkani . The parallel plate configuration maximizes the sensitivity to such forces Carugno ; Long , and could lead to stronger constraints than the one already evaluated from Casimir forces in the plane-sphere configuration Bordag .

Our experimental verification of the Casimir prediction for the force between two parallel conducting surfaces in the 0.5 - 3.0 $`\mu `$m range leads to a measurement of the related coefficient with a 15$`\%`$ precision. Our results unambiguously show the existence of the quantum fluctuations at the macroscopic level, and confirm the existence of a delicate issue in matching quantum physics and the large scale evolution of the Universe via the cosmological constant problem. Furthermore, the technique demonstrated here and future refinements in various directions Bressi  could pave the road to a high precision control of the Casimir forces crucial for both looking at new physics related to gravitation in the submillimeter range, as well as for designing electromechanical devices at the nanoscale.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Z. Fontana for initial contributions to the experiment, F. Donadello, A. Galvani, and F. Veronese for skilful technical support, and L. Viola for a critical reading of the manuscript. The experiment was performed at the Laboratori Nazionali di Legnaro of the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare.

E-mail address: ruoso@lnl.infn.it

Figure Captions


text:
# The 𝑠-𝑑 Transition in Heavy Mesons

## 1 Introduction

The $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ rule  in the $`|\mathrm{\Delta }s|=1`$ decays of the kaons and the hyperons is a great puzzle for the physicists to explain. Theoretically, using the techniques of operator product expansion and renormalization group equations, one gets the effective hamiltonian of a set of local four-quark operators whose Wilson coefficients contain the information at high energy. There are big uncertainties in the hadronic matrix elements of these four-quark operators because the calculations are highly model dependent . Thus a comparison between the data and the prediction is not conclusive in testing the standard model. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ rule is attributed either to the uncertainties in the hadronic matrix elements  or to the possible existence of new physics beyond the standard model .

We note that there are more transitions induced by the $`|\mathrm{\Delta }s|=1`$ effective hamiltonian other than the kaon and the hyperon decays. In the standard model, the effective hamiltonian for the $`|\mathrm{\Delta }s|=1`$ transitions including QCD-penguins is

$$H_{eff}=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}V_{ud}^{}V_{us}\left[\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}C_i(\mu )\left(Q_i^uQ_i^c\right)+\underset{i=3}{\overset{6}{}}C_i(\mu )\underset{q=uds}{\overset{cb}{}}Q_i^q\right]$$
(1)
between the $`m_W`$ and the $`m_b`$ scale, where

$`Q_1^u`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\overline{d}s\right)_{\mathrm{V}\mathrm{A}}\left(\overline{u}u\right)_{\mathrm{V}\mathrm{A}},`$
$`Q_2^u`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\overline{d}_is_j\right)_{\mathrm{V}\mathrm{A}}\left(\overline{u}_ju_i\right)_{\mathrm{V}\mathrm{A}}`$
$`Q_3^q`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\overline{d}s\right)_{\mathrm{V}\mathrm{A}}\left(\overline{q}q\right)_{\mathrm{V}\mathrm{A}},`$
$`Q_4^q`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\overline{d}_is_j\right)_{\mathrm{V}\mathrm{A}}\left(\overline{q}_jq_i\right)_{\mathrm{V}\mathrm{A}}`$
$`Q_5^q`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\overline{d}s\right)_{\mathrm{V}\mathrm{A}}\left(\overline{q}q\right)_{\mathrm{V}+\mathrm{A}},`$
$`Q_6^q`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\overline{d}_is_j\right)_{\mathrm{V}\mathrm{A}}\left(\overline{q}_jq_i\right)_{\mathrm{V}+\mathrm{A}}.`$ (2)
As the decay processes are concerned, the operators

$`Q_1^c`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\overline{d}s\right)_{\mathrm{V}\mathrm{A}}\left(\overline{c}c\right)_{\mathrm{V}\mathrm{A}},`$
$`Q_2^c`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\overline{d}_is_j\right)_{\mathrm{V}\mathrm{A}}\left(\overline{c}_jc_i\right)_{\mathrm{V}\mathrm{A}}`$ (3)
and

$`Q_{3\mathrm{}6}^{c,b}`$ (4)
in (1) are integrated out at the mass scale $`m_c(m_b)`$.

As the standard model is assumed, the Wilson coefficients for the operators with $`q=c,b`$ and $`q=u,d,s`$ in (1) are related. We will not consider the electroweak penguins whose inclusion is straightforward and less important. Although the operators in (3) and in (4) do not contribute to the decay processes of the kaon and the hyperons, they could be relevant in other interesting processes in the heavy hadron sectors. $`Q_{i=1\mathrm{}6}^c`$ could contribute to the $`D_s^+D^+`$ mixing, while $`Q_{i=3\mathrm{}6}^b`$ could contribute to the $`\overline{B}_s^0\overline{B}^0`$ mixing, if suitable modification by going into the heavy quark effective theory (HQET)  where only the heavy degrees of freedom are integrated out.

In Section 2 we present the novel features of the transition. The Wilson coefficients and the hadronic matrix elements of the relevant operators in the standard model are calculated in Section 3 and Section 4, respectively. We discuss the result in Section 5.

## 2 Novel features of the transition

To make a naive estimation for the amplitude of the $`\overline{B}_s^0\overline{B}^0`$ mixing induced by the penguin operators $`Q_{i=3\mathrm{}6}^b`$, we compare these three groups of diagrams:

1. box diagrams $`(b\overline{d})(d\overline{b})`$, $`(b\overline{s})(d\overline{b})`$ and $`(b\overline{s})(s\overline{b})`$;
2. box diagrams $`(b\overline{d})(s\overline{b})`$ and $`(b\overline{d})(b\overline{s})`$;
3. box diagram $`(b\overline{d})(b\overline{s})`$ and penguin diagram $`(b\overline{d})(b\overline{s})`$.

In the first group of diagrams, the first and the third box diagrams are responsible for the $`B_d\overline{B}_d`$ and $`B_s\overline{B}_s`$ mixings, respectively. The second diagram in the first group is drawn by replacing the $`s`$-quark by $`d`$-quark in the third diagram. It induces a $`|\mathrm{\Delta }B|=2`$ but $`|\mathrm{\Delta }s|=1`$ mixing $`\overline{B}_sB_d`$, which is smaller than the $`B_s\overline{B}_s`$ mixing in amplitude by a factor $`{\displaystyle \frac{V_{td}}{V_{ts}}}`$ but is bigger than the $`B_d\overline{B}_d`$ mixing by a factor $`{\displaystyle \frac{V_{ts}}{V_{td}}}`$. In the second group, the second diagram is drawn by exchanging the external lines $`sb`$ and $`\overline{b}\overline{s}`$ in the first diagram. Note that in the box diagrams the internal quark lines run over $`u,c,t`$. If the top quark gives the dominant contribution to the second diagram, then these two diagrams differ in amplitude by a factor $`{\displaystyle \frac{V_{ts}^{}V_{tb}}{V_{ts}V_{tb}^{}}}`$ which is purely a phase factor. We know that in the case of $`K\overline{K}`$ mixing, the power suppressed contribution from the charm quark is larger than highly CKM-suppressed contribution from the top quark, thus the second box diagram is analogously larger than the first diagram in the second group. In the third group, the QCD-penguin diagram is approximately larger than the box diagram by a factor $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\alpha _2}}`$ in amplitude. We arrive at that the penguin induced $`\overline{B}_s^0\overline{B}^0`$ mixing is comparable with $`B_s\overline{B}_s`$ mixing in amplitude. The amplitude for $`D_s^+D^+`$ mixing is even larger since the tree-diagrams are not GIM suppressed.

Differing from the well known mechanism for the neutral meson mixings of $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$, $`D^0\overline{D}^0`$ and $`B_{d,s}^0\overline{B}_{d,s}^0`$, the cases of $`D_s^+D^+`$ and $`\overline{B}_s^0\overline{B}^0`$ mixings have some novel features. The system under consideration is non-degenerate states. Both the mass difference $`\delta ^Dm_{D_s}m_{D_d}`$ and $`\delta ^Bm_{B_s}m_{B_d}`$ are of the order of 100 MeV , comparing to the very small upper limit in the $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ due to the CPT invariance. Defining

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^D`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m_D}}<D_s^+|H_{eff}|D^+>,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }^B`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m_B}}<\overline{B}_s^0|H_{eff}|\overline{B}^0>,`$ (5)
the mass matrices of the $`D_sD_d`$ and $`B_sB_d`$ are

$`\widehat{M}_D=\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_{D_s}& \mathrm{\Delta }^D\\ \mathrm{\Delta }^D& m_D\end{array}\right),\widehat{M}_B=\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_{B_s}& \mathrm{\Delta }^B\\ \mathrm{\Delta }^B& m_B\end{array}\right).`$ (10)
The mass shifts are $`\pm {\displaystyle \frac{\left|\mathrm{\Delta }^{D,B}\right|^2}{\delta ^{D,B}}}`$, due to the see-saw mechanism. The additional factors $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^{D,B}}{\delta ^{D,B}}}`$ suppress the mass shifts strongly to be unobservable, although the transition amplitudes $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{D,B}`$ can be much larger than $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_K`$ etc.

In the presence of $`sd`$ transition in the heavy meson sector, we need to view the observed states $`D^+(1869)`$ and $`\overline{B}^0(5279)`$ as mass eigenstates which contain small amounts of valence $`\overline{s}`$-quark. Similar observation applies to $`D_s^+(1968)`$ and $`\overline{B}_s^0(5369)`$. Consequently, at the B-factories a fraction $`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^{D,B}}{\delta ^{D,B}}}\right|^2`$ of the neutral $`\overline{B}^0(5279)`$ mesons decay as $`\overline{B}_s`$, which have typical channel like

$$\overline{B}^0(5279)(b\overline{s})(D_s^+(1968),D_s^+(2112))+l\overline{\nu }.$$
(11)
Note that the semileptonic branching ratio of $`\overline{B}_s`$ into $`D_s^{+()}`$ is about 10% , these channels can be observed if we have good mass-reconstruction of the final states. Observation of the $`D_s^+D^+`$ mixing effects need to assume ideal mixing of $`\rho \omega \varphi `$ so that $`\varphi `$ is a pure $`s\overline{s}`$ state, then

$$D^+(1869)(c\overline{s})\varphi \overline{l}\nu $$
(12)
is a characteristic channel.

## 3 The short distance analysis

In the HQET, the effective hamiltonian below the $`m_Q`$ scale is

$$H_{eff}=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}V_{us}^{}V_{ud}\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}C_i^Q(\mu )O_i^Q,$$
(13)
where

$`O_1^Q`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\overline{d}s\right)_{\mathrm{V}\mathrm{A}}\left(\overline{h}^{(Q)}h^{(Q)}\right)_{\mathrm{V}\mathrm{A}},`$
$`O_2^Q`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\overline{d}_is_j\right)_{\mathrm{V}\mathrm{A}}\left(\overline{h}_j^{(Q)}h_i^{(Q)}\right)_{\mathrm{V}\mathrm{A}}`$
$`O_3^Q`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\overline{d}s\right)_{\mathrm{V}\mathrm{A}}\left(\overline{h}^{(Q)}h^{(Q)}\right)_{\mathrm{V}+\mathrm{A}},`$
$`O_4^Q`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\overline{d}_is_j\right)_{\mathrm{V}\mathrm{A}}\left(\overline{h}_j^{(Q)}h_i^{(Q)}\right)_{\mathrm{V}+\mathrm{A}}.`$ (14)
$`h^{(Q)}(Q=c,b)`$ is the heavy quark field in the HQET.

In the case of $`D_s^+D^+`$ mixing all these $`Q_1`$ to $`Q_6`$ contribute to the matching at $`\mu =m_c`$

$`C_1^c(m_c)`$ $`=`$ $`C_1(m_c)+C_3(m_c),`$
$`C_2^c(m_c)`$ $`=`$ $`C_2(m_c)+C_4(m_c),`$
$`C_3^c(m_c)`$ $`=`$ $`C_5(m_c),`$
$`C_4^c(m_c)`$ $`=`$ $`C_6(m_c),`$ (15)
and for $`\overline{B}_s^0\overline{B}^0`$ mixing only penguin operators contribute

$`C_1^b(m_b)`$ $`=`$ $`C_3(m_b),`$
$`C_2^b(m_b)`$ $`=`$ $`C_4(m_b),`$
$`C_3^b(m_b)`$ $`=`$ $`C_5(m_b),`$
$`C_4^b(m_b)`$ $`=`$ $`C_6(m_b).`$ (16)
We now calculate the anomalous dimension matrix in the HQET for the operators $`O_i^Q`$ and find

$`\widehat{\gamma }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{\gamma }_2& 0\\ 0& \widehat{\gamma }_2\end{array}\right),\widehat{\gamma }_2={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 3& 9\end{array}\right).`$ (21)
Using the renormalization group equations

$`\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\mu }}\widehat{C}^Q=\widehat{\gamma }^TC^Q`$ (22)
the Wilson coefficients $`C_i^Q(\mu )`$ are then running to the hadronic scale where the hadronic matrix elements of $`O_i^Q`$ are to be calculated. We have

$`C_{1(3)}^c(\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`C_{1(3)}^c(m_c){\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(\mu )}{\alpha _s(m_c)}}\right)^{27/58}1\right]C_{2(4)}^c(m_c),`$
$`C_{2(4)}^c(\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(\mu )}{\alpha _s(m_c)}}\right)^{27/58}C_{2(4)}^c(m_c)`$ (23)
for the $`D_s^+D^+`$ mixing, and

$`C_{1(3)}^b(\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`C_{1(3)}^b(m_b){\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(m_c)}{\alpha _s(m_b)}}\right)^{27/58}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(\mu )}{\alpha _s(m_c)}}\right)^{9/20}1\right]C_{2(4)}^b(m_b),`$
$`C_{2(4)}^b(\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(m_c)}{\alpha _s(m_b)}}\right)^{27/58}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(\mu )}{\alpha _s(m_c)}}\right)^{9/20}C_{2(4)}^b(m_b)`$ (24)
for the $`\overline{B}_s^0\overline{B}^0`$ mixing. The scale independence of $`3C_1+C_2`$ and $`3C_3+C_4`$ follows simply the form of the anomalous dimension (21).

## 4 The hadronic matrix elements

For the heavy meson mixings, the matrix elements $`<D_s^+|O_i^c|D^+>`$ and $`<\overline{B}_s^0|O_i^b|\overline{B}^0>`$ are much easier to calculate without the notoriously difficulties in the hadronic matrix elements of $`Q_i`$ for the $`s`$-quark decay processes. Lacking lattice calculations of these matrix elements at present, we use SU(3) symmetry to relate them to those matrix elements of four-quark operators $`<\overline{B}_{(s)}^0|(\overline{q}q)(\overline{h}^Qh^Q)|\overline{B}_{(s)}^0>`$ and $`<\overline{B}_{(s)}^0|(\overline{q}_iq_j)(\overline{h}_j^Qh_i^Q)|\overline{B}_{(s)}^0>`$ and get

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\hfill <\overline{B}_s^0|O_1^b|\overline{B}^0>& =& <\overline{B}_s^0|O_3^b|\overline{B}^0>& & \frac{1}{3}B_1f_B^2M_B^2,\hfill \\ \hfill <\overline{B}_s^0|O_2^b|\overline{B}^0>& =& <\overline{B}_s^0|O_4^b|\overline{B}^0>& & B_1f_B^2M_B^2\hfill \end{array}$$

and similarly for $`<D_s^+|O_i^c|D^+>`$, with $`B_11`$ calculated by QCD sum rules .

## 5 Results and discussions

Within the HQET, the Wilson coefficients are calculated at a scale $`\mu _0`$ where $`\alpha _s(\mu _0)1`$ to match the matrix elements. We also take $`f_B=f_D=200`$MeV in estimations. We get

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^D`$ $`=`$ $`1.4\times 10^7,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }^B`$ $`=`$ $`2.8\times 10^8.`$ (25)
Correspondingly, the mixing effects is $`2\times 10^{12}`$ for the $`D_s^+D^+`$ system and is $`5\times 10^{14}`$ for the $`\overline{B}_s^0\overline{B}^0`$ system in probabilities. We find that these small effects are unobservable in the standard model.

Could any new physics exist beyond the standard model, the Wilson coefficients for the heavy quark operators in (3) and (4) are not necessary to be related to those which are relevant to the kaon and the hyperon decays. Furthermore, new operators with other Lorentz structures are possibly relevant to the processes discussed here. To extract a bound of order $`𝒪(0.5)`$ on these Wilson coefficients at the hadronic scale, $`\overline{B}^0`$ decay events of a number of $`10^{13}`$ will be the minimal if the new physics which induces the $`\overline{B}_s^0\overline{B}_d^0`$ transition is at the scale of 1TeV, provided these events are good reconstructed and the semileptonic decay fraction is 10%. It will be very interesting to construct such kind of new physics models which will be relevant to the processes discussed here.

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) under the grant No. 90103014 and by the Ministry of Education of China. I thank Chun Liu, Chuan Liu, C.-D. Lu and M.-Z. Yang for helpful discussions, and J.-P. Ma for hospitality when I was visiting ITP.