text:
# Nucleation and Bulk Crystallization in Binary Phase Field Theory

## Abstract

We present a phase field theory for binary crystal nucleation. In the one-component limit, quantitative agreement is achieved with computer simulations (Lennard-Jones system) and experiments (ice-water system) using model parameters evaluated from the free energy and thickness of the interface. The critical undercoolings predicted for Cu–Ni alloys accord with the measurements, and indicate homogeneous nucleation. The Kolmogorov exponents deduced for dendritic solidification and for “soft-impingement” of particles via diffusion fields are consistent with experiment.

Understanding alloy solidification is of vast practical and theoretical importance. While the directional geometry in which the solidification front propagates from a cool surface towards the interior of a hot melt is understood fairly well, less is known of equiaxial solidification that takes place in the interior of the melt. The latter plays a central role in processes such as alloy casting, hibernation of biological tissues, hail formation, and crystallization of proteins and glasses. The least understood stage of these processes is nucleation, during which seeds of the crystalline phase appear via thermal fluctuations. Since the physical interface thickness is comparable to the typical size of critical fluctuations that are able to grow to macroscopic sizes, these fluctuations are nearly all interface. Accordingly, the diffuse interface models lead to a considerably more accurate description of nucleation than those based on a sharp interface diff ; diff1 .

The phase field theory, a recent diffuse interface approach, emerged as a powerful tool for describing complex solidification patterns such as dendritic, eutectic, and peritectic growth morphologies phf . It is of interest to extend this model to nucleation and post-nucleation growth including diffusion controlled “soft-impingement” of growing crystalline particles, expected to be responsible for the unusual transformation kinetics recently seen during the formation of nanocrystalline materials nano .

In this Letter, we develop a phase field theory for crystal nucleation and growth, and apply it to current problems of unary and binary equiaxial solidification.

Our starting point is the free energy functional

$`F={\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫\left\{\frac{ϵ^2T}{2}(\varphi )^2+f(\varphi ,c)\right\}},`$ (1)
developed along the lines described in phf1 ; phf2 . Here $`\varphi `$ and $`c`$ are the phase and concentration fields, $`f(\varphi ,c)=WTg(\varphi )+[1P(\varphi )]f_S+P(\varphi )f_L`$ is the local free energy density, $`W=(1c)W_A+cW_B`$ the free energy scale, the quartic function $`g(\varphi )=\varphi ^2(1\varphi )^2/4`$ that emerges from density functional theory dft  ensures the double-well form of $`f`$, while the function $`P(\varphi )=\varphi ^3(1015\varphi +6\varphi ^2)`$ switches on and off the solid and liquid contributions $`f_{S,L}`$, taken from the ideal solution model. (A and B refer to the constituents.)

For binary alloys the model contains three parameters $`ϵ`$, $`W_A`$ and $`W_B`$ that reduce to two ($`ϵ`$ and $`W`$) in the one-component limit. They can be fixed if the respective interface free energy $`\gamma `$, melting point $`T_f`$, and interface thickness $`\delta `$ are known param . Such information is available for the Lennard-Jones, ice-water, and Cu–Ni systems param1 , offering a quantitative test of our approach.

Relying on the isothermal approximation the time evolution is described by Langevin equations $`\varphi /t=M_\varphi (\delta F/\delta \varphi )+\zeta _\varphi `$ and $`c/t=[M_c(\delta F/\delta c)]+\zeta _c`$, where $`(\delta F/\delta x)`$ stands for the functional derivatives ($`x=\varphi ,c`$), $`M_x`$ are mobilities, while $`\zeta _\varphi `$ and $`\zeta _c`$ are appropriate noises added to RHS to mimic thermal fluctuations. The dimensionless form of these equations diml  is obtained by measuring length and time in units $`\xi `$ and $`\xi ^2/D_L`$, $`t=\stackrel{~}{t}\xi ^2/D_L`$, $`𝐫=\stackrel{~}{𝐫}/\xi `$. Here $`\xi `$ and $`D_L`$ are the characteristic length scale and the diffusion coefficient in the liquid, while the quantities with tilde are dimensionless.

The critical fluctuation (nucleus) is a non-trivial time-independent solution of the governing equations. For spherical symmetry (a reasonable assumption), the phase field equation reduces to $`^2\varphi =\mathrm{\Delta }\mu (\varphi ,c)/(ϵ^2T)`$. Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu (\varphi ,c)=`$ $`WTg^{}(\varphi )+[(1c)\mathrm{\Delta }f_A+c\mathrm{\Delta }f_B]P^{}(\varphi )`$ is the local chemical potential difference relative to the initial liquid, prime stands for differentiation with respect to the argument, the local concentration is related to the phase-field as $`c(\varphi )=c_{\mathrm{}}e^y/(1c_{\mathrm{}}+c_{\mathrm{}}e^y)`$, where $`y=v(W_BW_A)g(\varphi )/R+v(\mathrm{\Delta }f_B\mathrm{\Delta }f_A)[P(\varphi )1]/RT`$, while $`\mathrm{\Delta }f_i`$ are the volumetric free energy differences between the pure liquid and solid phases. Solving these equations numerically under boundary conditions that prescribe bulk liquid properties far from the fluctuations ($`\varphi 1`$, and $`cc_{\mathrm{}}`$ for $`r\mathrm{}`$), and zero field-gradients at the center, one obtains the free energy of critical fluctuation as $`W^{}=FF_0`$. Here $`F`$ is obtained by numerically evaluating Eq. (1) after having the time-independent solutions inserted, while $`F_0`$ is the free energy of the initial liquid. This is compared with $`W^{}=(16\pi /3)\gamma _f^3/\mathrm{\Delta }f^2`$ from the sharp interface “droplet” model of the classical nucleation theory k91 , where $`\gamma _f=\gamma (T_f)`$.

The homogeneous nucleation rate is calculated as $`J=J_0exp\left\{W^{}/kT\right\}`$, where the nucleation prefactor $`J_0`$ of the classical kinetic approach is used gunton , which proved consistent with experiments k91 .

To study the soft-impingement problem we introduce a non-conservative orientation field $`\theta `$, which is random in the liquid, and has a constant value between 0 and 1 in the crystal that determines crystal orientation in the laboratory frame. By this, we capture the feature that the short-range order in the solid and liquid are usually similar, with the obvious difference that the building units have a uniform orientation in the crystal, while their orientation fluctuates in the liquid. Following theta , we assume that the grain boundary energy acts in the solid and is proportional to $`|\theta |`$. We realize this by adding $`f_{ori}=|\theta |`$ to $`f_S`$, where coefficient $``$ is assumed to be independent of $`c`$. The respective equation of motion has the form $`\theta /t=M_\theta (\delta F/\delta \theta )+\zeta _\theta `$, yielding

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{\stackrel{~}{t}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\xi M_\theta }{D_L}}\stackrel{~}{}\left\{[1P(\varphi )]{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{}\theta }{|\stackrel{~}{}\theta |}}\right\}+\zeta _\theta ,`$ (2)
where $`\zeta _\theta =\zeta _{\theta ,0}P(\varphi )`$, and $`M_\theta =M_{\theta ,S}+P(\varphi )(M_{\theta ,L}M_{\theta ,S})`$, while subscripts S and L indicate the values for the bulk liquid and solid phases. When $`\varphi <1`$, Eq. (2) switches in orientational ordering, and chooses the value of $`\theta `$ that survives as the orientation of the particle, which then serves as the direction relative to which the anisotropy of $`\gamma `$ ($`=\gamma _0\left\{1+s_0cos[m(\vartheta \theta )]\right\}`$ for $`m`$-fold symmetry) is measured. A similar model has been successfully applied for describing grain boundary dynamics theta ; warr . Unlike previous work, in our approach the orientation field $`\theta `$ is coupled to the phase field, and extends to the liquid phase where crystallographic orientation develops from orientational fluctuations. While our model incorporates grain boundary dynamics, our primary interest is solidification, and $`M_{\theta ,S}`$ is set so that grain rotation is negligible on the time scale of solidification.

Nucleation is incorporated into the simulations as follows. Method I.: By including white noise into the governing equations of amplitude that forces nucleation in the spatial and time windows used. Method II.: The simulation area is divided into domains according to the local composition. The time-independent solution is found for these compositions. Critical fluctuations of statistically correct numbers following Poisson distribution are placed into these areas in every time step. The added small-amplitude noise makes these critical fluctuations either grow or shrink.

In nucleation-growth processes the transformed fraction often follows the Kolmogorov scaling, $`X(t)=1exp\left\{(t/t_0)^p\right\}`$, where the ”Kolmogorov exponent” $`p`$ is representative of the mechanism of the phase transformation, and is evaluated from the slope of the plot $`ln[ln(1X)]`$ vs. $`lnt`$. In this work $`\varphi <0.5`$ is used to define the transformed fraction.

First we apply the phase-field theory to predict nucleation rate in 3D. In the one-component Lennard–Jones system, the nucleation rate bc95  and all the relevant physical properties are known from molecular dynamics simulations param1 . The radial phase field profiles (Fig. 1a) indicate that the critical fluctuations are diffuse, and do not show bulk crystal properties for undercoolings larger than 14 K. The predicted interfacial free energy (Fig. 1b) increases with temperature. While the phase-field predictions agree with results from computer simulations, those from the classical sharp interface theory differ from the experiments by eight to ten orders of magnitude. Similar results were obtained for the ice-water system (Fig. 2) with input data from param3 . Without adjustable parameters, a quantitative agreement has been achieved with computer simulations bc95  and experiment icexp , proving the power of the phase-field technique in attacking nucleation problems.

In the case of binary alloys, such a rigorous test cannot be performed since the input information available for the crystal-liquid interface is far less reliable. In the nearly ideal Cu–Ni system, the critical undercoolings computed for the realistic range of nucleation rates ($`J=10^4`$ to 1 drop-1s-1 for electromagnetically levitated droplets of 6 mm diameter) fall close to the experimental ones whf88  (Fig. 3), indicating homogeneous nucleation. This contradicts the heterogeneous mechanism suggested earlier whf88  on the basis of Spaepen’s value $`\alpha _{HS}=0.86`$ sm78  for the dimensionless interfacial free energy for the hard-sphere system. (For definition of $`\alpha `$ see param1 .) Recent computer simulations dl00  yielded considerably smaller values $`\alpha _{HS}=0.51`$ and $`\alpha _{Ni}=0.58`$ ($`0.6`$ we used), invalidating the earlier conclusion. These findings raise the possibility that homogeneous nucleation is more common in alloys than previously thought.

We turn now to the problem of soft-impingement that we investigate in 2D using the properties of Cu–Ni alloys. Owing to the known difficulties of phase field simulations due to different time and length scales of the fields, we used an enhanced interface thickness ($`\delta =41.6`$ nm), a reduced interfacial free energy ($`\alpha =0.1`$), and an increased diffusion coefficient ($`100\times D_L`$). To ensure reasonable statistics and negligible influence of the periodic boundary conditions, the governing equations were solved numerically on a $`7000\times 7000`$ grid under conditions param2  that ensure interfaces consisting of more than ten grid points needed for numerical accuracy.

We begin by comparing three simulations where the particles were nucleated by Method II.: (i) large anisotropy $`s_0=0.25`$ and small dimensionless nucleation rate $`\stackrel{~}{J}=0.49`$ yielding 886 dendritic particles (the first large scale simulation of multiparticle dendritic solidification) \[Fig. 4(a)\]; (ii) $`s_0=0.25`$ with large nucleation rate $`\stackrel{~}{J}=24.5`$ (10623 particles) \[Fig. 4(b)\]; and (iii) isotropic growth with $`\stackrel{~}{J}=24.5`$ (10528 particles) \[Fig. 4(c)\]. The respective Kolmogorov exponents differ from $`p=2`$ that standard references christ  assign for steady-state nucleation and diffusion controlled growth \[Fig. 4(d)\]. Our prediction for dendritic solidification, $`p3`$, obeys the relationship $`p=1+d`$ (constant nucleation and growth rates in $`d`$-dimensions) confirmed experimentally dend , that follows from the steady-state traveling tip solution of the diffusion equation. In cases (ii) and (iii), $`p`$ deviates from 2, as the formation of the diffusion layer is preceded by a transient period in which phase field mobility controls growth. This period appears as an effective delay of the diffusion controlled process, yielding an initially enhanced $`p`$ that decreases with increasing transformed fraction nano . This effect is pronounced at large nucleation rates for which the delay is comparable to the solidification time. Indeed, qualitatively similar behavior is observed at the extreme nucleation rates that occur during the formation of nanocrystalline alloys nano .

The introduction of large amplitude noise into the governing equations (Method I.) leads to comparable results. For $`s_0=0.25`$ with $`\zeta _{\varphi ,0}=0.015`$, that yield $`830`$ dendritic particles \[case (iv)\], more irregular shapes are produced \[Fig. 4(d)\], and transient nucleation of “induction time” $`\tau /\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{t}1400`$ is observed. The latter leads to further increased $`p`$, that reduces to $`3`$ when replacing $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$ by $`\stackrel{~}{t}\tau `$. Due to numerical stability problems appearing at large noise amplitudes, Method I. can be applied far from equilibrium, where nucleation occurs in reasonable simulation time and area.

Summarizing, we demonstrated that the present phase field model is able to quantitatively describe crystal nucleation in one-component 3D systems. The other predictions, including binary nucleation in 3D and transformation kinetics in 2D, are also consistent with experiment.

This work has been supported by the ESA Prodex Contract No. 14613/00/NL/SFe, by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences under contract Nos. OTKA-T-025139 and T-037323, by the EU grant HPMF-CT-1999-00132, and the ESA MAP Project No. AO-99-101.


format: text

text:
# 1 The Feynman graphs for the process 𝑒⁺𝑒⁻→𝜈̄𝜈ℎ⁰. Note that for |ℳ_𝑍ᵗʳᵉᵉ|² one has to sum over all three neutrino flavors.

As no Higgs boson could be detected so far, the search for the Higgs boson as the primary goal of high energy physics will continue. The four LEP experiments delivered a lower bound for the Standard Model (SM) Higgs mass, $`m_h114\mathrm{GeV}`$ . In $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions, for energies $`200\mathrm{GeV}`$, the production of a single Higgs boson plus missing energy starts to be dominated by $`WW`$ fusion , that is $`e^+e^{}\overline{\nu }_e\nu _eWW\overline{\nu }_e\nu _eh^0`$, whereas the Higgsstrahlung process  $`e^+e^{}Zh^0\overline{\nu }\nu h^0`$ becomes less important. $`h^0`$ denotes the SM Higgs boson or the light Higgs boson of the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM), while $`H^0`$ is the heavy $`CP`$-even Higgs boson in the MSSM. The rates for the $`ZZ`$ fusion are generally one order of magnitude smaller than those of the $`WW`$ channel.

At LHC, in $`pp`$ collisions, the gluon-gluon fusion mechanism provides the dominant contribution to Higgs production. The next important Higgs production channel is vector-boson fusion $`VVh^0/H^0`$. In particular, it provides an additional event signature due to the two energetic forward jets. Recently, it has been argued that the channels $`WWh^0/H^0\tau \overline{\tau }`$ and $`WW`$, can serve as suitable search channels at LHC even for a Higgs boson mass of $`m_h120\mathrm{GeV}`$ .

At Tevatron, with $`p\overline{p}`$ collisions at $`2\mathrm{TeV}`$, the $`WW`$ fusion process plays a less important rôle. The $`gg`$ fusion is the dominant process for Higgs production there, but the Higgsstrahlung $`q\overline{q}WWh^0`$ is larger than the $`WW`$ fusion for $`m_h180\mathrm{GeV}`$ .

It is worth mentioning that $`WW`$ (and $`ZZ`$) fusion is also the most important Higgs boson production mechanism in $`ep`$ collisions. Actually, it was shown  that the $`ep`$-option at LHC would offer the best opportunity to search for a Higgs boson in the mass range $`m_h<140\mathrm{GeV}`$.

In this paper, we have calculated the leading one-loop corrections to the $`WWh^0`$ vertex in the MSSM by taking into account fermion/sfermion loops. They are supposed to be the dominant corrections due to the Yukawa couplings. We have applied them to the Higgs boson production in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation in the energy range $`\sqrt{s}=0.53\mathrm{TeV}`$, i. e. $`e^+e^{}\overline{\nu }_e\nu _eWW\overline{\nu }_e\nu _eh^0`$. We included the Higgsstrahlung process $`e^+e^{}Zh^0\overline{\nu }\nu h^0`$ and the interference between these two mechanisms. Because the Higgsstrahlung process is much smaller in this range, we have neglected its radiative corrections. We have also discussed the SM case where we have studied the dependence on the Higgs boson mass. As to the one-loop corrections to the $`WWh^0`$ vertex in the SM, we quite generally refer to the review article . For this coupling also QCD corrections were included, the $`𝒪(\alpha _sG_Fm_t^2)`$ in  and $`𝒪(\alpha _s^2G_Fm_t^2)`$ in .

As for energies $`\sqrt{s}>500\mathrm{GeV}`$ the dominant channel $`e^+e^{}\overline{\nu }\nu h^0`$ is by far the $`WW`$ fusion, in the context of our calculation only corrections to the $`WWh^0`$ vertex must be evaluated, see Fig. 1. At the one-loop level the Lagrangian for the $`WWh^0`$ coupling can be written as

$$=\left(g_{WW}^{h^0}g^{\mu \nu }+\left(\mathrm{\Delta }g_{WW}^{h^0}\right)^{\mu \nu }\right)h^0W_\mu ^+W_\nu ^{},$$
(1)
where the tree-level coupling in the MSSM can be read as $`g_{WW}^{h^0}=gm_W\mathrm{sin}(\beta \alpha )`$. The one-loop part of the $`WWh^0`$ coupling in Eq. (1) can be expressed in terms of all possible form factors111As the expressions for $`F^{00}`$, $`F^{11}`$,…,$`F^ϵ`$ are quite lengthy they will be presented elsewhere . as

$$\left(\mathrm{\Delta }g_{WW}^{h^0}\right)^{\mu \nu }=F^{00}g^{\mu \nu }+F^{11}k_1^\mu k_1^\nu +F^{22}k_2^\mu k_2^\nu +F^{12}k_1^\mu k_2^\nu +F^{21}k_2^\mu k_1^\nu +iF^ϵϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \delta }k_{1\rho }k_{2\delta },$$
(2)
where $`k_{1,2}`$ denote the four-momenta of the off-shell $`W`$-bosons. At tree-level only the structure with $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ is present, and therefore all form factors but $`F^{00}`$ have to be ultra violet (UV) finite without being renormalized. By adding appropriate counter terms also the form factor $`F^{00}`$ is rendered UV finite. For the renormalization procedure the on-shell scheme has been adopted.

Actually, for the calculation of the one-loop corrected $`WWh^0`$ vertex we compute the vertex and the wave-function corrections stemming from the graphs of Fig. 2, as well as the coupling correction,

$$\left(\mathrm{\Delta }g_{WW}^{h^0}\right)^{\mu \nu }=\left(\delta g_{WW}^{h^0(v)}\right)^{\mu \nu }+\left(\delta g_{WW}^{h^0(w)}+\delta g_{WW}^{h^0(c)}\right)g^{\mu \nu }.$$
(3)
Comparing Eq. (3) with Eq. (2), it is obvious that the counter terms, i. e. the wave-function and coupling corrections, contribute only to $`F^{00}`$. The wave-function correction is

$$\delta g_{WW}^{h^0(w)}=g_{WW}^{h^0}\left(\frac{1}{2}(\delta Z_H)_{h^0h^0}+\delta Z_W\right)+\frac{1}{2}g_{WW}^{H^0}(\delta Z_H)_{H^0h^0},$$
(4)
where $`\delta Z_H`$ and $`\delta Z_W`$ are the symmetrized Higgs boson and the $`W`$-boson wave-function correction, respectively, calculated from the corresponding graphs of Fig. 2. In the case of the off-shell $`W`$-bosons, $`\delta Z_W`$ has the form

$$\delta Z_W=\frac{\delta m_W^2\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Pi }_{WW}^T(k_1^2)}{k_1^2m_W^2}+\frac{\delta m_W^2\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Pi }_{WW}^T(k_2^2)}{k_2^2m_W^2}+2\frac{\delta g}{g}.$$
(5)
The coupling correction is

$$\delta g_{WW}^{h^0(c)}=\left(\frac{\delta g}{g}+\frac{\delta m_W}{m_W}\right)g_{WW}^{h^0}+\frac{\mathrm{sin}2\beta }{2}\frac{\delta \mathrm{tan}\beta }{\mathrm{tan}\beta }g_{WW}^{H^0}.$$
(6)
The expressions on the right-hand sides of Eqs. (46) can be found in Ref. . Especially, we fixed the counter term $`\delta \mathrm{tan}\beta `$ by the on-shell condition $`\text{Im}\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{AZ}(m_A^2)=0`$, where $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{AZ}(m_A^2)`$ is the renormalized self-energy for the mixing of the pseudo-scalar Higgs boson $`A^0`$ and $`Z`$-boson.

Having calculated the form factors of Eq. (2), one can proceed to the calculation of the one-loop corrected cross section. The tree-level part of the amplitude was already calculated in Ref. . Here we will include also the one-loop correction, that is the interferences between the tree-level and the one-loop amplitudes of Fig. 1222As it has already been mentioned the corresponding corrections to the Higgsstrahlung process can be safely ignored due to absolute dominance of the $`WW`$ fusion for $`\sqrt{s}>500\mathrm{GeV}`$.. For these terms we get

$`2\mathrm{}\left[\mathrm{\Delta }_W\left(_W^{\mathrm{tree}}\right)^{}\right]`$ $`=`$ $`4g_{WW}^{h^0}g^4\left(2F^{00}p_1p_4p_2p_3+F^{21}S\right){\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k_i^2m_W^2)^2}}`$ (7)
and

$`2\mathrm{}\left[\mathrm{\Delta }_W\left(_Z^{\mathrm{tree}}\right)^{}\right]`$ $`=`$ $`4C_L^eg_{ZZ}^{h^0}{\displaystyle \frac{g^4}{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _W}}\left(2F^{00}p_1p_4p_2p_3+F^{21}S\right)`$ (8)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q_2^2m_Z^2}{(q_1^2m_Z^2)\left((q_2^2m_Z^2)^2+m_Z^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z^2\right)}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k_i^2m_W^2}},`$
where

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`(p_1p_4+p_2p_3)\left(p_1p_2p_3p_4+p_1p_4p_2p_3p_1p_3p_2p_4\right)`$ (9)
$``$ $`2(p_1p_2+p_3p_4)p_1p_4p_2p_3,`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z`$ is the total $`Z`$-boson width, and $`C_L^e=\frac{1}{2}+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$. The kinematics has been chosen as $`e^{}(p_1)e^+(p_2)\nu _e(p_3)\overline{\nu }_e(p_4)h^0(p)`$. We have also defined $`k_1=p_3p_1`$, $`k_2=p_2p_4`$, $`q_1=p_1+p_2`$ and $`q_2=p_3+p_4`$.

For the calculation of the cross section at tree-level, it is possible to perform some of the phase space integrations analytically and the rest of them numerically . However including the one-loop correction terms of Eq. (7) and (8), it is impossible to perform any of these integrations analytically. Therefore, we have performed the integrations numerically, using efficient numerical integration subroutines found in the NAG library. We have also checked that for the tree-level case our completely numerical calculation agrees with high accuracy with the semi-analytical results of Ref. .

Before embarking on discussing our numerical findings, we will make some comments concerning some details of our calculation. For the calculation of the supersymmetric (SUSY) Higgs boson masses and the Higgs mixing angle $`\alpha `$, a computer programme based on Ref.  has been used. The tree-level $`WWh^0`$ coupling for values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >5`$ as preferred by the LEP Higgs boson searches, mimics the SM one. For the calculation of the fermion/sfermion one-loop corrections to the $`WWh^0`$ vertex, the contribution of the third family of fermions/sfermions has been taken into account. This contribution turns out to be the dominant one, in comparison with the first two families corrections, due to the large values of the Yukawa couplings $`h_t`$ and $`h_b`$. The effect of the running of the coupling constants $`g`$ and $`g^{}`$ has been taken into account.

We now turn to the discussion of our numerical results. In Fig. 3 (left) we can see the various cross sections as a function of $`\sqrt{s}`$ for values up to $`1\mathrm{TeV}`$. The dotted-dashed line represents the contribution from the $`WW`$ channel at tree-level alone, whereas the dotted line includes the Higgsstrahlung contribution as well. The dashed line comprises in addition the interference between the $`WW`$ channel and Higgsstrahlung. One can perceive that the size of this interference term is extremely small, and for this reason the difference between the dotted and dashed lines is rather minute. It is also clear that for $`\sqrt{s}500\mathrm{GeV}`$ the $`WW`$ fusion contribution dominates the total cross section for the Higgs production $`e^+e^{}\overline{\nu }\nu h^0`$. Actually, for $`\sqrt{s}800\mathrm{GeV}`$ the total tree-level cross section is due to $`WW`$ fusion. In the solid line we have taken into account the one-loop correction from the fermion/sfermion loops. The correction is always negative with a significant size of the order of $`10\%`$. This can also be seen from Fig. 3 (right), where we have plotted the tree-level cross section $`\sigma _0`$ (dashed line) and the one-loop corrected cross section $`\sigma `$ (solid line) for energies up to $`3\mathrm{TeV}`$. For simplicity, for all plots we have used $`A_t=A_b=A_\tau =A`$, $`\{m_{\stackrel{~}{U}},m_{\stackrel{~}{D}},m_{\stackrel{~}{L}},m_{\stackrel{~}{E}}\}=`$ $`\{\frac{9}{10},\frac{11}{10},1,1\}m_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}`$ and $`M_1=\frac{5}{3}M_2\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _W`$. The choice of a common trilinear coupling and the correlation between the soft sfermion masses are inspired by unification. For the plots in Fig. 3 we have taken: $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$, $`\mu =100\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`A=500\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}=300\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`M_A=500\mathrm{GeV}`$, and $`M_2=400\mathrm{GeV}`$. Choosing different sets of parameters, the basic characteristics of these plots remain indifferent. In fact, the soft gaugino masses $`M_{1,2}`$ affect only the Higgs sector through radiative corrections.

In Fig. 4 the relative correction $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma /\sigma _0`$ is presented as a function of $`\sqrt{s}`$ for two different sets of parameters. The solid line corresponds to the set $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$, $`\mu =100\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`A=500\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}=300\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`M_A=500\mathrm{GeV}`$, and $`M_2=400\mathrm{GeV}`$, whereas for the dashed line we have taken $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =40`$, $`\mu =300\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`A=100\mathrm{GeV}`$, keeping the rest of them unchanged. This figure shows that the size of the one-loop correction to the Higgs production cross section is practically constant for $`\sqrt{s}>500\mathrm{GeV}`$ and weighs about $`15\%`$, almost independently of the choice of the SUSY parameters. The reason for this weak dependence is that the one-loop corrections are dominated by the fermion loops, and therefore the total correction is not very sensitive to the choice of the SUSY parameters. In this region, $`\sqrt{s}>500\mathrm{GeV}`$, one can compare this constant correction with the effective approximation of Ref. , where one only corrects the $`WWh^0`$ coupling. Although the sign of this approximation is correct, it does not fully account for the whole effect.

In Fig. 5 we have plotted the cross section as a function of $`m_h`$ for the SM case, for $`\sqrt{s}=0.8\mathrm{TeV}`$ (red lines) and $`1\mathrm{TeV}`$ (black lines). The dashed lines correspond to the tree-level cross section for $`e^+e^{}\overline{\nu }\nu h^0`$, whereas the solid lines contains the one-loop correction stemming from the fermion loops. In addition, the couplings have been adjusted to the SM corresponding couplings. The plot exhibits the expected dependence of the cross section on $`m_h`$. What must be noticed is that especially for small Higgs boson masses $`200\mathrm{GeV}`$, the size of the fermion loops correction becomes important for the correct determination of the Higgs boson mass.

Finally, Fig. 6 exhibits the percentage of the sfermion loops to the total one-loop correction as a function of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ (left) and $`\mu `$ (right), for two different values of $`\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, respectively, as shown in the figure. In the left (right) figure we have chosen $`A=100\mathrm{GeV}`$ ($`A=400\mathrm{GeV}`$). The rest of SUSY parameters are: $`m_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}=300\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`M_A=500\mathrm{GeV}`$, and $`M_2=400\mathrm{GeV}`$. Here $`\sqrt{s}`$ has been fixed to $`1\mathrm{TeV}`$. The grey area in the right figure is excluded due to the chargino mass bound. We see that the maximum value of order 10% can be achieved for large values of $`\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. There, due to the significant mixing in the stop and sbottom sector, the contribution of stops and sbottoms in the loops is enhanced. For these values of SUSY parameters the sfermion masses approach their experimental lower bounds. But even there the dominant correction, at least $`90\%`$ of the total correction, is due to the fermion loops.

In conclusion, we have calculated the fermion/sfermion loops corrections to the single Higgs boson production $`e^+e^{}\overline{\nu }\nu h^0`$ in the context of the MSSM and SM. They are supposed to be the dominant radiative corrections. For energies relevant to the future linear colliders, $`\sqrt{s}500\mathrm{GeV}`$, the $`WW`$ fusion channel dominates the cross section. In general, the correction due to fermion/sfermion loops is negative and yields a correction to the cross section of the order of $`10\%`$. The bulk of this correction stems from the fermion loops, and usually turns to be more than $`90\%`$ of the total correction. For the case of maximal mixing in the sfermion mass matrices, the contribution of the sfermion loops is enhanced, but nevertheless weighs less than $`10\%`$ of the total one-loop correction. As the correction is dominated by fermion loops and is rather independent of $`\sqrt{s}`$ for $`\sqrt{s}>500\mathrm{GeV}`$, we think that it can be approximated by a factor correction to the tree-level cross section. Such an approximation would be most useful for including initial state radiation (ISR) and beamstrahlung in an efficient way.

Acknowledgements
V. C. S. acknowledges support by a Marie Curie Fellowship of the EU programme IHP under contract HPMFCT-2000-00675. The authors acknowledge support from EU under the HPRN-CT-2000-00149 network programme. The work was also supported by the “Fonds zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung” of Austria, project No. P13139-PHY.


text:
# Gaussian superconducting fluctuations, thermal transport, and the Nernst effect

(April 22, 2002)

## Abstract

We calculate the contribution of superconducting fluctuations to thermal transport in the normal state, at low magnetic fields. We do so in the Gaussian approximation to their critical dynamics which is also the Aslamazov-Larkin approximation in the microscopics. Our results for the thermal conductivity tensor and the transverse thermoelectric response are new. The latter compare favorably with the data of Ong and collaborators on the Nernst effect in the cuprates.

The study of fluctuations in superconductors reviews  had a marked revival after the discovery of the cuprate superconductors. It was realized early that their short coherence lengths produce a large regime of strong fluctuation phenomena Fisher et al. (1991). More recently the “pseudogap” region of the cuprate phase diagram has come into sharp focus, and one line of thought attributes its features to strong superconducting fluctuations Emery and Kivelson (1995); Randeria (1998). Among the most striking experimental findings that plausibly support this link are recent measurements by Ong’s group Ong-etal  where the Nernst effect becomes sizeable far above $`T_c`$ in the underdoped regime of the high-temperature superconductors. As the Nernst effect is small in ordinary metals and large in the vortex state of superconductors the a priori case for crediting superconducting fluctuations is strong.

In this Letter we calculate the contribution of Gaussian superconducting fluctuations to the transverse thermoelectric response above $`T_c`$ in the low magnetic field limit—the simplest computation that can be used for a quantitative comparison with these experimental results. This is already a non-trivial exercise as it requires a proper subtraction of bulk magnetization currents that enter naive expressions Cooper et al. (1997). We also give results for the thermal conductivity tensor, thus presenting a full picture for Gaussian thermal transport in the system.

Our result for the transverse thermoelectric response depends only on the superconducting coherence length $`\xi `$, making it particularly suitable for comparison with experiment. We present a comparison with data from different samples of La2-xSrxCuO4 (LSCO). We find that the Gaussian Nernst effect, using the actual $`T_c`$, is quantitatively comparable to the measured signal in the optimally doped and overdoped samples. For the underdoped sample the measured signal in the “pseudogap” region is larger and requires postulating a suppression of the actual $`T_c`$ from the mean-field $`T_c`$, consistent with the superconducting fluctuations scenario, in order to achieve an understanding of its magnitude, as we illustrate by a self-consistent Hartree computation.

Before proceeding, we note that the traditional description of the Nernst effect is of thermally driven vortices producing a transverse voltage via phase slips. In a fluctuation regime this description is only convenient if the vortices provide an effective parameterization, as we expect will be the case near a two dimensional Kosterlitz-Thouless transition. At higher temperatures, where the vortices and anti-vortices are strongly overlapping, a different simplification involving Gaussian fluctuations becomes available and we will take recourse to that in the present paper.

*Gaussian computations.*—Our calculations can be carried out in two equivalent ways. First, they involve following Aslamazov and Larkin Aslamazov-Larkin  and keeping the Feynman diagrams that now bear their names and arise in a Gaussian treatment of the quantum functional integral. Second, as was noted, e.g., in the case of paraconductivity reviews , one can keep Gaussian fluctuations in a stochastic time-dependent Ginzburg-Landau equation (TDGL) that is designed to recover the equilibrium Ginzburg-Landau free energy. At this level, with the coefficients of the TDGL derived from BCS microscopics near the mean-field $`T_c`$, the two computations are identical. The TDGL, however, has a second interpretation—as a model of the critical dynamics traditionally assumed for superconductors (model A) Hohenberg and Halperin (1977) which should have a wider validity, with the coefficients no longer constrained by BCS microscopics. In the following we will mostly use the TDGL description, while appealing to the microscopics to justify the form of the current operators Vishveshwara-Fisher .

The stochastic TDGL is defined by the Ginzburg-Landau free energy

$$=𝑑𝐱\left[a|\psi |^2+\frac{b}{2}|\psi |^4+\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m^{}}\left|\left(i\frac{e^{}}{\mathrm{}c}𝐀\right)\psi \right|^2\right],$$
(1)
where $`a=a_0(TT_c)`$, and the time evolution

$$(\tau +i\tau ^{})\left(\frac{}{t}+i\frac{e^{}}{\mathrm{}}\varphi \right)\psi =\frac{\delta }{\delta \psi ^{}}+\zeta .$$
(2)
Equation (2) describes the decay of the order parameter configuration towards its minimal free energy, interrupted by thermal fluctuations introduced through the white noise $`\zeta `$ with correlator

$$\zeta ^{}(𝐫,t)\zeta (𝐫^{},t^{})=2T\tau \delta (𝐫𝐫^{})\delta (tt^{}).$$
(3)
The relaxation time of the order parameter is $`\tau `$, and $`\tau ^{}`$ leads to the precession of the order parameter during the relaxation process (in this convention, $`\tau /\mathrm{}`$ and $`\tau ^{}/\mathrm{}`$ are dimensionless). In the presence of particle-hole symmetry $`\tau ^{}=0`$.

To calculate the response of the system, Eq. (2) is to be solved in the presence of the appropriate driving field (electric field or temperature gradient). Note that a temperature gradient appears in the TDGL both in the parameter $`a`$ and in the noise correlator, Eq. (3). At the level of Gaussian fluctuations the TDGL is a linear equation, with a solution of the the form $`\psi (𝐫,t)=𝑑𝐫^{}𝑑t^{}G(𝐫,t;𝐫^{},t^{})\zeta (𝐫^{},t^{})`$, where $`G`$ is the Green function of the TDGL. This expression may then be used to calculate the electric and heat currents,

$$𝐣^e=i\frac{e^{}\mathrm{}}{2m^{}}\psi ^{}\left(i\frac{e^{}}{\mathrm{}c}𝐀\right)\psi +\text{c.c.},$$
(4)
$$𝐣^Q=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m^{}}(\frac{}{t}i\frac{e^{}}{\mathrm{}}\varphi )\psi ^{}(\frac{ie^{}}{\mathrm{}c}𝐀)\psi +\text{c.c.}$$
(5)
Ullah and Dorsey Ullah-Dorsey  used precisely the same model.

*Currents and fields.*—As model A has no conservation laws, the traditional route to identifying currents is not available. While it is possible to construct hydrodynamic arguments that justify the forms in (4) and (5Schmid (1966), for our purposes it is sufficient to appeal to the microscopics of the Aslamazov-Larkin contribution, and show how the heat current arises from the appropriate vertex in the microscopic theory. Caroli and Maki (1967)

The microscopic theory is perhaps best recast in a functional integral approach. By means of the Hubbard-Stratonovich decoupling of the interaction, the expectation value of a current operator is expressed as an imaginary time functional integral over the pairing field,

$$𝐣=\frac{D\psi D\overline{\psi }𝐣_{\psi \overline{\psi }\varphi }e^{S_{\text{eff}}(\psi ,\overline{\psi },\varphi )}}{D\psi D\overline{\psi }e^{S_{\text{eff}}(\psi ,\overline{\psi },\varphi )}},$$
(6)
where $`S_{\text{eff}}(\psi ,\overline{\psi },\varphi )`$ is the effective action for the pairing field $`\psi `$, in presence of a potential $`\varphi `$, and $`𝐣_{\psi \overline{\psi }\varphi }`$ is the current of a non-interacting Fermi gas driven by electric and pairing fields. Ignoring the $`\varphi `$ dependence of $`𝐣`$ is the Aslamazov-Larkin approximation; the expectation value is the vertex in their diagram and its long wavelength, low frequency form is the TDGL current. For the electric current this was done in the original calculation Aslamazov-Larkin . Using the microscopic heat current operator, one obtains a relation between heat current and electric current vertices, $`𝐉^Q=\omega 𝐉^e/2e`$, independent of disorder. This corrects a factor of 2 in the calculation of Reizer and Sergeev Reizer and Sergeev (1994). The heat current in the TDGL, Eq. (5), is now immediate by this result.

To obtain a response to a temperature gradient in the microscopic theory, one calculates the response to a “gravitational field”, coupled to the energy density in the Hamiltonian, and then uses an Einstein relation to obtain the response to a temperature gradient Luttinger (1964). The microscopic calculation of the Aslamazov-Larkin diagrams leads to the same results obtained using the TDGL approach, Eqs. (1)–(5), where the response to a temperature gradient is obtained directly. Ignored here are the Maki-Thompson and density of state corrections to the normal state response reviews ; Abrahams et al. (1970).

*The transport coefficients* are defined by the standard linear response relations,

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}𝐣_{\text{tr}}^e\\ 𝐣_{\text{tr}}^Q\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\sigma & \alpha & \\ \stackrel{~}{\alpha }& \kappa & \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}𝐄\\ T\end{array}\right).$$
(7)
The off-diagonal thermoelectric tensors obey the Onsager relations $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=T\alpha `$. Below, we calculate the contribution of Gaussian superconducting fluctuations to the thermoelectric and the thermal conductivity tensors ($`\alpha ^{\text{SC}}`$ and $`\kappa ^{\text{SC}}`$). We do not consider here the electrical conductivity tensor $`\sigma ^{\text{SC}}`$, which has been studied extensively reviews .

Before proceeding, we note that particle-hole symmetry ($`\tau ^{}=0`$) implies that $`\sigma _{xy}^{\text{SC}}=\alpha _{xx}^{\text{SC}}=\kappa _{xy}^{\text{SC}}=0`$. In the following we break particle-hole symmetry only when considering these coefficients. In addition, we calculate the longitudinal coefficients in the absence of magnetic field $`B`$, and the transverse coefficients to linear order in $`B`$ (valid for $`B\xi ^2hc/e^{}`$). The final results in both two and three dimensions are presented in Table 1. The generalization of these results to a layered superconductor using a Lawrence-Doniach model is straightforward.

The thermoelectric response $`\alpha _{xx}^{\text{SC}}`$ may be calculated in two ways, either as the heat current response to an electric field or as the electric current response to a temperature gradient. In this way Onsager relations are verified. The result has a logarithmic divergence at $`T_c`$ in two dimensions Ullah-Dorsey ; Reizer and Sergeev (1994); Maki (1974).

The calculation of the transverse thermoelectric coefficient $`\alpha _{xy}^{\text{SC}}`$ raises the issue of equilibrium magnetization currents. To illustrate this point, consider the result of calculating both the heat current response to an electric field and the electric current response to a temperature gradient (in two dimensions),

$$\frac{j_y^Q}{E_x}=\frac{1}{16\pi }\frac{e^2BT}{m^{}ca_0}\frac{1}{TT_c},$$
(8)
$$\frac{j_y^e}{(T)_x}=\frac{1}{48\pi }\frac{e^2B}{m^{}ca_0}(\frac{2T}{(TT_c)^2}\frac{3}{TT_c}).$$
(9)
Equation (8) agrees with the calculations of Ullah and Dorsey Ullah-Dorsey . However, the two results, Eqs. (8)–(9), give a different answer for the transverse thermoelectric response, and are clearly incompatible with Onsager relations. The reason for this apparent discrepancy is that Eqs. (4)–(5) give the *total* currents in the system, containing contributions from both *transport* and *magnetization* currents. In the context of superconductivity this issue was raised in Refs. Maki ; Hu (1976), but was later ignored in works regarding fluctuation contributions Ullah-Dorsey ; Varlamov-Livanov-91 ; Maki (1991). Here we follow Cooper, Halperin, and Ruzin Cooper et al. (1997) who considered the general problem of magnetization currents in magneto-thermoelectric transport in detail (they encountered it in the context of the quantum Hall effect).

In the presence of a magnetic field, the system has magnetization currents in equilibrium. These currents are divergence-free, and as a consequence do not make any contribution to the net current flows that are measured in a transport experiment. The total currents \[calculated by Eqs. (4)–(5)\] are thus a sum of transport and magnetization parts,

$$𝐣^e=𝐣_{\text{tr}}^e+𝐣_{\text{mag}}^e,𝐣^Q=𝐣_{\text{tr}}^Q+𝐣_{\text{mag}}^Q.$$
(10)
In the present case , following the arguments of Ref. Cooper et al. (1997), the magnetization electric and heat currents which contribute to the total currents in Eqs. (8)–(9) are

$$𝐣_{\text{mag}}^e=c\frac{𝐌}{T}\times (T),𝐣_{\text{mag}}^Q=c𝐌\times 𝐄,$$
(11)
where $`𝐌`$ is the equilibrium magnetization. The fluctuation contribution to the magnetization is found either by thermodynamics reviews  or by calculating the current flowing in the system in equilibrium in the presence of a varying system parameter (such as the magnetic field or $`T_c`$).

By subtracting the magnetization currents, Eq. (11), we obtain the result for $`\alpha _{xy}^{\text{SC}}`$ (see Table 1), which diverges as the conductivity, $`\alpha _{xy}^{\text{SC}}\sigma _{xx}^{\text{SC}}(TT_c)^{(d4)/2}`$. As expected, Onsager relations are recovered by this subtraction. We note that the correction due to magnetization currents is not small: In response to an electric field, the magnetization current accounts for two thirds of the total heat current in the weak magnetic field limit. In response to a temperature gradient, the magnetization current is more singular than the transport current at $`T_c`$.

Finally, we consider the thermal conductivity tensor $`\kappa `$. The longitudinal thermal conductivity $`\kappa _{xx}^{\text{SC}}`$ does not diverge in any dimension, although it is singular. (In Ref. Varlamov-Livanov-90  a diverging result was obtained due to the wrong form of the heat current vertex.) The transverse thermal conductivity $`\kappa _{xy}^{\text{SC}}`$ has a logarithmic divergence at $`T_c`$ in two dimensions (similar to $`\alpha _{xx}^{\text{SC}}`$). In contrast with an electric field, a temperature gradient does not give rise to a magnetization heat current in the present case.

*Cuprate data.*—We now compare our results for $`\alpha _{xy}^{\text{SC}}`$ with experiment. Consider the measurement of the Nernst effect: The sample is placed in a temperature gradient $`(T)\widehat{𝐱}`$ in the presence of a magnetic field $`𝐁\widehat{𝐳}`$. The transverse electric field $`E_y`$ is measured in the absence of any transport electric current. Imposing the condition $`𝐣_{\text{tr}}^e=0`$ in Eq. (7) gives Nernst signal,

$$\nu =\frac{E_y}{(T)B}=\frac{1}{B}\frac{\alpha _{xy}\sigma _{xx}\alpha _{xx}\sigma _{xy}}{\sigma _{xx}^2+\sigma _{xy}^2}.$$
(12)
Taking the values for $`\sigma `$ and $`\alpha `$ from the Gaussian contributions, we find that in this approximation the Nernst effect tends to a constant at $`T_c`$, $`\nu (T_c)=\alpha _{xy}^{\text{SC}}/\sigma _{xx}^{\text{SC}}B`$. However, for comparison with experiment the fluctuation contributions, $`\sigma ^{\text{SC}}`$ and $`\alpha ^{\text{SC}}`$, should be added to the normal state contribution, $`\sigma ^n`$ and $`\alpha ^n`$. Moreover, we will consider temperatures which are not too close to $`T_c`$, such that $`\sigma ^{\text{SC}}\sigma ^n\sigma `$. Equation (12) may then be written in the low magnetic field limit as

$$\nu \nu ^n+\frac{1}{B}\frac{\alpha _{xy}^{\text{SC}}}{\sigma _{xx}},$$
(13)
The normal state Nernst effect $`\nu ^n`$ is generally small due to a cancellation between the two terms in Eq. (12).

Eq. (13) is now used for a comparison with experiment in the low magnetic field limit, presented in Fig. 1 for data measured on three samples of LSCO Wang-Ong . The experimental data shows $`\sigma _{xx}(\nu \nu ^n)`$, where $`\nu `$ and $`\sigma _{xx}`$ was measured at each temperature, while $`\nu ^n`$ is deduced from an extrapolation from the high temperature regime. As $`\nu ^n`$ is very small in this material, this extrapolation is expected to introduce a relatively small error.

On the theoretical side, the result for $`\alpha _{xy}^{\text{SC}}`$ (see Table 1) is generalized for a layered superconductor using the Lawrence-Doniach model,

$$\alpha _{xy}^{\text{SC}}=\frac{1}{6\pi }\frac{e}{\mathrm{}}\frac{\xi _{ab}^2}{l_B^2s}\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+(2\xi _c/s)^2}}.$$
(14)
Here, $`s`$ is the interlayer spacing, and $`\xi _{ab}`$ ($`\xi _c`$) is the coherence length in the direction parallel (perpendicular) to the planes. Note that the only fitting parameters are the coherence length $`\xi _{ab}^{(0)}`$ ($`\xi _{ab}=\xi _{ab}^{(0)}\sqrt{T_c/(TT_c)}`$) and the anisotropy $`\gamma =\xi _{ab}/\xi _c`$. In Fig. 1 $`\alpha _{xy}^{\text{SC}}/B`$ is plotted using $`\xi _{ab}^{(0)}=30`$ Å and $`\gamma =20`$ (cf., e.g., Ref. Kimura et al. (1996)).

As this comparison suggests, Gaussian superconducting fluctuations are sufficient to explain the magnitude of the observed signal above $`T_c`$ in the low magnetic field limit in the optimally doped and overdoped samples. Two questions arise immediately: what is special about the cuprates and why is the fluctuation contribution to the Nernst signal dominant at such high temperatures? From our results, the answer to the the first appears to lie in their anisotropy and in their smaller conductivity near $`T_c`$ which together boost $`\nu `$ by two orders of magnitude from values we would predict for bulk Al or Nb, despite their larger coherence lengths. In this context it would be interesting to study low temperature superconductors with high resistivities, such as the Nb films studied for fluctuation effects by Hsu and Kapitulnik Hsu and Kapitulnik (1992), where our formula would indicate a Nernst signal comparable to optimally doped LSCO. In answer to the second question we note that the Nernst signal is particularly suitable for a fluctuation measurement due to the small background signal in the normal state.

In the underdoped sample the measured signal is larger and cannot be explained by Gaussian fluctuations if one uses the actual $`T_c`$. However, this is the pseudogap region and in the interpretation considered in this paper, the actual $`T_c`$ is suppressed from the mean-field transition temperature $`T_c^{\text{MF}}`$ by non-Gaussian fluctuations and so a naive fit is not justified; indeed, there is presumably a small effect of this kind even at optimal doping which is unimportant in the region considered in our fit.

The increase in fluctuations with underdoping can be modelled by a growing quartic term in the Ginzburg-Landau functional as well as by increased two-dimensionality while the increase in $`T_c^{\text{MF}}`$ needs to be put in directly. To get a sense of what these would do, we treat the resulting problem via a self-consistent Hartree approximation (see, e.g., Ref. Ullah-Dorsey ), which should be valid to some extent below $`T_c^{\text{MF}}`$. This amounts to replacing $`a`$ by the self-consistent solution of $`\stackrel{~}{a}=a+b|\psi |^2`$. That this is plausible is demonstrated in Fig. 1, where we fit the data for the underdoped sample (using a two-dimensional Hartree approximation, with $`T_c^{\text{MF}}=49`$ K, $`T_\mathrm{\Lambda }=200`$ K, $`b/a_0=0.63\mathrm{}^2/m^{}`$, and $`\xi _{ab}^{(0)}=30`$ Å).

We thank Tom Lubensky and Steve Kivelson for valuable input, and Phuan Ong and Yayu Wang for numerous enlightening discussions on their work. We also thank the Rueff Wormser Fund, the Packard Foundation, and NSF DMR-9978074, 9802468 and 0213706.


text:
# Discrete energy spectrum of Hawking radiation from Schwarzschild surfaces

## Abstract

We analyze the allowed energy levels of Hawking radiation from Schwarzschild surfaces in space-times with large extra dimensions. From the requirement that the wave functions associated with these particles be single-valued and obey radial boundary conditions, we derive an upper bound of their discrete energy spectrum as a function of the number of large extra dimensions and the mass of the black hole. Furthermore, we investigate the spacing of the energy levels.

Space-times with large extra dimensions (LXDs) have been proposed  to explain or at least reformulate the hierarchy between the electroweak scale $`M_\mathrm{w}10^3`$ GeV and the Planck scale $`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}10^{19}`$ GeV in four dimensions. In these brane world scenarios the hierarchy is either generated through the volume of the LXDs  or through a exponential warp factor  taking into account the energy density on the brane. A common feature of these scenarios is that all standard model particles including the gauge degrees of freedom are localized on a $`3`$brane whereas gravity propagates in both the compact LXDs and the non-compact dimensions. As a consequence the fundamental scale of gravity $`M_\mathrm{f}`$ could be as low as $`M_\mathrm{w}`$ in these space-times.

The experimental bound on $`M_\mathrm{f}`$ from the absence of missing energy signatures is $`M_\mathrm{f}800`$ GeV . Therefore, LXDs may be discovered at Tevatron  and further explored with future colliders like LHC, TESLA or CLIC. One possible phenomenon could be the formation of micro black holes in high energy collider experiments  or atmospheric ultra high energy cosmic rays . The production of micro black holes in the final state of a high energy collision could be observed due to a sharp cut-off  in $`\sigma (p\overline{p}\mathrm{Jet}+\mathrm{X})(P_{})`$ at Tevatron or $`\sigma (pp\mathrm{Jet}+\mathrm{X})(P_{})`$ at LHC.

One of the most remarkable relationships in theoretical physics is that between classical black hole physics and the ordinary laws of thermodynamics . This relation is a striking mathematical analogy and suggests a physical connection. The quantity in classical black hole physics which plays the role mathematically analogous to the total Energy $`U`$ is the mass $`M_{\mathrm{bh}}`$ of the black hole, which is physically the total energy of the black hole in general relativity. The quantity analogous to the temperature is the surface gravity $`\kappa `$. In classical black hole physics $`\kappa `$ has nothing to do with the physical temperature of a black hole, which is absolute zero. However, the analysis of the behavior of a quantum field results in the Hawking effect : A black hole will radiate exactly like a black body with temperature $`T_{\mathrm{bh}}=\kappa /2\pi `$. The thermal spectrum of radiated quanta can be calculated by noting that the physical entropy $`S`$ of a black hole is proportional to its Schwarzschild surface area. For a spherically symmetric solution in $`D=4+d`$ dimensions $`SM_\mathrm{f}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}+d}A_{(2+d)}R_{\mathrm{bh}}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}2}+d}`$, where $`A_{(2+d)}`$ denotes the $`2+d`$-dimensional surface of a $`3+d`$-dimensional unit sphere and the horizon radius is given by

$$R_{\mathrm{bh}}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}1}+d}=\frac{4}{2+d}\frac{A_{(2)}}{A_{(2+d)}}\left(\frac{1}{M_\mathrm{f}}\right)^{1+d}\frac{M_{\mathrm{bh}}}{M_\mathrm{f}}.$$
(1)
In the literature  it was argued that the thermal spectrum of radiated quanta should be calculated using the micro-canonical ensemble. In the following we formulate two essential conditions which restrict this spectrum due to finite size effects. It is important to note that no special ensemble is considered in deriving the main result Equation (8).

Condition 1 : The energy $`\omega `$ of the radiated quanta has an upper bound provided by the mass $`M_{\mathrm{bh}}`$ of the black hole

$$\omega M_{\mathrm{bh}}/2,$$
(2)
which is mandatory due to energy-momentum conservation. This condition is equivalent to the statement that the de Broglie wavelength of the quantum formed on the Schwarzschild surface needs to be larger than the Compton wave length of the micro black hole.

Condition 2 :

* For every de Broglie wavelength $`\lambda `$ associated with a particle on the Schwarzschild surface exists a positive integer $`n`$ with

$$n\lambda =R_{\mathrm{bh}},$$
(3)
which implies $`\lambda R_{\mathrm{bh}}`$.
* The radial wave function $`F`$ has to vanish on the Schwarzschild surface, i. e.

$$F(r)=0\text{for}rR_{\mathrm{bh}}.$$
(4)

Condition (a) is necessary and sufficient in order to allow for periodic boundary conditions so that the wave-function of a particle localized on the Schwarzschild surface is single-valued. If the wavelength is larger than the horizon radius destructive interference will suppress the amplitude for such a particle state. Condition (b) ensures that the wave function of the particle does not penetrate beyond the horizon. Conditions (a) and (b) are non-trivial boundary conditions that result in a geometrical quantization of all components of the particle momentum $`\stackrel{}{k}`$.

Application to black holes :

Ignoring numerical prefactors we obtain from Condition 1 and Condition 2 the general relation

$$\frac{1}{M_\mathrm{f}}\left(\frac{M_{\mathrm{bh}}}{M_\mathrm{f}}\right)^{\frac{1}{1+d}}\lambda \frac{1}{M_{\mathrm{bh}}}$$
(5)
implying $`M_{\mathrm{bh}}M_\mathrm{f}`$. For $`d=0`$ this relation is easily satisfied for astrophysical black holes, thereby allowing a large range for $`\lambda `$. However, the above stated conditions imply a general self-consistency relation for arbitrary $`d`$.

Modification of black body spectrum :

The remarkable conclusion known as Hawking effect is that, at late times, a Schwarzschild black hole formed by gravitational collapse radiates precisely as a thermal black body at temperature $`T_{\mathrm{bh}}=(1+d)/(A_{(2)}R_{\mathrm{bh}})`$. The number of momentum modes that can be thermally populated is roughly $`R_{\mathrm{bh}}^3k^2\mathrm{d}k`$. If this number changes continuously in momentum space, the amount of energy radiated away at a given $`T_{\mathrm{bh}}`$ is an integral of the Planck spectrum

$$u(\omega ,T_{\mathrm{bh}})=\frac{g}{2\pi ^2}k^2f(\omega /T_{\mathrm{bh}})\omega $$
(6)
over the energy. Here, the sum is over all possible particle species, $`g`$ counts the effective degrees of freedom and $`f`$ denotes the Bose-Einstein or the Fermi-Dirac distribution respectively for every particle species. Planck’s radiation law is reliable for $`M_{\mathrm{bh}}/T_{\mathrm{bh}}1`$, where in our case $`M_{\mathrm{bh}}/T_{\mathrm{bh}}`$ $`(M_{\mathrm{bh}}/M_\mathrm{f})^{(2+d)/(1+d)}`$.

In the following we examine when the assumption of continuous variation of allowed momentum values really holds. Let us consider a Schwarzschild sphere centered in a cube with side length $`2R_{\mathrm{bh}}`$. The energy spectrum of modes on the Schwarzschild surface can be approximated by the spectrum of modes inside the cube. Then, Condition 2 is modified by $`R_{\mathrm{bh}}2R_{\mathrm{bh}}`$. As a consequence, the relation $`k=\pi n/R_{\mathrm{bh}}`$ between the momentum $`k`$ of the particle (with mass $`m`$), the positive integer $`n`$ and the horizon radius follows. With Condition 1 we find our main result

$`n(d,M_{\mathrm{bh}})`$ $``$ $`(4\pi ^3)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{4m^2}{M_{\mathrm{bh}}^2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ (8)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{8}{2+d}}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{3+d}{2}}\right)\right)^{\frac{1}{1+d}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_{\mathrm{bh}}}{M_\mathrm{f}}}\right)^{\frac{2+d}{1+d}}.`$
Again, for $`d=0`$ and macroscopic black holes we have typically $`n10^{60}`$ and therefore a continuous thermal spectrum of radiated quanta. On the other hand, for $`M_{\mathrm{bh}}M_\mathrm{f}`$, $`n`$ is of order one and $`k`$ is quantized due to the small size of the Schwarzschild surface. Condition 2 then restricts the phase space in the infrared and allows no modes with $`kT`$. Note that in deriving (8) we did not specify any ensemble.

As a consequence, for black holes with $`M_{\mathrm{bh}}M_\mathrm{f}`$ only a discrete energy spectrum is possible with finite spacing between the levels. Instead of integrating the Planck spectrum over the energy we have a sum over the discrete levels

$$\underset{n=1}{\overset{[nn_{\mathrm{max}}]}{}}u(\omega _n,T_{\mathrm{bh}}).$$
(9)
Here, $`n_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is the right hand side of (8) and $`[\mathrm{}]`$ denote the largest integer part of the argument in brackets. The energy spacing between a mode with momentum $`k`$ and a mode with momentum $`k+\mathrm{d}k`$ is approximately $`1/R_{\mathrm{bh}}`$. Since (8) is general, similar conclusions should hold for the micro-canonical ensemble, which we will discuss in a forthcoming publication. Here we illustrate our results using the grand canonical ensemble, where

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}M_{\mathrm{bh}}}{\mathrm{d}t}=A_{(2)}R_{\mathrm{bh}}^2\underset{n=1}{\overset{[nn_{\mathrm{max}}]}{}}u(\omega _n,T_{\mathrm{bh}})$$
(10)
for standard model fields , taking into account finite spacing between the energy levels. For a black hole with $`M_{\mathrm{bh}}=15M_\mathrm{f}`$ and $`d=2`$ we find $`n_{\mathrm{max}}5`$. However, the spectrum is peaked for $`\omega M_\mathrm{f}`$, i. e. for the lowest energy level accessible for a particle on the Schwarzschild surface. Nearly all energy goes in the lowest possible energy mode, as shown in Fig. 1. Neglecting modes with higher energies results in a relative error of the order of one percent. For $`d=37`$ the situation is similar, though $`n_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is decreasing and the maximum relative error is of the order of ten percent. With increasing $`\omega `$ the $`d`$-dependence becomes more important. For example, for the second energy level we find $`\omega 2M_\mathrm{f}`$ for $`d=2`$ and $`\omega 4M_\mathrm{f}`$ for $`d=7`$.

In conclusion, we have shown that the energy spectrum of particles emitted by $`M_\mathrm{f}`$-scale black holes is quantized due to non-trivial boundary conditions. For the lowest lying energy level accessible for particles on the Schwarzschild surface we find $`\omega M_\mathrm{f}`$. Nearly all energy is radiated off the Schwarzschild surface in modes with this lowest energy. This may have dramatic consequences. Depending on the detailed prescription for geometrical quantization, the black holes on the $`M_\mathrm{f}`$-scale may not evaporate at all via Hawking radiation.

###### Acknowledgements.

A. K. thanks C. Hays and S. H. thanks S. Hossenfelder for fruitful discussions. S. H. is grateful to Steffen A. Bass for his hospitality at Duke University and partial support through U.S. Department of Energy grant DE-FG02-96ER40945. The work of A. K. was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.


text:
# Why We Are Here

## I Welcome!

On behalf of the American Physical Society, the Division of Particles and Fields, and our partners in the Division of Physics of Beams, it is my great pleasure to welcome you to Snowmass 2001: a summer study on the future of particle physics. We are off to a wonderful start, with more than 1000 participants already registered. Thanks in part to generous support from the National Science Foundation, the DPB, and the DPF, more than eighty students have come to Snowmass. The students form part of a contingent of more than 200 of our colleagues who are, by their own admission—no questions asked!—“young.”

I’d also like to add a special welcome, and hearty thanks, to the more than 150 participants who have come to Snowmass from outside the United States. We look forward to drawing on your expertise and your perspectives as we try to shape the future of our subject. It is plain to everyone, I hope, that international cooperation will make many more futures possible: the choices we make can be when and where, not just yes to this and no to that.

The exceptional infrastructure and stimulating ambience we find here at Snowmass would not have been possible without the enthusiastic support—material and otherwise—of our sponsors. Our funding agencies, the United States Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, and NASA, have provided resources and encouragement. The APS Division of Particles & Fields and Division of Physics of Beams made substantial contributions to the outreach effort—which also benefited from very considerable donations from private foundations that wish to remain anonymous—and to student support. Another of our professional organizations, the Nuclear and Plasma Sciencies Society of the IEEE, has organized and financed an all-star “technology emphasis” that will run throughout the three weeks of Snowmass 2001. We’re also extremely grateful for financial support and the show of solidarity from ten laboratories engaged in particle physics research in the United States: Argonne National Lab, Berkeley Lab, Brookhaven National Lab / Brookhaven Science Associates, Cornell University / LNS / Wilson Synchrotron Lab, Fermilab / Universities Research Association, Jefferson Laboratory / SURA, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Lab / Spallation Neutron Source, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center / Stanford University. We thank all these institutions for their commitment to particle physics, and to Snowmass 2001, and we salute the organizations behind our great laboratories for their stewardship.

The stimulating and inclusive program of activities we will enjoy during the next three weeks is the creation of the Snowmass Organizing Committee. It has been a joy to work with these thoughtful, creative people: they have given enormous amounts of time, energy, and goodwill to the task of building a framework in which we can explore the whole range of scientific opportunities and confront many kinds of issues that will influence the conduct of particle physics in the future. Because he cannot be here to see the fruits of his labors, I especially want to call attention to the energetic leadership and great wisdom of Ron Davidson, the DPB co-chair of the organizing committee. Ron brought wonderful ideas and a confident serenity to the committee’s work. Ron and I join in thanking our colleagues Sally Dawson (BNL), Paul Grannis (Stony Brook), David Gross (ITP/UCSB), Joe Lykken (Fermilab), Hitoshi Murayama (Berkeley), René Ong (UCLA), Natalie Roe (LBNL), Heidi Schellman (Northwestern), and Maria Spiropulu (Chicago) from the DPF side; and Alex Chao (SLAC), Alex Dragt (Maryland), Gerry Dugan (Cornell), Norbert Holtkamp (SNS), Chan Joshi (UCLA), Thomas Roser (BNL), Ron Ruth (SLAC), John Seeman (SLAC), and Jim Strait (Fermilab) from the DPB side.

As we begin our adventure, I want also to thank the local organizing committee, whose work you will see all around you over the next three weeks, and our many working-group convenors from around the world, who have responded so enthusiastically to their charges and will give definition to our work together.

## II The State of Particle Physics

The physics curriculum in the 1898–99 University of Chicago catalogue begins with a very triumphalist Victorian preface :

> “While it is never safe to affirm that the future of the Physical Sciences has no marvels in store even more astonishing than those of the past, it seems probable that most of the grand underlying principles have been firmly established and that further advances are to be sought chiefly in the rigorous application of these principles to all the phenomena which come under our notice …. An eminent physicist has remarked that the future truths of Physical Science are to be looked for in the sixth place of decimals.”

As the ink was drying on these earnest words, Röntgen discovered x rays and published the epoch-making radiograph of his wife’s hand, Becquerel and the Curies explored radioactivity, Thomson discovered the electron and showed that the “uncuttable” atom had parts, and Planck noted that anomalies in the first place of the decimals required a wholesale revision of the physicist’s conception of the laws of Nature.

We have the benefit of a century of additional experience and insight, but we are not nearly so confident as our illustrious Victorian ancestors were that we have uncovered “most of the grand underlying principles.” Indeed, while we celebrate the insights codified in the standard model of particle physics and look forward to resolving its puzzles, we are increasingly conscious of how little of the physical universe we have experienced and explored. Future truths are still to be found in precision measurements, but the century we are leaving has repeatedly shown that Nature’s marvels are not limited by our imagination. Exploration can yield surprises that completely change what we think about—and how we think.

### II.1 A Decade of Discovery Ahead

Over the next decade, we look forward to an avalanche of experimental results that have the potential to change our view of the fundamental particles and their interactions in very dramatic ways. A special preoccupation for me is the search and study of the Higgs boson; this is really shorthand for a thorough exploration of the 1-TeV scale, which will elucidate the mechanism of electroweak symmetry breaking. We can also expect wonderful progress in flavor physics: the detailed study of CP violation in the $`B`$ system, dramatically increased sensitivity in the exploration of rare decays of $`K`$ and $`D`$ mesons, and pinning down the nature of neutrino oscillations. Maybe we will at last see a CP-violating permanent electric dipole moment of the neutron. Run II of the Tevatron will give us our first opportunity to regard the top quark as a tool, and not only as an object of desire. Although the interpretation of heavy-ion collisions at RHIC and the LHC promises to be challenging, the heavy-ion colliders offer a real chance to discover new phases of matter and enrich our understanding of QCD.

On many fronts, we are taking dramatic steps in energy and sensitivity that will help us explore: extra dimensions, new dynamics, supersymmetry, and new kinds of forces and constituents might show themselves. (I’m conflicted about whether I’d like to see them all at once, or in easy-to-understand installments!)

Experiments that use natural sources also hold great promise for the decade ahead. We suspect that the detection of proton decay is only a few orders of magnitude away in sensitivity. Astronomical observations should help to tell us what kinds of matter and energy make up the universe. The areas already under development—if not exploitation—include gravity wave detectors, neutrino telescopes, cosmic microwave background measurements, cosmic-ray observatories, $`\gamma `$-ray astronomy, and large-scale optical surveys. Indeed, the whole complex of experiments and observations we call astro/cosmo/particle physics should enjoy a golden age.

Here at Snowmass, we will have the opportunity to consider many imaginative ideas for instruments and experiments that lie beyond our current horizon. Although theoretical speculation and synthesis is valuable and necessary, we cannot advance without new observations. The experimental clues needed to answer today’s central questions can come from experiments at high-energy accelerators, experiments at low-energy accelerators and nuclear reactors, experiments with found beams, and deductions from astrophysical measurements. Past experience, our intuition, and the current state of theory all point to an indispensable role for accelerator experiments.

The opportunities for accelerator science and technology are multifaceted and challenging, and offer rich rewards for particle physics.

One line of attack consists in refining known technologies to accelerate and collide the traditional projectiles—electrons, protons, and their antiparticles—pushing the frontiers of energy, sensitivity, and precise control. The new instruments might include brighter proton sources; very-high-luminosity $`e^+e^{}`$ “factories” for $`B`$, $`\tau `$ / charm, $`\varphi `$, …; a Tevatron “Tripler” based on high-field magnets; cost-effective hadron colliders beyond the LHC at CERN, represented by the Super-LHC and Very Large Hadron Collider initiatives; and $`e^+e^{}`$ linear colliders.

A second approach entails the development of exotic acceleration technologies for standard particles: electrons, protons, and their antiparticles. We don’t yet know what instruments might result from research into new acceleration methods, but it is easy to imagine dramatic new possibilities for particle physics, condensed matter physics, applied science, medical diagnostics and therapies, and manufacturing, as well as a multitude of security applications. A teach-in on July 5 will explore opportunities to become involved in research on advanced acceleration methods.

A third path involves the exploration of exotic particles for accelerators and colliders to expand the experimenter’s armamentarium. Muon storage rings for neutrino factories, $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ colliders and $`\gamma \gamma `$ colliders are all under active investigation, and each of these would bring remarkable new possibilities for experiment.

Finally, let us note the continuing importance of enabling technologies: developing or domesticating new materials, new construction methods, new instrumentation, and new active controls. I call your attention to the IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Sciences Society’s program of Technology Short Courses and Lunchtime Lectures, beginning on July 5.

To a very great extent, the progress of particle physics has been paced by progress in accelerator science and technology. A renewed commitment to accelerator research and development will ensure a vigorous intellectual life for accelerator science and lead to important new tools for particle physics and beyond.

### II.2 Creating the Future

Now, the decade of discovery won’t happen automatically. Many of our goals are difficult, and timely success is in doubt for many experiments. We must push hard to prepare the instruments, and get to the answers.

The glorious future of new machines and new experiments that lies beyond the established program also won’t happen by itself. We have, I think, come to the collective realization that we must do more to prepare alternative futures by creating a rich and organic program of accelerator research.

We’re also challenged by our success: the scope of our science has grown, but funding has not. Within our own extended family and beyond, we must do more to convey the urgency and importance of the new scientific opportunities, and fashion a program that we can carry out that includes the right measure of scale diversity to ensure a healthy intellectual ecosystem.

Many individuals in our community, all the major laboratories, and many university departments work energetically—and effectively—in outreach and educational activities, conveying the excitement and substance of science—and particle physics—to students, and to the general public. But we are not doing everything we might to promote scientific literacy, to inspire the next generation of scientists, engineers, and technologists, and to report to our patrons—our fellow citizens in government and in the general public—our hopes and dreams, our triumphs and challenges. We can communicate much more effectively the wonders of our science. It is in our interest to do so, and it is our obligation to those who support our work.

To show how seriously we take the need to present our science to others, we have expanded the usual technical program of a Snowmass summer study to include a vigorous and diverse program of outreach and educational activities—right here in the Roaring Fork Valley. The presence of Quarknet teachers, the Science Weekend extravaganza on the Snowmass Mall next weekend, and a schedule of public lectures in Aspen, Snowmass, and Carbondale are only part of the story. I hope that many of you will participate in the outreach program, and that all of you will take time to see what your colleagues are doing and to think about what more you might be doing at home.

I also call your attention to the Communications workshops scheduled this week and next, and to the “Working with Governments” forum near the end of the summer study. To add to the literature that presents the achievements and aspirations of particle physics to a broad audience, the Division of Particles and Fields is preparing an illustrated thematic survey entitled Quarks Unbound.

### II.3 What We Need to Know

Plans that proceed from broad scientific goals to specific questions and then to instruments and technology development have been used to excellent effect by the National Cancer Institute and by NASA. In organizing my thoughts about our future, I find it useful to consider the agenda of particle physics today under a few broad rubrics.

Elementarity. Are the quarks and leptons structureless, or will we find that they are composite particles with internal structures that help us understand the properties of the individual quarks and leptons?

Symmetry. One of the most powerful lessons of the modern synthesis of particle physics is that (local) symmetries prescribe interactions. Our investigation of symmetry must address the question of which gauge symmetries exist (and, eventually, why). We have learned to seek symmetry in the laws of Nature, not necessarily in the consequences of those laws. Accordingly, we must understand how the symmetries are hidden from us in the world we inhabit. For the moment, the most urgent problem in particle physics is to complete our understanding of electroweak symmetry breaking by exploring the 1-TeV scale. This is the business of the experiments at LEP2, the Tevatron Collider, and the Large Hadron Collider.

Unity. In the sense of developing explanations that apply not to one individual phenomenon in isolation, but to many phenomena in common, unity is central to all of physics, and indeed to all of science. At this moment in particle physics, our quest for unity takes several forms.

First, we have the fascinating possibility of gauge coupling unification, the idea that all the interactions we encounter have a common origin and thus a common strength at suitably high energy.

Second, there is the imperative of anomaly freedom in the electroweak theory, which urges us to treat quarks and leptons together, not as completely independent species. Both of these ideas are embodied, of course, in unified theories of the strong, weak, and electromagnetic interactions, which imply the existence of still other forces—to complete the grander gauge group of the unified theory—including interactions that change quarks into leptons.

The third aspect of unity is the idea that the traditional distinction between force particles and constituents might give way to a unified understanding of all the particles. The gluons of QCD carry color charge, so we can imagine quarkless hadronic matter in the form of glueballs. Beyond that breaking down of the wall between messengers and constituents, supersymmetry relates fermions and bosons.

Finally, we desire a reconciliation between the pervasive outsider, gravity, and the forces that prevail in the quantum world of our everyday laboratory experience.

Identity. We do not understand the physics that sets quark masses and mixings. Although we are testing the idea that the phase in the quark-mixing matrix lies behind the observed CP violation, we do not know what determines that phase. The accumulating evidence for neutrino oscillations presents us with a new embodiment of these puzzles in the lepton sector. At bottom, the question of identity is very simple to state: What makes an electron and electron, and a top quark a top quark?

Topography. “What is the dimensionality of spacetime?” tests our preconceptions and unspoken assumptions. It is given immediacy by recent theoretical work. For its internal consistency, string theory requires an additional six or seven space dimensions, beyond the $`3+1`$ dimensions of everyday experience. Until recently it has been presumed that the extra dimensions must be compactified on the Planck scale, with a stupendously small compactification radius $`RM_{\mathrm{Planck}}^1=1.6\times 10^{35}\text{ m}`$. Part of the vision of string theory is that what goes on in even such tiny curled-up dimensions does affect the everyday world: excitations of the Calabi–Yau manifolds determine the fermion spectrum.

We have recognized recently that Planck-scale compactification is not—according to what we can establish—obligatory, and that current experiment and observation admit the possibility of dimensions not navigated by the strong, weak, and electromagnetic interactions that are almost palpably large. A whole range of new experiments will help us explore the fabric of space and time, in ways we didn’t expect just a few years ago.

## III Some Goals for Snowmass 2001

All of you have arrived in Snowmass with ambitious plans for the next three weeks. The charges to the twenty-seven working groups give a detailed picture of the Organizing Committee’s vision of what we can achieve, but here are the high-level goals I hope we can attain together:

$``$ Survey our aspirations for particle physics over 30 years.

$``$ Assess the current state of development of accelerator protoprojects and advanced accelerator research, and understand the investment we must make (financial and human capital) to bring the most promising lines to maturity. Here at Snowmass, the Division of Physics of Beams will be completing a very broad look at our opportunities and needs for Accelerator R&D.

$``$ Look beyond our immediate goals for measurements and searches to contemplate the shape of a more complete, more ambitious theoretical framework. How should theoretical vision shape our experimental goals?

$``$ Examine the importance of scale diversity for a healthy and productive future.

$``$ Educate ourselves about the full range of possibilities before us. We must know enough to judge critically, to improve the arguments, to articulate our goals effectively. We’re very grateful to the senior scientists who have agreed to serve as HMOs—high-minded outsiders—in experimental working groups E1 – E6. Their assignment is to act as friendly skeptics, probing and strengthening arguments, and—by the example of their time and effort—to lead many others to view Snowmass 2001 as a forum for engaging with the ideas and aspirations of others.

$``$ Listen carefully to our young colleagues, who will help create our common futures. We’ll have a formal opportunity to hear from the next generation at the Young Physicists Forum on July 17, so mark that date on your calendar.

$``$ Take advantage of opportunities to interact with the HEPAP Subpanel. Technical work carried out at Snowmass will undergird the recommendations the subpanel makes.

$``$ Consider the international dimensions of what we hope to achieve. It will be a particular pleasure to welcome the international lab directors, and I call your attention to an evening discussion this week on the issues of a global accelerator network. During the final week of Snowmass 2001, we’ll have reports from the European and Japanese high-energy physics planning Committees

I believe we must articulate a comprehensive vision of particle physics (and the sciences it touches) to make our case effectively to ourselves, to other scientists, and to society at large. At the same time, we have a special responsibility to examine the prospects for the most ambitious accelerators, which are major drivers of our scientific progress. If we judge the science to be rich, and if we can make the cost and technical risk attractive, we will want to pursue all the leading possibilities: linear colliders, hadron colliders reaching far beyond the TeV scale, muon storage ring, and muon collider. The vision we present should include the scientific promise of all these instruments, and a strategy for deciding what, where, and when that includes the organic R&D investment we will need to evolve the right set of instruments to serve our science.

$``$ Thanks to the work of many people, the moment is upon us to probe, shape, and judge the idea of a linear collider as a possible next big step for particle physics. Evaluating a linear collider and working to define a scientifically rich, technically sound, fiscally responsible plan is a homework problem for the entire community. Everyone must come to an informed judgment.

Beyond the technical issues, please think about how to make our dreams happen. Creating a future is not accomplished when we draw our individual conclusions or read the subpanel recommendations.

Welcome to Snowmass 2001! Your passion, energy, creativity, and commitment will change the world.