text:
# Environmental Dependencies for Star Formation Triggered by Expanding Shell Collapse

## 1 Introduction

Giant shells in nearby galaxies often contain young clusters on their periphery, suggesting that gravitational instabilities in swept-up gas lead to co-moving, self-gravitating clouds that collapse into stars (McCray & Kafatos 1987; Tenorio-Tagle & Bodenheimer 1988), or that pre-existing clouds are compressed to an unstable state as the shell passes, producing the same result (Woodward 1976; Klein et al. 1985; Dopita, Mathewson & Ford 1985; Boss 1995; Foster & Boss 1996; Vanhala & Cameron 1998; Abrahám, Balázs, & Kun 2000; Yamaguchi 2001a). Sometimes old clusters are found inside the shells (e.g., Patel et al. 1998; Wilcots & Miller 1998; Steward et al. 2000; Stewart & Walter 2000; Yamaguchi et al. 2001b), in which case the morphology suggests a sequence of primary and secondary star formation (see review in Elmegreen 1998).

Star formation that is sequentially triggered like this should be able to continue for an extended time as one generation leads to another in any remaining gas. Whether it continues indefinitely and fills a whole galaxy depends on the triggering efficiency (Mueller & Arnett 1976; Gerola & Seiden 1978). If the mass of the second generation is larger than the mass of the first, then the activity should grow until it dominates all star formation. This may be the case in the solar neighborhood, where most star formation occurs in dense clusters (Lada, Strom, & Myers 1993; Carpenter 2000) that are located at the edges of high pressure regions, indicative of triggering (e.g., the Trifid Nebula: Lefloch & Cernicharo 2000; Rosette: Phelps & Lada 1997; Orion: Reipurth, Rodriguez & Chini 1999; Ophiuchus: de Geus 1992; Sco Cen: Preibisch & Zinnecker 1999; Cepheus OB3 and Perseus OB2: Sargent 1979; W3/4/5: Carpenter, Heyer,& Snell 2000; see review in Elmegreen et al. 2000). Infrared sources around the supernova remnant G349.7+0.2 also look triggered (Reynoso & Magnum 2000), as do hot cores in the galactic center cloud Sgr B2 (Martin-Pintado et al. 1999).

Here we investigate the conditions for shell triggering. Numerical models of expanding, non-magnetic, self-gravitating shells are made, following the method of Ehlerová & Palouš (1996). Other models are in Ehlerová et al. (1997), Efremov et al. (1999) and Ehlerová & Palouš (2002). The models use the thin shell approximation proposed by Sedov (1959), in which a thin, 3-dimensional shell surrounding a hot medium is divided into a number of elements and a system of equations for motion, mass and energy is solved. The approximation is appropriate for a blastwave propagating in the interstellar medium because the radius of the shell is much larger than its thickness during the majority of the evolution. The main advantage of this method over solutions of the complete hydrodynamical and Poisson equations in 3 dimensions is a much lower demand of CPU time. This gives us the possibility to explore an extended grid of independent parameters. However, the adoption of this method restricts the spatial resolution, which is limited by the finite thickness of the compressed layer.

## 2 Models

The interstellar medium is modeled by a stratified, non-magnetic disk with a Gaussian density profile of dispersion $`H`$, midplane density $`\rho `$, velocity dispersion $`c_{ext}`$, local rotation curve $`V(r)R^\alpha `$, and local angular rate, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Three dimensional expanding shells were driven into this medium by an energy injection rate $`L=E/T`$ for energy $`E`$ and time $`T`$, after which the shells coasted on residual internal pressure. Values of $`E=10^{54}`$ ergs and $`T=1.5\times 10^7`$ yr correspond to a medium-size OB association.

The expected resistance to expansion by external magnetic compressive forces can be modeled approximately by increasing $`c_{ext}`$ to a value larger than the turbulent speed, perhaps by a factor of 2. The force from magnetic tension cannot be modeled this way; it tends to elongate a bubble or contain it within the disk (Tomisaka 1990, 1998; Ferrier et al. 1991). The implications of these and other magnetic forces on bubble instability are not known and will require more elaborate modeling.

The effects of density and velocity irregularities in the swept-up gas and surrounding medium are not considered (see Silich et al. 1996). Gravitational instabilities develop faster in the denser parts of this medium, so the time scale for instabilities and triggering in a clumpy gas can be shorter than the time scale given here for a uniform gas. We expect that the clump triggering time can still be estimated from our results using the derived density dependence for shell collapse at the higher density of the clump. The thin shell approximation breaks down for small dense clumps, however, because they erode by surface instabilities and get compressed in 3-dimensions when the blastwave passes (MacLow et al. 1994; Boss 1995; Xu & Stone 1995; Vanhala, & Cameron 1998; Fukuda & Hanawa 2000). Our model is not meant to address this situation. In a real shell, there may be localized triggering inside small clouds that are engulfed by the expansion (e.g., Yamaguchi et al. 2001a), in addition to large-scale triggering along the shell periphery where the swept-up gas collapses into new clouds. Here we consider the latter process.

An expanding shell is approximated by an infinitesimally thin surface with a local expansion speed $`v`$, radius $`R`$, surface density $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and velocity dispersion, $`c_{sh}`$. The time $`t_b`$ at the beginning of the instability is given by (Elmegreen 1994)

$$\omega (t_b)=\frac{3v}{R}+\left(\frac{v^2}{R^2}+\left[\frac{\pi G\mathrm{\Sigma }}{c_{sh}}\right]^2\right)^{1/2}=0.$$
(1)
For $`t>t_b`$ and $`\omega (t)>0`$, a fragmentation integral determines the time of significant collapse $`t_f`$:

$$I_f(t_f)=_{t_b}^{t_f}\omega (t^{})𝑑t^{}=1.$$
(2)
The simulation stops when $`vc_{ext}`$ everywhere in the galaxy symmetry plane.

The galaxy and shell parameters were varied over the grid of values in Table 1 to search for trends in the beginning instability time, the collapse time, and the unstable mass and radius. The outcome of the expansion depends on more than one dimensionless variable because there are many competing processes that can prevent collapse. Galactic rotation introduces a Coriolis force that attempts to turn around the expansion of a bubble and limit its total radius. Galactic shear spreads out the shell, making an ellipse and concentrating the accumulation at the tips (Palouš, Franco, & Tenorio-Tagle 1990). The finite scale height can lead to bubble blowout and depressurization. The external rms motions lead to erosion when the bubble speed gets low. Random sonic and turbulent motions inside the swept-up matter stabilize it against collapse.

To determine the effects of these processes, we consider various dimensionless parameters:

* The Toomre $`Q`$ parameter for epicyclic frequency $`\kappa =\mathrm{\Omega }\left(2\left[1+\alpha \right]\right)^{1/2}`$ and disk column density $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=2\rho H`$,

$$Q=\frac{\kappa c_{ext}}{\pi G\mathrm{\Sigma }}=\frac{2^{1/2}c_{ext}\mathrm{\Omega }\left(1+\alpha \right)^{1/2}}{2\pi G\rho H}.$$
(3)
* An analogous shear parameter for Oort parameter $`A=0.5Rd\mathrm{\Omega }/dR=0.5\mathrm{\Omega }\left(1\alpha \right)`$,

$$Q_A=\frac{8^{1/2}c_{ext}A}{\pi G\mathrm{\Sigma }}=\frac{2^{1/2}c_{ext}\mathrm{\Omega }\left(1\alpha \right)}{2\pi G\rho H}.$$
(4)
The constant in this shear-related expression is designed to make $`Q_A`$ equal to $`Q`$ for a flat rotation curve ($`\alpha =0`$).
* Another parameter involving gaseous self-gravity is the ratio of the midplane density to the density at the tidal limit. The tidal limiting density for a spherical cluster or cloud that co-rotates with the galaxy is $`\rho _{tidal}=3A\mathrm{\Omega }/\left(\pi G\right)`$.
* The dimensionless scale height for total midplane density $`\rho _{total}`$,

$$\frac{H\left(2\pi G\rho \right)^{1/2}}{c_{ext}}=\left(\frac{\rho }{\rho _{total}}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(5)
This expression uses $`H=c_{ext}/\left(2\pi G\rho _{total}\right)^{1/2},`$ which is valid for an isothermal self-gravitating layer with $`\rho _z(z)=\rho _{total}\mathrm{sech}^2\left(z/H\right).`$ Our simulations use a Gaussian layer with $`\rho (z)\mathrm{exp}\left(z^2/H^2\right)`$, so the relation between $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`c`$ and $`H`$ is not exactly the same. The difference between a Gaussian layer and a $`\mathrm{sech}^2`$ layer is small for $`z<2H`$, so we use the isothermal disk expressions in this paper.

The dimensionless scale height is the square root of the ratio of the midplane gas density to the midplane total density and should be less than 1. In the simulations, $`H`$, $`c_{ext},`$ and $`\rho `$ are free parameters and some combinations give $`H\left(2\pi G\rho \right)^{1/2}/c_{ext}`$ larger than 1.
* A dimensionless parameter that involves the internal rms speed and the shell luminosity is $`c_{sh}/\left(GL\right)^{1/5},`$ and the same type of parameter with the external rms speed is $`c_{ext}/\left(GL\right)^{1/5}.`$ The first of these luminosity parameters was studied by Whitworth & Francis (2002), who found $`c_{sh}/\left(GL\right)^{1/5}<0.13`$ as a condition for shell collapse. The second parameter was studied, in a slightly different form, by Palouš & Ehlerová (2002), and Ehlerová & Palouš (2001, 2002). The ratio of the two rms speeds, $`c_{sh}/c_{ext}`$, is also considered here.

The total number of parameter combinations from Table 1 is around 20,000, but most of these give unrealistic values for the dimensionless parameters. We therefore limit the input parameter values to those which lead to $`0.3<Q<15`$, $`H\left(2\pi G\rho \right)^{1/2}/c_{ext}<3`$, and $`\rho /\rho _{tidal}<1`$.

## 3 Results

The times for the beginning of the instability, given by equation 1, and the beginning of significant fragmentation, given by equation 2, are plotted in Figure 1 versus the midplane dynamical time, $`\left(2\pi G\rho \right)^{1/2}`$. The range of parameters used for this plot differs from the range in Table 1 because here we include many different densities. Thus we consider $`Q=0.5,`$ 1, 2, and 4 instead of the density explicitly, and we take $`c_{ext}=4`$ to 22 km s-1 in steps of 2 km s$`^1,`$ and $`c_{sh}=0.5,`$ 1, and 3 km s-1. We also fix $`\mathrm{\Omega }=25.9`$ km s-1 kpc -1, as in the Solar neighborhood. The parameter choices for $`H`$, $`\alpha `$, and $`L`$ are the same as in the table.

Most of the scatter at the bottom of Figure 1 is from variations in shell rms speed, $`c_{sh}`$, and bubble luminosity, $`L`$, which combine into the dimensionless parameter $`c_{sh}^5/\left(GL\right)`$. The scatter is reduced at the top of the figure if we normalize time to $`\left(c_{sh}/\left[GL\right]^{0.2}\right)^{0.5}`$. The resulting normalized correlations are

$$t_b1.5\left(\frac{c_{sh}/\left[GL\right]^{0.2}}{2\pi G\rho }\right)^{0.5}$$
(6)
and

$$t_f4\left(\frac{c_{sh}/\left[GL\right]^{0.2}}{2\pi G\rho }\right)^{0.5}.$$
(7)
The relative importance of the various competing processes is illustrated in Figure 2, which plots the fraction of the models in Table 1 that led to collapse versus each dimensionless parameter. The numbers of models used to determine these fractions are shown in Figure 3 to illustrate the breadth of coverage of the parameter space and the likely uncertainty in the triggering fractions. The top left panel in Figure 2 has a lower triggering fraction than the other panels because the normalization for each value of the abscissa in the top left is the constant total number of runs, which is large. In the other panels, the normalization is the number of runs in each bin of the dimensionless parameter. We have to use the total in the top left because if there is no triggering, then $`t_f`$ and the abscissa are not defined.

Figure 2 indicates that gravitational collapse in shearing, expanding shells is enhanced for large values of $`H\left(2\pi G\rho \right)^{1/2}/c_{ext}`$, small values of $`Q`$ and $`Q_A`$, large values of $`\rho /\rho _{tidal}`$, and small values of $`c_{sh}/\left(GL\right)^{0.2}`$. In the first case, the instability is unlikely for small relative gas densities because the shell punches through the thin gas layer before it goes unstable. The instability is also unlikely for large $`Q`$ and $`Q_A`$ because the corresponding large Coriolis force and shear slow the expansion, causing the shell to twist around and limit its accumulation of mass. Collapse is more likely for large $`\rho /\rho _{tidal}`$ because the ambient medium is close to instability anyway. Collapse is more likely for small $`c_{sh}/\left(GL\right)^{0.2}`$ because then the shell is thin and dense for a given radius, so the pressure in the swept-up gas cannot easily resist its self-gravity. With $`c_{sh}/\left(GL\right)^{0.2}<0.02`$ for significant triggering, the fragmentation time becomes $`t_f<0.5\left(2\pi G\rho \right)^{1/2}`$, which is less than half the dynamical time in the external medium.

The density dependence in $`t_f`$ from equation (7) helps to explain the $`Q`$ dependence in Figure 2. If the ambient density is converted into a mass column density $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=2\rho H`$ using the velocity dispersion to get the scale height, $`H=c_{ext}\left(2\pi G\rho \right)^{1/2}`$, then $`t_f4\left(c_{sh}/[GL]^{0.2}\right)^{0.5}c_{ext}/\left(\pi G\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$. This unstable time, multiplied by $`\kappa `$, is $`4Q\left(c_{sh}/[GL]^{0.2}\right)^{0.5}`$. Thus large $`Q`$ or large $`\left(c_{sh}/[GL]^{0.2}\right)^{0.5}`$ correspond to an unstable time longer than an epicycle time, in which case the shell growth stops by Coriolis forces before it becomes unstable. If $`c_{sh}`$ is small because of shell cooling, then the shell can collapse even if $`Q`$ is large enough to make the disk otherwise stable.

The total unstable mass in the shell at the fragmentation time $`t_f`$ varies by only a small amount, a factor of $`10`$, for all of the unstable models. The average of this total mass scales mostly with the bubble luminosity, but does not correlate with any of the dimensionless parameters, as shown in Figure 4. Figure 5 plots a histogram of the number of shell models in regularly spaced logarithmic intervals of the total unstable mass. The shells need a sufficiently large mass to be unstable for typical expansion speeds. The total mass involved is $`2\times 10^7`$ M, although the molecular part that forms stars will be smaller.

The shell radius at the fragmentation time, $`R_f`$, is shown relative to the scale height, $`H`$, in Figure 6. This radius is defined to be the distance from the expansion center, measured along the plane, of the most unstable part of the shell at the time of fragmentation. The ratio $`R_f/H`$ depends mostly on the internal sound speed, aside from the usual dependence on $`c_{ext}/\left(GL\right)^{0.2}`$ that comes into the theoretical expression for the bubble expansion (Weaver et al. 1977). There is a slight correlation between $`R_f/H`$ and $`Q_A`$, but not with $`Q`$, because shear stretches a bubble and gives it a larger average radius at the fragmentation time. The results suggest that the shell radius along the plane is $`2`$ to 3 scale heights when star formation begins. This distance corresponds to $`200`$ to 300 pc for typical disks, in agreement with observations. The shell size should be $`2`$ times larger in dwarf galaxies because of their larger scale heights (e.g., Walter & Brinks 1999). A shell is larger than this perpendicular to the plane because of its more rapid expansion into lower densities.

## 4 Conclusions

Sequential star formation triggered by the collapse of expanding shells requires essentially three conditions: that the midplane density of the gas be comparable to the stellar midplane density, that the Toomre parameter, $`Q`$, be relatively low, and that the velocity dispersion in the swept-up gas be relatively low compared to $`\left(GL\right)^{0.2}`$. The first of these conditions avoids blow out above and below the plane in the time it takes the shell to go unstable. The second avoids shell stalling by Coriolis forces, and the third makes the shell dense and strongly self-gravitating (Whitworth & Francis 2002). Other dimensionless parameters have a similar sensitivity: $`Q_A`$ and the inverse of $`\rho /\rho _{tidal}`$ behave like $`Q`$.

When and where are the dimensionless conditions for triggering fulfilled? In early type spiral galaxies where the relative gas density is low, $`Q`$, $`Q_A`$ and $`\rho _{tidal}/\rho `$ can be large (Caldwell et al. 1992) and $`H\left(2\pi G\rho \right)^{1/2}/c_{ext}`$ can be small. In this case, shell instabilities require very small values of $`c_{sh}/(GL)^{0.2}`$; i.e., either very large shell-driving luminosities or very low rms dispersions and temperatures in the swept-up gas. This is rather exceptional, although perhaps the triggering conditions are fulfilled in the vicinity of OB 78 in M31. In late type spirals and gas rich dwarf galaxies, $`Q`$, $`Q_A`$, and $`\rho _{tidal}/\rho `$ are small and $`H\left(2\pi G\rho \right)^{1/2}/c_{ext}`$ is large. Consequently, triggered star formation in expanding shells should be more frequent, as in the supergiant shells of the LMC (Yamaguchi et al. 2001a,b) and IC 2574 (Stewart & Walter 2000).

The relative gas density is often high in starburst regions too, but there the absolute gas density is high as well, so the interstellar dynamical time can be very short. If it is shorter than the lifetime of an O-type star, which is typical for nuclear starburst regions, then bubble expansions will not be significantly aided by supernova explosions before the collapse time. This lowers $`L`$ for a given OB association mass. Starburst regions can also have large $`c_{ext}`$, which limits shell growth and makes HII regions ineffective at moving gas around. As a result, spontaneous star formation processes, or those triggered by random supernovae, are more likely.

Perhaps the best place for shell-triggered star formation was in the early Universe, when most galaxies were gas-rich and the dynamical time for an average galactocentric radius was much longer than an O-star lifetime. Galaxies at high redshift should contain many gaseous shells and triggering events, causing them to resemble sheared and massive versions of today’s irregular dwarf galaxies.

Acknowledgements: Helpful comments by the referee are gratefully acknowledged. Support for BGE came from NSF grant AST-9870112. JP and SE acknowledge financial support by the Grant Agency of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic under the grants No. A3003705, B3003106 and K1048102.


format: text

text:
# Left-right asymmetries, the weak mixing angle, and new physics

## I Introduction

It is well known that the observables in the lepton-lepton scattering have less uncertainties than in the lepton-hadron or hadron-hadron cases. This is because gauge models only specify the lepton-quark or quark-quark vertices, and some parton model assumptions of hadron structure must be invoked to relate the lepton-quark and quark-quark interactions with the lepton-hadron and hadron-hadron ones, and this implies in introducing some uncertainties in the calculation.

In particular, the appealing features for studying the parity-violating asymmetries between the scattering of left- and right-handed polarized electrons on a variety of fixed targets ($`e^{}e^{},e^{}\mu ^{}`$) were pointed out some years ago by Derman and Marciano , and they were systematically studied in lepton-lepton scattering for both fixed target ($`e^{}e^{},e^{}\mu ^{}`$) and collider ($`e^{}e^{},e^{}\mu ^{},\mu ^{}\mu ^{}`$) experiments in Refs. .

The left-right asymmetry is defined as

$$A_{RL}(llll)=\frac{d\sigma _Rd\sigma _L}{d\sigma _R+d\sigma _L},$$
(1)
where $`d\sigma _{R(L)}`$ is the differential cross section for one right (left)-handed lepton $`l`$ scattering on an unpolarized lepton $`l`$. Another interesting possibility is the case when both leptons are polarized. We can define an asymmetry $`A_{R;RL}`$ in which one beam is always in the same polarization state, say right-handed, and the other is either right- or left-handed polarized (similarly we can define $`A_{L;LR}`$):

$$A_{R;RL}=\frac{d\sigma _{RR}d\sigma _{RL}}{d\sigma _{RR}+d\sigma _{RL}},A_{L;RL}=\frac{d\sigma _{LR}d\sigma _{LL}}{d\sigma _{LL}+d\sigma _{LR}}.$$
(2)
We can define also an asymmetry when one incident particle is right- handed and the other is left-handed and the final states are right- and left or left- and right-handed:

$$A_{RL;RL,LR}=\frac{d\sigma _{RL;RL}d\sigma _{RL;LR}}{d\sigma _{RL;RL}+d\sigma _{RL;LR}},$$
(3)
or similarly, $`A_{LR;RL,LR}`$. All of these asymmetries can be calculated for both fixed target and colliders experiments. For more details on the notation see Ref. .

The appealing features of this type of measurement, following , are: $`(\mathrm{𝟏})`$ The asymmetry is manifestly parity violating: therefore its measurement determines the electron’s parity violation weak neutral current interaction with the target or with the other beam in the case of colliders. $`(\mathrm{𝟐})`$ Because the effect investigated is due to the interference between the weak and electromagnetic amplitudes, the asymmetry is proportional to $`G_F`$ and hence larger than the usual weak interaction effects which are $`𝒪(G_F^2)`$. $`(\mathrm{𝟑})`$ Since the asymmetry is a ratio, uncertainties (theoretical and experimental) which are common to both the numerator and denominator cancel out and therefore we can use them to perform precision measurements in the context of the standard model  (see section II). $`(\mathrm{𝟒})`$ Finally, this kind of interference measurements determines the relative sign between the weak and electromagnetic interactions. Unified gauge theories give unique predictions for this algebraic sign; therefore their determination provides an additional check on various models- i.e. some models may predict the correct magnitude for the asymmetries, but the wrong sign! (see section III). For fixed target experiments, in $`e^{}e^{}`$ scattering a very intense polarized electron beam inciding on an unpolarized hydrogen target while in $`e^{}\mu ^{}`$ scattering it is considered an inciding unpolarized muon beam on polarized electron target.

There are some advantages in considering asymmetries in $`e^{}e^{}`$ and $`e^{}\mu ^{}`$ scattering. Firstly, although in fixed target experiment the value of $`A_{RL}`$ asymmetry is small (see below), the cross sections of these processes are large allowing for a good statistic and, on the other hand, in collider experiments the asymmetry is large but cross sections are small. Secondly, in $`e^{}\mu ^{}`$ scattering the background contribution from $`\mu ^{}N`$ scattering is less severe because one could trigger on a single scattered electron which could not have arisen from a $`\mu ^{}N`$ collision. Besides in the $`e^{}\mu ^{}`$ case that muon beams generally have energies at least one order of magnitude greater than the electron beams. We would like to point out that these asymmetries could be already measured in existing fixed target experiments like E158  and NA47 .

On the other hand, we have being interested in these asymmetries in collider experiments since in the future we hope that colliders like the so called Next Linear Collider (NLC)  or the International Linear Collider (ILC)  could work in the $`e^{}e^{}`$ mode and the First Muon Collider (FMC)  could work in $`\mu ^{}\mu ^{}`$ modes and hybrid collider could do well in $`e^{}\mu ^{}`$ scattering.

This paper is organized as follows. The usefulness of the measurements of these asymmetries in collider and fixed target experiments are discussed briefly in section II; while “new physics” in section III. Our conclusion are given in the last section, IV.

## II Determination of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$

At present only a couple of observables differ from the prediction of the standard model at the level of 3 standard deviations : the value of the forward-backward asymmetry $`A_{\mathrm{fb}}^{0,b}`$ in $`e^+e^{}`$, and the value of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W(\nu N)`$ obtained from the ratios of the charged and neutral currents in neutrino-nucleon scattering . Hence a better measurement of the weak mixing angle in process different from $`e^+e^{}`$ and $`\nu N`$ scattering has become mandatory. This could be the left-right asymmetries in $`e^{}e^{}`$.

In the standard electroweak model the $`A_{RL}(e^{}e^{})`$ asymmetry at the tree level in fixed target experiment is given by:

$$A_{RL}^{\mathrm{FT};\mathrm{SM}}(ee)\frac{G_FQ^2}{\sqrt{2}\pi \alpha }\frac{1y}{1+y^4+(1y)^4}(14\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W),$$
(4)
where $`Q^2=y(2m_e^2+2m_eE_{\mathrm{beam}})`$, $`y=\mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)`$. In the Eq. (4) the approximation $`m_e^2Q^2M_Z^2`$ was used, and if $`E_{\mathrm{beam}}=50`$ GeV, $`\theta 90^o`$ ($`y=1/2`$) we obtain the following value

$$A_{RL}^{\mathrm{FT};\mathrm{SM}}(ee)3\times 10^7.$$
(5)
Marciano and Czarnecki, Ref.  have calculated the one loop electroweak radiative corrections and found a rather substantial $`40\pm 3\%`$ reduction of the tree level prediction.

We have also verified that $`A_{RL}(e^{}\mu ^{})`$, in fixed target experiments, is sensitive to the value of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$. In this case the $`A_{RL}`$ asymmetry, for $`m_\mu =0`$, is given by :

$$A_{RL}^{FT;SM}(\mu e)|_{m_\mu =0}\frac{8G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{g_Vg_AM_W^2}{\pi \alpha M_Z^2}\frac{ys}{1+(1y)^2}(14\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W).$$
(6)
If we consider a fixed target experiment with $`E_\mu =190`$ GeV, $`E_\mu `$ is the muon beam energy, a 0.5% change in the $`A_{RL}(e^{}\mu ^{})`$ value corresponds to a 0.04% change in $`\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _W)`$, i.e., a change from $`0.2315`$ to $`0.2316`$ . This fact show that it could be useful for doing very precise electroweak studies in this kind of experiment too.

More recently it was pointed out in Ref.  that the asymmetry $`A_{RL}(e^{}e^{})`$ in colliders experiments can be used to measure $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ rather precisely. Here we will briefly discuss the $`A_{RL}`$ asymmetry for colliders experiments, for more details see Refs. . In Fig. 1 we plot the $`A_{RL}`$ as function of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ to both $`e^{}e^{}`$ and $`e^{}\mu ^{}`$ colliders. The results for other values of $`E_{\mathrm{CM}}`$ are shown in Table I. We see that the weak mixing angle is more sensitive to that asymmetry for the $`e^{}\mu ^{}`$ scattering.

It is clear that in the case of $`e^{}e^{}`$ we need to measure $`A_{RL}`$ with more precision than in the case $`e^{}\mu ^{}`$ to have the same variation in $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ at the energies $`\sqrt{s}=1.0\text{T}eV,1.5\text{T}eV`$ and $`2`$ TeV. In the case of $`\sqrt{s}=0.5`$ TeV we need the same precision in both experiments. We should stress that the results for $`\mu ^{}\mu ^{}`$ scattering are the same as in the case of $`e^{}e^{}`$ .

As we have shown on this section the standard model implies a predictable degree of parity violation in lepton-lepton scattering, ranging from low energy phenomena to high energy, and we can use them to do very precise tests of the model. Of course, such sensitivity implies that a measurement of $`A_{RL}`$ is also a good probe of “new physics” if it really exists, as we will show on the next section.

## III New Physics

In general the standard model is exceedingly successful in describing leptons, quarks and their interactions, it is in excellent agreement with the worldwide data . However, the necessity to go beyond it, from the experimental point of view, comes at the moment only from neutrino data . If neutrinos are massive then new physics beyond the standard model is needed.

On the other hand, any extension of the standard model implies necessarily the existence of new particles. We can have a rich scalar-boson sector if there are several Higgs-boson multiplets  or have more vector and scalar fields in models with a larger gauge symmetry as in the left–right symmetric  and in 3-3-1 models , or we also can have at the same time more scalar, fermion, and vector particles as in the supersymmetric extensions of the standard model , or in the supersymmetric 3-3-1 model .

Recently Dimopoulos and Kaplan  take up again the Weinberg’s idea  that the observed value of the weak mixing angle $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W=.231`$ suggests indeed an $`SU(3)`$ electroweak symmetry, for instance models with $`SU(3)SU(2)U(1)_N`$ electroweak gauge symmetry at the 1 TeV scale. The point is that in such models $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W(M)=1/4`$, with $`M`$ being an energy scale of $`SU(3)`$ breaking. This is very important since it means the possible existence of a new fundamental energy scale which is not related to supersymmetry, neutrino masses, unification, or superstrings . At this energy scale new exotic quarks, doubly charged vector bosons and/or extra dimensions may exist. One way of considering the known quarks with the extra $`SU(3)`$ electroweak symmetry model is by embedding it in a Pati-Salam-type model , with gauge symmetry $`SU(4)_cSU(2)_L^{}SU(2)_R^{}SU(3)^{}`$, and with the known quarks transforming only through the first three factors . There is a first symmetry breakdown to $`SU(3)_cSU(2)_L^{}U(1)^{}`$, and finally to $`SU(2)_LU(1)_Y`$. Another interesting way to solve the introduction of quarks without invoking a $`U(1)`$ factor as in the 3-3-1 models , is to consider $`SU(3)_cSU(3)_W`$ models in 5 dimensions .

Independently of this interesting fact, we recall that the $`SU(3)`$ symmetry among the lightest particles i.e., $`e^{}`$, $`e^+`$ and $`\nu _e`$ could be the last symmetry involving the known leptons or $`SU(4)`$ if we add right-handed neutrinos . If we impose this symmetry on the electron sector we must also to impose it upon all the other particles and if we do not want to introduce extra dimensions we must introduce extra exotic charged quarks. In this case it is also possible to have anomaly cancellation only if the number of families is three or a multiple of three . If we accept that the observed value for the weak mixing angle is an indication of a $`SU(3)`$ symmetry at the TeV level, it means that the respective supersymmetric model has also to have this $`SU(3)`$ symmetry, and supersymmetry has to be naturally broken at the same scale and it can also be embedded in theories of TeV-gravity . Any way, all those sort of models involve doubly charged vector bosons.

Usually we have several particles contributing to a given observable, and for this reason it is very difficult to identify their contributions in both the usual and exotic processes. In some models  the contributions of the scalar-bosons are not suppressed by the fermion masses and they can have the same strength of the fermion–vector-boson coupling. However, for $`e^{}e^{}`$ and $`\mu ^{}\mu ^{}`$ scattering, in the $`s`$-channel, the contributions to the $`A_{RL}`$ asymmetry of doubly charged scalars, like $`H^{}`$, cancel out. Hence these parity violating asymmetries are only sensitive to the doubly charged vector bosons. In view of this, we will discuss in this section the role of $`A_{RL}`$ asymmetry in finding signal for “new physics”: doubly charged and neutral vector bosons, $`U_\mu ^{}`$ and $`Z^{}`$, respectively .

In Refs.  it was noted that the left-right asymmetries in the lepton–lepton diagonal scattering are quite sensible to doubly-charged vector boson $`U`$ contributions. The main result obtained is

$$A_{R;RL}^{\mathrm{CO};\mathrm{ESM}+\mathrm{U}}(l^{}l^{}l^{}l^{})A_{R;RL}^{\mathrm{CO};\mathrm{ESM}}(l^{}l^{}l^{}l^{}),$$
(7)
where $`l=e,\mu `$.

In the model of the Ref.  there is also a $`Z^{}`$ neutral vector boson which couples with leptons. It was shown in Ref.  that for the non-diagonal scattering ($`e^{}\mu ^{}`$) the asymmetries are sensible to the existence of an extra neutral vector-boson $`Z^{}`$, because

$$A_{RL}^{\mathrm{CO};\mathrm{ESM}}(e^{}\mu ^{}e^{}\mu ^{})A_{RL}^{\mathrm{CO};\mathrm{ESM}+\mathrm{Z}^{}}(e^{}\mu ^{}e^{}\mu ^{}).$$
(8)
Hence, both $`U^{++}`$ and $`Z^{}`$ vector bosons can be potentially discovered in these sort of processes by measuring the left-right asymmetries. Here we should stress that although the results about the $`U^{++}`$ and $`Z^{}`$ were obtained in the context of the 3-3-1 model they are still valid in the supersymmetric version of the latter model . The reason is that the lagrangian of the interaction between leptons and gauge bosons are the same in both models .

Finally, we want to stress that the $`e^{}e^{}`$ collider is ideal for discovering and studying selectrons. This will allow to do precise measurements of the neutralino masses and the opportunity to observe and analyze cascade decays of the selectron .

## IV Conclusions

We should remember that left-right asymmetries have played key roles in establishing the validity of the standard model. They will continue to provide valuable tools during the next generation of colliders doing precision studies of the standard model and even more exciting is the possible direct detection of new phenomena such as bileptons, $`Z^{}`$s, supersymmetry, and others. Here in this work we have reviewed how the asymmetries, defined in Ref.  can be used to perform this kind of study.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP), Conselho Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia (CNPq) and by Programa de Apoio a Núcleos de Excelência (PRONEX).


text:
# Generalized uncertainty relations in a quantum theory and thermodynamics from the uniform point of view.

National Centre of High Energy and Particle Physics Bogdanovich Str.153, Minsk 220040, Belarus
Institute of Physics National Academy of Sciences Skoryna av.68, Minsk
220072, Belarus

Abstract
A generalization of the thermodynamic uncertainty relations is proposed. It is done by introducing of an additional term proportional to the interior energy into the standard thermodynamic uncertainty relation that leads to existence of the lower limit of inverse temperature.
PACS: 03.65; 05.70
Keywords: generalized uncertainty relations; generalized uncertainty
relations in thermodynamics

It is well known that in thermodynamics an inequality for the pair interior energy - inverse temperature, which is completely analogous to the standard uncertainty relation in quantum mechanics can be written down . The only (but essential) difference of this inequality from the quantum mechanical one is that the main quadratic fluctuation is defined by means of classical partition function rather than by quantum mechanical expectation values. In the last 14 - 15 years a lot of papers appeared in which the usual momentum-coordinate uncertainty relation has been modified at very high energies of order Planck energy $`E_p`$ . In this note we propose simple reasons for modifying the thermodynamic uncertainty relation at Planck energies. This modification results in existence of the minimal possible main quadratic fluctuation of the inverse temperature. Of course we assume that all the thermodynamic quantities used are properly defined so that they have physical sense at such high energies.

We start with usual Heisenberg uncertainty relations  for momentum - coordinate:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }x\frac{\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{\Delta }p}.$$
(1)
It was shown that at the Planck scale a high-energy term must appear:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }x\frac{\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{\Delta }p}+constL_p^2\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }p}{\mathrm{}}.$$
(2)
where $`L_p`$ is the Planck length $`L_p^2=G\mathrm{}/c^31,\mathrm{6\hspace{0.33em}10}^{35}m`$. In  this term is derived from the string theory, in  it follows from the simple estimates of Newtonian gravity and quantum mechanics, in  it comes from the black hole physics, other methods can also be used . Particularly the coefficient $`const`$ is shown to be unity in paper . Relation (2) is quadratic in $`\mathrm{\Delta }p`$

$$L_p^2(\mathrm{\Delta }p)^2\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }x\mathrm{\Delta }p+\mathrm{}^20$$
(3)
and therefore leads to the fundamental length

$$\mathrm{\Delta }x_{min}=2L_p$$
(4)
Using relations (2) it is easy to obtain a similar relation for the energy - time pair. Indeed (2) gives

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }x}{c}\frac{\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{\Delta }pc}+L_p^2\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }p}{c\mathrm{}},$$
(5)
then

$$\mathrm{\Delta }t\frac{\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{\Delta }E}+\frac{L_p^2}{c^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }pc}{\mathrm{}}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{\Delta }E}+t_p^2\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E}{\mathrm{}}.$$
(6)
where the smallness of $`L_p`$ is taken into account so that the difference between $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(pc)`$ can be neglected and $`t_p`$ is the Planck time $`t_p=L_p/c=\sqrt{G\mathrm{}/c^5}0,\mathrm{54\hspace{0.33em}10}^{43}sec`$. Inequality (6) gives analogously to (2) the lower boundary for time $`\mathrm{\Delta }t2t_p`$ determining the fundamental time

$$\mathrm{\Delta }t_{min}=2t_p.$$
(7)
Thus, the inequalities discussed can be rewritten in a standard form

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Delta }x\hfill & \frac{\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{\Delta }p}+\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }p}{P_{pl}}\right)\frac{\mathrm{}}{P_{pl}}\hfill \\ & \\ \mathrm{\Delta }t\hfill & \frac{\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{\Delta }E}+\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E}{E_p}\right)\frac{\mathrm{}}{E_p}\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
where $`P_{pl}=E_p/c=\sqrt{\mathrm{}c^3/G}`$. Now we consider the thermodynamics uncertainty relations between the inverse temperature and interior energy of a macroscopic ensemble

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{1}{T}\frac{k}{\mathrm{\Delta }U}.$$
(9)
where $`k`$ is the Boltzmann constant.
N.Bohr  and W.Heisenberg  first pointed out that such kind of uncertainty principle should take place in thermodynamics. The thermodynamic uncertainty relations (9) were proved by many authors and in various ways . Therefore their validity does not raise any doubts. Nevertheless, relation (9) was proved in view of the standard model of the infinite-capacity heat bath encompassing the ensemble. But it is obvious from the above inequalities that at very high energies the capacity of the heat bath can no longer to be assumed infinite at the Planck scale. Indeed, the total energy of the pair heat bath - ensemble may be arbitrary large but finite merely as the universe is born at a finite energy. Hence the quantity that can be interpreted as the temperature of the ensemble must have the upper limit and so does its main quadratic deviation. In other words the quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1/T)`$ must be bounded from below. But in this case an additional term should be introduced into (9)

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{1}{T}\frac{k}{\mathrm{\Delta }U}+\eta \mathrm{\Delta }U$$
(10)
where $`\eta `$ is a coefficient. Dimension and symmetry reasons give

$$\eta =\frac{k}{E_p^2}.$$

As in the previous cases inequality (10) leads to the fundamental (inverse) temperature.

$$T_{max}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2t_pk}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{\Delta }t_{min}k},\beta _{min}=\frac{1}{kT_{max}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }t_{min}}{\mathrm{}}$$
(11)
Thus, we obtain the system of generalized uncertainty relations in a symmetric form

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Delta }x\hfill & \hfill & \frac{\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{\Delta }p}+\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }p}{P_{pl}}\right)\frac{\mathrm{}}{P_{pl}}\hfill \\ & & \\ \mathrm{\Delta }t\hfill & \hfill & \frac{\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{\Delta }E}+\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E}{E_p}\right)\frac{\mathrm{}}{E_p}\hfill \\ & & \\ \mathrm{\Delta }\frac{1}{T}\hfill & \hfill & \frac{k}{\mathrm{\Delta }U}+\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }U}{E_p}\right)\frac{k}{E_p}\hfill \end{array}$$
(12)
or in the equivalent form

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Delta }x\hfill & \hfill & \frac{\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{\Delta }p}+L_p^2\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }p}{\mathrm{}}\hfill \\ & & \\ \mathrm{\Delta }t\hfill & \hfill & \frac{\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{\Delta }E}+t_p^2\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E}{\mathrm{}}\hfill \\ & & \\ \mathrm{\Delta }\frac{1}{T}\hfill & \hfill & \frac{k}{\mathrm{\Delta }U}+\frac{1}{T_p^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }U}{k}\hfill \end{array}$$
(13)
Here $`T_p`$ is the Planck temperature: $`T_p=\frac{E_p}{k}`$.
In the conclusion we would like to note that the restriction on the heat bath made above turns the equilibric partition function to be non-Gibbsian .


text:
# Quantum dots with Rashba spin-orbit coupling

## Abstract

We present results on the effects of spin-orbit coupling on the electronic structure of few-electron interacting quantum dots. The ground-state properties as a function of the number of electrons in the dot $`N`$ are calculated by means of spin density functional theory. We find a suppression of Hund’s rule due to the competition of the Rashba effect and exchange interaction. Introducing an in-plane Zeeman field leads to a paramagnetic behavior of the dot in a closed shell configuration, and to spin texture in space.

Spin-related phenomena have attracted great attention recently as they are the key ingredient in the emerging field of *spintronics*wolf . Among these, spin-orbit (SO) coupling mechanisms in semiconductors provide a basis for device applications, and a source of interesting physics, especially in systems with reduced dimensionality. Transport through chaotic quantum dots in the presence of SO interaction has been studied both experimentallyfolk  and theoreticallyhalperin ; alainer , while the effect of SO coupling on the spin lifetime has been investigated in Ref. nazarov . Here, we are interested in how the electronic properties of few-electron quantum dots, such as the addition energytarucha ; macucci1  or the spin properties of the dot ground statekoskinen , are affected by Rashba SO interactionrashba ; lommer . These questions are interesting from the theoretical point of view for the following reasons. First, the Rashba effect has a different form than the usual SO coupling term in real atoms. Second, the tunability of the Rashba effectnitta ; schaepers ; grundler  allows dramatic SO effects to occur in quantum dots with few electrons; in real atoms this requires heavy nuclei, and hence a more complicated electronic structure.

We start by describing the physics of a quasi zero-dimensional system with Rashba SO at the non-interacting electron level, providing analytical results for the single-particle spectrum when the SO coupling can be treated as a perturbation. Then, we introduce the electron-electron interaction in the framework of Spin Density Functional Theory (SDFT)hedin . This allows us to study how the addition spectrum is modified by varying the strength of SO coupling. Studying the spin properties of the many-particle ground state, we find a suppression of Hund’s rule, when the SO coupling can still be treated as a perturbation for the single-particle problem. For higher strengths it affects the single-particle spectrum so strongly that it gives rise to a completely different addition spectrum. The introduction of an in-plane magnetic field, leads to a paramagnetic behavior of the dot in a closed shell configuration, and to spin texture in space.

Quantum dots are often realized by lateral confinement of a two dimensional electron gas (2DEG) obtained in a heterostructure. Due to the lack of inversion symmetry along the growth direction $`z`$ of the heterostructurerashba ; lommer , the electrons in the 2DEG are subject to the Rashba spin-orbit coupling Hamiltonian

$$H_{\text{so}}=\frac{\mathrm{}k_{\text{so}}}{m}\left(\sigma _xp_y\sigma _yp_x\right).$$
(1)
The strength of the SO coupling, here denoted as $`k_{\text{so}}`$, can be tuned by changing the asymmetry of the quantum well via externally applied voltages, as shown in several experimental studiesnitta ; schaepers ; grundler .

It is interesting to study the effect of the SO coupling term Eq. (1) on the quantum mechanics of a quasi zero-dimensional systemvoskob . To this end, we consider a two-dimensional quantum dot defined by a parabolic confining potential

$$V_{\text{conf}}(x,y)=\frac{m}{2}\omega ^2(x^2+y^2).$$
(2)
Thus, the single-particle Hamiltonian in the effective-mass approximation reads

$$H=\frac{p_x^2+p_y^2}{2m}+V_{\text{conf}}(x,y)+H_{\text{so}}.$$
(3)
In the absence of SO coupling the eigen-energies are

$$E_M^{(0)}=\mathrm{}\omega \left(M+1\right),$$
(4)
with $`M`$ being a non-negative integer. A degenerate subspace $`𝒮_M`$ of dimension $`D_M=2(M+1)`$, where the factor $`2`$ is due to spin, is associated to each energy $`E_M^{(0)}`$.

We will now treat $`H_{\text{so}}`$ as a perturbation. This is valid as long as $`k_{\text{so}}l_\omega 1`$, where $`l_\omega `$ is the oscillator length $`\sqrt{\mathrm{}/(m\omega )}`$. We obtain for the second-order eigen-energies

$$\stackrel{~}{E}_{M,i,\sigma }=E_M^{(0)}+\mathrm{}\omega (k_{\text{so}}l_\omega )^2\left[2(i1)(M+1)\right],$$
(5)
where $`i=1,\mathrm{},M+1`$, and $`\sigma =\pm 1`$ is the quantum number relative to $`\sigma _z`$, i.e. the spin projection along $`z`$. As the single-particle levels will play an important role in the following, we show an example of the low-energy part of the spectrum calculated using Eq. (5) together with the results of numerical diagonalization in the upper panel of Fig. 1. From the perturbative treatment the following conclusions can be drawn: 1) Each degenerate level $`E_M^{(0)}`$ is split in $`M`$ sublevels, each of which is double degenerate due to Kramers theorem; 2) Spin rotational invariance is broken but still the eigenstates are (to this order in perturbation theory) eigenstates of $`\sigma _z`$. From conclusion 1) we can infer that SO coupling changes the addition spectrum of the dot, while conclusion 2) tells us that the Rashba effect will not influence the lifetime of the eigen-states of $`\sigma _z`$. For values of $`k_{\text{so}}`$ for which perturbation theory breaks down, the eigen-energies are of course still grouped in Kramers-degenerate sublevels \[as shown in the inset of Fig. 1(a)\], although it can happen that different sublevels have almost the same energy.

To introduce the Coulomb interaction between the electrons we use spin density functional theory (SDFT), in the local density approximationhedin . We write the Kohn-Sham equationkohn1  in spinor notation

$`\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}^2+V_{\text{conf}}+V_{\text{coul}}\right)\mathrm{𝟏}+H_{\text{so}}+𝐕_{\text{exch-corr}}\right]\mathrm{\Phi }_j`$
$`=\epsilon _j\mathrm{\Phi }_j,`$ (6)
where $`V_{\text{coul}}`$ is the Hartree potential, $`𝐕_{\text{exch-corr}}`$ the exchange-correlation potential, $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ the identity matrix in spin space, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_j`$ is a two-components spinor. The spin-dependent exchange-correlation potential is introduced following Ref. hedin . It is in general non diagonal in spin space (it becomes diagonal in the basis that diagonalizes the spin-density matrix). For the exchange-correlation energy we use the Tanatar and Ceperly parameterized formtanatar ; in particular for the case of partial spin polarization we use the interpolation scheme of Refs. hedin ; koskinen . We solve Eq. (Quantum dots with Rashba spin-orbit coupling) self-consistently by discretizing it in real space. The addition energy (also called capacitive energy by some authorsmacucci1 ) is defined as $`E_{\text{add}}=\mu (N+1)\mu (N)`$, where $`\mu (N)`$ is the chemical potential for the dot with $`N`$ electrons, i.e. the energy needed to add the $`N`$-th electron to the system containing already $`N1`$ electrons. We compute the chemical potential by means of Slater’s ruleperdew1 , in order to minimize numerical errors due to double differentiation.

Now, we focus on realistic dots obtained in an InAs heterostructure, where the Rashba effect can be quite largegrundler . We use for the electron effective mass the value $`m=0.022m_0`$, with $`m_0`$ being the free-electron mass; and for the dielectric constant $`ϵ=14.6ϵ_0`$, being $`ϵ_0`$ the one of vacuum.

In a quantum dot without SO interaction we expect peaks in the addition energy when the number of electrons $`N`$ equals a *magic numbers*, i.e at those integer values which correspond to a closed shell configuration. For a parabolic dot the first magic numbers are 2,6,12, see Eq. (4) and the discussion below it. Besides these peaks for $`N`$ coinciding with a magic number, some additional peaks are expected for a number of electrons corresponding to a half-filled shell due to Hund’s rule. In this situation the electrons in the half-filled shell have parallel spins to gain exchange energy. For the parabolic dot under consideration the first Hund’s-rule peaks are located at $`N=4`$, and $`N=9`$. Both these kind of peaks can be seen in Fig. 1(b), for the case when no SO coupling is present (filled dots). Switching on the SO interaction leads to a change in the single-electron levels of the dot, and such a change is reflected in the addition energy. This effect can be seen in Fig. 1(b), where the addition energy is plotted for several values of the SO coupling strength, ranging from a situation where the perturbative treatment Eq. (5) is still valid, to one where the SO coupling dominates the single-particle spectrum. Due to the presence of Kramers-degenerate sublevels in the free-electron spectrum, peaks tend to be present for even number of electrons in the dot. The fact that a degenerate level $`E_M^{(0)}`$ is split in $`M`$ Kramers-degenerate sublevels (in the perturbative regime), leads to a suppression of the Hund’s rule: in a half-filled level to maximize the total spin the electrons should be allocated one per sublevel, but this has an energy cost equal to the sublevel splitting; if the sublevel splitting is larger than the gain in exchange energy, then the spin polarization for a half-filled level is suppressed. This is indeed what we see by analyzing the spin properties of the SDFT ground-state wave-function. At this point it is important to stress that due to the tunability of the SO coupling strengthnitta ; schaepers ; grundler , it is possible to investigate experimentally the effect of the Rashba term on the addition spectrum of few-electrons quantum dots (addition spectra were measured by Tarucha *et al.*tarucha ), and the transition from weak ($`k_{\text{so}}l_\omega 1`$) to strong SO coupling.

We now investigate the effect of an in-plane magnetic field. Due to the fact that the system is invariant under rotation around the $`z`$-axis, we can choose the direction of the in plane magnetic field arbitrarily without losing any generality. We introduce a magnetic field $`B`$ along $`x`$, which does not affect directly the orbital motion, but couples to the $`x`$-component of the total spin, giving rise to a Zeeman term, $`H_z=\mathrm{}\omega _zS_x/2`$, where $`S_x=_{i=1,N}\sigma _x^{(i)}`$, and $`\mathrm{}\omega _z=\mu _\text{B}g^{}B`$, with $`\mu _\text{B}`$ being Bohr’s magneton, and $`g^{}`$ the g-factor.

We consider now a dot in a closed-shell configuration, namely we take $`N=2`$ and $`N=6`$. In the case of vanishing SO coupling and in the independent-electron picture, such a system does not respond to the in-plane magnetic field for Zeeman splitting smaller than the level splitting ($`\omega _z<\omega `$). The situation changes when the Rashba term is introduced; the ground state of the dot exhibits now some net-spin polarization. In the upper panel of Fig. 2, the average value of $`S_x`$ is plotted vs magnetic field, showing how the system gets magnetized even in a closed-shell configuration due to the interplay of SO coupling and Zeeman splitting. The average values of $`S_y`$ and $`S_z`$ remain equal to zero. In the lower panel of Fig. 2, the variation of the ground state energy with magnetic field is plotted vs magnetic field. It shows a decrease with increasing field (which is well fitted by a parabola), yielding a positive susceptibility $`\chi =^2E/B^2`$. Thus, we can conclude that the dot in a closed shell configuration exhibits a *paramagnetic* behavior. This is in contrast to what happens in real atoms, where a closed shell gives a diamagnetic response due to orbital degrees of freedom (Larmor diamagnetism)vanvleck , while in our case the Larmor term is suppressed by the two-dimensionality of the dot. This paramagnetic behaviorrashbapar  is due to the single-particle eigen-states (see below), but it persists when the electron-electron interaction is present (it is enhanced by it), as shown in Fig. 2.

In the limit of $`k_{\text{so}}l_\omega \omega /\omega _z1`$, and $`w_z<w`$, it is possible to obtain a perturbative expression in $`H_{\text{so}}`$ for the single-particle eigen-energies:

$`\stackrel{~}{E}_{M,i,\sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`E_M^{(0)}+\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\omega _z}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2}}(k_{\text{so}}l_\omega )^2`$ (7)
$`\left\{1+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2}{\omega ^2\omega _z^2}}\left[1+\sigma (2i1){\displaystyle \frac{\omega _z}{\omega }}\right]\right\},`$
where $`i=1\mathrm{}M+1`$, $`\sigma =\pm 1`$ is the quantum number relative to the projection of spin in the direction of the magnetic field, i.e $`\sigma _x`$, and $`E_M^{(0)}`$ are the energies given in Eq. (4). In the independent-electron approximation, the energy of a closed shell $`E_{\text{cs}}(M)=_{i,\sigma }\stackrel{~}{E}_{M,i,\sigma }`$ reads

$`E_{\text{cs}}(M)`$ $`=`$ $`2(M+1)E_M^{(0)}`$ (8)
$`(M+1)\mathrm{}\omega (k_{\text{so}}l_\omega )^2\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2}{\omega ^2\omega _z^2}}\right].`$
Expanding Eq. (8) in $`\omega _z/\omega `$ we get for the magnetic-field dependent part of the closed-shell energy $`(M+1)\mathrm{}\omega (k_{\text{so}}l_\omega )^2(\omega _z/\omega )^2+𝒪[(\omega _z/\omega )^4]`$, which explains the parabolic behavior seen in Fig. 2. From Eq. (8) we get a paramagnetic contribution to the susceptibility due to a closed-shell

$$\frac{\chi _M}{(g^{}\mu _\text{B})^2}=2(M+1)\omega ^3(k_{\text{so}}l_\omega )^2\frac{\omega ^4\omega _z^4}{\mathrm{}\left(\omega ^2\omega _z^2\right)^4},$$
(9)
which in the limit of $`\omega _z/\omega 1`$ is just a positive constant: $`\chi _M/(g^{}\mu _\text{B})^2=2(M+1)(k_{\text{so}}l_\omega )^2/(\mathrm{}\omega )`$.

It is interesting to have a closer look at the spin-density for the magnetized dot. In Fig. 3 the projections of the spin density along the $`x`$-, $`y`$-, and $`z`$-axis are shown for a dot containing six electrons in the presence both of SO coupling and of a Zeeman field. As it is clearly visible, the system shows spin texture in space, this is due to the fact that no common spin-quantization axis exists anymore (a similar situation occurs in quantum wires with strong spin-orbit couplingrashbawire .)

In conclusion, we have studied the effect of Rashba spin-orbit interaction on the addition energy, and on the spin properties of a few-electron quantum dot by means of spin density functional theory. In particular, we have found a suppression of Hund’s rule, for small $`k_{\text{so}}`$ values, for which perturbation theory in $`H_{\text{so}}`$ still holds. An additional in-plane magnetic field (Zeeman field) leads to a paramagnetic behavior of the dot in a closed shell configuration, and to spin texture in space.

This work was supported by the Center for Functional Nanostructures at the University of Karlsruhe. We thank J. C. Cuevas, M. Macucci, and U. Zülicke for useful discussions.


text:
# Dynamical transition from a quasi-one dimensional Bose-Einstein condensate to a Tonks-Girardeau gas

## Abstract

We analyze in detail the expansion of a 1D Bose gas after removing the axial confinement. We show that during its one-dimensional expansion the density of the Bose gas does not follow a self-similar solution, but on the contrary, it asymptotically approaches a Tonks-Girardeau profile. Our analysis is based on a nonlinear Schrödinger equation with variable nonlinearity whose validity is discussed for the expansion problem, by comparing with an exact Bose-Fermi mapping for the case of an initial Tonks-Girardeau gas. For this case, the gas is shown to expand self-similarly, with a different similarity law compared to the one-dimensional Thomas-Fermi condensate.

During the last years, the achievement of Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC)  has generated an extraordinary interest in the physics of ultracold atomic gases. Among the topics related with the physics of ultracold gases, the issue of low-dimensionality is attracting a growing interest. The recent development of trapping and cooling techniques has enabled experimental realizations of low-dimensional gases both in one  and two  dimensions. For the case of ultracold low-dimensional dilute atomic gases, it has been theoretically predicted that 1D , 2D  and even very elongated but still dynamically 3D gases , should present an equilibrium BEC with a spatially fluctuating phase. Such quasicondensates have been recently observed by means of time of flight measurements .

The impenetrable 1D gas of bosons, the so-called Tonks-Girardeau (TG) gas, has recently deserved a special interest . In order to accomplish this particular regime, rather strict conditions for the temperature, gas density, interaction potential, and trapping potential must be fulfilled . These conditions can be achieved with currently available experimental techniques. Particularly important in this sense is the recent progress in loading 1D Bose gases in optical lattices  where the transversal confinement can reach $`100`$kHz and the development of the Feshbach resonance techniques to modify the value of the $`s`$-wave scattering length . Therefore, it is important to characterize the properties of the TG gas, and especially the intermediate regime between the quasi-1D BEC and the TG gas.

For the TG gas with a zero-range infinitely repulsive interatomic potential, the bosons acquire effectively a fermionic character and the mapping between bosonic and fermionic wavefunctions is exact, both for homogeneous  and trapped gases . Interestingly, the homogeneous delta-interacting 1D bosonic gas under periodic boundary conditions is analytically solvable for any strength of the interactions, as shown by Lieb and Liniger (LL) . There is unfortunately, to the best of our knowledge, no exact solution for arbitrary interaction strength in the case of trapped gases. An interesting approach was introduced in Ref. , where a hydrodynamic formalism was shown to reproduce the stationary properties of the TG gas. The approach of Ref.  should, however, be employed carefully since it significantly overestimates the coherence of the system . Recently, the approach of Ref.  was extended to the case of finite interactions, by employing the LL model and local density approximation . In Ref.  the density profile of the trapped gas was analyzed for regimes ranging from Thomas-Fermi (TF) profiles to TG. A different approach to the issue of finite interactions has been discussed in Ref. , where the intermediate regime is considered as a mixture of a BEC and a fermionized TG gas.

This Letter is devoted to the analysis of the 1D expansion of Bose gas. We employ the procedure of Ref.  to show that contrary to the case of a 1D Thomas-Fermi condensate, the expansion is not self-similar. In fact, any initial density profile will asymptotically evolve during its expansion towards a TG-like shape. Consequently the 1D expansion allows us to easily explore intermediate situations between the TF and TG regimes. Additionally, we discuss with the help of the Bose-Fermi (BF) mapping , the self-similar character of the expansion of an initial TG gas, which significantly differs from the self-similar expansion of a 1D TF cloud. Thus, the 1D expansion offers a way to clearly discern between TF and TG regimes, and in between. We justify the validity of the employed formalism for the expansion problem by comparing the hydrodynamical and the BF mapping results.

We consider in the following a dilute gas of $`N`$ bosons confined in a very elongated harmonic trap with radial and axial frequencies $`\omega _\rho `$ and $`\omega _z`$ ($`\omega _\rho \omega _z`$). If the interaction energy per particle is smaller than the zero-point energy $`\mathrm{}\omega _\rho `$ of the transversal trap, the system can be considered effectively as 1D. We first briefly review the formalism introduced in Ref. . After approximating the interparticle interaction by a delta function, the Hamiltonian which describes the physics of the 1D gas becomes

$$\widehat{H}_{1\mathrm{D}}=\widehat{H}_{1\mathrm{D}}^0+\underset{j=i}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{m\omega _z^2z_i^2}{2}$$
(1)
with

$$\widehat{H}_{1\mathrm{D}}^0=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{^2}{z_j^2}+g_{1\mathrm{D}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\underset{j=i+1}{\overset{N}{}}\delta \left(z_iz_j\right)$$
(2)
where $`m`$ is the atomic mass and $`g_{1\mathrm{D}}=2\mathrm{}^2/ma_{1\mathrm{D}}`$. The one–dimensional scattering length is $`a_{1\mathrm{D}}=(a_\rho ^2/2a)[1𝒞(a/a_\rho )]`$  with $`a`$ the three-dimensional scattering length, $`a_\rho =\sqrt{2\mathrm{}/m\omega _\rho }`$ the oscillator length in the radial direction, and $`𝒞=1.4603\mathrm{}`$. As shown by Lieb and Liniger , $`\widehat{H}_{1\mathrm{D}}^0`$ can be diagonalized by using Bethe Ansatz . For the thermodynamic limit, a 1D gas at zero temperature with a given linear density $`n`$, is characterized by the energy per particle

$$ϵ(n)=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}n^2e(\gamma (n)),$$
(3)
where $`\gamma =2/n|a_{1\mathrm{D}}|`$. The function $`e(\gamma )`$ fulfills

$$e(\gamma )=\frac{\gamma ^3}{\lambda ^3(\gamma )}_1^1g\left(x|\gamma \right)x^2𝑑x,$$
(4)
where $`g\left(x|\gamma \right)`$ and $`\lambda (\gamma )`$ are the solutions of the LL system of equations

$`g\left(x|\gamma \right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _1^1}{\displaystyle \frac{2\lambda (\gamma )}{\lambda ^2(\gamma )+(yx)^2}}g\left(y|\gamma \right)𝑑y`$ (5)
$`\lambda (\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma {\displaystyle _1^1}g\left(x|\gamma \right)𝑑x.`$ (6)
We assume next that at each point $`z`$ the gas is in local equilibrium, with local energy per particle provided by Eq. (3). Then, one can obtain the corresponding hydrodynamic equations for the density and the atomic velocity

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}n+{\displaystyle \frac{}{z}}(nv)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (8)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}v+v{\displaystyle \frac{}{z}}v`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{z}}(\varphi (n)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m\omega _z^2z^2).`$ (9)
where

$$\varphi (n)=\left(1+n\frac{}{n}\right)ϵ(n)$$
(10)
is the Gibbs free energy per particle. Inverting the corresponding Madelung transform, $`\psi =\sqrt{n}\mathrm{exp}(iS)`$, with $`v=(\mathrm{}/m)(S/z)`$, one can reformulate Eqs. (8) and (9) in the form of a nonlinear Schrödinger equation (NLSE) of the form:

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{}{t}\psi =\left\{\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\frac{^2}{z^2}+\frac{1}{2}m\omega _z^2z^2+\varphi (|\psi |^2)\right\}\psi .$$
(11)
Eq. (11) presents similar limitations as those of the NLSE of Ref. . Its validity for the problem under consideration is discussed below. Note that for the case of $`n|a_{1D}|\mathrm{}`$, one obtains $`\varphi (n)=g_{1D}n`$, retrieving the 1D Gross-Pitaevskii equation , whereas for the case $`n|a_{1D}|0`$, one gets $`\varphi (n)=\pi ^2\mathrm{}^2n^2/2m`$, and the NLSE of Ref.  is recovered. The system has only one control parameter , namely $`\eta =n_{TF}^0|a_{1D}|`$, where $`n_{TF}^0=[(9/64)N^2|a_{1D}|/a_z^4]^3`$ is the TF density, with $`a_z=\sqrt{\mathrm{}/m\omega _z}`$. The regime $`\eta 1`$ corresponds to the TF limit, in which the stationary-state density profile has a parabolic form. On the other hand, the regime $`\eta 1`$ corresponds to the TG regime, which is characterized by a stationary-state density profile with the form of a square root of a parabola.

We have employed Eqs. (3),(5),(6),(10) and (11) to simulate numerically the expansion of a 1D gas when the axial confinement is removed, i.e. $`\omega _z=0`$ . In our simulations we have employed a Crank-Nicholson method. Special care must be paid to the spatial and temporal integration steps, due to the long integration times needed, the velocities acquired during the expansion, and the larger nonlinearity in comparison to the case of the standard GPE.

In order to clearly understand the physics of the expansion dynamics, let us consider the case of a bosonic cloud which is initially TF-like ($`n(1x^2/R^2)`$, with $`R`$ the corresponding TF radius). This would be the case of an initial $`\eta 1`$. During the course of the expansion, the cloud density decreases, following in the first stages a self-similar TF solution $`n(z,t)=n(z/b(t),t=0)/b(t)`$ with $`\ddot{b}=\omega _z^2/b^2`$ . However, as the density decreases, the gas enters from the large $`n|a_{1D}|`$ regime into the low $`n|a_{1D}|`$ regime. As a consequence, the functional dependence of $`\varphi (n)`$ changes throughout the whole cloud, and the expansion becomes no more TF self-similar (Fig. 1). When this happens, the density profile departs from a parabolic TF profile, and asymptotically evolves towards a square root of a parabola shape, i.e. the density profile becomes TG-like. Similar behavior is observed for any initial value of $`\eta `$.

In our simulations we have considered due to numerical limitations $`\eta `$ values close to $`1`$. We have analyzed in detail the dynamical transition from the initial density profile towards a TG shape, and observed that during the expansion the density profile presents at any time the form

$$n(z,t)=C(t)\left(1\left(\frac{z}{R(t)}\right)^2\right)^{s(t)}$$
(12)
where $`R(t)`$ is the radius of the cloud, and the exponent $`s(t)`$ takes the value $`s(0)=1`$ for an initial TF gas. The normalization constant is of the form $`C(t)=(N/\sqrt{\pi }R(t))(\mathrm{\Gamma }(s(t)+3/2)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(s(t)+1))`$. The values of $`R(t)`$ and $`s(t)`$ are determined at any time by means of a nonlinear least-squares fitting algorithm. In order to check the validity of the fit, we have also considered the normalization constant as a fit parameter, and compared the obtained value with the expected value $`C(t)`$. The difference is less than $`0.1\%`$. As observed in Fig. 2 (for $`\eta =1`$), the function $`s(t)`$ decreases monotonically in time, and it will asymptotically reach the value $`0.5`$ The function $`s(t)`$ presents two clear time scales. It decreases fast during the first stages of the expansion (few axial trap periods), but the final convergence towards the TG profile is significantly slower. The latter is expected since the exact $`n^2`$ dependence of the functional $`\varphi (n)`$ just appears asymptotically. We have analyzed the expansion for larger initial values of $`\eta `$, and observed a similar behavior, although for larger values of $`\eta `$ the convergence towards $`s=0.5`$ requires longer times (for $`\eta =3`$ it should occur at around $`350`$ axial trap periods). For practical purposes, if $`\eta `$ is not sufficiently close to 1, only the first stage of the evolution of $`s(t)`$ will be observable, since for longer time scales the density will significantly decrease. For $`\eta 1`$, the usual TF self-similar solution ($`s(t)=const=1`$) is retrieved for any practical purposes. Note, however, that the transition into a TG profile during a 1D free expansion is in principle unavoidable for whatever initial condition, i.e. the $`s`$ coefficient tends to $`0.5`$. This is supported by the fact that the density profile fulfills at any time Eq. (12), and that the only self-similar solution supported by the NLSE (11) at very low densities is with $`s=0.5`$.

Once shown that Eq. (11) predicts that during a free 1D expansion the density profile dynamically becomes TG-like, let us analyze the validity of the equation for the problem under consideration. As shown in Ref. , the hydrodynamical approach should be carefully employed, since it overestimates the coherence in the system. In order to check that Eq. (11) provides the right physical picture in our problem, we have calculated the free expansion of an initial TG gas using both the BF map, and the NLSE.

From the BF map one obtains that the dynamics of the density profile for an impenetrable gas of bosons is given by

$$n(z,t)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}|\varphi _n(z,t)|^2,$$
(13)
where $`\varphi _n(z,t)`$ denotes the time-dependent wavefunction of the $`n`$-th eigenmode of the original axial harmonic oscillator. The expansion dynamics for each $`\varphi _n`$ is obtained analytically by means of the corresponding Green function in free space

$$G(zz^{},t)=i\left(\frac{m}{2\pi \mathrm{}it}\right)^{1/2}e^{im(zz^{})^2/2\mathrm{}t}.$$
(14)
From Eq. (13) one obtains a self-similar solution of the form

$$n(z,t)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\omega _z^2t^2}}n\left(\frac{z}{\sqrt{1+\omega _z^2t^2}},t=0\right).$$
(15)
Note, that for times $`t1/\omega _z`$ the scaling coefficient $`\sqrt{1+\omega _z^2t^2}`$ becomes $`\omega _zt`$, whereas for the case of a 1D TF self-similar solution the scaling coefficient becomes $`\sqrt{2}\omega _zt`$. Consequently, the expansion of an initial TG and TF gas is significantly different. This property could be employed to discern between the two regimes.

From the corresponding hydrodynamic equations (8) and (9), one can easily prove that the same self-similar solution (15) for the density is obtained from Eq. (11) in the limit of $`n|a_{1D}|0`$, i.e. using the equation of Ref. . Therefore, Eq. (11) accurately describes the expansion dynamics even for the extreme case of a TG gas, and it is thus expected to describe well the expansion for intermediate regimes between the TG and the TF limits, where the coherence is not yet completely lost.

In this Letter, we have studied the dynamical transition from a quasi-1D BEC into a TG gas during the expansion. Our analysis is based on a NLSE with variable nonlinearity, which generalizes for arbitrary interaction the extremal cases provided by the Gross-Pitaevskii equation ($`n|a_{1D}|\mathrm{}`$) and the equation of Ref.  ($`n|a_{1D}|0`$). We have shown that even if the initial cloud possesses a TF profile, the density profile acquires asymptotically a TG shape. We have analyzed in detail this transition, and characterized the shape of the cloud in the intermediate stages. We have evaluated by means of a BF map the exact expansion dynamics of a TG gas and shown that the expansion is self-similar with a significantly different scaling law compared to a TF gas. We have additionally shown that the NLSE approach provides exactly the same self-similar solution as the BF map for the case of a TG gas, and it is therefore expected to describe well the expansion for any intermediate regime.

Let us additionally point out that the NLSE (11) also provides the excitation spectrum of the 1D Bose gas in intermediate regimes between TF and TG, by considering a small perturbation around the ground state solution $`\psi _0(z)`$ of Eq. (11) $`\psi (z)=\psi _0(z)+\delta \psi (z)`$, where $`\delta \psi `$ is given by $`\delta \psi (z)=u(z)e^{i\omega t}+v(z)^{}e^{i\omega t}`$. Inserting this Ansatz into Eq. (11) leads to the corresponding Bogoliubov-de Gennes equations

$`u(z)+n_0\varphi ^{}(n_0)v(z)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}\omega u(z)`$ (16)
$`v(z)n_0\varphi ^{}(n_0)u(z)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}\omega v(z)`$ (17)
where $`n_0=\psi _0^2`$, $`\varphi ^{}=d\varphi /dn`$, and $`=(\mathrm{}^2/2m)(^2/z^2)+m\omega _z^2z^2/2+\varphi (n_0)+n_0\varphi ^{}(n_0)\mu `$, with $`\mu `$ the chemical potential fixed by the normalization of $`n_0`$. Eqs. (16) and (17) describe the crossover from the TF to the TG regime for all excitation frequencies. In particular, we have obtained that these equations provide the same results as in Ref.  for the lowest compressional mode.

Summarizing, the 1D expansion dynamics constitutes an experimentally accessible tool to discern between the different interaction regimes in a 1D gas, and additionally provides a way to dynamically accomplish the TG gas. Unfortunately, the method employed in this Letter does not allow to analyze the fundamental problem of decoherence when entering the TG regime. The solution of this problem requires to extend the exact results of Refs.  to the case of inhomogeneous time dependent Bose gases with finite interactions, in which the BF mapping is not exact. Such analysis is beyond the scope of this Letter and it will be the subject of future investigations.

We acknowledge support from Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB 407), the RTN Cold Quantum gases, ESF PESC BEC2000+ and EPSRC. L. S. wishes to thank the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, the Federal Ministry of Education and Research and the ZIP Programme of the German Government. Discussions with M. Lewenstein, D. S. Petrov, and G. V. Shlyapnikov are acknowledged.


text:
# Direct measurement of the fine-structure interval in alkali atoms using diode lasers

## Abstract

We demonstrate a technique for directly measuring the fine-structure interval in alkali atoms using two frequency-stabilized diode lasers. Each laser has a linewidth of order 1 MHz and precise tunability: one laser is tuned to a hyperfine transition in the $`D_1`$ line, and the other laser to a hyperfine transition in the $`D_2`$ line. The outputs of the lasers are fed into a scanning Michelson interferometer that measures the ratio of their wavelengths accurately. To illustrate the technique, we measure the fine-structure interval in Rb, and obtain a value of 237.6000(3)(5) cm-1 for the hyperfine-free $`5P_{3/2}5P_{1/2}`$ interval.

The advent of semiconductor diode lasers has revolutionized atomic physics and particularly the field of laser spectroscopy . Single-mode laser diodes with cw output powers of few 10s of mW are now available at very low cost. By placing the diodes in an external cavity and using optical feedback from an angle-tuned grating , they can be made to operate at single frequency (single longitudinal mode) with linewidths of order 1 MHz and tunability over several nm. This has increased the access of researchers to atomic physics experiments which have earlier required expensive ring-cavity dye or Ti-sapphire lasers. For example, the field of laser cooling  has blossomed in the past decade as several alkali atoms and alkali-like ions have cooling transitions in the infrared which are accessible with stabilized diode lasers. The main advantages of diode lasers are in terms of their tunability and narrow spectral width. In addition, techniques such as saturated-absorption spectroscopy using counter-propagating pump and probe beams to eliminate the first-order Doppler effect can help resolve narrow hyperfine transitions within a given atomic line. It is thus possible to get an absolute frequency calibration of the laser by locking to such a transition.

In this letter, we show that this well-established capability of diode lasers can be used in an important application: to make precise measurements of fine-structure intervals in alkali atoms. Knowledge of fine-structure intervals is important for several reasons, e.g. in the study of atomic collisions, astrophysical processes, and relativistic calculations of atomic energy levels. Alkali atoms are particularly important because of their widespread use in ultra-cold collision studies, photoassociation spectroscopy, atomic tests of parity violation, and more recently in Bose-Einstein condensation. The species we have studied is Rb, but the technique is more general and should prove useful in other alkali atoms (such as Li, K, and Cs), alkali-like ions, and indeed any system where the transitions are accessible with diode lasers. Our technique uses two diode lasers, one of which is tuned to the $`D_1`$ line and the other to the $`D_2`$ line. The output of the lasers is fed into a scanning Michelson interferometer to directly obtain their wavelength ratio. Using tabulated values  for the wavelength of the $`D_2`$ line, we extract the $`D_1D_2`$ splitting. The value we obtain for the $`5P`$ state of Rb has a precision of 5 parts in $`10^8`$, and can be potentially improved by another order of magnitude.

The interferometer for the ratio measurement, shown schematically in Fig. 1, has been described extensively in a previous publication  where we highlighted its use as a precision wavelength meter. For consistency with the terminology there, we will call the two lasers as “reference” and “unknown”, respectively. The basic idea is to obtain the ratio of the two laser wavelengths using a scanning Michelson interferometer where both lasers traverse essentially the same path. As the interferometer is scanned, the interference pattern on the detectors goes alternately through bright and dark fringes and the ratio of the number of fringes counted is the ratio of the two wavelengths. The ratio obtained is a wavelength ratio in air, however, the wavelength ratio in vacuum (or equivalent frequency ratio) is easily calculated by making a small correction for the dispersion of air  between the reference wavelength and the unknown.

The fine-structure measurements are done with two diode laser systems. The first diode laser system (or “reference” laser) is built around a commercial single-mode diode (Mitsubishi ML60125R-01) with a nominal operating wavelength of 785 nm. The light is collimated using an aspheric lens to give an elliptic beam of 5.8 mm $`\times `$ 1.8 mm $`1/e^2`$ diameter. The laser is frequency stabilized in a standard external-cavity design (Littrow configuration) using optical feedback from a 1800 lines/mm diffraction grating mounted on a piezoelectric transducer . Using a combination of temperature and current control, the laser is tuned close to the 780 nm $`D_2`$ line in atomic Rb ($`5S_{1/2}5P_{3/2}`$ transition). A part of the output beam is tapped for Doppler-free saturated-absorption spectroscopy in a Rb vapor cell. The various hyperfine transitions (and crossover resonances) in the two common isotopes of Rb, 85Rb and 87Rb, are clearly resolved, as shown in the insets of Fig. 2. The linewidth of the hyperfine peaks is 15–20 MHz; this is somewhat larger than the 6.1 MHz natural linewidth and is primarily limited by power broadening due to the pump beam . The injection current into the laser diode is modulated slightly to obtain an error signal so that the laser can be locked to any of the peaks in the saturated-absorption spectrum. The second diode laser system (“unknown” laser) is identical to the first one, except that the laser diode (SDL 5311-G1) has a nominal operating wavelength of 792 nm. After stabilization, it is tuned to the 795 nm $`D_1`$ line in atomic Rb ($`5S_{1/2}5P_{1/2}`$ transition). The elliptic beams from the two lasers are fed into the Michelson interferometer. The large Rayleigh ranges ($``$34 m and $``$3 m in the two directions) ensure that the beams remain collimated over the length of the interferometer and diffraction effects are not significant.

For the fine-structure measurements, we lock the reference laser to the $`5S_{1/2},F=35P_{3/2},F^{}=(3,4)`$ crossover resonance in 85Rb, i.e. midway between the $`F=3F^{}=3`$ and the $`F=3F^{}=4`$ transitions . From the Rb energy-level tables  and measured hyperfine shifts , this corresponds to a frequency of $`3.8422958\times 10^{14}`$ Hz. To get several independent measurements of the fine-structure splitting, we lock the second laser to different hyperfine transitions of the $`D_1`$ line in the two isotopes of Rb. In each case, the wavelength ratio is measured about 100 times. The values are plotted as a histogram and a Gaussian fit to the histogram yields the mean ratio and the $`1\sigma `$ (statistical) error in the mean. The mean wavelength ratios obtained from four independent measurements are listed in Table I. We extract the hyperfine-free fine-structure interval in vacuum by making two corrections to the measured ratio. First, we convert the wavelength ratio in air to a frequency ratio using the refractive index of air at the two wavelengths from Edlén’s formula : $`n=1.000275163`$ at 780 nm ($`D_2`$) and $`n=1.000275068`$ at 795 nm ($`D_1`$). Then we remove the hyperfine frequency shifts shown in Fig. 2, which are known to sub-MHz accuracy . The extracted values of the fine-structure interval are listed in the table, from this we obtain an average value of:

$`237.6000(3)(5)\mathrm{cm}^1,`$

with the quoted errors being statistical and systematic, respectively. Isotope shifts in the fine-structure interval are negligible at this level of precision.

The main source of statistical error is that the frequency counter counts zero crossings and does not count fractional fringes. The total number of fringes counted depends on the fringe rate (or cart speed) coupled with the 10 s integration time. Currently our photodiode electronics limits the cart speed so that we can use only about 20 cm of cart travel per measurement. This results in a single-shot statistical error of about 5 parts in $`10^7`$ in each data set . The error of less than 5 parts in $`10^8`$ in Table I comes after averaging over $`100`$ individual measurements. Since the coherence length of the stabilized diode laser is about 50 m, it should be possible to use at least 1 m of cart travel for each measurement with simple improvements in the counting electronics. This should help in reducing the statistical error in future to below 1 MHz.

There are several potential sources of systematic error, the main two being variation in the lock point of the lasers and non-parallelism of the two laser beams in the interferometer. We have checked for the first error by measuring the fine-structure interval with the unknown laser on different hyperfine transitions of the $`D_1`$ line. As seen from Table I, within the errors quoted, the different ratios yield consistent values for the hyperfine-free fine-structure interval. This implies that there is no significant variation in the lock point of the lasers. The second source of systematic error, namely that the two beams have a small angle between them, is more serious. Any misalignment would cause a systematic increase in the measured ratio given by $`1/\mathrm{cos}\theta `$, where $`\theta `$ is the angle between the beams. We have tried to minimize this error in two ways. The first method is to use the unused output beam of the reference laser (the one on the same side of the beamsplitter as the input beam) as a tracer for aligning the unknown laser beam, and checking for parallelism over a distance of about 2 m . The second method is to check for parallelism by looking for a minimum in the measured ratio as the angle of the unknown beam is varied. This works because the measured value is always larger than the correct value, whether $`\theta `$ is positive or negative, and becomes minimum when $`\theta =0`$.

To get an estimate of the systematic error using these methods of alignment, we have measured the frequency ratio of two identical stabilized diode lasers locked to different hyperfine transitions in the $`D_2`$ line of 85Rb , as described in our earlier work . The frequency difference is known to be 2944 MHz, while the measurements yield a mean value of 2932(16) MHz. This shows that the systematic error is below 16 MHz or about 0.0005 cm-1. In future, this error can also be brought down to the sub-MHz level by carefully checking for parallelism over longer distances.

The value for the $`5P`$ fine-structure interval we obtain can be compared to the value listed in the Rb energy-level tables published by NIST : 237.60 cm-1. Our result is consistent with this value but has significantly higher accuracy. The NIST value is obtained by fitting the energy levels to all available spectroscopic data. The accuracy of 0.01 cm-1 for this value is typical for most alkali atoms and our technique has the potential to improve this by two orders of magnitude. In general, fine-structure intervals are known very poorly compared to hyperfine shifts. This is because hyperfine shifts, which are of order GHz, are more accessible to techniques such as microwave resonance or heterodyne measurements , while fine-structure splittings are of order THz and cannot be measured very easily. It is in this range of frequency differences that our technique is uniquely suitable. Finally, we mention that the scanning interferometer can also be used as a precision wavelength meter, giving the unknown wavelength in terms of the reference . This could be important, for example, in laser cooling of ions where it is necessary to set the laser frequency with $``$MHz precision but not always possible to find transitions to which the cooling laser can be locked. Recently, the absolute frequency of a diode laser stabilized on the Rb $`D_2`$ line has been measured with sub-MHz accuracy . Our wavelength meter can thus act as a secondary reference to improve the absolute precision of energy-level tables.

In conclusion, we have demonstrated a technique to directly measure the fine-structure interval in alkali atoms. Our method uses two stabilized diode lasers, one locked to the $`D_1`$ line and the other to the $`D_2`$ line, and a scanning Michelson interferometer to obtain their wavelength ratio. As an illustration of the power of this technique, we measure the interval in the $`5P`$ state of Rb to be 237.6000(3)(5) cm-1, or 7 123 069(9)(15) MHz. The method is easily extendable to other systems in which transitions are accessible with diode lasers. In addition, the interferometer with a diode laser locked to an atomic transition can be used as a precision wavelength meter for tunable lasers  since the atomic transition acts as a convenient calibrated wavelength marker.

The authors are grateful to Dipankar Das and Stéphane Berciaud for help with the measurements. This work was supported by research grants from the Board of Research in Nuclear Sciences (DAE), and the Department of Science and Technology, Government of India.