text:
# Dynamical mean-field theory of electron-phonon interaction in correlated electron materials: general results and application to doped Mott insulators

## Abstract

The dynamical mean-field method is used to formulate a computationally tractable theory of electron-phonon interactions in systems with arbitrary local electron-electron interactions in the physically relevant adiabatic limit of phonon frequency small compared to electron bandwidth or interaction scale. As applications, the phonon contribution to the effective mass of a carrier in a lightly doped Mott insulator is determined and the phase separation boundary is discussed.

‘Correlated electron’ materials such as doped Mott insulators , high-temperature superconductors , heavy fermions , and ‘half-metallic’ oxides  are central to present-day condensed matter physics because they exhibit many properties that seem incompatible with predictions of the standard paradigm \[local density approximation (LDA) band theory plus Boltzmann transport\] of metal physics. A crucial role is played by electron-electron interaction effects beyond the scope of the LDA, and theoretical attention has focused on these effects neglecting other physics. However, the electron-phonon interaction is present in all real materials, and it is therefore important to understand its effects in correlated systems. The relevance of electron-lattice effects in the CMR manganites is by now well established . Lanzara and co-workers presented photoemission data which, they argue, indicate that electron-phonon effects play an important role in high-temperature superconductivity . On the other hand, the apparent absence of electron-phonon effects in the resistivity of high-$`T_c`$ materials is a long-standing mystery .

There is to date no systematic theoretical extension to correlated materials of the successful Migdal-Eliashberg (ME) theory , which describes electron-phonon interactions in weakly correlated materials. Electron-phonon interactions in one-dimensional systems have been studied by renormalization group methods , and recent improvements in numerical techniques have for example allowed the spin-phonon dynamics of insulating quasi-one-dimensional Peierls systems to be determined in considerable detail . Concerning higher-dimensional, metallic systems, Kim and co-workers  argued that near a Mott transition a decrease in electron-phonon coupling was compensated by an increase in carrier mass, leading to electron-phonon effects unrenormalized by proximity to the Mott transition. Our results, to be presented below, disagree with this conclusion. Several authors have used direct numerical simulation \[e.g., quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) techniques\] of models of electrons interacting both with each other and with lattice vibrations . However, the present limitations of memory size and algorithms have restricted these works mainly to the calculation of static properties, especially phase boundaries and transition temperatures and to the ‘antiadiabatic’ limit of phonon frequency comparable to electronic energy scale.

The development of the dynamical mean-field (DMF) method  has opened an important avenue for progress, by showing that if (as occurs for the electron-phonon interaction) the momentum dependence of the electron self-energy is negligible then a good approximation to the correlation physics can be obtained from the solution of a numerically tractable quantum impurity problem plus a self-consistency condition. Unfortunately the straightforward inclusion of the electron-phonon coupling in the DMF formalism is difficult because the mismatch between the typical phonon frequency scale $`\omega _00.1`$ eV and electron energy scale $`t1`$ eV renders conventional numerical approaches to the impurity problem prohibitively expensive, except in the ‘antiadiabatic’ limit  of relevance to rather few materials. In this paper we present a practical implementation of an adiabatic expansion of the DMF formalism and show how it may be used to determine the phonon contribution to electronic properties of correlated systems. The work reported here builds on previous papers, which introduced the adiabatic expansion  and applied it to models involving only electron-lattice interactions . As an application we answer the long-standing question of the electron-phonon contribution to the carrier self-energy in a lightly doped Mott insulator. Our methods may easily be extended, e.g., to heavy fermion materials and may be combined with recent extensions of the DMF method .

We consider the single-site DMF approximation to a general Hamiltonian of the form $`H=H_{\mathrm{band}}+H_{\mathrm{el}\mathrm{el}}+H_{\mathrm{ph}}+H_{\mathrm{el}\mathrm{ph}}`$, where $`H_{\mathrm{band}}`$ and $`H_{\mathrm{el}\mathrm{el}}`$ describe electrons moving in some band structure and interacting via some local interaction. We model the phonons as dispersionless quantum oscillators with instantaneous displacement $`q^a`$, mass $`M_a`$, and spring constant $`K_a`$:

$$H_{\mathrm{ph}}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{ia}{}[M_a\left(_\tau q^a\right)_i^2+K_aq_i^{a2}].$$
(1)
Dispersion may be approximately included by treating $`M,K`$ as Brillouin-zone averages of phonon dispersions or via the more sophisticated techniques of Refs.  and . Anharmonic terms such as those considered in Ref.  can be easily added and will be seen to be generated.

The electron-phonon coupling is again taken to be local. It is cumbersome to write in general. We illustrate the issues via the physically relevant example of the pseudocubic manganese perovskites. Here the relevant electrons are $`e_g`$-symmetry Mn-O hybrid states. The generalized phonon field $`q_a`$ encompasses (i) a ‘breathing’ mode (symmetric distortion of the Mn-$`\mathrm{O}_6`$ octahedron) coupling via a constant $`g_\mathrm{B}`$ to the total on-site charge density and (ii) a one-parameter family of Jahn-Teller modes (even-parity, volume-preserving distortions of the Mn-$`\mathrm{O}_6`$ octahedron) coupling via a matrix element $`g_{\mathrm{JT}}`$ to appropriate differences of occupancy between different orbitals (for a more detailed discussion of the couplings and notation see, e.g, Ref. ). These two distortions will be labeled by a scalar coordinate $`x`$ and a two-component vector $`\stackrel{}{Q}=(Q_x,0,Q_z)`$, respectively. The coupling term reads (repeated indices are summed)

$$H_{\mathrm{el}\mathrm{ph}}=\underset{i}{}[g_\mathrm{B}x_i(n_in)+g_{\mathrm{JT}}\stackrel{}{Q}_ic_{ia\beta }^{}\stackrel{}{\tau }^{ab}c_{ib\beta }],$$
(2)
where $`\stackrel{}{\tau }=(\tau _x,\tau _y,\tau _z)`$ are Pauli matrices acting in orbital space, $`n_i=_{a\alpha }c_{ia\alpha }^{}c_{ia\alpha }`$ is the local electron density, and $`x_i=0`$ is defined to be the equilibrium phonon state for a uniform distribution of electrons.

Within the single-site DMF approximation  the properties of $`H`$ may be obtained from the solution of an impurity model specified by the action $`S[c,\overline{c},q,a]=S_0[q]+S_1[c,\overline{c},q,a]`$, with $`S_0[q]=1/(2T)_kq_k^a\left(K_a+M_a\omega _k^2\right)q_k^a`$ and $`S_1[c,\overline{c},q,a]=S_{\mathrm{el}\mathrm{el}}[c,\overline{c}]+S_{\mathrm{el}\mathrm{ph}}[c,\overline{c},q]_{\alpha ,n}\overline{c}_{\alpha n}c_{\alpha n}a_n`$. Here the terms $`S_{\mathrm{el}\mathrm{el}}`$ and $`S_{\mathrm{el}\mathrm{ph}}`$ are obtained in the usual way from the interaction terms listed above, and $`S`$ is a functional of a mean-field function $`a`$, which may depend on spin and orbital indices and expresses the effect of the rest of the lattice upon the single site. It is fixed by equating the impurity Green function $`G_{\mathrm{imp}}[a]_n=\delta \mathrm{ln}Z[a]/\delta a_n`$ to the local Green function $`G_{\mathrm{loc}}[a]_n=d^3p/(2\pi )^3(i\omega _n+\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }[a]_nH_{\mathrm{band}})^1`$ with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }[a]_n=a_nG_{\mathrm{imp}}[a]_n^1`$. The fields $`c,\overline{c}`$ and $`q`$ represent local electronic and phonon degress of freedom and have been Fourier transformed according to $`q(\tau )=_k\mathrm{exp}(i\omega _k\tau )q_k`$ etc. We will index bosonic Matsubara frequencies $`\omega _k=2k\pi T`$ by integers $`k`$ and fermionic Matsubara frequencies $`\omega _n=(2n+1)\pi T`$ by integers $`n`$, i.e., $`q_kq(i\omega _k)`$ and $`a_{\alpha n}^1a_\alpha ^1(i\omega _n)`$.

To analyze the effect of phonons on electronic physics  we integrate out the electron fields and work with an effective action $`S[q,a]=S_0[q]+S_1[q,a]`$, which we expand about the values $`\overline{q}`$ that extremize $`S`$. We introduce an electronic bandwidth or interaction scale $`t`$ and define the parameters

$$\lambda =\frac{g^2}{Kt},\gamma =\frac{(K/M)^{1/2}}{t}=\frac{\omega _0}{t}.$$
(3)
Crucial objects in the expansion are the vertices

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_N[a]_{k_1,\mathrm{},k_N}=\frac{1}{(N1)!}\frac{\delta S_1[q,a]}{\delta q_{k_1}^{a_1}\mathrm{}\delta q_{k_N}^{a_N}},$$
(4)
which are connected correlation functions of the electrons-only theory. The adiabatic parameter $`\gamma `$ controls the expansion because each phonon loop involves a sum over frequencies of order $`\omega _0\gamma t`$ while the vertices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ vary with frequency on the scale $`t`$. If terms of order $`\gamma ^{3/2}`$ and higher are neglected, the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{N>4}`$ may be dropped and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{3,4}`$ may be approximated by their static value computed using $`a`$ at $`\gamma =0`$. With suitably rescaled fields and frequencies (for details see Ref. ) we may write

$`S[q,a]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}q_kD_k^1q_k`$ (5)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^{3/2}\gamma ^{1/2}T^{1/2}}{3}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_3[a]{\displaystyle \underset{k_1,k_2}{}}q_{k_1}q_{k_2}q_{k_1k_2}`$ (6)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2\gamma T}{4}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_4[a]{\displaystyle \underset{k_1,k_2,k_3}{}}q_{k_1}q_{k_2}q_{k_3}q_{k_1k_2k_3},`$ (7)
where $`D_k`$ is the phonon propagator, equal for scalar phonons to $`1/(1+\omega _k^2/\omega _0^2\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }_2[a]_{k,k})`$, renormalized by electron-electron interaction effects contained in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$. Note that $`𝒪(\gamma )`$ corrections to $`a`$, as well as the leading frequency dependence, must be included in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$.

We used the Hirsch-Fye  algorithms distributed with Ref.  and routines to compute the connected correlation functions for a single-band Hubbard model. Computations were performed on a Sun workstation; the longest computation $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ at larger $`U`$ took $`40`$ minutes. Errors (estimated by comparison to exact solution and scaling with system sizes) were less than $`2\%`$ for parameters shown. Fig. 1 shows that near half filling and for scalar phonons the Hubbard-$`U`$ strongly decreases $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$, thereby suppressing the polaronic instability occurring at $`\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }_2=1`$. Although the polaronic instability is suppressed a phase separation instability is found for $`\lambda 1`$ and $`n`$ near 1; details will be presented elsewhere. For comparison and to demonstrate the power of the method we also present in the right-hand panel results for a model of ‘colossal magnetoresistance’ manganites in which orbitally degenerate electrons are coupled to Jahn-Teller (JT) phonons via the second term in Eq. (2) and also feel both a Hubbard-$`U`$ and a ‘double-exchange’ interaction arising from a strong coupling to core spins (i.e., the model defined in Ref.  but with a Hubbard-$`U`$ added). The $`U`$ is seen to enhance the effect of JT phonons. Fig. 2 shows that for the Hubbard model $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_4`$ are even more rapidly suppressed by $`U`$ so repulsive interactions effectively decouple electrons from scalar phonons.

We now turn to the electron self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{ph}}`$ due to interactions with phonons, assuming that the effective vertices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_N`$ have been determined as discussed above. The calculation is simplified and made more physically transparent if the action is viewed as a functional of the full electron propagator $`G`$ rather than as a functional of $`a`$. The key object is then the ‘local Luttinger-Ward functional’ $`\varphi [G]`$ defined  as the sum of all vacuum-to-vacuum skeleton diagrams and related to the self-energy via $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\delta \varphi [G]/\delta G`$. Within DMF theory, $`\varphi `$ may be found from the local thermodynamic potential $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{imp}}=T\mathrm{ln}Z`$ (see Refs.  and ) so may be computed by an adiabatic expansion. We find $`\varphi [G]=\varphi ^{\mathrm{el}\mathrm{el}}[G]+\varphi ^{\mathrm{ph}}[G]+𝒪(\gamma ^{3/2})`$ with $`\varphi ^{\mathrm{ph}}[G]=\frac{1}{2}_k\mathrm{ln}D_k^1`$. Therefore

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_n^{\mathrm{ph}}=\frac{\lambda }{2}\underset{k}{}D_k\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_2[G]_{k,k}}{\delta G_n}+𝒪(\gamma ^2).$$
(8)
In general $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ and thus $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_2/\delta G`$ vary on the scale of $`t`$ so $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{ph}}\gamma `$, an unimportant correction to the bare frequency or electron-electron contribution. However, if $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }/\delta G`$ is singular at low frequencies, as in Fermi liquids, then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }/\omega `$ may be of order unity. To investigate this we note that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2[G]_{k,k}=2tT_nG_nG_{n+k}\left(1+2tT_n^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{nn^{}k}^RG_n^{}G_{n^{}+k}\right)`$, where the particle-hole reducible vertex $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^R`$ is given in terms of the particle-hole irreducible vertex $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^I`$ via the Dyson equation shown in Fig. 3.

The standard analysis implies that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^I`$ is a smooth function of its arguments, so the required singular behavior can only occur if we differentiate on one of the explicit $`G`$ factors. Further, to $`𝒪(\gamma )`$ we may neglect the frequency dependence of the vertices leading to

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_n^{\mathrm{ph}}=\lambda tT\underset{k}{}D_kG_{n+k}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }_n^{\mathrm{ph}\mathrm{reg}}$$
(9)
with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n^{\mathrm{ph}\mathrm{reg}}`$ varying with $`\omega _n`$ on the scale of $`t`$ and

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=1+2tT\underset{n}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{0n0}^RG_n^2+𝒪(\gamma ).$$
(10)
If the ground state is a Fermi liquid then $`G(i\nu )=i\pi \mathrm{sign}(\nu )\rho (\mu )+G^{\mathrm{inc}}`$, where $`G^{\mathrm{inc}}`$ is nonsingular at small frequencies . The leading contribution in $`\gamma `$ to $`m^{}/m`$ is then $`m^{}/m|_{\mathrm{ph}}=1+\overline{\lambda }t\rho (\mu )\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+𝒪(\gamma )`$, where $`\overline{\lambda }=\lambda /(1\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }_2)`$.

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a vertex function of the underlying electron-electron theory, determined in general by solving the vertex equation shown in Fig. 3. However, to the order to which we work it is simpler to note that in a Fermi liquid the leading low-frequency behavior of the density-density correlation function is $`\chi (\omega )=\chi (0)+iA|\omega |`$ with $`A=\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\chi ^0/\omega `$ and $`\chi _k^0=2tT_nG_nG_{n+k}`$ is the function obtained by convolving two exact Green functions with no vertex corrections. Thus

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^2=\frac{\chi _k/(i\omega _k)|_{k=0}}{\chi _k^0/(i\omega _k)|_{k=0}}.$$
(11)
The right hand side of Eq. (11) can be calculated numerically by QMC in the time domain because the leading long-time behavior comes from the first frequency derivative and is $`\chi (0\tau \beta )=(\pi /\beta )\chi _k/(i\omega _k)|_{k=0}/\mathrm{sin}^2(\pi \tau /\beta )`$. For $`\beta 4`$ we find $`\chi (\tau )/\chi ^0(\tau )`$ is very flat in the center region of the interval $`(0,\beta )`$ (see inset to Fig. 4). The rapid decrease of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ again shows that the electron-phonon mass enhancement and scattering rate are ‘turned off’ near half filling and for strong correlations, in disagreement with the authors of Ref.  who found a weaker decrease in the matrix element, which was moreover cancelled by an increase in effective mass.

We summarize the main results of this paper. We have studied a general electron-phonon model in a new approach that combines the adiabatic expansion in $`\gamma 1`$ of the conventional Migdal-Eliashberg theory with a dynamical mean-field treatment of electron correlations. Our main finding is an effective phonon action correct to $`𝒪(\gamma ^{3/2})`$ with static coefficients $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_N`$ ($`N=2,3,4`$) and vertex $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, which are easy to compute numerically for various models. For the Holstein-Hubbard model we have shown that the electron-phonon coupling is strongly suppressed by Hubbard-$`U`$ effects in systems near Mott transitions. Extension of our results to other correlated systems such as heavy fermions would be worthwhile.

We thank S. Blawid for useful discussions, H. Monien and J. Freericks for critical reading of the manuscript, and NSF DMR00081075 and the University of Maryland/Rutgers MRSEC for support.


format: text

text:
# Evidence for the Black Hole Event Horizon

## 1 Introduction

X-ray binaries Lewin et al. (1995) are double star systems in which mass is transferred from a secondary star onto a compact primary star. The gas radiates X-rays as it accretes onto the primary, which is either a neutron star (NS) or a black hole (BH). Of the over 200 X-ray binaries known in the Galaxy, about 30 are transient sources, known as “X-ray novae” or “soft X-ray transients” Tanaka and Shibazaki (1996); van Paradijs and McClintock (1995). These sources are characterized by episodic outbursts at X-ray, optical and radio frequencies, separated by long intervals (years to decades) of quiescence. X-ray novae have played a major role in the hunt for BHs.

In the quiescent state of an X-ray nova, the absorption-line velocities of the secondary star can be measured precisely because the non-stellar light from the accretion flow is modest compared to the light of the secondary. From a measurement of the velocity of the secondary as a function of the binary orbital phase, one may directly determine the mass function,

$$f(M)\frac{M_1^3\mathrm{sin}^3i}{(M_1+M_2)^2},$$
(1)
where $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ are the masses of the primary and secondary star, and $`i`$ is the orbital inclination angle. The mass function provides a strict lower limit on the mass of the primary.

In nearly a dozen X-ray novae with reliable measurements of the mass function, it has been found that $`f(M)\stackrel{>}{}3M_{}`$ (see Narayan et al. (2002 (astro-ph/0107387) for a list of X-ray novae with large mass functions as of mid-2001, and Greiner et al. (2001) for a newly confirmed system). Assuming that general relativity applies, the maximum mass of a NS can be calculated to be no more than about $`23M_{}`$ \[6–8\]. Therefore, there is strong reason to think that the compact primaries in these X-ray novae are BHs.

While the mass criterion is an excellent technique for finding BH candidates, one would like to have more direct evidence that the candidates truly are BHs. Ideally, one would like to be able to show that a candidate BH has an event horizon. This is the topic of the present article.

The outburst in an X-ray nova is caused by a sudden increase in the mass accretion rate onto the compact primary. The X-ray flux rises on a time scale of days, and subsequently declines on a time scale of weeks or months. Over the course of the outburst, the mass accretion rate varies by orders of magnitude, which makes these systems particularly useful for studying the nature of the central star. Basically, one can monitor the response of the star to a wide range of accretion rates, and thereby obtain a more complete understanding of the properties of the star than one could with a steadily accreting star.

Roughly half the known X-ray novae contain BH candidates and the rest contain NSs. X-ray novae with NSs have X-ray luminosities in quiescence of the order of $`10^510^6L_{Edd}`$, where $`L_{Edd}`$ is the Eddington luminosity. X-ray novae with BH candidates are much dimmer, with quiescent luminosities in some cases below $`10^8L_{Edd}`$ Garcia et al. (2001). The anomalous dimness of quiescent BH candidates has been used to argue for the presence of event horizons in these objects \[ 9–11, see 4 for a review\]. The argument is in essence that black holes are significantly blacker than neutron stars and must therefore have event horizons.

We discuss in this paper a different method of testing for the presence of event horizons in BH X-ray binaries. This method again makes use of the fact that the accreting primary in an X-ray nova experiences a wide range of mass accretion rates. However, instead of focusing on the luminosity of the object in quiescence, we study the presence or absence of Type I X-ray bursts.

When gas accretes onto a compact star such as a NS, it is compressed and heated as it accumulates on the surface, leading to thermonuclear reactions. In many NS systems (both X-ray novae and other types of NS X-ray binaries), the reactions occur unsteadily and cause sudden brief bursts in the X-ray flux Grindlay et al. (1976). The flux rises almost to the Eddington level within about a second and decays exponentially over a few seconds or tens of seconds. These thermonuclear bursts are called Type I bursts (to distinguish them from Type II bursts, which are not thermonuclear and are observationally distinct Hoffman et al. (1978)). Type I bursts have been observed in a large number of NS systems (see Lewin et al., 1993, for a review), and the theory of the bursts is relatively well understood \[14–25\].

No Type I burst has been seen in any BH X-ray binary, even though, as we show below, BH candidates ought to produce bursts as efficiently as NSs if they possess surfaces. We argue that the lack of bursts represents strong evidence for the presence of event horizons.

## 2 A Simple Model of Type I Bursts

We have developed a simple model to investigate the stability of gas accreting on the surface of a compact star. (The discussion in this section and the next closely follows ref. Narayan and Heyl (2002, astro-ph/0203089).) We consider a compact spherical star of mass $`M`$ and radius $`R`$, accreting gas steadily at a rate $`\dot{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1)`$. In the local frame, the gravitational acceleration is $`g=GM(1+z)/R^2`$, where the redshift $`z`$ is given by $`1+z=(1R_S/R)^{1/2}`$, and $`R_S=2GM/c^2`$ is the Schwarzschild radius. We assume that the accreting material has mass fractions $`X_0`$, $`Y_0`$ and $`Z_0=1X_0Y_0`$, of hydrogen, helium and heavier elements (mostly CNO). The underlying star, as well as the fully burnt material sitting on it, is taken to have a composition $`X=Y=0`$, $`Z=1`$.

We consider a layer of accreted material of surface density $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{max}`$ sitting on top of a substrate of fully burnt material. Since the physical thickness of the layer is much less than the radius, we work in plane parallel geometry and take $`g`$ to be independent of depth. We solve for the density $`\rho `$, the temperature $`T`$, the outgoing flux $`F`$, and the hydrogen, helium and heavy element fractions, $`X`$, $`Y`$, $`Z=1XY`$, as functions of the column density $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

Hydrostatic equilibrium, combined with the equation of state $`P=P(\rho ,T)`$ of the gas, gives

$$\frac{P}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}=\frac{P}{\rho }\frac{\rho }{\mathrm{\Sigma }}+\frac{P}{T}\frac{T}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}=g.$$
(2)
For the equation of state we use expressions given in Paczynski (1982) for the gas, radiation and degeneracy pressure, modified as needed when the degenerate electrons are relativistic.

H- and He-burning are described by two differential equations:

$$\frac{dX}{dt}=\frac{ϵ_H}{E_H^{}},\frac{dY}{dt}=\frac{dX}{dt}\frac{ϵ_{He}}{E_{He}^{}},\frac{d}{dt}\frac{}{t}+\dot{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\frac{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}.$$
(3)
Here, $`ϵ_H`$, $`ϵ_{He}`$ are the nuclear energy generation rates for H and He burning, and $`E_H^{}`$, $`E_{He}^{}`$ are the corresponding energy release per unit mass of H and He burned Paczynski (1982). For $`ϵ_H`$, we include the pp chain and the CNO cycle, including fast-CNO burning, saturated CNO burning, and electron capture reactions, as described in Matthews and Dietrich (1984); Bildsten and Cumming (1998). Since we are not concerned with modelling the bursts themselves, and since our stability criterion does not depend on the detailed treatment of the deep crust, we do not include proton captures onto heavier nuclei (see Schatz et al. (1999) for a discussion of some of the consequences of the $`rp`$-process burning on accreting NSs). For He-burning, we include the triple-$`\alpha `$ reaction, but not pycnonuclear reactions Shapiro and Teukolsky (1983); the latter are important only at greater pressures than we consider. We do not correct the reaction rates to include screening since we are concerned only with determining whether nuclear burning of H and He can proceed stably under given conditions; stable burning of H and He utilizes almost exclusively the reactions included in our model.

Radiative transfer gives another differential equation:

$$\frac{T}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}=\frac{3\kappa F}{4acT^3},\frac{1}{\kappa }=\frac{1}{\kappa _{rad}}+\frac{1}{\kappa _{cond}}.$$
(4)
We employ the fitting functions in Iben (1975) for the radiative opacity $`\kappa _{rad}`$, and an analytical formula from Clayton (1968), suitably modified for relativistic electrons, for the conductive opacity $`\kappa _{cond}`$; the formula for the latter agrees well with more modern treatments (e.g. Heyl and Hernquist, 2001).

Finally, the energy equation gives

$$\rho T\frac{ds}{dt}=\rho (ϵ_H+ϵ_{He})+\rho \frac{F}{\mathrm{\Sigma }},$$
(5)
where $`s`$ is the entropy per unit mass. The above five differential equations (2)–(5) form a closed set for the five variables, $`\rho `$, $`T`$, $`F`$, $`X`$, $`Y`$.

We need five boundary conditions to solve the equations. We apply four boundary conditions at the surface of the star ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }=0`$) and one at the base of the accretion layer ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{max}`$). Two of the four surface conditions are obvious: $`X=X_0,Y=Y_0`$. We obtain the third boundary condition by equating the accretion luminosity of the infalling gas, $`L_{acc}=4\pi R^2\dot{\mathrm{\Sigma }}c^2z/(1+z)`$, to blackbody emission from the surface: $`4\pi R^2\sigma T_{out}^4=L_{acc}`$. This fixes the surface temperature $`T_{out}`$. Then, using $`T_{out}`$ and an assumed value of $`F_{out}`$, we solve for the surface density profile $`\rho (\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ from the radiative transfer equation, thus obtaining the fourth boundary condition.

At the base of the accretion layer we have an inner boundary condition, which plays an important role in the problem. For the calculations presented here, we assume that the base temperature, $`T_{in}=T(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{max})`$, is fixed. We examine several values of $`T_{in}`$ for layers with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{max}=10^9,10^{10}`$ and $`10^{11}`$ g cm<sup>-2</sup>. Applying the boundary condition at $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{max}`$ rather than deeper in the substrate is an approximation, but the error due to this is not serious. For the high surface densities we consider, the heat transfer is dominated by conduction Heyl and Hernquist (2001), so the temperature gradient for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }>\mathrm{\Sigma }_{max}`$ is small. Moreover, we examine models for several values of $`T_{in}`$ which further mitigates any error.

The calculations proceed in two stages. First, we solve for the steady state profile of the accretion layer by setting $`/t=0`$ and replacing the operator $`/\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in equations (2)–(5) by $`d/d\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. With this substitution, we have five ordinary differential equations with four outer boundary conditions and one inner boundary condition. The solution to these equations gives the profiles of the basic fluid quantities: $`\rho (\mathrm{\Sigma }),T(\mathrm{\Sigma }),F(\mathrm{\Sigma }),X(\mathrm{\Sigma }),Y(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$.

Having calculated the steady state structure of the accretion layer, we next check its stability. Various local stability criteria have been discussed in the literature Bildsten (1998), in which one considers the properties of the gas at a single depth. While this approach is very useful for physical insight, it is clearly inadequate for quantitative work. Occasionally, some authors have considered a global criterion involving an integral over the entire layer Fushiki and Lamb (1987). Even this approach is not very satisfactory since it usually involves a restriction on the perturbations (e.g., constant temperature perturbation in Fushiki and Lamb (1987)).

We have carried out a full linear stability analysis of the accretion layer. To our knowledge, this is the first time that this has been attempted in the field of Type I bursts. We start with the steady state solution described above and assume that it is slightly perturbed, $`Q(\mathrm{\Sigma })Q(\mathrm{\Sigma })+Q^{}(\mathrm{\Sigma })\mathrm{exp}(\gamma t)`$, where $`Q`$ corresponds to each of our five variables, and the perturbations $`Q^{}(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ are taken to be small. We linearize the five partial differential equations given in equations (2)–(5) (three of which involve time derivatives), apply the boundary conditions, and solve for the eigenvalue $`\gamma `$. We obtain a large number of solutions for $`\gamma `$, many of which have both a real and an imaginary part. We consider the accretion layer to be unstable if any eigenvalue has a real part (growth rate) greater than the characteristic accretion rate $`\gamma _{acc}=\dot{\mathrm{\Sigma }}/\mathrm{\Sigma }_{max}`$.

If the steady-state model is unstable according to the linear stability analysis, accretion cannot proceed stably with the particular $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{max}`$ and $`\dot{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$. Whether this instability manifests itself as a Type I burst depends on how the burning flame, once ignited at some random point, envelopes the surface of the star. This is as yet an unsolved problem, although ref. Spitkovsky et al. (2002) discusses a possible solution. In the following, we assume that the instability will grow rapidly to the nonlinear regime and that the system will exhibit Type I bursts.

## 3 Results

### 3.1 Type I Bursts on Neutron Stars

The top three panels of Fig. 1 show results for solar composition material ($`X_0=0.7`$, $`Y_0=0.27`$, $`Z_0=0.03`$) accreting on a NS of mass $`1.4M_{}`$. We consider a range of accretion rates, parameterized by the ratio $`L_{acc}/L_{Edd}`$, where we take the Eddington luminosity to be $`L_{Edd}=4\pi GMc/\kappa _{es}`$ with $`\kappa _{es}=0.4\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{g}^1`$. We also consider a range of radii for the NS: $`\mathrm{log}(R/R_S)=0.20.6`$ (corresponding to $`R=6.516`$ km). For each choice of $`L_{acc}/L_{Edd}`$ and $`R/R_S`$, we try three values of the surface mass density of the accretion layer: $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{max}=10^9,10^{10},10^{11}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^2`$. If any of the three cases is unstable, i.e., if it has any eigenvalue with $`\mathrm{Re}(\gamma )>\gamma _{acc}`$, we say that the system cannot achieve a stable steady state and that it will exhibit Type I bursts.

The results presented in Fig. 1 correspond to three choices of the temperature at the base of the accretion layer: $`T_{in}=10^{8.5},10^8,10^{7.5}`$ K (from left to right). In the present work, we are primarily interested in X-ray novae. Since these sources have very low luminosities in quiescence ($`L_X<10^{33}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ for NS X-ray novae), the core temperatures of the NSs are likely to be $`T_{in}\stackrel{<}{}10^8`$ K Brown et al. (2002, astro-ph/0204102).

The calculations shown in Fig. 1 indicate that NSs are unstable to bursts for a wide range of $`T_{in}`$, but that the width of the instability strip (in $`L_{acc}`$) is less for higher values of $`T_{in}`$. The reason for the latter is clear from the analysis in Paczynski (1982) where it is shown that as the flux escaping from the stellar core into the accretion layer increases (which happens when $`T_{in}`$ increases), bursting behavior is restricted to a smaller range of $`\dot{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$.

Assuming that $`T_{in}\stackrel{<}{}10^8`$ K, we see from Fig. 1 that NSs should be unstable to bursts for accretion luminosities up to $`L_{acc}0.3L_{Edd}`$. The prediction is generally consistent with observations: the only NSs that are known not to burst are bright Z sources with $`L_{acc}L_{Edd}`$ Matsuba et al. (1995), and X-ray pulsars. Although X-ray pulsars are significantly less luminous than Eddington, they accrete effectively at close to the Eddington rate since the accreting matter is channeled onto a small area on the NS surface by strong magnetic fields (see Lamb (2000) for a detailed discussion of this argument).

Immediately below $`L_{acc}0.3L_{Edd}`$, the instability is of a mixed type in which a He-burning instability triggers a burst in which He and H both burn explosively. At lower luminosities, nearly all the H is burned steadily, and the instability corresponds to a pure He burst. These results are consistent with previous work Bildsten (1998). Our calculations indicate that bursting behavior cuts off below an accretion luminosity $`L_{acc}10^{1.5}L_{Edd}`$. The cutoff is the result of the restriction $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{max}10^{11}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ in the model. Systems with luminosities below the cutoff are still unstable to He bursts, but only at extremely high column density $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{max}`$. Correspondingly, the recurrence times $`t_{rec}`$ of bursts are extremely long — years in some cases according to our calculations — which makes these systems less useful for the present study, since accretion outbursts of X-ray novae last no more than a few months.

For $`T_{in}=10^{7.5}`$ K, there is a second instability strip at low luminosities, around $`L_{acc}10^2L_{Edd}`$. This strip corresponds to pure H bursts (the possibility of such bursts was first noted in Fujimoto et al. (1987)). An interesting difference between the two instability strips in this panel is that the strip on the right generally has complex eigenvalues $`\gamma `$ for the unstable modes while that on the left has real eigenvalues.

### 3.2 Type I Bursts on Black Hole Candidates

The bottom three panels in Fig. 1 show results for a $`10M_{}`$ BH candidate with a surface. The three panels correspond to different choices of the base temperature: $`T_{in}=10^{7.5},10^7,10^{6.5}`$ K (from left to right). The particular choices of $`T_{in}`$ are motivated by the extraordinarily low quiescent luminosities of many BH X-ray novae ($`L_X<10^{31}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$, see Garcia et al. (2001); a few BH novae are brighter than this, but even these are not likely to have $`T_{in}>10^{7.5}`$ K). We consider stellar radii in the range $`\mathrm{log}(R/R_S)=0.050.45`$, corresponding to $`R`$ between $`(9/8)R_S`$ and $`3R_S`$. The former limit is the smallest radius in general relativity for an object whose density either decreases or remains level with increasing radius Shapiro and Teukolsky (1983).

The calculations indicate that BH candidates with surfaces are similar to NSs in their bursting behavior. Except for a modest rightward shift of the positions of the instability zones, the results in the lower three panels are quite similar to those for a NS with a similarly low value of $`T_{in}`$ (upper right panel). As in the case of NSs, bursts are expected from BH candidates even for larger values of $`T_{in}`$ than we have considered here, except that the instability strip becomes narrower when $`T_{in}`$ exceeds $`10^8`$ K. (As already discussed, such high core temperatures are ruled out.) We conclude that BH candidates are as prone to Type I bursts as NSs are, provided they have surfaces.

Because our model focuses only on the most important physical effects, and neglects some details, the exact positions of the instability strips in Fig. 1 may be uncertain at the level of say a factor of two in accretion luminosity. We believe, however, that the overall pattern of instability is fairly robust. If at all, our computations are likely to be conservative in the sense that bursting behavior may be even more widespread than we predict.

## 4 Discussion

It is clear from the theory of bursts (Bildsten (1998) and references therein) that bursting behavior is largely determined by the surface gravity $`g`$, the mass accretion rate, and the composition of the accreting material. It is also clear that the accreting object must have a surface in order to burst. If there is no surface, material cannot accumulate, and therefore cannot become hot or dense enough to trigger a thermonuclear explosion. Indeed, using this argument, astronomers routinely identify any X-ray binary that has a Type I burst as a NS system.

We suggest that the argument could equally well be applied in reverse, at least in the case of X-ray novae: If an X-ray nova with a BH candidate (identified independently via a mass measurement) does not exhibit Type I bursts at any time during its accretion outburst, then we argue that the primary star cannot have a surface — the object must be a BH with an event horizon. To our knowledge, this simple argument has not been explored so far in the literature (but see Menou, 2002 (astro-ph/0111469).

While the argument is simple, it is not obvious that it is correct. The reason is that not all systems with surfaces necessarily have bursts; for instance, many NS X-ray binaries, e.g., the brighter Z sources and X-ray pulsars, do not burst. Clearly, it is necessary to understand through physical modeling under what conditions a compact star with a surface will or will not burst. This is the motivation behind the calculations presented here. Our results are shown in Fig. 1, with the top three panels corresponding to NSs and the bottom three panels to $`10M_{}`$ BH candidates with surfaces. In brief, we find that BH candidates with surfaces ought to burst as prolifically as NSs.

A notable feature of our results is that we find bursting behavior in BH candidates (with surfaces) for quite a wide range of $`L_{acc}/L_{Edd}`$, regardless of the radius of the accreting star. As discussed in the Introduction, the accretion rate in a typical X-ray nova spans a wide range during an accretion outburst. At maximum, the sources often approach $`L_{acc}L_{Edd}`$, at the right edge of a given panel in Fig. 1, while in quiescence, the sources are extremely underluminous, well off the left edge of the panels. Thus, during the rise to outburst and subsequent decline, each BH X-ray nova enters the plot on the left, moves horizontally all the way across, and then moves horizontally back, to disappear off the left edge. The journey typically takes a few months. During this entire journey, it is an amazing observational fact that not one of the BH candidates has ever had a Type I burst. Our calculations indicate that this is impossible if the sources have surfaces. Regardless of the radius of the BH candidate’s surface (which is of course unknown), the trajectory that the star traverses during an accretion outburst would always intersect wide stretches of instability. Moreover, according to our estimates, the burst recurrence time is of the order of a day in many regions of the diagram, which means that each source should exhibit many bursts during its months-long journey. The absence of bursts in BH X-ray novae is thus highly significant and argues strongly for the lack of surfaces in these systems.

Before we can claim that this “proves” the reality of the event horizon, more work is needed.

First, we need to explain why some NSs do not have bursts, and we should provide a convincing argument why the same explanation cannot be applied to BH candidates. We have discussed in this paper two categories of NSs that do not burst. (i) Most Z sources do not burst, and we explained this as the result of their luminosities being too close to $`L_{Edd}`$. Since BH X-ray novae span a wide range of $`L_{acc}`$, the explanation obviously does not apply to them. (ii) X-ray pulsars generally do not burst, and in this case the standard explanation is that magnetic funneling causes the “effective” accretion rate to approach the Eddington level locally. Since BH X-ray novae do not show coherent pulsations, it is extremely unlikely that they have the kind of magnetic funneling present in X-ray pulsars; therefore, once again, the explanation cannot be invoked for BH X-ray novae. We are not aware of other classes of NSs that do not burst, but if any are identified, it is necessary to explain the lack of bursts through physical modeling. It is also necessary to demonstrate that the same explanation does not apply to BH X-ray novae.

Second, we need to show that the model is able to reproduce the main features of Type I bursts as observed in NS X-ray binaries. For instance, the statistics of burst durations and recurrence times van Paradijs et al. (1988) ought to appear naturally in a realistic model.

Third, the role of the inner boundary condition needs to be explored in detail. In Fig. 1, we see that different choices of the base temperature for a BH candidate give similar results. We have tried other boundary conditions (e.g., we have applied a boundary condition on the flux Paczynski (1982) instead of the temperature), and also tried changing the composition of the accreting gas. In all cases we find that the accumulating layer is unstable to bursts for a wide range of $`L_{acc}/L_{Edd}`$, both for $`1.4M_{}`$ NSs and $`10M_{}`$ BH candidates with surfaces.

Fourth, the difficult issue of flame propagation over the surface of the star once the instability has been triggered needs to be addressed (e.g., Spitkovsky et al. (2002)). In this context, we note the empirical fact that the flame clearly propagates with no trouble on NSs, as indicated by the fact that these objects do exhibit bursts. The key question is: could the propagation physics be so delicate that the burning front stops propagating when the mass of the star changes from $`1.4M_{}`$ to $`10M_{}`$? We do not know the answer to this question.

We should caution, morever, that the analysis presented here assumes that the accumulating gas on the surface of a BH candidate behaves like normal matter, with nucleons and electrons. Obviously, our arguments would become invalid if the properties of the gas changed drastically, e.g., if the nuclei disappeared and were replaced by quarks. Whether such extreme changes are plausible on the surface of a strange star remains to be seen. The density and pressure at the base of the bursting layer do not go above $`\mathrm{few}\times 10^8\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^3`$ and $`10^{26}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^3`$, respectively, even in the most extreme cases we have considered. It is hard to imagine exotic physics being important under these conditions Glendenning (1997).

On the observational front, we should check whether some NSs that lie within the unstable regions of Fig. 1 are stable to bursts. Any obvious large-scale disagreement between the observed burst behavior of NSs and the results presented here would indicate that the model is missing important physics. We are not aware of serious discrepancies of this nature, but the matter clearly deserves careful study.

In the case of BH X-ray novae, we should use observational data to derive strict quantitative limits on bursting activity. The current data are already compelling — no burst has been reported from any of the dozen or so BH X-ray novae with dynamically measured primary masses. Nevertheless, a careful study of archival data on past X-ray novae as well as data to be collected on future novae is needed to rule out the possibility that bursts might have been missed. This is well worth the effort since a firm demonstration that BH transients do not have Type I bursts at any point in their light curves would, as we have shown, provide a strong argument for the presence of event horizons in these systems.

We thank Andrew Cumming, Alex Ene, Kristen Menou, Bohdan Paczynski and Greg Ushomirsky for useful discussions. RN was supported in part by the W. M. Keck Foundation as a Keck Distinguished Visiting Professor. RN’s research was supported by NSF grant AST-9820686 and NASA grant NAG5-10780. JSH was supported by the Chandra Postdoctoral Fellowship Award # PF0-10015 issued by the Chandra X-ray Observatory Center, which is operated by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory for and on behalf of NASA under contract NAS8-39073.


text:
# Charge transport of Bi2-xPbxSr2ErCu2O8 single crystals near the insulator-superconductor transition

## I Introduction

As is well known, high-$`T_c`$ superconductivity is realized by doping carriers into the CuO2 plane for the parent Mott insulator. The insulator-metal transition (IMT) of high-$`T_c`$ superconductors is significantly different from that of a doped semiconductor in the sense that the doped carriers exhibit superconductivity as soon as they become metallic. In fact, the mechanism of the IMT is quite unconventional. For La2-xSrxCuO4, for example, the doped carriers form a stripe, and the stripe direction changes from the diagonal to the parallel direction at IMT Wakimoto .

The Bi-based cuprate Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8 (Bi-2212) is considered to be the counter part to La2-xSrxCuO4. This compound is away from the stripe instability, and no static stripe order is reported for the parent insulator of Bi-2212. We have studied the transport properties of the parent insulator of Bi-2212, and proposed that the high-temperature charge dynamics is essentially similar to that for high-$`T_c`$ superconductors Kitajima ; Takemura .

Previously we successfully prepared single crystals of the parent insulator Bi2Sr2RCu2O8 for various rare earth ions R (R=Dy, Er, Y), and found that R=Er is most conducting Takemura . However the carrier concentration of the R=Er sample was 0.03 hole per Cu, which is still smaller than the critical concentration ($``$0.05). In order to dope more holes in the CuO2 plane, we focus on the Pb substitution. As is well established, the Pb substitution for Bi supplies holes for the superconducting samples of Bi2Sr2CuO6 and Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8 Maeda ; Motohashi . Here we report on the characterization and charge transport of Bi2-xPbxSr2ErCu2O8 single crystals.

## II Experimental

Single crystals of Bi2-xPbxSr2ErCu2O8 were prepared by a Bi2O3/CuO flux technique. A mixture of Bi2O3, PbO, SrCO3, Er2O3 and CuO powder was charged in an Al2O3 crucible, heated up to 1373 K, slowly cooled down to 1173 K with a rate of 0.5-1 K/h. The ratio of the starting powder was Bi:Pb:Sr:Er:Cu=2-$`x`$:$`2x`$:2:1:2, which is nearly stoichiometric except that the Pb content was doubled. Obtained crystals were plate-like, and the sizes were larger for larger $`x`$ with a typical dimension of 3$`\times `$3$`\times `$0.05 mm3 for $`x`$=0.6 and 0.8. An energy-dispersive x-ray (EDX) analysis revealed that Bi+Pb and Sr are slightly excessive, and the content was estimated to be (Bi+Pb)2.2Sr2.7Er0.7Cu2Oy (within an experimental error of 10%).

The resistivity was measured with the four-probe method, and the $`ab`$-plane thermopower was measured with the steady-state technique described previously Takemura . The $`c`$-axis dielectric constant from 106 to 108 Hz was measured with an rf LCR meter (Agilent 4287A) with a similar technique by Böhmer et al.Bohmer .

## III Results and Discussion

In Fig. 1 is plotted the actual Pb content and the $`c`$-axis length of the prepared crystals as a function of the starting Pb composition. The actual Pb content is well controlled, and well corresponds to the starting composition. The $`c`$-axis length does not systematically change with the Pb content, whose reason is not understood at present.

Figure 2 shows the $`ab`$-plane ($`\rho _{ab}`$) and $`c`$-axis ($`\rho _c`$) resistivity. $`\rho _{ab}`$ and $`\rho _c`$ decrease with increasing Pb content, which indicates that the substituted Pb supplies holes in the CuO2 plane. For $`x`$=0.8, $`\rho _{ab}`$ at 300 K is of the order of m$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$cm, and a tiny drop (a trace of superconductivity) in $`\rho _{ab}`$ and $`\rho _c`$ near 70 K is observed. These results clearly indicate that the doping level is very close to the IMT.

Figure 3 shows the $`ab`$-plane thermopower. Although the magnitude systematically decreases with the Pb content, the increase in the hole concentration is much smaller than expected. Estimated from the room-temperature thermopower Tallon , the hole concentration per Cu is increased only from 0.03 to 0.04 by increasing the Pb content from 0 to 0.8. This is more than one order of magnitude smaller than the value calculated by assuming that one Pb2+ ion supplies one hole. Perhaps this is because the substituted Pb removes the excess oxygen, which compensates the carrier concentration. In fact, the modulation structure in the Bi2O2 plane due to the excess oxygen disappears near $`x`$=0.8 Tanaka .

Figure 4 shows the $`c`$-axis dielectric constant at 80 K. A systematic change with the Pb content is seen, and the most conducting sample of $`x`$=0.8 exhibits a small and frequency-independent value. This is quite different from our previous measurement on the Pb-free Bi-2212 crystals, where the large magnitude with the dielectric relaxation is seen yanagi . At present we cannot specify the reason of the difference, but we wonder whether the excess oxygen plays an important role. Recent scanning tunnel microscope/spectroscopy has revealed unexpected inhomogeneous electronic states of high-temperature superconductors. Pan et al. pan  found that the local density of states are inhomogeneous in the CuO2 plane of the optimally doped Bi-2212, where the doped carriers form a metallic patch. Considering that the metallic patch is located near the excess oxygen, we think it natural that the charge is more or less homogeneous in the Pb substituted (and consequently excess-oxygen free) sample. Since the dielectric constant is a measure of the inhomogeneity yanagi , it would be small where the charge is homogeneously distributed. In any case, the dielectric constant does not diverge near the IMT, which makes a remarkable contrast with the IMT in doped semiconductors rosenbaum .

## IV Summary

Single crystals of the Pb-substituted Bi-2212 parent insulator Bi2-xPbxSr2ErCu2O8 were successfully synthesised from $`x`$=0 to 0.8. Holes are systematically doped with increasing Pb content, but the increased concentration is as small as 0.01 per Cu from $`x`$=0 to 0.8. The most conducting sample of $`x`$=0.8 is very close to the IMT, and a tiny trace of superconductivity is observed. The dielectric constant is measured to be small and frequency-independent, which would imply that the charge is distributed more homogeneously than in the Pb-free sample.

The authors would like to thank K. Yoshida, S. Tajima, and S. Tanaka for the technical support of rf impedance measurement. They also thank A. Fujimori, N. Harima and K. Tanaka for fruitful discussion. This research was partially supported by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C), 2001, No. 13640374.


text:
# Next Steps

## I Thanks!

We’ve come to the end of three weeks of intense work, and we have shattered all precedents for participation in a Snowmass summer study. We have numbered more than 1200, including more than eighty students, more than two hundred “young physicists,” and more than two hundred colleagues from outside the United States. On behalf of the American Physical Society and its Division of Particles & Fields and Division of Physics of Beams, I thank you for coming to Snowmass in such great numbers, and with such optimism and appetite for hard work.

Throughout the planning and execution of Snowmass 2001, we have benefited from the wise counsel and manifold support of the leaders of the American Physical Society. I’d particularly like to acknowledge the rôles of Executive Officer Judy Franz, President George Trilling, and Past President Jim Langer.

It is also my great pleasure to express on your behalf our thanks and admiration to the people who made our work possible. You may know that we said we would define 500 participants as a successful summer study, we planned for about 800, and the people who make things happen have had to provide for the needs of 1200. I’d like to begin by saluting our friends in the Snowmass 2001 conference office: Cindy Arnold, Jody Federwitz, Ray Fonseca, Michelle Gleason, Carolyn James, Wanda Newby, Marilyn Paul, Barb Perington, Patti Poole, Cynthia Sazama, Marilyn Smith, and Suzanne Weber; as well as Shefali Kubavat and Carol Kuc of Complete Conference Coordinators. Computing support, including the very helpful wireless network here in the Conference Center, was provided by Chuck Andrews, John Bellendir, Alden Clifford, Larry English, Steve Fry, Rick Hill, Kip Kippenham, Andy Rader, Cameron Smith, John Urish, and Jerry Zimmerman. The streaming-video archive of plenary sessions and other important events was made possible by Al Johnson, Jim Shultz, and Fred Ullrich.

All of the work behind the scenes was coordinated by the Local Organizing Committee led by Jeff Appel. I’m personally grateful to Jeff not only for making all the pieces fit together, but also for functioning with unfailing grace and impeccable judgment as a chief-of-staff throughout the workshop. For all of us, I want to thank Mike Witherell for making available to the summer study Fermilab’s remarkable logistical support. I’m also grateful to Jonathan Dorfan for making SLAC’s resources available to produce the Proceedings, and to Norman Graf for agreeing to serve as Editor. While Snowmass 2001 is a creation of the DPF and DPB, it could not have happened without the leadership of our great laboratories.

It’s a great pleasure to recognize again the marvelous contributions of my colleagues on the Snowmass 2001 Organizing Committee, and to thank them for their wisdom, hard work, and community spirit: Ron Davidson (PPPL, co-chair), 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; and 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.

It’s also my happy task to thank the working group convenors for the extraordinarily rich program we’ve experienced at Snowmass 2001:

Accelerator Working Groups. M1: Muon-Based Systems. Kirk McDonald (Princeton), Andrew Sessler (LBNL); M2: $`e^+e^{}`$ Circular Colliders. K. Oide (KEK), J. Seeman (SLAC), S. Henderson (Cornell); M3: Linear Colliders. R. Brinkman (DESY), N. Toge (KEK), T. Raubenheimer (SLAC); M4: Hadron Colliders. S. Peggs (BNL), M. Syphers (Fermilab); M5: Lepton-Hadron Colliders. I. Ben-Zvi (BNL), G. Hoffstaetter (DESY); M6: High-Intensity Proton Sources. W. Chou (Fermilab), J. Wei (BNL).

Technology Working Groups. T1: Interaction Regions. T. Markiewicz (SLAC), F. Pilat (BNL); T2: Magnet Technology. S. Gourlay (LBNL), V. Kashikan (Fermilab); T3: RF Technology. C. Adolphsen (SLAC), N. Holtkamp (SNS), H. Padamsee (Cornell); T4: Particle Sources. J. Sheppard (SLAC), N. Mokhov (Fermilab), S. Werkema (Fermilab); T5: Beam Dynamics. M. Blaskiewicz (BNL), K.-J. Kim (Argonne), S. Y. Lee (Indiana); T6: Environmental Control. W. Bialowons (DESY), C. Laughton (Fermilab), A. Seryi (SLAC); T7: High-Performance Computing. K. Ko (SLAC), N. Ryne (Los Alamos); T8: Advanced Acceleration Techniques. C. Joshi (UCLA), P. Sprangle (NRL); T9: Diagnostics. R. Pasquinelli (Fermilab), M. Ross (SLAC).

Physics Working Groups. P1: Electroweak Symmetry Breaking. Marcela Carena (Fermilab), David Gerdes (Michigan), Howard Haber (Santa Cruz), André Turcot (Brookhaven), Peter Zerwas (DESY); P2: Flavor Physics. Belén Gavela (Madrid), Boris Kayser (NSF), Clark McGrew (Stony Brook), Patricia Rankin (Colorado); P3: Scales beyond 1 TeV. Michael Dine (Santa Cruz), JoAnne Hewett (SLAC), Greg Landsberg (Brown), David Miller (UCL); P4: Astro/Cosmo/Particle Physics. Dan Akerib (Case-Western Reserve), Sean Carroll (Chicago), Mark Kamionkowski (Caltech), Steve Ritz (NASA/Goddard); P5: QCD & Strong Interactions. Brenna Flaugher (Fermilab), Ed Kinney (Colorado), Paul Mackenzie (Fermilab), George Sterman (Stony Brook).

Experimental Approaches Working Groups. E1: Neutrino Factories & Muon Colliders. Vernon Barger (Wisconsin), Debbie Harris (Fermilab), Yoshi Kuno (Osaka), Mike Zeller (Yale, HMO); E2: $`e^+e^{}`$ Colliders below the $`Z`$. Gustavo Burdman (BU), Ian Shipsey (Purdue), Hitoshi Yamamoto (Hawaii), Joel Butler (Fermilab, HMO); E3: Linear Colliders. Marco Battaglia (CERN), John Jaros (SLAC), James Wells (Davis),Ian Hinchliffe (LBNL, HMO); E4: Hadron & Lepton-Hadron Colliders. Uli Baur (Buffalo), Raymond Brock (Michigan State), John Parsons (Columbia), Bill Marciano (Brookhaven, HMO); E5: Fixed-Target Experiments. Krishna Kumar (UMass), Ron Ray (Fermilab), Paul Reimer (Argonne), Mark Strovink (Berkeley, HMO); E6: Astro/Cosmo/Particle Experiments. Kevin Lesko (LBNL), Suzanne Staggs (Princeton), Tim McKay (Michigan), Harry Nelson (UCSB, HMO); E7: Particle Physics & Technology. Stephan Lammel (Fermilab), Wesley Smith (Wisconsin).

Thanks as well to the IEEE/NPSS Committee for Technology Emphasis: Bruce C. Brown, Matthew A. Allen, William M. Bugg, Peter Clout, John E. Elias, Erik Heijne, Thomas Katsouleas, Ray S. Larsen, Patrick Le Du, Alan Todd, Craig L. Woody, and to the thirty-eight presenters of lectures and courses.

The exceptional program of engagement with the public here at Snowmass 2001 was constructed by the Outreach Coordinating Committee made up of Elizabeth Simmons (chair), Marge Bardeen, Martin Berz, Bill Frazer, Evalyn Gates, Joey Huston, Ronen Mir, Mel Month, Helen Quinn, Deborah Roudebush, Greg Snow, Ken Taylor, and Jeff Wilkes, with staff support from Melissa Clayton. More than a hundred of you took part in Science Weekend and the other outreach activities, which were notable for the great joy they brought both to the public and to the physicist participants. I’d especially like to recognize the contributions of Mayda Velasco (who animated La Noche de la Ciencia), Marko Popovic, Kevin Lynch, Shreyas Bhat, Lawrence Krauss, Leon Lederman, and Liz Quigg. Support for the Snowmass 2001 outreach and education program was provided by the Division of Particles and Fields and the Division of Physics of Beams of the American Physical Society, the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, Universities Research Association, the IEEE Council on SuperConductivity, Maggie and Nick DeWolf, and by other public-spirited individuals and organizations. We appreciate very much the cooperation of Snowmass Village for giving us the run of the mall for Science Weekend and for other courtesies, and the collaboration of Explore Booksellers of Aspen, the Aspen Public Schools, Camp Snowmass (Sue Way), the Science Outreach Center of Carbondale (Linda Froning), and the Carbondale Community School.

Also making Snowmass 2001 a public event—in the Roaring Fork Valley and around the world—was our full-time (which came close to 24/7) Press Room. I thank Judy Jackson, Mike Perricone, Kurt Riesselman, and Mieke van den Bergen (all of Fermilab) for all their contributions—visible and behind the scenes—to the success of our summer study.

Thanks again to our sponsors, the United States Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, and NASA, and to the ten laboratories engaged in particle physics research in the United States who have supported our cause: 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.

## II Wonderful Things
Have Been Happening Here

We have rediscovered our community and our sense of common destiny. We have celebrated the astonishing progress and remarkable promise of particle physics, broadly understood.

No one should miss the conclusion that ours is a community on the move, worldwide.

We have taken pleasure in the inventiveness and careful thought of our colleagues who dream, design, and build accelerators and the components that make them possible. We have mixed; we have engaged with each other’s aspirations and significantly advanced a number of ideas. Every large future accelerator project is taken more seriously, and valued more highly, than it was when we assembled three weeks ago. That outcome is a testimony both to the superb work being done by our colleagues who create accelerator possibilities and to the generous and open spirit all of you brought to Snowmass.

Our conception of the scientific landscape has been enriched by the high level of participation by our astro/cosmo/particle colleagues, including those from communities that have not traditionally identified with particle physics.

We have relished the global reach of our science. We profited from the contributions—formal and informal—of international laboratory directors Alessandro Bettini (Gran Sasso), Luciano Maiani (CERN), Alexander Skrinsky (BINP), Hirotaka Sugawara (KEK), and Albrecht Wagner (DESY), as well as the spirited participation of the leaders of U.S. laboratories, Jonathan Dorfan (SLAC), Tom Kirk (BNL), Maury Tigner (Cornell), and Mike Witherell (Fermilab). Ian Corbett brought important insights into the work of the Global Science Forum, while Ferdi Willeke reported on the work of the ICFA Committees exploring the idea of a Global Accelerator Network. Lorenzo Foà and Satoru Yamashita presented conclusions of the European and Japanese planning exercises.

We have enjoyed an atmosphere of excellence and optimism and savored the inspiring promise of youth. Young physicists plunged into the activities of the working groups and also created a vigorous program of their own, which culminated in the Young Physicists Forum attended by many Snowmass participants of all ages. A Young Particle Physicists organization is taking shape. For the latest word, see the web site at http://ypp.hep.net; results of the survey carried out by the young physicists can be found at http://ypp.hep.net/ypp\_survey.html.

Other special events included half-day “teach-ins” on opportunities in accelerator research and development and on the new world of astro/cosmo/particle physics, and communications workshops that brought together science writers, Washington communicators, public affairs professional from many laboratories in the US and abroad, and physicists. The HEPAP subpanel on long-range planning, led by Jonathan Bagger and Barry Barish, participated actively in the work of Snowmass 2001, and used the workshop to solicit and receive input of many kinds from the community. The NAS/NRC Committee on Physics of the Universe, led by Mike Turner, also met at Snowmass, as did the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel.

The main products of Snowmass 2001 will, as always, be the individual contributions and the working group summaries to appear in the Proceedings. This year, we undertook two special projects as well. The Division of Particles and Fields has produced a twenty-page illustrated survey of the grand themes and aspirations of particle physics, called Quarks Unbound, which will soon appear in the mailboxes of all DPF members. Quarks Unbound was written by science writer Sharon Butler, based on her interviews and discussions with many members of the community. We owe a special debt of gratitude to two members of the Snowmass Organizing Committee, Joe Lykken and Maria Spiropulu, for their dedication to the project. We will be using Quarks Unbound widely to communicate the excitement and promise of particle physics. The Division of Physics of Beams has used the work at Snowmass to create a cogent blueprint for future accelerator research and development (see http://www.hep.anl.gov/pvs/dpb/Snowmass.pdf). All this is only the beginning; we planted many seeds at Snowmass 2001, and we will be harvesting their fruits for many years.

## III Reviewing the Goals
for Snowmass 2001

We have made decisive progress on all the goals I set out three weeks ago, and I trust that you have discovered many new things to think about and to work on in the months and years to come.

We have made an excellent start toward surveying our aspirations for particle physics over 30 years by educating ourselves about the full range of possibilities before us. We were aided immeasurably in the Experimental Approaches working groups by the “High-Minded Outsiders,” who served as friendly skeptics, probing and strengthening arguments. Our explorations were aided as well by the presence of string theorists who helped us look beyond our immediate goals to contemplate the shape of a more complete, more ambitious theoretical framework. On the machine front, the work carried out at Snowmass has help us to understand the investment we must make (financial and human capital) to bring the most promising lines to maturity.

We need to continue the conversation about the degree of scientific diversity, including scale diversity, that we need to build a healthy and productive future for particle physics.

We must continue to work toward articulating 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.

Three weeks ago, I observed that “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.”

At Snowmass 2001, a widespread feeling has emerged that the world community should move urgently to construct a TeV-scale linear collider as an international project. *These are ambitious machines and significant challenges remain: we must be certain of the costs and we must take the measure of technical risks. A phase change is needed to complete the design and development promptly.*

In the United States, another phase change is needed soon in the commitment of experimental physicists to the linear collider program. A few people have done valuable work, but outside the US, many more people have done much more comprehensive work. US participation in a linear collider will not be decisive without the engagement of a large and energetic cadre of superb experimenters to hone the physics case, participate in parameter choices, and work side-by-side with the machine builders. If you wait, it will not happen! It is also time for closer cooperation among physicists in different regions on linear collider issues: to coordinate R&D, to develop a unified physics document, and to make the scientific case to the governments of the world—perhaps it is the moment to form an International Linear Collider Users Group?

## IV When you go home …

Continue to think about what you have heard and done at Snowmass.

Talk with your particle physics colleagues about what you have seen and heard and done here. Arrange seminars to share the Snowmass 2001 experience with all your students and colleagues.

Write your advice to the HEPAP subpanel; If you wrote long ago, reread your letter to see how your thinking has evolved.

Talk with your colleagues in other fields of physics and astronomy about Snowmass 2001. Share your enthusiasm! Give a colloquium early in the school year about the future of particle physics.

Talk with your colleagues in other fields about their excitement and aspirations. Help your students appreciate the exciting futures all across physics and astronomy.

We’ve heard at Snowmass 2001 from many gifted, articulate, and inspiring colleagues: Invite them to visit your department. Hire them!

No department is whole without some presence in experimental particle physics, particle theory that engages with experiment, accelerator physics, astro/cosmo/particle physics, string theory (to speak only of our immediate neighborhood). Make your institution stronger, and you strengthen our science.

## V Mike Holland’s
“Insulting” Questions

Members of Congress, Congressional Staff, and White House Staff are busy people. Their first response to any request is, “No.” If you go away and never come back, they gave the right answer.

Their second response to any request is, “You don’t have a plan.” If you go away and never come back, they gave the right answer.

It is not unknown for our friends to ask hostile questions in hopes of learning whether we have answers they can use when they are asked hostile questions.

Some people in Washington and some scientists do not have our interests at heart. We must not let them seize the agenda and frame the debate, but when they ask easy questions for nefarious purposes, we should leap to give compelling answers. So when someone throws you a fat pitch, asking “Does particle physics require accelerators?” or “What is the value of particle physics to other sciences and to society?” do not squander time and adrenaline fulminating about the injustice, just smack the ball over the fence.

## VI Ask More of the
United States Government

The difficult environment for funding the physical sciences reflects, I believe, a deeper problem in our society. For more than a decade, the will to join together and undertake challenging and important causes for the general good has been too little in evidence. This is an aberration in American history, and we must change it.

In a time of unparalleled prosperity, every section of every appropriations bill seems to begin, “Because of severe budgetary constraints …” We are still waiting for the peace dividend.

What can we do? We must demand better! The public believes in science and exploration, and we are asking questions that engage the public’s imagination. We must help people in government and the media to understand this.

Basic research (and not only particle physics) is a superb investment on many levels. Don’t be timid (but be sensible). Many people are dining out on the World Wide Web, an unprogrammed dividend of a tiny fraction of the world’s investment in particle physics. If people want to count beans, we must insist that they count *all* the beans.

Like every individual, every nation must decide what constitutes a meaningful life. Share your passions and your dreams, and lift the eyes of those who govern!

## VII Onward and Upward!

Making a new world is not accomplished in three weeks or three months or three years, but we have made a wonderful start here at Snowmass 2001. Your passion, energy, creativity, and commitment truly did begin to change the world. Thank you!


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

We have reached the time where the advance in neutrino experiments enables quite accurate global fits on the leptonic mixing angles. Simultaneously, the advent of the neutrino masses gives hope to infer on the specific departures from the standard model (SM). In this sense we explore here a further discovery potential of the neutrino–electron scattering.

Ever since the earliest studies of the neutrino–electron scattering, this particular process remained in a focus of interest. The underlying *diagonal* $`\nu `$$`e`$ interaction density is provided by the SM, which at energies much lower than $`M_W`$ gives

$$^{\text{diag}}(x)=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\overline{e}\gamma ^\mu (g_Vg_A\gamma _5)e\overline{\nu }\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)\nu .$$
(1)
Here $`g_V`$ and $`g_A`$ are the SM couplings, where both charged and neutral current contribute for $`\nu =\nu _e`$ ($`g_V=1/2+2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$, $`g_A=1/2`$), whereas there is only neutral current contribution for $`\nu =\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$ ($`g_V=1/2+2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$, $`g_A=1/2`$).

On the experimental side, the results for atmospheric neutrinos , in conjunction with the results from the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) , show that the disappearance of one neutrino flavour (such as reported by the SuperKamiokande) is accompanied by the appearance of another. Such conversion of the neutrino species appears naturally if neutrinos have nonvanishing masses.

The neutrino masses imply at least a minimal extension of the SM, where a mismatch in diagonalizing mass matrices of charged and neutral leptons results in a $`3\times 3`$ flavour mixing matrix. It enters the leptonic charged current interactions, that generalizes the interaction (1) to the *nondiagonal* $`\nu _H`$ $``$ $`\nu _L`$ transition

$$_{\text{rad}}^{\text{non-diag}}(x)=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\overline{e}\gamma ^\mu (f_Vf_A\gamma _5)e\overline{\nu }_L\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)\nu _H.$$
(2)
Here, $`\nu _H`$ and $`\nu _L`$ are just generic labels for neutrino mass eigenstates. The form of Eq. (2) explicates the lepton conversion in the neutrino sector, rather than in the charged lepton sector.

In a more ambitious approach, where one attempts to explain neutrino masses, one faces the theories that include non-standard interactions (NSI) of neutrinos with matter . In particular, we focus here to the neutrino conversion via left- ($`L=(1\gamma _5)/2`$) and right-handed ($`R=(1+\gamma _5)/2`$) neutral current NSI of the form

$$_{\text{eff}}^{\text{NSI}}=\sqrt{2}G_F\left[ϵ_{\alpha \beta }^{eL}\overline{e}\gamma ^\mu Le+ϵ_{\alpha \beta }^{eR}\overline{e}\gamma ^\mu Re\right]\left[\overline{\nu }_\alpha \gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)\nu _\beta \right]$$
(3)
explored further by . Such neutral current interactions may be confused with the higher loop effects of the charged currents, comprised in the $`f_{V,A}`$ terms in (2).

In the next section we will present a novel contribution to the axial form-factor $`f_A`$ in (2) arising from the charged current transition at the two-loop level. In Sect. 3 we will demonstrate that, due to the fact that the SM based loop contribution is small, there is ample space left for a discovery of certain NSI contributions.

## 2 The Neutrino Conversion in the Presence of the Axial Coupling to Electrons

Let us recall a heuristic role of an early study of radiative corrections to the neutrino–electron scattering. The radiative correction at order $`\alpha ^2`$ displayed on Fig. 1 generates an infinite nonrenormalizable contribution to the $`g_A`$ form-factor of the diagonal interaction (1). Adler  observed this infinite radiative correction to $`\nu _ll`$ scattering by embedding the triangle diagram calculated by Rosenberg  into the next loop. In present day terminology, the axial triangle anomaly resides in the neutral current piece of the $`\nu `$$`e`$ interaction displayed on Fig. 1(b).

Among possible remedies for infinities proposed by Adler , the idea to add to the electron triangle on Fig. 1(b) the muon triangle with opposite sign, survived in its essence to the present day. The quantum numbers assigned to the SM fermion representations confirmed such cancellation for each generation of fundamental fermions, and this *anomaly cancelation* remained as a guiding principle for model building ever since.

In addition to this piece of the neutrino axial current for which nature took care by itself, neutrino masses invoke another contribution at same order of $`\alpha ^2`$, that is finite. Up to our knowledge, this extra part to which we turn in this paper, is novel in the literature.

Let us look how such counterpart to original Adler’s contribution sets in for massive neutrinos. In this case, the neutrino flavour eigenstates are mixtures of the mass eigenstates, described by the leptonic 3$`\times `$3 unitary matrix (nowadays dubbed the Pontecorvo-Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata $`U_{\text{PMNS}}`$ matrix , in analogy to the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix in the quark sector of the Standard model)

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _e\\ \nu _\mu \\ \nu _\tau \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}U_{e1}& U_{e2}& U_{e3}\\ U_{\mu 1}& U_{\mu 2}& U_{\mu 3}\\ U_{\tau 1}& U_{\tau 2}& U_{\tau 3}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _1\\ \nu _2\\ \nu _3\end{array}\right)U_{\text{PMNS}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _1\\ \nu _2\\ \nu _3\end{array}\right).$$
(4)
Note that the flavour violation induced by the PMNS mixing (similarly to the one by the CKM mixing) does not affect the renormalizability of the electroweak theory. Thus, a safe evaluation of the quantum-loop corrections is possible. Recently, we employed this framework in calculating lepton-flavour violating annihilation of muonium . Now we consider the radiative corrections which will allow for the neutrino conversion via the two-photon exchange similar to Fig. 1(a).

Since the PMNS mixing affects only the charged current, our starting point is the tree diagram displayed on Fig. 2(a). Its two-photon radiative corrections will result in Fig. 2(b) as the nondiagonal counterpart to Fig. 1.

The referent tree-level amplitude corresponding to the diagram on Fig. 2(a) reads (after a Fierz transformation)

$$𝒜_{\text{tree}}=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\underset{\alpha =\mu ,\tau }{}\lambda _\alpha \overline{u}(p)\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma _5)u(P)\overline{u}(k_{})\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)v(k_+),$$
(5)
where the summation over combinations $`\lambda _\alpha U_{\alpha H}^{}U_{\alpha L}`$ appears on account of the unitarity of $`U_{\text{PMNS}}`$. Concerning the radiative corrections at one-loop (1L) level, we refer to  (whose notation and kinematics we keep on Fig 2a and in our formulae for easier comparison). Notably, the diagram corresponding to the one-photon variant of Fig. 2b dominates in the set of electroweak diagrams considered in . The pertinent amplitude

$$𝒜_{\text{rad}}^{\text{1L}}=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{e^2}{24\pi ^2}\left[\underset{\alpha =\mu ,\tau }{}\lambda _\alpha \mathrm{ln}\frac{m_\alpha ^2}{m_e^2}\right]\overline{u}(p)\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma _5)u(P)\overline{u}(k_{})\gamma _\mu v(k_+),$$
(6)
contains purely vector electron current. Thus, in the sum of (5) and (6)

$$𝒜_{\text{tree}}+𝒜_{\text{rad}}^{\text{1L}}=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\overline{u}(p)\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma _5)u(P)\overline{u}(k_{})\gamma _\mu (f_Vf_A\gamma _5)v(k_+),$$
(7)
the mentioned one-loop radiative correction modifies only the vector form factor, and gives

$$f_V=\underset{\alpha =\mu ,\tau }{}\lambda _\alpha (1+f_\alpha ^{\text{1L}}).$$
(8)
Thereby, the correction term in eq. (8) acquires a simple leading logarithmic form,

$$f_\alpha ^{\text{1L}}=\frac{\alpha }{3\pi }\mathrm{ln}\frac{m_\alpha }{m_e}.$$
(9)
Now we turn to radiative corrections indicated on Fig. 2(b), which will give a contribution to the axial-vector form factor $`f_A`$ in (7). This contribution corresponds to the two-loop electroweak diagrams considered by us  in the context of the flavour-changing $`s\overline{d}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ transitions.

After adding the photon-crossed counterpart to the diagram on Fig. 2(b), the terms symmetric in indices $`\mu \nu `$ cancel, and we are left with the amplitude

$$𝒜_{\text{rad}}^{\text{2L}}=2e^2\overline{u}(k_{})\gamma _\beta \gamma _5v(k_+)\frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{q^4}ϵ^{\beta \mu \sigma \nu }q_\sigma \overline{u}(p)M_{\mu \nu }u(P).$$
(10)
Here $`M_{\mu \nu }`$ denotes the $`\nu _H\nu _L\gamma \gamma `$ vertex, and the one-particle irreducible diagrams contributing to it in ’t Hooft-Feynman gauge are displayed on Fig. 3. Diagrams similar to (A3) and (A3b) but with Higgs boson $`\varphi `$ in place of one or both of the vertical-line $`W`$ bosons turn out to be $`\mu \nu `$ symmetric, so they don’t contribute after contraction with Levi-Civita tensor in (10). Diagrams employing four-boson $`WW\gamma \gamma `$ and $`\varphi \varphi \gamma \gamma `$ vertices vanish for the same reason.

The respective insertions enumerated on Fig. 3 build up the two-loop radiative amplitude

$$𝒜_{\text{rad}}^{\text{2L}}=\frac{G_F}{4\sqrt{2}}\frac{9}{4}\frac{\alpha ^2}{\pi ^2}\underset{\alpha =\mu ,\tau }{}\lambda _\alpha A_{(\alpha ,e)}\overline{u}(p)\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma _5)u(P)\overline{u}(k_{})\gamma _\mu \gamma _5v(k_+),$$
(11)
which modifies the axial-vector form factor $`f_A`$. Note that potentially large logarithms of the type $`\mathrm{ln}M_W^2/m_l^2`$ get suppressed by the GIM mechanism.

The net result

$$f_A=\underset{\alpha =\mu ,\tau }{}\lambda _\alpha (1+\frac{9\alpha ^2}{16\pi ^2}A_{(\alpha ,e)}),$$
(12)
is expressed in terms of the GIM-like combinations $`A_{(\mu ,e)}`$ and $`A_{(\tau ,e)}`$, displayed in Table 1.

Since the dominant contribution comes from the (A1) diagram in Fig. 3, one can rely on the simple leading-log analytical form of these functions ($`A_{(\alpha ,e)}f_\alpha ^{\text{2L}}`$) in correspondence to the analytical expressions deduced previously . In close analogy to the one-loop radiative correction in (8) and (9), our two-loop radiative correction reads

$`f_A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =\mu ,\tau }{}}\lambda _\alpha (1+f_\alpha ^{\text{2L}}),`$ (13)
$`f_\alpha ^{\text{2L}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{\pi ^2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\alpha ^2}{m_e^2}}.`$ (14)
The dominant $`\tau `$-loop ($`\alpha =\tau `$) corrections to the referent tree-loop amplitude, given by expressions (9) and (14), are numerically

$$f_\tau ^{\text{1L}}6.3\times 10^3,f_\tau ^{\text{2L}}6.6\times 10^5.$$
(15)
In order to estimate $`f_V`$ and $`f_A`$, one has to include also the PMNS-matrix prefactors, for which we now have the first strong experimental hints.

## 3 Conclusion

The existing neutrino experiments enable quite accurate global fits on the PMNS matrix elements. Unanticipated outcome of these experiments are large mixings. Let us, for definiteness, refer to the result of an earlier analysis by Fukugita and Tanimoto , based on the solar (SNO ) and atmospheric (SuperKamiokande ) neutrino data. Their solution shows a “democratic” mixing, very different from the “hierarchical” one experienced in the quark sector. The least known matrix element has been constrained here by the CHOOZ reactor experiment ($`|U_{e3}|<0.16`$).

Let us stress that for sufficiently heavy neutrino ($`\nu _H`$), such as the one allowed by the existing *direct* experimental mass limit of $``$18 MeV for $`\nu _\tau `$, the diagrams in Fig. 2 could give rise to the $`\nu _H(P)\nu _L(p)e^+(k_+)e^{}(k_{})`$ decay. This decay was originally considered in , used for constraining the $`|U_{e3}|`$ PMNS matrix element in , and reconsidered later in . However, the recent measurements squeeze neutrinos to sub-eV mass eigenstates that exclude this decay, and leave us with the scattering variant studied here.

In the meantime, an additional possibility to constrain $`|U_{e3}|`$ came with the results of KamLAND experiment . For example, it allows in Ref.  to deduce the bounds $`0.04<|U_{e3}|<0.19`$. This prediction came on account of assuming Fritzsch-type lepton mass matrices adopted earlier by the same authors . The range of parameters allowed by the KamLAND, as given by

$$U_{\text{PMNS}}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0.760.86& 0.500.63& 0.040.19\\ 0.270.48& 0.630.72& 0.600.71\\ 0.340.49& 0.420.58& 0.710.80\end{array}\right),$$
(16)
turns out to be quite narrow and is a subject of future tests in neutrino experiments. These values enable us to give a definite prediction for $`f_{V,A}`$, which can be compared with the corresponding NSI contributions in (3).

The present bounds for the relevant NSI parameters are quite modest

$$|ϵ_{\tau e}^{eL}|<0.4,|ϵ_{\tau e}^{eR}|<0.7.$$
(17)
They compare to $`f_{L,R}=(f_V\pm f_A)/2`$ combinations of form factors (8) and (13)

$$|f_L|<0.16,|f_R|<1.3\times 10^3,$$
(18)
where the loop results in (15) are further modulated by the matrix elements from (16). Thereby, the leading contribution given by $`f_\tau ^{1L}`$ in (15) is numerically further suppressed. Consequently, the “standard” radiative corrections encoded in (2) can be confused with the left-handed $`ϵ^L`$-couplings in (3), whereas the radiative corrections are small enough to allow for the discovery of the right-handed non-standard neutrino interactions.