text:
# Untitled Document

Intrinsic phase-decoherence of electrons by two-level systems

Vipin Srivastava and Raishma Krishnan

School of Physics, University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad 500046, India.

The fundamental problem of phase saturation of electrons in a disordered mesoscopic system at very low temperatures is addressed. The disorder in the medium has both static and dynamic components, the latter being in the form of two-level systems (TLSs), which becomes just about the only source of inelastic scattering in the limit $`T0`$. We propose that besides the inelastic nature of scattering from the TLSs, the phase-shift of the electrons is also affected by the nature of tunneling in the TLSs. The tunneling becomes incoherent as $`T`$ decreases due to increasing long-range interactions among TLSs and affects the phase coherence of electrons scattering from them. The competition between this effect, which increases as $`T^1`$, and that of the scattering rate $`\tau _{eTLS}^1`$ behaving as $`T`$ apparently governs the phase-shift of electrons.

PACS number(s): 73.23-b, 72.15.Lh, 73.20Fz, 72.10-d.

$``$ e mail: vpssp@uohyd.ernet.in

$``$ e mail: vpssprs@uohyd.ernet.in

1. Introduction

One of the fundamental properties of an electron under quantum mechanical conditions is that the phase of its wavefunction remains coherent over a length of time and space. The electron loses the phase coherence if it interacts with its environment. The coherence-decoherence transition defines the transition from quantum mechanical behaviour of a ‘closed’ system to the classical behaviour of the same system when it is treated as ‘open’. What should comprise ‘a system of interest’ and its ‘environment’ with which it may be coupled, depends on how we want to define the problem; the experiments are designed accordingly. For example in the problem of movement of an electron in a random potential, the electron and the impurities or the disordered potential comprise the system of interest while other electrons, phonons and two-level systems (TLSs) etc. form parts of the environment.

For the problem of an electron in a random potential it is now established that the elastic scatterings of the electron under study from the impurities do not dephase it, or randomize its phase . On each such scattering episode the momentum of the electron changes and also the phase of the single-electron wavefunction, but in a deterministic manner. That is the changes are correlated and computable, in principle. Normally the phase relaxation length, or the length over which the phase has reversed, can be much larger than the elastic mean free path. The inelastic scattering events due to electron-phonon (e-ph), electron-electron (e-e) or e-TLS interactions, on the other hand randomize the phase of the electron wavefunction. It was believed until recently that in the limit of temperature $`T0`$ the inelastic events could be minimized and consequently the phase-decoherence time $`\tau _\varphi `$ and the phase-coherence length $`L_\varphi `$ could be arbitrarily large.

Under normal conditions achievable in experiments a disordered system can be viewed as a jigsaw of phase-coherent units, where each unit is of mesoscopic length scale and contains many elastic scatterers. To study the long-range phase-coherence one ought to do experiments on a sample of mesoscopic size and weak localization is an appropriate phenomenon to investigate for analyzing different scattering processes for it is sensitive to phase relaxation and also momentum relaxation. All electrons incident in the same state acquire the same phase shift after going through a given set of elastic scatterers so much so that a time reversed course of the same collisions can restore the original phase of the wavefunction. An inelastic collision in the course destroys the phase memory of the electron irrevocably.

2. Saturation of phase-decoherence time

Some recent experiments  along these lines have shown that $`\tau _\varphi `$, and in turn $`L_\varphi `$, approaches a finite temperature independent value below a temperature that may lie between a few mK and 10K depending on the system under study. It has been observed in a wide variety of disordered conductors that $`\tau _\varphi `$ saturates to a value between $`10^9`$ sec and $`10^{12}`$ sec below $`4K`$ depending on the system. It is further claimed that this phase decoherence is intrinsic in character, that is, it should not depend on the coupling with extrinsic environmental factors. This led to the suggestion that the decoherence could be caused by the zero point oscillations of the electrons . This point of view was, however, refuted on the simple ground that the energy of the zero point oscillations cannot be transferred in the course of inelastic collisions of the electron in question with the electrons around it.

Not withstanding the mechanism of dephasing, which is a matter of intense debate, the result is undoubtedly of fundamental importance and of far reaching consequences. A number of phenomena, including electron localization, that depend on quantum interference would require rethinking. As for localization, the experimental result  poses a serious puzzle by indicating that the zero temperature dephasing length $`L_\varphi (T=0)`$ is much smaller than the typical localization length $`\xi `$. This would have the serious implication that large localized states (or weak localization, WL) may not exist. There ought to be a competition between quenched or static disorder and the factors that limit the intrinsic decoherence time $`\tau _\varphi `$ in deciding the extent of localization even for $`T0`$. Consequently there could be a lower critical value of disorder below which localization may not happen. (If $`L_\varphi \frac{\xi }{(k_Fl)}`$, localization will occur only if $`\xi <L_\varphi `$, i.e. $`k_Fl<1`$, i.e. the WL regime for which $`k_Fl1`$, as it is understood now, should actually be non-existent; $`k_F`$ is the Fermi wave vector and $`l`$ is the elastic mean free path.)

3. Sources of dephasing

Phonons are the most obvious source of dephasing, but they have to be ruled out in the temperature range in which $`\tau _\varphi `$ has been observed to saturate. The inelastic processes that may persist at such low temperatures are e-e and e-TLS interactions.

While e-e interaction is generally considered to be a good candidate as a phase randomizing agent at low temperatures it should be noted that the samples in the experiments in question have fairly low concentration of electrons, $`10^{12}cm^2`$ . The e-e interaction energy should be considerably low in these samples as compared to that in earlier experiments when the electron density used to be much higher. It is therefore not clear as to what extent will these interactions be instrumental in the dephasing phenomenon. These could at most be quasi-elastic which would imply that there would have to be many collisions of this kind before the electron’s phase would change by $`2\pi `$.

We will investigate in some detail the interaction of electrons with TLSs as a plausible mechanism of the phase decoherence. In this scenario one studies the movement of an electron under the combined influence of static or quenched disorder and a dynamical environment due to an atom or a group of atoms moving back and forth between two locations in space which correspond to minimum energy states seperated by a potential barrier in the configuration space. While the movement of an electron under the influence of a static disorder is diffusive, the dynamical disturbances in space caused by TLSs can make the electron move into another state inelastically even at $`T=0`$. We expect that the inelastic scattering from TLSs should dominate at very low temperatures when other sources of inelastic scattering have diminished or become ineffective. Inelastic scattering from TLSs as the source of decoherence of an electron has been discussed in the literature \[5-7\], but we have a very different mechanism to propose for the dephasing phenomenon.

Ovadyahu  first found in some of his indium oxide samples with low resistivity $`(k_Fl>2)`$ that inelastic scattering time was much shorter than the e-e interaction time. The results fitted well when e-TLS scattering was invoked as the phase-breaking mechanism. Zawadowski et al.  considered non-magnetic TLSs having degenerate Kondo ground states. In a certain temperature range the TLSs exhibit non-Fermi liquid (NFL) behaviour which apparently is the signature of dephasing. They propose that the scattering of an electron from a TLS of this type changes the state of the TLS and thus the environment of the electron changes. This acts back on the electron and causes the dephasing. Imry et al.  proposed a perturbative theory in electron-environment interaction where $`\tau _\varphi `$ is much longer than the quasi-elastic scattering time $`\tau `$. The scattered electron undergoes a phase-shift due to the motion of the scatterer. The phase-shift changes the conductance and also causes dephasing. If the defect motion is slower than the time scale of electronic motion only the conductance changes, but if the defect moves faster than the electronic motion then dephasing also happens.

4. Our proposal

Our arguments are a bit along the lines of Imry et al.  but only to start with. We propose a novel mechanism for the saturation of $`\tau _\varphi `$ which accounts for the $`T`$-independence of $`\tau _\varphi `$. First of all we propose that the phase-shift of an inelastically scattering electron should depend not only on the fact that the scattering it is undergoing is inelastic in nature but also on the character of the scatterer. The latter should be particularly significant in the case of dynamical scatterers like TLSs, whose character depends on the nature of the tunneling – whether it is coherent or incoherent.

We can formally write,

$$\tau _\varphi =f(\tau _{in},c),$$
(1)
where $`c`$ is a parameter signifying the character of the inelastic scatterer. In the case of e-TLS scattering $`\tau _{in}(=\tau _{eTLS})`$ would predominently depend on temperature and concentration of TLSs. While its dependence on concentration of TLSs is obvious, we understand the dependence of $`\tau _{eTLS}`$ on $`T`$ like this: first of all note that the tunneling will have to be assisted by phonons if $`\lambda `$ is larger than a certain $`\lambda _{min}`$  where $`e^\lambda `$ represents overlap between wavefunctions in the two potential wells of the TLS. Since $`\lambda `$ depends inversely on $`T`$, the tunneling will be increasingly more difficult as $`T0`$ and at some point it will become impossible. Below this value of $`T`$ the system will freeze into one of the configurations represented by the two wells. Thus as $`T`$ decreases the tunneling rate of this type of TLSs decreases and consequently the scattering rate, $`\tau _{eTLS}^1`$ decreases. In simple terms the rate of tunneling becomes slower than the time scale of the electron movement. However, if the TLS is such that $`\lambda <\lambda _{min}`$, then tunneling continues to happen even if $`T0`$. Such TLSs are particularly significant for the saturation of $`\tau _\varphi `$.

We will now discuss the parameter $`c`$ in the eqn. (1). The character of a TLS can depend considerably on its interaction with other TLSs. Note that the motion of the tunneling entity (an atom or bunch of them) produces a strain field. If the TLSs are far away from each other or the temperature is not low enough to preclude phonons, then the strain field may not affect other TLSs because it may get weakened or dissipated by phonons. But if the concentration of TLS is high or there are intermediary impurities, then the strain field produced by one TLS can affect the nature of oscillation of other TLSs if the temperature is so low that the dissipation of the strain field by phonons can be ruled out. While an isolated TLS generally oscillates between two wells coherently, the interaction between TLSs can make the oscillations incoherent. This crossover, which happens primarily as a function of decreasing temperature will have its influence on the phase-shift of the electron scattering off the TLS; it should add to the change of phase of the electron, which is otherwise happening due to its scattering from the TLSs.

If the mean interaction between the TLS is represented by an energy $`J`$ then one can combine with it the local parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ ($`e^\lambda `$, representing the seperation between the wells of a TLS on the configuration-axis) and describe the TLS-TLS interaction by a dimensionless parameter

$$\mu =J/\mathrm{\Delta }_0.$$
(2)
If $`J`$ dominates over the local coupling energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ (i.e interaction between TLSs is as large as, or larger than, the coupling between wavefunctions in the two wells of a TLS) then $`\mu `$ will exceed $`1`$ and the local tunneling motion will become incoherent. In glassy systems $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ will have a wide distribution which can be $`k_BT`$ . Consequently $`\mu `$ can be treated as $`T^1`$. Note that $`\tau _{eTLS}`$ is also $`T^1`$ . In the background of all the above discussion, the implications of both $`\mu `$ and $`\tau _{eTLS}`$ being $`T^1`$ are important in so far as the phase change of the electron is concerned.

Let us consider the two situations, $`\lambda >\lambda _{min}`$ and $`\lambda <\lambda _{min}`$, separately. Infact both the situations are important at the same time because TLSs satisfying either conditions would be present in the system. In the TLSs for which $`\lambda >\lambda _{min}`$ since the tunneling must be assisted by phonons, it will increasingly slow down with decreasing temperature. As a result $`\tau _{eTLS}`$ will increase at a rate $`T^1`$. But, while the tunneling rate slows down the nature of tunneling changes from coherent to incoherent at the same rate, namely $`T^1`$ due to increasing TLS-TLS interaction. If according to Stern et al.  e-TLS scattering is turning from inelastic to quasi-elastic and then to elastic with decreasing $`T`$ and is therefore able to change only the conductance, the phase-shift in the scattered electron will be mainly brought about by the latter factor discussed above, namely the coherent-to-incoherent crossover in the nature of TLSs.

The TLSs with $`\lambda <\lambda _{min}`$, in which the tunneling occurs in spite of the absence of phonons, change the phase of the electron scattering off them even as $`T0`$. This is true independent of whether the energy exchanged in the scattering process is sufficient for it to be fully inelastic. The phase of the scattered electron in any case changes because the tunneling in these TLSs also becomes incoherent with decreasing $`T`$ due to long-ranged interactions among TLS.

The incoherence of the tunneling in both types of TLSs increases with decreasing $`T`$ and accordingly the amount of the phase change of the scattered electron increases. At sufficiently low $`T`$ when the phase change is about $`2\pi `$ the decoherence time $`\tau _\varphi `$ will saturate and become temperature independent.

5. Conclusions and comments

We have argued that the phase decoherence time $`\tau _\varphi `$ of electrons in a disordered mesoscopic system saturates and becomes $`T`$-independent at very low temperature due to the following two complementing effects: on one hand with decreasing $`T`$ the e-TLS scattering weakens and becomes less effective as an inelastic process, but on the other hand this is compensated by the fact that with decreasing $`T`$ the tunneling in TLSs becomes incoherent due to increasing long-ranged interactions among TLSs and this decoheres the electrons; both these effects balance each other at the same rate, namely $`T^1`$, which makes the saturated $`\tau _\varphi `$ independent of $`T`$. A good amount of further experimentation is required to ascertain a number of finer points.

First of all it must be checked whether the systems that exhibit $`\tau _\varphi `$-saturation always have TLSs present in them. This is necessary in order to establish that the suggested mechanism is really a universal one. Experiments are required to identify the types of TLSs, atleast the two types discussed above. Having done this it is necessary to study in greater detail the coherent-incoherent tunneling crossover as a function of $`T`$ and whether both the above types of TLSs are affected equally as $`T`$ decreases. Experiments are also needed to ascertain if the e-e interactions in dilute electron systems indeed involve sufficient energy to be classified as inelastic at low temperatures.

Finally it could well be, as suggested by Imry et al. , that there may be just a temperature range over which $`\tau _\varphi `$ remains saturated, and that at a $`T<<\mathrm{}/\tau _0`$ ($`\tau _0`$ being the saturation value of $`\tau _\varphi `$) the $`\tau _\varphi `$ may diverge. Only very careful experimentation can resolve these issues.

We may mention in passing that the rapid development of quantum information processing  led to renewed interest in the study of dephasing effects. The studies proposed above would be very vital in this modern context for one of the major obstacles in the way of implementation of quantum computers is the relatively short dephasing time in the solid state devices.

Acknowledgements: RK is supported by the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, New Delhi. VS is thankful to the Ministry of Information Technology, Government of India, for a grant.

References

1. R. Landauer, Phil. Mag. 21, 863 (1970).
2. S. Wind, M. J. Rooks, V. Chandrasekhar and D. E. Prober, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 633 (1986); P. Mohanty and R. A. Webb, Phys. Rev. B55, R13452 (1997).
3. P. Mohanty, E. M. Q. Jariwala and R. A. Webb, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 3366 (1997); P. Mohanty and R. A. Webb, Phys. Rev. B55, R13452 (1997).
4. Y. U. Khavin, M. E. Gershenson, A. L. Bogdanov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1066 (1998).
5. Z. Ovadyahu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 52, 569 (1984).
6. A. Zawadowski, Jan Von Delft and D. C. Ralph, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 2632 (1999).
7. Y. Imry, H. Fukuyama and P. Schwab, Europhys. Lett. 47, 608 (1999).
8. P. W. Anderson, B. L. Halperin and C. M. Varma, Philos. Mag. 25, 1 (1972); W. A. Phillips, J. Low Temp. Phys. 7, 351 (1972).
9. $`\lambda _{min}ln(2\mathrm{}\omega _0/\mathrm{\Delta }E)`$ where $`\mathrm{}\omega _0`$ is of the order of zero-point energy and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ is the difference between the minima of the two wells of the TLS, i.e. between the diagonal elements of the Hamiltonian for the TLS. The condition $`\lambda >\lambda _{min}`$ simply means that $`\mathrm{}\omega _0e^\lambda `$, the off-diagonal element of the Hamiltonian, is $`<\mathrm{\Delta }E/2`$. That is, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ is too large to allow any meaningful correction to the eigen values of the Hamiltonian by the off diagonal elements.
10. A. Wurger, Z. Phys. B94, 173 (1994); B98, 561 (1995).
11. C. Enss and S. Hunklinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 2831 (1997).
12. See e.g. R. Krishnan and V. Srivastava, Phys. Rev. B 59, R12747 (1999).
13. A. Stern, Y. Aharonov and Y. Imry, Phys. Rev. A41, 3436 (1990).
14. D. P. DiVincenzo, in Mesoscopic electron transport, L. L. Sohn et al. (eds), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1997; A Steane, Rep. Prog. Phys. 61, 117 (1998).


format: text

text:
# Nature of Faint Companions to G type Stars using Adaptive Optics.

## 1 Introduction

Substellar dwarfs or brown dwarfs are objects whose masses are too low to burn hydrogen at their cores. The mass could range between 0.075M to 0.002M (late M, L and T type stars, see for eg: Kirkpatrick & McCarthy 1994, Burrows et. al. 1997, Kirkpatrick et. al. 1999a, Basri 2000). In the last few years ultracool dwarfs have discovered from the 2MASS, Sloan and DENIS surveys (Kirkpatrick et al. 1999a, 2000, Strauss et al. 1999, Fan et al. 2000, and Delfosse et al. 1997). These extensive works helped in establishing spectral signatures of ultracool dwarfs and classifications of M, L and T spectral types (also see Reid et al. 2001 and Leggett et al. 2002).

However, determining the intrinsic properties of brown dwarfs is difficult because their luminosity and effective temperatures are function of age and mass (Burrows et al. 1997, Baraffe et al. 1998). Therefore, finding such objects in binary systems containing a main sequence star would be of great interest because both these parameters can be determined reasonably accurately. Indeed, the first discovered undisputed brown dwarf is a companion to M1V star GL229 (Nakajima et al. 1995). Also, the coronographic Palomar survey (Oppenheimer et al. 2001) which goes 4 absolute magnitudes fainter than GL229b, discovered at least seven new faint companions of nearby stars.

We have started a high angular resolution (= 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$30) search for faint companions at NIR wavelengths around G or K type stars in the solar neighborhood, as well as in the nearby young star clusters like MBM12 and MBM20 (Hearty et al. 2000a, 2000b). The list consisted of stars with ages from 100 Myrs to a few Gyrs using ground based telescope equipped with adaptive optics. In this paper we report the discovery of two faint companions to main sequence stars: HD190067 and HIP13855. This is a result of our first limited survey done using the 100 inch (2.5m) telescope of Mt.Wilson.

## 2 Observations and Data Analysis

The H and K photometric observations were performed in October 2001 at the 100 inch telescope of Mt.Wilson using its natural star Adaptive Optics (AO) system (Shelton et al. 1995) and the Penn state IR Imager and Spectrograph (PIRIS, Ge et al. 2002a). The detector is a 256$`\times `$256 PICNIC array with pixel size of 40 microns. The gain and the read noise of the camera are 4.0 $`e^{}/ADU`$ and 20 electrons respectively. The plate scale was 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$082 per pixel providing a field of view of 21$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$0. The filters used were standard Astronomical H & K filters. A cold pupil mask located in the pupil plane inside the dewar reduces the thermal background particularly in the K band. The camera will soon be equipped for NIR spectroscopy with $`R=200`$ by commercially available fused silica grisms and high $`R=5000`$ using silicon grisms developed at Penn State (Ge et al. 2000, Ge et al. 2002b).

We observed six young solar analogs from Gaidos et al. (2000), a couple of main sequence stars with faint companions (Turner et al. 2001) and six main sequence stars towards the MBM12 star forming cloud (Hearty et al. 2000a&b). The observations were done under photometric condition with sub arcsec seeing. The average FWHM of the Point Spread Function (PSF) was 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$30 after the AO correction.

We report here the observations of two stars HD190067 (spectral type G8, Duquennoy & Mayor 1991) and HIP13855 (spectral type G0, Hearty et al. 2000b) which are associated with faint companions (HD190067b and HIP13855b). We discuss the nature of these faint companions and determine their possibility of being substellar, transition or late M dwrafs close to the hydrogen burning limit.

The total integration in $`H`$ and $`K`$ bands for HD190067 was of 20 s (5 co-added 4 s exposures) and 50 s (5 co-added 10 s exposures) for HIP13855. An appropriate number of sky frames (5) were observed immediately after the object observations for proper sky subtraction. Flats were made by combining several (15) sky frames. Two standard stars HD225023 and SAO056596, were observed from the UKIRT standard star list and Hunt et al. (1998) respectively for determining the zero point of the Camera in each filter before or after the observation of the program stars. Each frame was sky subtracted and flat fielded before co-adding. Photometry was performed on both individual frames as well as in the total co-added frames to estimate the total photometric error. Photometric analysis was carried out using the standard DAOPHOT routine of IRAF. While primarily we did aperture photometry after determining the width of the PSF using PHOT task, we also performed photometry of the faint companion HIP13855B after subtracting the PSF fitted bright primary HIP13855A using PSF and ALLSTAR tasks. This procedure was necessary because the separation between A and B components of HIP13855 is only 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$5. A Gaussian PSF was constructed considering an isolated bright star. The photon noise correspond to an error of $`\pm `$0.02 mag in the individual images. However, we estimated the maximum error by computing the magnitudes from five different frames to be $`\pm `$0.1 mag and the mean magnitude from five frames is the same as the magnitude estimated from the co-added frames. This relatively high error could be due to the AO system and in the present work we will limit the uncertainty to $`\pm `$0.1 mag. Table 1 gives the value of magnitudes estimated from the co-added frames.

We note that the source seen as a faint companion to HIP13855 with a separation of 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$5 is real and not an artifact like ghost. Other stars observed under similar conditions including the standard stars do not show any such point source which is 5 magnitude fainter than the primary.

We compared our $`H`$ and $`K`$ photometry of HIP13855A with that given in the 2MASS point source catalogue. The 2MASS H and Ks magnitudes of HIP13855 (A+B) is 7.29 and 7.25 respectively. We find that if we consider a larger aperture (3 arcsec) comparable to the 2MASS PSF, then we do get similar values in H and K bands (7.4 and 7.3 respectively ) within the our photometric errors stated earlier.

## 3 Results and Discussion

The photometric results of HD190067, HIP13855 and their respective companions are presented in Table 1. The absolute magnitudes of the faint companions are calculated assuming the distances given in the Hipparcos catalogue. AH values towards these sources from the literature are negligible compared to the overall photometric error ($`\pm `$0.1 mag) and hence are not considered for absolute magnitude estimation. The $`A_H`$ values were estimated from the $`A_V`$ values found in the literature for HIP13855 (Luhman 2001); for HD190067 mean extinction in the Galaxy was considered for a distance of 19 pc (Glass 1999), and using the relation $`A_H/A_V`$ = 0.142 (Rieke & Lebofsky 1985). Thus the estimated $`A_H`$ values for HIP13855 and HD190067 were 0.028 and 0.01 magnitudes. Figures 1 & 2 show H and K images of HD190067 and HIP13855 along with their faint companions respectively.

### 3.1 Ages of HD190067 and HIP13855

HD190067 is a disk star (Eggen 1987), and based on its velocity components in the disk it seems that its age could be anything between 0.5 Gyrs to a few Gyrs (Eggen 1987, Mihilas & Binney 1981).

HIP13855 is at a distance of 74 pc (Hipparcos catalogue) a foreground star towards the star forming cloud MBM12, whose distance is estimated to be somewhere between 90 pc to 275 pc (Luhman 2001). MBM 12 cloud contain very young stars with ages 10 to 100 Myrs (Hearty et al. 2000b). Some members of the MBM12 cluster, however, are much closer; for example, HD17332 is at a distance of 33 pc (Hipparcos catalogue). HD17332 is a young G1V star, since lithium is detected in its spectrum (Hearty et al. 2000b). We qualitatively argue on the basis of its proximity that HIP13855 could be associated with the MBM12 cluster; however, there is no record of lithium detection in its spectrum. So we assume a lower limit for the age of HIP13855 could be 100 Myrs (Hearty et al. 2000b).

Burrows et al. (1997) developed models for young substellar dwarfs of various ages that show a similar trend of absolute magnitudes vs NIR infrared colors for young substellar dwarfs that are less than 1.0 Gyrs. Similar models of evolution of brown dwarfs and low mass stars with a time scale from less than 100 Myrs to 10 Gyrs have shown that the hydrogen burning limit is somewhere between 0.072 to 0.075$`M_{}`$ and the corresponding spectral type varies with age (M6.5 at 100 Myrs to L4 at 10Gyrs (Baraffe et al. 1998 and 2001, Kirkpatrick 1999b, Basri 2000). Figure 3 shows such evolution model curves from Baraffe et al. (1998 and 2001) and overlaying on it are the results of the present work. We discuss below the nature of the newly discovered companion based on their ages and absolute $`H`$ magnitude.

### 3.2 HD190067

HD190067 is at a distance of 19 pc (Hipparcos catalogue). The possible binary nature was first reported by Turner et al. (2001). However, they could not confirm it due to lack of information on common proper motion. We detect the binary component HD190067b at a separation of 2$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$90 which is 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$04 more than previous observed separation in 1996 by Turner et al. (2001). HD190067 should have moved by 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$51 between these two set of observations due to its proper motion alone. Thus, it appears that HD190067 and its faint companion has similar proper motion and establish that HD190067b is a physical binary. However, the observed PA in 1996 was 82 degrees while in 2001 (present work) we find it to be 75 degrees (see Table 1). This difference could be due to the orbital motion of the secondary. We will need more such observations to determine the orbital period and the mass of the secondary.

We estimate the absolute H magnitude MH = 9.3$`\pm `$0.1 and a $`HK`$ color of 1.1$`\pm `$0.2. Kirkpatrick & McCarthy (1994) showed from $`R,I,J,H,K`$ photometry and optical spectroscopy that young stars (less than 0.5 Gyrs) of spectral type M6.5 and later cannot burn hydrogen in their core. These measurements suggest that HD190067b could be a transition candidate if it is young (less than 0.5 Gyrs). However, if it is older, then it is a low mass star close to the hydrogen burning limit. From Figure 3 the mass of HD190067b may be 0.08$`M_{}`$ to 0.1$`M_{}`$(also see Figure 3). The high H-K color (1.1$`\pm `$0.2) is intriguing. A high H-K color is common for late L type substellar dwarfs Reid et al. (2001), but a late L type source is expected to be more than a magnitude fainter in $`M_H`$ (Kirkpatrick et al. 2000). NIR spectroscopic observations will be necessary to accurately determine the spectral type.

### 3.3 HIP13855

We find a faint companion of HIP13855 with a separation of 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$5 whose H and K magnitudes are 12.6 and 12.6 respectively. These yield $`M_H`$ to be 8.3$`\pm `$0.1 for the HIP13855b. Figure 3 shows that the companion could have mass in the range of 0.1$`M_{}`$ to 0.2$`M_{}`$. We find the $`HK`$ color of HIP13855b to be 0.0$`\pm `$0.2 mag. Therefore, if the system is a physical binary (common proper motion yet to be confirmed) then HIP13855b is a young late M dwarf. Spectroscopic observations will be helpful to probe further into its nature.

We thank the Mt. Wilson telescope staff and the management for their help during the observations. We thank Dr. D. McCarthy for loaning us part of optics for PIRIS, Dr. R. Brown for the PICNIC array and Dr. A. Kutyrev for the filters. We also thank Profs. Larry Ramsay, Eric Feigelson, and Donald Schneider of Pennsylvania State University for their comments on the present work which significantly helped to improve the quality. The work was supported by the following grants from NASA: NAG5-10617, NAG5-11427 and NASA GSRP fellowship (Award No. NGT5-119) and Penn State Eberly College of Science.


text:
# Phenomenology of Randall–Sundrum Black Holes

## Abstract

We explore the phenomenology of microscopic black holes in the $`S^1/Z_2`$ Randall-Sundrum (RS) model. We consider the canonical framework in which both gauge and matter fields are confined to the brane and only gravity spills into the extra dimension. The model is characterized by two parameters, the mass of the first massive graviton $`(m_1)`$, and the curvature $`1/\mathrm{}`$ of the RS anti-de Sitter space. We compute the sensitivities of present and future cosmic ray experiments to black hole mediated events, for a wide range of $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`m_1,`$ and compare them with the sensitivities of Tevatron Runs I and II to higher-dimensional physics. As part of our phenomenological analysis, we examine constraints placed on $`\mathrm{}`$ by AdS/CFT considerations.

preprint:   NUB–3227–Th–02 UK/02/06 hep-ph/0204228

One of the most exciting predictions of sub-millimeter extra dimensions Antoniadis:1990ew ; Randall:1999ee  is the production of black holes (BHs) in particle collisions with center-of-mass energy larger than a TeV and sufficiently small impact parameter Banks:1999gd ; Emparan:2000rs ; Giddings:2000ay ; Giddings:2001bu ; Dimopoulos:2001hw ; Rizzo:2001dk . Although colliders have not yet attained the energies required to probe this new strong quantum gravitational effect, the extraordinarily high center-of-mass energies achieved at the top of the atmosphere in ultra-high energy cosmic ray collisions are high enough to render any change in spacetime dimensionality detectable Feng:2001ib ; Anchordoqui:2001ei ; Emparan:2001kf ; Anchordoqui:2001cg ; Kowalski:2002gb . Among these cosmic rays, a nearly guaranteed flux of neutrinos (produced through interactions of extremely high energy protons with the cosmic microwave background) could produce BHs which decay promptly initiating deeply developing air showers far above the Standard Model (SM) rate Feng:2001ib , and with very distinctive characteristics Anchordoqui:2001ei . In addition, neutrinos that traverse the atmosphere may produce BHs through interactions in the ice or water and be detected by neutrino telescopes Kowalski:2002gb . Moreover, in scenarios with asymmetric compactifications the production of brane configurations wrapped around small extra dimensions may be competitive with BH production Ahn:2002mj . Very recently, based on the absence of a significant signal of deeply developing showers reported by the AGASA Collaboration we derived new limits on the fundamental Planck scale Anchordoqui:2001cg . In this paper we expand upon this study and examine in more detail the phenomenological implications of BH production in the Randall–Sundrum (RS) scenario Randall:1999ee .

The RS model consists of two 3-branes (with equal and opposite tensions $`\sigma _{_{\mathrm{Planck}}}=\sigma _{_{\mathrm{SM}}}=12M^3/\mathrm{}`$) which rigidly reside at $`S^1/Z_2`$ orbifold fixed points at the boundaries ($`y=0`$ and $`y=\pi r_c`$) of a slab of anti-de Sitter (AdS) space of radius $`\mathrm{}`$. The classical action describing the system is given by Randall:1999ee

$$S=M^3d^4x_0^{\pi r_c}𝑑y\sqrt{g}\left(\frac{12}{\mathrm{}^2}+R\right)+d^4x\sqrt{\eta }\sigma _{_{\mathrm{SM}}}+d^4x\sqrt{\eta }\sigma _{_{\mathrm{Planck}}},$$
(1)
where $`R`$ is the 5-dimensional Ricci scalar in terms of the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, $`M`$ is the fundamental scale of gravity, and $`\eta _{ij}`$ is the flat Minkowskian metric. In what follows, the Latin subscripts extend over ordinary 4-dimensional spacetime, whereas Greek subscripts represent all 5 dimensions. The metric satisfying this Ansatz (in horospherical coordinates) reads

$$ds^2=e^{2|y|/\mathrm{}}\eta _{ij}dx^idx^j+dy^2.$$
(2)
Examination of the action in the 4-dimensional effective theory leads to Randall:1999ee

$$\overline{M}_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2=M^3\mathrm{}\left(1e^{2\pi r_c/\mathrm{}}\right),$$
(3)
where $`\overline{M}_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ is the reduced effective 4-dimensional Planck scale. Now, assuming that SM fields are localized on the 3-brane at $`y=\pi r_c`$, one finds that a field with the fundamental mass parameter $`m_0`$ will appear to have the physical mass $`m=e^{\pi r_c/\mathrm{}}m_0`$. Hence, TeV scales can be generated from fundamental scales of order $`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ through the exponential warping factor. Specifically, the observed hierarchy between the gravitational and electroweak mass scales is reproduced provided $`r_c/\mathrm{}12`$. The 4-dimensional phenomenology of this model (only gravity propagates into the bulk) is governed by two parameters: $`c=(\mathrm{}\overline{M}_{\mathrm{Pl}})^1`$, which is expected to be near though somewhat less than unity, and $`m_1`$ which is the mass of the first Kaluza–Klein graviton excitation Davoudiasl:1999jd .

Two different types of BHs can be produced in trans-Planckian particle collisions within this set up: (i) AdS/Schwarzschild BHs that propagate freely into the bulk (generally falling towards the AdS horizon once produced) and (ii) tubular pancake shape BHs that are bound to the brane Chamblin:1999by ; Giddings:2000ay . To study the phenomenology of the latter, it is convenient to define a new variable $`z=\mathrm{}e^{y/\mathrm{}}`$. In such a coordinate system the metric

$$ds^2=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{z^2}\left(dz^2+\eta _{ij}dx^idx^j\right)$$
(4)
is conformal to a 5-dimensional flat metric. To describe the SM brane we introduce the coordinate $`w=zz_c`$, where $`|w|(0,w_c)`$, $`w_c=\mathrm{}(e^{\pi r_c/\mathrm{}}1)`$, and the TeV brane is located at $`w=0`$. After a conformal redefinition

$$g_{\mu \nu }\left(\frac{\mathrm{}}{z_c+w}\right)^2\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mu \nu },$$
(5)
one obtains Hawking:73

$$R=\left(\frac{z_c+w}{\mathrm{}}\right)^2\stackrel{~}{R}\frac{20}{\mathrm{}^2},$$
(6)
where $`\stackrel{~}{R}`$ is the Ricci scalar calculated with the metric $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mu \nu }.`$ Initially Minkowskian, the metric $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ will be modified, under conditions to be delineated, to include as a patch the 5-dimensional Schwarzschild solution. The gravity sector can now be rewritten as

$`S_{\mathrm{gravity}}`$ $`=`$ $`M^3{\displaystyle d^4x_0^{w_c}𝑑w\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}}{z_c+w}\right)^3\left(\stackrel{~}{R}\frac{8}{(z_c+w)^2}\right)}`$ (7)
$``$ $`\stackrel{~}{M}^3{\displaystyle d^4x_0^{w_{max}z_c}𝑑w\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}\left(\stackrel{~}{R}\frac{8}{z_c^2}\right)},`$
where

$$M\stackrel{~}{M}z_c/\mathrm{}.$$
(8)
It is worth emphasizing that $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ refers to the canonical frame, and is expected to be of order 1 TeV.

We will be interested in the domain of parameter space for which a high energy collision as viewed from the SM brane can result in the formation of a 5-dimensional spherical flat space black hole. A calculation of metric perturbations due to a source on the $`w=0`$ brane can be made in the flat 5-dimensional space-time approximation, i.e., ignoring the effects of the AdS term in Eq. (7), if $`wz_c`$ Giddings:2000mu , where $`z_c`$ is the AdS curvature as viewed on the SM brane, with a gravitational constant $`\stackrel{~}{M}.`$ This implies that to use flat space BH formulae we must require $`\stackrel{~}{r}_sz_c`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{r}_s`$ denotes the size of 5-dimensional Schwarzschild radius in the canonical frame Myers:un

$$\stackrel{~}{r}_s(\stackrel{~}{M}_{\mathrm{BH}})=\sqrt{\frac{2\stackrel{~}{M}_{\mathrm{BH}}}{3\pi \stackrel{~}{M}_D^3}},$$
(9)
where $`\stackrel{~}{M}_{\mathrm{BH}}=\sqrt{\widehat{s}}`$ is the BH mass, $`s`$ is the center-of-mass energy in terms of $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mu \nu }`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{M}_D=(4\pi )^{1/3}\stackrel{~}{M}`$.111We set $`M_D^3=(4G_5)^1`$, where $`G_5`$ is the 5-dimensional Newton constant. From Eqs. (3), (8), and the forgoing relation between $`\stackrel{~}{M}_D`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ we find that the condition $`\stackrel{~}{r}_s<z_c`$ leads to an upper  bound on the mass of the black hole for which this picture is valid Emparan:2001ce :

$$\stackrel{~}{M}_{\mathrm{BH}}/\stackrel{~}{M}_D<24c^{4/3},$$
(10)
where, once more, $`c\left(\mathrm{}\overline{M}_{\mathrm{Pl}}\right)^1.`$ When the energy exceeds this bound, the behavior of the cross section may be analyzed within the AdS/CFT dual picture Maldacena:1997re , and may assume the ln$`{}_{}{}^{2}E`$ behavior conforming to the Froissart bound Giddings:2002cd .

As mentioned earlier, the parameter $`c`$ is expected to be small. Comparison of the RS brane tension and the D-brane tension in perturbative heterotic string theory suggests that $`c0.1`$ Davoudiasl:1999jd . Work in recent years linking the Randall-Sundrum brane-world mechanism to the conjectured AdS/CFT correspondence Maldacena:1997re  allows an independent and similar bound on $`c`$. The one-sided brane world relation, Eq.(3) with $`r_c\mathrm{}`$, is equivalent to

$$c=\left(\mathrm{}\overline{M}_{\mathrm{Pl}}\right)^1=(M\mathrm{})^{3/2}.$$
(11)
In this “single brane” limit Randall:1999vf , Duff and Liu Duff:2000mt  pointed out a complementarity between AdS5 and an $`𝒩=4`$ superconformal U$`(N)`$ Yang-Mills theory living on the four-dimensional brane (boundary): corrections to Newton’s law from both sectors are equal when the AdS/CFT Weyl anomaly relation Henningson:1998gx ,

$$2G_5N^2=\pi \mathrm{}^3,$$
(12)
or

$$(M\mathrm{})^3=N^2/(8\pi ^2)$$
(13)
holds. For finite but large $`r_c,`$ deviations from conformality are exponentially damped in the infrared Rattazzi:2000hs . BH creation in SM brane collisions becomes significant if a weak-gravity 5-dimensional description is valid Arkani-Hamed:2000ds . This occurs for $`M\mathrm{}1`$, and hence $`c1.`$ A more quantitative estimate emerges by first combining Eqs. (11) and (13) to obtain

$$c=2\sqrt{2}\pi /N.$$
(14)
An approximate lower bound on $`N`$ may be surmised by noting that the KK gravitons find a dual description as glueballs resulting from strong coupling in the (approximate) CFT sector Arkani-Hamed:2000ds . In the large-$`N`$ analysis of ’t Hooft 'tHooft:1973jz , this requires that the planar loop expansion parameter $`g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2N/8\pi ^2>1.`$ For $`g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2/4\pi 0.1,`$ we obtain from (14)

$$c0.1$$
(15)
The key question now is at what mass ratio $`\left(\stackrel{~}{M}_{\mathrm{BH}}/\stackrel{~}{M}_D\right)`$ is the BH description valid. According to the semiclassical prescription, the BH evaporation is governed by its Hawking temperature

$$\stackrel{~}{T}_H=\frac{1}{2\pi \stackrel{~}{r}_s}.$$
(16)
Since the wavelength $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }=2\pi /\stackrel{~}{T}_H`$ corresponding to this temperature is larger than the BH size, to a very good approximation the BH behaves like a point-radiator with entropy

$$\stackrel{~}{S}=\frac{4}{3}\pi \stackrel{~}{M}_{\mathrm{BH}}\stackrel{~}{r}_s=\sqrt{\frac{32\pi }{27}}\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{M}_{\mathrm{BH}}}{\stackrel{~}{M}_D}\right)^{3/2}.$$
(17)
The magnitude of the entropy indicates the validity of this picture. Thermal fluctuations due to particle emission are small when $`\stackrel{~}{S}1`$ Preskill:1991tb , and statistical fluctuations in the microcanonical ensemble are small for $`\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{S}}1`$ Giddings:2001bu . In searches for BH mediated events at colliders, it is essential to set $`x_{\mathrm{min}}\stackrel{~}{M}_{\mathrm{BH}}^{\mathrm{min}}/\stackrel{~}{M}_D`$ high enough that the decay branching ratios predicted by the semiclassical picture of BH evaporation are reliable. The QCD background is large, and therefore the extraction of signal from background at hadron colliders depends on knowing the BH decay branching ratios reliably. This is especially true if one is attempting to determine discovery limits, where the overall rates for BH production are not necessarily large. Thus, in collider searches, a cutoff of $`x_{\mathrm{min}}=5.5`$ (i.e., $`\stackrel{~}{S}>25`$) or more may be appropriate. By contrast, the search for deeply penetrating quasi-horizontal showers initiated by BH decays can afford to be much less concerned with the details of the final state, since the background is almost nonexistent. As a result, the signal relies only on the existence of visible decay products, which, in this context, includes all particles other than neutrinos, muons, and gravitons. Indeed, there is very little about the final state, other than its total energy and to some degree its multiplicity and electromagnetic component Anchordoqui:2001ei , that we can reasonably expect to observe, since detailed reconstruction of the primary BH decay process is not possible at cosmic ray detectors. It seems reasonable to choose a significantly lower value of $`\stackrel{~}{M}_{\mathrm{BH}}^{\mathrm{min}}`$ than is needed for collider searches; in our estimates of rates for cosmic ray facilities we will take $`x_{\mathrm{min}}`$ as low as 1, or $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ as low as 2. While BHs of mass around $`\stackrel{~}{M}_D`$ will be outside the semiclassical regime, it seems quite reasonable to expect that they will nevertheless decay visibly, whatever 5-dimensional quantum gravitational description applies. Finally, as a consequence of Eq.(10) there are upper bounds on the entropy. Combining the latter with Eq. (17) we obtain

$$\stackrel{~}{S}<250c^2.$$
(18)
To model the collision between two partons $`i`$ and $`j`$, with center-of-mass energy $`\sqrt{\widehat{s}}`$ and impact parameter $`\stackrel{~}{b}\stackrel{~}{r_s}`$, we consider a scattering amplitude of an absorptive black disk with area $`\pi \stackrel{~}{r}_s^2`$ Banks:1999gd . Criticisms Voloshin:2001vs  of the assumptions leading to these cross sections have been addressed Dimopoulos:2001qe . Additionally, when considering non-zero impact parameters in 5 dimensions, one must be sure that the production of BHs is favored over that of black rings Emparan:2001wn  for the relevant values of the angular momentum $`J.`$ For a 5-dimensional Kerr solution Myers:un  with a single angular momentum $`J`$ (taken in the direction of the brane Giddings:2001bu ), the horizon size $`r_k`$ and $`J`$ for a mass $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ are related:

$$\frac{4}{9}r_k^2+\frac{J^2}{M_{\mathrm{BH}}^2}=\frac{32G_5M_{\mathrm{BH}}}{27\pi }.$$
(19)
A geometric cross section requires absorption in angular momenta up to $`JM_{\mathrm{BH}}r_k/2.`$ On incorporating this condition in (19) one finds that the maximum value of $`J`$ required for the geometric cross section is $`0.83M_{\mathrm{BH}}\sqrt{32G_5M_{\mathrm{BH}}/27\pi }`$. This is below the lower limit on the spin of a black ring, $`0.92M_{\mathrm{BH}}\sqrt{32G_5M_{\mathrm{BH}}/27\pi }`$ Emparan:2001wn . Therefore, it is consistent to consider only the production of 5-dimensional BHs with geometric cross section. For the same reasons as discussed in Anchordoqui:2001cg , we will calculate our cross sections with the Schwarzschild radius.

In our investigation of BH production by cosmic rays, we will be most interested in collisions of neutrinos with atmospheric nucleons. In order to obtain the $`\nu N`$ cross section we take the geometric cross section $`\widehat{\sigma }`$, fold in the appropriate parton densities and integrate over the parton energies Feng:2001ib

$$\sigma (\nu N\text{BH})=\underset{i}{}_{(\stackrel{~}{M}_{\mathrm{BH}}^{\mathrm{min}})^2/s}^1𝑑x\widehat{\sigma }_i(\sqrt{xs})f_i(x,Q),$$
(20)
where $`s=2m_NE_\nu `$, the sum is over all partons in the nucleon, and the $`f_i`$ are parton distribution functions. We set the momentum transfer $`Q=\mathrm{min}\{\stackrel{~}{M}_{\mathrm{BH}},10\text{TeV}\}`$, where the upper limit is from the CTEQ5M1 distribution functions Lai:2000wy . Also, as a consequence of Eq. (10), there will be an upper bound on the parton subenergies. However, the effect is negligible over virtually the entire region of $`c.`$

With this in mind, for an incoming neutrino flux $`d\mathrm{\Phi }/dE_\nu `$, the event rate for deep showers is

$$𝒩=𝑑E_\nu N_A\frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }}{dE_\nu }\sigma (\nu N\mathrm{BH})A(E_\nu )T,$$
(21)
where $`N_A=6.022\times 10^{23}`$ is Avogadro’s number, $`A(E_\nu )`$ is the acceptance for quasi-horizontal showers in cm3 water-equivalent steradians, and $`T`$ is the experiment running time. In what follows we adopt the cosmogenic neutrino flux estimates of Protheroe and Johnson Protheroe:1996ft , assuming an energy cutoff in the injection spectrum at $`E_{\mathrm{cutoff}}=3\times 10^{21}\text{eV}`$. This is in very good agreement with the most recent evaluation of the cosmogenic neutrino flux assuming a strong cosmological evolution on the cosmic ray sources, which scales like $`(1+z)^4`$ for redshift $`z<1.9`$ and becomes flat at higher redshifts Engel:2001hd . To explore possible additional contributions from semi-local nucleon sources, we also consider below the cosmogenic neutrino flux estimates of Hill and Schramm Hill:1985mk . Bounds on $`\stackrel{~}{M}_D`$ emerge as a result of adopting the AGASA limit of 1 possible event observed, with a background of 1.72 events agasa . This places a limit of $`3.5`$ events at 95% CL Feldman:1997qc . Inserting our cross section into Eq. (21) and requiring $`𝒩3.5`$ leads to exclusion of the region $`\stackrel{~}{M}_D0.70\pm 0.05\mathrm{TeV}`$ at 95% CL Anchordoqui:2001cg . The variation in this bound reflects uncertainty in the neutrino flux. The forthcoming facilities of the Auger Observatory Auger  will probe fundamental Planck scales, $`\stackrel{~}{M}_D1.55\pm 0.15\mathrm{TeV}`$ Anchordoqui:2001cg , assuming 5 years of data and no excess above SM neutrino background. The variation in this case includes uncertainties in the hadronic background and the experimental aperture.

Beyond Auger, NASA has authorized studies for the satellite cosmic ray detection facility known as the Orbiting Wide-angle Light-collectors (OWL) OWL , projected for 2007. In a comprehensive recent study, BH event rates at OWL for $`n2`$ large extra dimensions were reported Dutta:2002ca . The greatly increased aperture of this space-based facility will allow the detection $`10`$ BH/yr for $`x_{\mathrm{min}}`$ as large as 5. This is well into the region of large entropy, permitting comparison with characteristic shower profiles. In the case of present interest $`(n=1),`$ the “eyes of the OWL” will substantially extend the region of the $`cm_1`$ plane probed in cosmic ray observations. Under the assumption that the cosmic ray sources have a strong cosmological evolution, the expected background from SM neutrino interactions (all flavors) is 3 events/year Dutta:2002ca . On the basis of zero hadronic background, three years of observation implies a deviation from the SM at a 95% CL for 7.77 events observed above background Feldman:1997qc . If these are BHs produced with $`x_{\mathrm{min}}=1`$, this represents a sensitivity to $`\stackrel{~}{M}_D2.8`$ TeV at the 95% CL Ina .

Summary. The Randall-Sundrum model predicts a series of TeV-scale graviton resonances with weak scale couplings to SM fields: this makes the Tevatron an outstanding probe of RS physics. Analysis Davoudiasl:1999jd  of Tevatron data Abachi:1996ud  for anomalous Drell-Yan and dijet production as well as the calculation of indirect contributions to electroweak observables Davoudiasl:2000wi  already place significant constraints on the $`cm_1`$ plane. In this work we have developed the formalism for calculating RS black hole production through cosmic ray neutrino collisions in the atmosphere, and have delineated additional constraints placed on the RS model by existing and future cosmic ray data. The complete allowed region is summarized in Fig. 1. The lines of constant $`\stackrel{~}{M}_D`$ reflect the relation $`m_1=3.83c^{2/3}(4\pi )^{1/3}\stackrel{~}{M}_D.`$ AGASA is able only marginally to probe the parameter space allowed by the Tevatron in the limited region $`m_11`$ TeV and $`c>0.60.7`$. Five years of running at Auger can reveal events in the region $`m_1>1`$ TeV and $`c>0.5`$ which will not be tested by the Tevatron Run II A. A year of observation by OWL will probe a substantially larger part of the parameter space for small $`c`$ (see Fig. 1). We have also delineated in our figure the range of the parameter $`c`$ (related to the AdS radius) favored through AdS/CFT considerations.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank Jonathan Feng for continuing encouragement and enlightening discussions. The work of LAA and HG has been partially supported by the US National Science Foundation (NSF), under grants No. PHY–9972170 and No. PHY–0073034, respectively. The work of ADS is supported in part by the Department of Energy (DOE) Grant No. DE–FG01–00ER45832 and NSF Grant No. PHY–0071312.


text:
# Model for pairing phase transition in atomic nuclei

## I Introduction

Phase transitions in small systems are an important research topic. One of the most interesting problems in this context is probably the question of the existence and classification of a possible phase transition from a hadronic phase to a quark-gluon plasma in high energy physics. The answer to this question has far-reaching consequences into many other fields of research like, e.g., cosmology, since it has been argued that hadronization of the quark-gluon plasma should be a first-order phase transition in order to allow for possible supercooling and consequently the emergence of large scale inhomogeneities in the cosmos within the inflationary big-bang model .

In nuclear physics, two different phase transitions have been discussed in the literature. A first-order phase transition has been reported in the multifragmentation of nuclei , thought to be the analogous phenomenon in a finite system to a liquid-gas phase transition in the thermodynamical limit. A pivotal role in these studies is played by the presence of a convex intruder in the microcanonical entropy curve . This leads to a negative branch of the microcanonical heat capacity which is used as an indicator of a first-order phase transitions in small systems. Negative heat capacities have indeed been observed in the multifragmentation of atomic nuclei, though the heat capacity curve has not been derived directly from the caloric curve, but by means of energy fluctuations . Another finding of a negative branch of the heat capacity curve has been in sodium clusters of 147 atoms , indicating a possible first-order phase transition. On the other hand, it is not clear whether the observed negative heat capacities are simply due to the changing volume of the system under study that is progressively evaporating particles . It has also been suggested that a negative heat capacity can be observed when studying a system in a metastable state . In general, great care should be taken in the proper extraction of temperatures and other thermodynamical quantities of a multifragmenting system .

A further difficulty in characterizing the order of a phase transition in a finite system using negative heat capacities arises from the fact that there are no counterparts in the thermodynamical limit. For this reason, no simple connection with the Ehrenfest classification of phase transitions can be made. Therefore, it is not clear that a phenomenon involving negative heat capacities in small systems is analogous to a first-order phase transition in the thermodynamical limit. Another way to classify phase transitions for finite systems has been proposed within the canonical ensemble. This classification scheme is based on the distribution of zeros (DOZ) of the canonical partition function in the complex temperature plane  and has successfully been applied to a model of multifragmentation . This classification scheme reduces to the Ehrenfest classification in the thermodynamical limit and is applicable for first, second, and higher order phase transitions.

The second phase transition discussed for atomic nuclei has been anticipated for the transition from a phase with strong pairing correlations to a phase with weak pairing correlations . Early schematic calculations have shown that pairing correlations can be quenched by temperature as well as by the Coriolis force in rapidly rotating nuclei . This makes the quenching of pairing correlations in atomic nuclei very similar to the breakdown of superfluidity in 3He (due to rapid rotation and/or temperature) or of superconductivity (due to external magnetic fields and/or temperature). Recently, structures in the heat capacity curve related to the quenching of pairing correlations have been obtained within the relativistic mean field theory , the finite-temperature random phase approximation (RPA) , the finite-temperature Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov theory , and the shell-model Monte Carlo (SMMC) approach . An S-shaped structure in the heat capacity curve could also be observed experimentally  and has been interpreted as a fingerprint of a second-order phase transition from a phase with strong pairing correlations to a phase with weak pairing correlations. Indeed, the analogy of the quenching of pairing correlations in atomic nuclei with the breakdown of superfluidity in 3He and the breakdown of superconductivity suggests a second order phase transition and a schematic calculation might support this assumption . Interestingly, similar structures of the heat capacity curve as observed for atomic nuclei in  have been seen in small metallic grains undergoing a second-order phase transition from a superconductive to a normal conductive phase , thereby supporting the analogous findings for atomic nuclei. On the other hand, breaking of nucleon pairs has been experimentally shown to cause a series of convex intruders in the microcanonical entropy curve of deformed rare earth nuclei , leading to several negative branches of the microcanonical heat capacity. This finding might, in analogy to the discussion of nuclear multifragmentation, be taken as an indicator of several first-order phase transitions. Interpreting the quenching of pairing correlations as a series of first-order phase transitions seems, however, physically unattractive and might rather suggest that a negative branch of the microcanonical heat capacity curve does not necessarily indicate the analogous phenomenon in a small system to a first-order phase transition in the thermodynamical limit. A similar conclusion has been drawn by the authors of Ref. .

We will in this work develop a model for the atomic nucleus which allows us to investigate the occurrence and classification of the pairing phase transition in atomic nuclei as a function of particle number and other parameters within the model. In order to do so, we will apply the classification scheme of Borrmann et al.  to the pairing phase transition.

## II Statistical ensembles

The proposed nuclear model is formulated within the canonical ensemble theory although the microcanonical ensemble theory might, at a first glance, be the more appropriate ensemble for describing the nucleus below the particle threshold. At low excitation energies, the nucleus can be regarded as a closed system with respect to energy and particle exchange. However, the microcanonical ensemble theory, just because it requires a closed system, has an inherent conceptual problem when it comes to small systems of few particles. Within the microcanonical ensemble theory one has

$$T(E)=\left(\frac{S(E)}{E}\right)_V^1.$$
(1)
For macroscopic systems, it can be proven experimentally that $`T`$ from this equation equals the thermodynamical temperature defined by primary and secondary temperature standards, like the triple point of water. Unfortunately, for small systems, this experimental proof can in principle not be performed due to the following difficulty. Temperature measurements involve necessarily energy exchange between the system and the thermometer in order to bring the thermometer to the same temperature as the system under study, thus undermining the requirement of a closed system for a microcanonical description. For macroscopic systems, this problem is solved by introducing a small thermometer compared to the system. For small systems of a few particles, in general, every thermometer will, due to its size, act as a heat bath when brought into contact with the system under study. Thus, temperature measurements on small, truly microcanonical systems seem virtually impossible and, therefore, it cannot be proven that the quantity $`T`$ from Eq. (1) corresponds to the thermodynamical temperature in these cases, although $`S`$ and $`E`$ are still well defined and can be measured. It should also be noted that all means of temperature measurements which are based on the application of the statistical theory, like momentum distribution measurements, are not valid either, since the connection between the microcanonical statistical theory and thermodynamics is always based on Eq. (1).

The treatment of the nucleus in the canonical ensemble theory has also the advantage that a classification scheme for phase transitions exists which reduces to the Ehrenfest definition in the thermodynamical limit . Hence, the difficulties mentioned in the Introduction can be overcome. Although it was suggested in  that the canonical ensemble theory should not be applied to first-order phase transitions, it has been shown that it gives convincing results in the case of nuclear multifragmentation  which is thought to be a first-order phase transition. It has also been objected that the Laplace transformation involved in the canonical ensemble theory smears out the thermodynamical information of the system under study and that the canonical partition function therefore contains less information than the microcanonical partition function . We want to emphasize, however, that the partition function of the canonical ensemble, when known on all of the right-hand half of the complex temperature plane, certainly does carry as much thermodynamical information of the system as the microcanonical partition function. The reason for this is that the inverse Laplace transformation (from the canonical to the microcanonical partition function) is mathematically defined in a unique fashion and hence the microcanonical partition function can in principle be recovered unanimously. However, since the inverse Laplace transformation requires integration on the complex temperature plane along a parallel to the imaginary axis, one has to expect that knowledge of the canonical partition function over all of the right hand half of the complex temperature plane is pivotal for revealing the complete thermodynamical information of the system under study. The classification scheme  which we intend to apply in this work, is based on the DOZ of the canonical partition function and therefore complies with this requirement.

## III Model

The model in this work is a further development of the previously proposed model in . We will first recapitulate those features of the old model which we have adopted in the present work and then describe the changes and additions. The basic idea behind our model is the assumption of a reservoir of nucleon pairs. These nucleon pairs can be broken and the unpaired nucleons are then promoted into an infinite, equidistant, doubly degenerated single-particle level scheme. The nucleon pairs in the reservoir do not interact with each other and are thought to occupy an infinitely degenerated ground state. The nucleons in the single particle level scheme do not interact with each other either, but they have to obey the Pauli principle. The model is depicted in Fig. 1. The essential parameters of the model are: the number of pairs in the reservoir at zero temperature $`N`$, the spacing of the single-particle level scheme $`ϵ`$, and the energy necessary to break a nucleon pair $`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Quenching of pairing correlations is introduced into this model by reducing the required energy to break a nucleon pair in the presence of unpaired nucleons. We assume that for every already broken nucleon pair, the energy to break a further nucleon pair is reduced by a factor $`r1`$. Thus, in the presence of $`p`$ broken nucleon pairs, the energy to break the $`(p+1)`$th nucleon pair is reduced to $`2r^p\mathrm{\Delta }`$. We assume further that the single unpaired nucleon in an odd nucleus reduces the necessary energy for breaking the first nucleon pair of the same species to $`2\sqrt{r}\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

The proposed model is supposed to display three distinct phases: a phase where pairing correlations dominate, a phase where the pairs have essentially been broken up and the system behaves like a non-interacting Fermi-gas dominated by Pauli-blocking, and a phase where the nucleons become diluted in a phase space much larger in size (in terms of the number of realizations of thermal excitations) than the number of nucleons present. In this third phase, the Pauli blocking can be neglected and the system resembles mostly a classical ideal gas. We will, in the following, denote the three phases as the paired phase, the unpaired phase, and the quasi-classical phase. The three distinct phases of the system makes it possible to investigate two different phase transitions with our model.

It has been shown previously , that the partition function for $`n`$ unpaired nucleons in an infinite, equidistant, doubly degenerated single-particle level scheme can be written as

$`z_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{(n1)/2}{}}}2z_{ni}^{}z_i^{}n=\mathrm{odd}`$ (2)
$`z_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{(n2)/2}{}}}2z_{ni}^{}z_i^{}+(z_{n/2}^{})^2n=\mathrm{even},`$ (3)
where the $`z_i^{}`$ are the partition functions for $`i`$ spin-up nucleons in an infinite, equidistant, non-degenerated single-particle level scheme. The $`z_i^{}`$ can be expressed by means of the recursive formula

$`z_0^{}`$ $`=`$ $`1`$ (4)
$`z_{i+1}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`z_i^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}(iϵ\beta )}{1\mathrm{exp}((i+1)ϵ\beta )}},`$ (5)
where $`\beta =1/T`$111Here, and in the following, we set Boltzmann’s constant $`k_\mathrm{B}=1`$.. According to our model, in order to promote $`n`$ nucleons from the reservoir into the single-particle level scheme, one has to break $`p=n/2`$ nucleon pairs which requires the energy

$$2\mathrm{\Delta }+2r\mathrm{\Delta }+2r^2\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{}+2r^{p1}\mathrm{\Delta }=2\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{1r^p}{1r}$$
(6)
in the even case. In the odd case, one has to multiply this energy by $`\sqrt{r}`$ in order to take into account the quenching effect of the odd nucleon. Hence, the partition function for $`n`$ unpaired nucleons in our model becomes

$`Z_n`$ $`=`$ $`z_n\mathrm{exp}(2\sqrt{r}\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \frac{1r^{(n1)/2}}{1r}}\beta )n=\mathrm{odd}`$ (7)
$`Z_n`$ $`=`$ $`z_n\mathrm{exp}(2\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \frac{1r^{n/2}}{1r}}\beta )n=\mathrm{even}.`$ (8)
In order to obtain the partition function for the complete system, one has to sum over all possible numbers of unpaired nucleons in the single-particle level scheme. Thus, the partition function of our model is finally

$`Z_{\mathrm{pair}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N+1}{}}}Z_{2n1}\mathrm{odd}`$ (9)
$`Z_{\mathrm{pair}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}}Z_{2n}\mathrm{even}.`$ (10)
At this point, the average number of unpaired particles can be calculated in a straightforward manner

$`n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N+1}{}}}nZ_{2n1}/{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N+1}{}}}Z_{2n1}\mathrm{odd}`$ (11)
$`n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}}nZ_{2n}/{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}}Z_{2n}\mathrm{even}.`$ (12)
The number of unpaired particles will fluctuate, and the fluctuations can be calculated by

$$\delta n=\sqrt{n^2n^2},$$
(13)
where $`n^2`$ is given by

$`n^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N+1}{}}}n^2Z_{2n1}/{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N+1}{}}}Z_{2n1}\mathrm{odd}`$ (14)
$`n^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}}n^2Z_{2n}/{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}}Z_{2n}\mathrm{even}.`$ (15)
Since there are protons and neutrons in the nucleus, one has to create two partition functions $`Z_{\mathrm{pair}}`$, one for every nucleon species, and multiply them with each other. Here, one can introduce different parameters $`ϵ`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`r`$, and $`N`$ for protons and neutrons. For the sake of simplicity, we will, however, in this work not make use of this possibility222This means that the even-odd and the odd-even systems will be equal. We will, therefore, in this work use the term ’odd system’ to denote either of the two.. In addition to the model partition function, we have in the previous work  also assumed a rotational and vibrational partition function

$`Z_{\mathrm{rot}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{I=0,2,4\mathrm{}}{\overset{12}{}}}\mathrm{exp}(A_{\mathrm{rig}}I(I+1)\beta )`$ (16)
$`Z_{\mathrm{vib}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\nu =0}{\overset{1}{}}}3^\nu \mathrm{exp}(\nu \mathrm{}\omega _{\mathrm{vib}}\beta )`$ (17)
with $`A_{\mathrm{rig}}`$ being the rigid-body rotational parameter and $`\omega _{\mathrm{vib}}`$ the vibrational frequency of the nucleus under study. The nuclear partition function becomes therefore in the most general case

$$Z=Z_{\mathrm{pair}}^\pi Z_{\mathrm{pair}}^\nu Z_{\mathrm{rot}}Z_{\mathrm{vib}}$$
(18)
where we will use in this work equal proton and neutron partition functions $`Z_{\mathrm{pair}}^\pi `$ and $`Z_{\mathrm{pair}}^\nu `$. We would like to stress that for $`r=1`$, the present model is approximately equal to the previous model , whereas the possibility of $`r<1`$, i.e., the quenching of pairing correlations, is a new feature of the present model.

Although the model is purely phenomenological, we would like to emphasize that it can be closely related to a microscopical model. If one assumes a Hamiltonian of the form

$$\widehat{H}=\widehat{H}_\pi +\widehat{H}_\nu +\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{rot}}+\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{vib}}$$
(19)
with

$$\widehat{H}_{\pi ,\nu }=ϵ\underset{\kappa }{}a_\kappa ^{}a_\kappa |G|\underset{\kappa ,\lambda >0}{}a_\kappa ^{}a_\kappa ^{}a_\lambda a_\lambda ,$$
(20)
i.e., a simple single-particle plus pairing Hamiltonian for protons and neutrons, and conventional rotational and vibrational Hamiltonians $`\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{rot}}`$ and $`\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{vib}}`$ for the collective modes, similar results as in this work can be achieved . The advantage of the present, phenomenological model over the microscopic model is that, in general, a much larger number of particles and single-particle levels can be taken into account.

## IV Model properties

It has already been shown that the previous model  describes well the level density and heat capacity in the 162Dy nucleus. Further, it could reproduce  the anchor points of the level density curve proposed in  for several other mid-shell nuclei. However, in order to do so, one had to assume values for $`ϵ`$ which were off general estimates of the shell model. Also, it was not possible to reproduce the theoretical heat capacity curve of iron nuclei as calculated in  within the SMMC approach. Since in the new model an additional parameter is introduced, we have the hope to use more reasonable values of $`ϵ`$ and still be able to describe the experimental data with good accuracy.

The parameters for the present nuclear model are taken from the following systematics

$$ϵ=\frac{3\pi ^2}{A}\mathrm{MeV},$$
(21)
where the level density parameter $`a=\pi ^2/3ϵ`$ is related to the mass number $`A`$ by $`a=A/9\mathrm{MeV}^1`$. The pairing-gap parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ can also be related to the mass number $`A`$ by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{12}{\sqrt{A}}\mathrm{MeV}.$$
(22)
The rigid-body rotational parameter $`A_{\mathrm{rig}}`$ can be expressed in terms of the rigid moment of inertia $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{rig}}`$ by

$$A_{\mathrm{rig}}=\mathrm{}^2/2\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{rig}}.$$
(23)
Assuming the nucleus to be a rotational symmetric ellipsoid of constant density, the rigid moment of inertia can be expressed by the nuclear mass $`M`$ and mean radius $`R`$ as $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{rig}}=2/5MR^2`$. The nuclear mean radius can then again be related to the mass number by $`R=1.24\mathrm{fm}A^{1/3}`$. The vibrational frequency of the nucleus can be taken directly from spectroscopic data . For the parameter $`r`$ of our model, which governs the evolution of the pairing gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with temperature, no systematics exist. Theoretical studies suggest a quenching of the pairing energy per broken pair in the order of 0.56 in the mass 190 region  yielding a $`\mathrm{\Delta }(T)`$ curve comparable to results from modern RPA calculations  (see Fig. 2). Probably $`r`$ will increase with mass number. This effect is, however, not taken into account in this work and we adopt $`r=0.56`$ for all nuclei studied. Finally, for the last parameter $`N`$ of the model, we assume ten neutron and ten proton pairs in the reservoir at zero temperature in most of this work. This is an increase over the previous calculations  where a total number of ten nucleon pairs was assumed. The increase of the number of nucleon pairs in the reservoir allows us to map thermodynamical quantities of nuclei up to higher temperatures of, e.g., 1.5 MeV in dysprosium. A summary of the applied parameters is listed in Table I.

In order to compare the model to experimental data, one has to calculate experimentally observed quantities like the free energy $`F`$, the entropy $`S`$, the caloric curve $`E(T)`$, the heat capacity $`C_V`$, and the nuclear level density $`\rho (E)`$ from the canonical partition function. While the first four quantities can be calculated in a straightforward fashion by the following expressions

$`F`$ $`=`$ $`T\mathrm{ln}Z`$ (24)
$`S`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{F}{T}}\right)_V`$ (25)
$`E`$ $`=`$ $`F+ST`$ (26)
$`C_V`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{E}{T}}\right)_V,`$ (27)
the nuclear level density should, in principle, be obtained by an inverse Laplace transformation of the canonical partition function. We will, however, in this work make use of the saddle-point approximation

$$\rho (E)=\frac{\mathrm{exp}(S)}{T\sqrt{2\pi C_V}},$$
(28)
which gives satisfactory results for the nuclear level density . Finally, we will calculate the average number of unpaired nucleons $`n`$, the fluctuation of this number $`\delta n`$, and the effective, temperature-dependent pairing energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }(T)=r^{n/2}\mathrm{\Delta }(0)`$.

In Fig. 2, thermodynamical quantities derived from the model are shown using parameters for 162Dy. The quantities $`S`$, $`n`$, $`C_V`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(T)`$ are coinciding for the even-even, odd, and odd-odd systems above temperatures of 0.8–1 MeV, indicating that the pairing correlations are already completely quenched at these temperatures. Indeed, the heat capacity curve displays a linear dependence on temperature between $`T=1`$ and 1.5 MeV, which is the expected temperature dependence for a Fermi gas. The fluctuation of the number of unpaired particles $`\delta n`$ increases strongly around $`T0.5`$ MeV, which coincides with a strong decrease of the effective pairing energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }(T)`$ and the S-shape of the heat capacity curve, first observed experimentally in . The latter three observations can be interpreted as signatures of a second-order phase-transition like phenomenon in nuclei.

On the right-hand panels of Fig. 2, the quantities $`n`$ and $`C_V`$ can be seen to split up again for the even-even, odd, and odd-odd systems at temperatures above 1.5–2 MeV. At these temperatures, all nucleons start to become excited, the reservoir is rapidly being exhausted and the system can no longer absorb energy at the same rate without getting heated up rapidly. Therefore, the heat capacity decreases until it reaches the limit of $`1k_\mathrm{B}`$ per particle333This corresponds to the value for a two-dimensional ideal, classical gas. and the number of unpaired particles will increase at a progressively smaller pace to the limit of 40, 41, and 42 for the even-even, odd, and odd-odd systems, respectively. This is the signal of a possible second phase transition inherent in the model from an unpaired phase to a quasi-classical phase. It is not expected that this second phase transition is present in the experimental data since the nuclei under study in this work have more particles than are included in the model space. Therefore, the second phase transition in the model merely reflects the fact that the model space is still too small in order to describe heavy nuclei adequately at the highest temperatures444In any case, atomic nuclei become unbound, undergo multifragmentation and therefore loose their identities at the critical temperature for the liquid-gas phase transition. This will therefore be the temperature beyond which our model becomes unrealistic, even when including all nucleons of the nucleus.. Some kind of signal of the exhaustion of the model space will, however, be present in all types of nuclear model calculations which do not include all nucleons or the complete single-particle level scheme. We will therefore investigate in Sect. V B whether and how the truncation of the model space interferes with the signal of the pairing phase transition.

Figure 3 shows how the model compares to the level-density anchor points of Ref.  and the measured level densities of two dysprosium isotopes . The data points for the dysprosium isotopes have been modified slightly for the purpose of this work. While in the previous works  a back-shifted level-density formula with the von Egidy parameterization  was used for normalization and extrapolation to the neutron-binding energy and beyond, in this work, we will make use of a simple, shifted level-density formula

$$\rho =f\frac{\mathrm{exp}(2\sqrt{aU})}{12\sqrt{0.1776}a^{1/2}U^{3/2}A^{1/3}}$$
(29)
with $`U=E\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`a=A/9`$ MeV-1 and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=12/\sqrt{A}`$ MeV for consistency. The parameterization for the spin cut-off parameter $`\sigma `$ is taken from Ref.  and the normalization parameter $`f`$ is chosen such that the level-density formula intersects the data point from neutron resonance spacing . It is satisfying that the model reproduces the data points well without any fine tuning of the parameters in the different mass regions off closed shells. Only in the case of the iron mass region, the single particle level spacing had to be increased from the systematic value of $`ϵ=517`$ keV to 800 keV in order to describe the data. The shortcomings of the model to reproduce the iron data using parameters from the systematics is most likely due to the presence of the double shell closure in the neighboring 56Ni isotope. Irregularities of both, the single-particle level spacing (or more precisely the closely related level-density parameter $`a`$) and the pairing-gap parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in the vicinity of closed shells are a well-known fact . We would like to stress that a better fit to the experimental data might certainly be achieved by fine tuning of the parameters for protons and neutrons for every mass region. However, the possibility of using systematic parameters for the model highlights its general applicability.

In Fig. 4, the model predictions are compared to published canonical thermodynamical quantities. For the iron nuclei these data are recent SMMC calculations , while for the dysprosium nuclei, semi-experimental data exist . The comparison is made for canonical heat-capacity curves, since these curves are effectively second derivatives of the canonical partition functions and therefore more sensitive to structural changes in the nucleus than any other thermodynamical quantities.

Although the steepness of the S-shape differs somewhat and the absolute value at the plateau is off by $`30`$%, the overall agreement of the model calculation for the dysprosium nuclei with the semi-experimental data is satisfying. Especially the temperature where the steepness of the S-curve reaches the maximum, i.e., the critical temperature of the pairing phase transition, is well reproduced. For the iron nuclei, the agreement between our model and the SMMC calculations is not so good. Unfortunately, no experimental data exists to compare the two models to, therefore it is difficult to judge which is the more realistic one. While the present model is very schematic, it offers the possibility to include infinitely many single-particle levels and much more nucleons than the SMMC calculations. Especially the necessity of a finite single-particle level scheme in SMMC calculations will cause the heat capacity curve to approach zero for high temperatures and it is not clear at which temperature this effect takes over in the data of Ref. . On the other hand, the SMMC calculation can incorporate shell-effects in a more natural way than by simply adjusting the two parameters $`ϵ`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Especially the use of a realistic nucleon-nucleon interaction and the correct single particle energies for the complete $`(pf+0g_{9/2})`$ shell might change the picture significantly at low temperatures compared to the present schematic model.

In conclusion, it can be stated that the present model, using a systematic parameter set, reproduces fairly well the available experimental data, but a discrepancy with SMMC calculations in the iron-mass region exists. Since the agreement with experiment is good in the rare earth mass region, where also experimental data is abundant, we are confident that the model can be applied to classify the order of the pairing phase transition with good accuracy in deformed rare earth nuclei if not in most mid-shell nuclei.

## V Classification of phase transitions

### A Classification scheme

The classification scheme for phase transitions is based entirely on  and is only slightly modified for the purpose of this work. We will therefore only recapitulate briefly the main features of the classification scheme. The scheme relies on the DOZ and derives three quantities, where two of them classify the order of a possible phase transition and the third one reflects the discreteness of the system under study.

First, we define the inverse complex temperature

$$=\beta +i\tau ,$$
(30)
where $`\beta =1/T`$ as usual and $`\tau `$ denotes the imaginary part of the inverse complex temperature which is measured in MeV-1 in this work. The zeros of the canonical partition function typically line up on curves through the complex temperature plane. Whenever such a curve intersects the real axis, a phase transition in the system might occur. Figure 5 shows a typical example with four zeros on a curve approaching the real axis. The zeros are denoted by $`(\beta _j,\tau _j)`$ with $`j=1\mathrm{}4`$ and $`j`$ increasing with increasing distance from the real axis.

The angle $`\nu `$, being the first quantity of interest, is calculated by

$$\nu =\mathrm{arctan}\frac{\beta _2\beta _1}{\tau _2\tau _1}.$$
(31)
Further, the average inverse distance between zeros can be calculated as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{d_{j1}}+\frac{1}{d_j}\right),$$
(32)
where $`d_j=\sqrt{(\beta _{j+1}\beta _j)^2+(\tau _{j+1}\tau _j)^2}`$. The function $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ can then be approximated in the vicinity of the real axis by a power law of $`\tau _j`$ only

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau _j)\tau _j^\alpha ,$$
(33)
such that the second quantity of interest, $`\alpha `$, can be calculated by means of

$$\alpha =\frac{\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau _3)\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau _2)}{\mathrm{ln}\tau _3\mathrm{ln}\tau _2}.$$
(34)
One can easily see that in order to calculate $`\alpha `$, one has to determine at least the first four zeros closest to the real axis. With a slight redefinition of the function $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ by

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\stackrel{~}{\tau }_j)=\frac{1}{d_j},$$
(35)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_j=(\tau _j+\tau _{j+1})/2`$, only the first three zeros have to be known. The order of the phase transition is now completely determined by the two quantities $`\nu `$ and $`\alpha `$. When $`\alpha <0`$ or $`\alpha =\nu =0`$ the system exhibits a first-order phase transition. For $`0<\alpha <1`$ and $`\nu =0`$ or $`\nu 0`$, a second-order phase transition takes place. For $`\alpha >1`$ the phase transition is of higher order.

The third parameter $`\tau _1`$ indicates the discreteness of the system. More precisely, the quantity $`\tau _1/\mathrm{}`$ equals the time after which an ensemble of equal systems loses its memory. Only if $`\tau _10`$ for increasing particle numbers, one has a corresponding phase transition in the Ehrenfest sense for the thermodynamical limit. For finite systems, one can then speak of a phase transition in the generalized Ehrenfest sense. Finally, $`\beta _1`$ might be defined as the inverse of the critical temperature of the phase transition. In the following, the classification scheme will be applied to the DOZ of mid-shell nuclei calculated within the proposed nuclear model.

### B Results

First, we investigate the effect of the numbers of pairs in the reservoir at zero temperature on the DOZ. On the upper left panel in Fig. 6, the calculation is done for one single pair in the reservoir. Certainly, no phase transition can be claimed, but the positions of the zeros already indicate at which temperatures the pairing phase transition will take place. Also, the effect of the Pauli blocking by the single unpaired nucleon is visible, shifting the zero of the odd system to higher temperatures. For two pairs in the reservoir, two zeros for the even and odd system can be seen. The zeros are positioned on slanted lines where the zeros of the odd system are again shifted to higher temperatures due to the Pauli blocking. The same is true for three pairs in the reservoir. According to the previous subsection, three zeros in a line can already be used to classify a phase transition. In the present case, since $`\alpha `$ is negative, a first-order phase transition is indicated. Due to the small size of the system, however, one cannot attribute this phase transition simply to the quenching of pairing correlations. Rather, one has to acknowledge the fact that the pairing phase transition coincides with the phase transition from an unpaired to a quasi-classical system, giving rise to a disturbed signal for the order of the phase transition. This becomes clearer in the case of four pairs in the reservoir. Here, one might already discuss two separate phase transitions, since one can distinguish two different curves of zeros approaching the real axis. While the curves to the right might be attributed to the pairing phase transition, the curves to the left are indicating the transition to a quasi-classical phase. Still, since the two curves are sharing zeros one cannot expect to get a clean signal for the classification of the two phase transitions and indeed for both curves one obtains negative values of $`\alpha `$, indicating two first order phase transitions, a result which is at variance with expectations. First the calculation with seven pairs separates the two phase transitions enough in temperature to get clean signals. Here, one finds negative values of $`\alpha `$ for the transitions to a quasi-classical phase, indicating a first-order phase transition. Interestingly, this phase transition does show only a very small odd-even effect, which can in total be attributed to the by one higher particle number in the odd case. The pairing phase transition, however, has a large odd-even dependence and yields $`\alpha 0.86`$ for the even case, indicating a second-order phase transition and a value greater than one for the odd case, indicating a higher order phase transition. This result remains stable for larger particle numbers. The values of $`\nu `$ are consistent with the conclusions drawn above.

We will now investigate the evolution of the parameters $`\beta _1`$, i.e., the inverse critical temperatures of the respective phase transitions, as function of $`N`$, i.e., the size of the model space. In the upper left panel of Fig. 7, it is shown that $`\beta _1`$ for the phase transition from the unpaired to the quasi-classical phase obeys a power law of the form $`aN^b`$ with $`b1`$. This means that in the thermodynamical limit the critical temperature of this phase transition will approach infinity and thus, the phase transition cannot be observed in infinitely large systems. This is not surprising, since the very nature of this phase transition, which is a transition from a Fermi gas to a quasi-classical phase where the nucleons are diluted in phase space, obviously requires increasingly higher temperatures the more nucleons are present. Here, we want to stress once more that this phase transition is a true phase transition inherent in the model and might even be realized in nature by some physical system. However, when applying the model to heavy nuclei which are much larger than the model space, $`\beta _1`$ merely indicates at which (inverse) temperature the reservoir is being exhausted and that the model space is too small to describe heavy nuclei adequately below $`\beta _1`$. Eventually, the temperature beyond which our model becomes unrealistic, even when including all nucleons of the nucleus in the model space, is given by the critical temperature for the liquid-gas phase transition (see also 44footnotemark: 4).

On the lower left panel of Fig. 7, the evolution of $`\beta _1`$ for the pairing phase transition as function of the size of the model space is shown. The inverse critical temperature $`\beta _1`$ of the pairing phase transition is independent of the size of the model space as it is expected, but it shows a pronounced odd-even effect due to the Pauli blocking of the single unpaired nucleon.

Finally, we will investigate the parameters $`\tau _1`$ as function of $`N`$ in order to gain information on whether the phase transitions observed in the finite system under study correspond to true phase transitions in the thermodynamical limit. Unfortunately, in the case of the first-order phase transition from the unpaired phase to the quasi-classical phase, $`\beta _1`$ and therefore also $`\tau _1`$ show a trivial scaling with $`N`$ which is clouding the relevant, additional $`N`$ dependence of $`\tau _1`$. Therefore, one has to investigate the dimensionless parameter $`\tau _1/\beta _1`$ for a residual, non-trivial $`N`$ dependence in order to be able to conclude on the reality of the phase transition in the generalized Ehrenfest sense for the finite system. On the upper right panel of Fig. 7 the dependence of $`\tau _1/\beta _1`$ on $`N`$ for the phase transition from the unpaired to the quasi-classical phase is shown to obey the power law $`aN^b`$ with $`b0.5`$. Thus, the dimensionless parameter $`\tau _1/\beta _1`$ is shown to approach the real axis in the thermodynamical limit and the modeled phase transition satisfies the generalized Ehrenfest definition of a phase transition.

For the pairing phase transition, one could in principle investigate $`\tau _1`$ directly as function of $`N`$, since $`\beta _1`$ is independent of $`N`$ and thus, no trivial scaling of $`\tau _1`$ with $`N`$ will alter the results. However, to treat everything on an equal footing, also in this case, we have investigated the dimensionless parameter $`\tau _1/\beta _1`$. Since $`\tau _1/\beta _1`$ shows no sign of approaching the real axis (see the lower right panel of Fig. 7), one has to ask the question whether the modeled pairing phase transition corresponds to any true phase transition in the thermodynamical limit.

In order to answer this question, we introduce the notion that, in the case of the pairing phase transition, the size of the system is not determined by the size of the reservoir $`N`$, but rather by the mass number $`A`$ and subsequently by the mass-number-dependent parameters $`ϵ`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Specifically, the parameter $`g=\mathrm{\Delta }/ϵ`$ scales as $`\sqrt{A}`$ and should thus be increased in order to model a larger system. This is in sharp contrast to the analysis in , where the authors assume that the simple increase of the number of particles $`N`$ in the calculation should model heavier nuclei.

Therefore, in order to investigate the evolution of $`\tau _1`$ for the pairing phase transition with respect to the relevant size of the system, i.e., the mass number $`A`$, we have calculated the DOZ for nuclei in four different mass regions (see Fig. 8). Obviously, the pairing phase transition can only be observed for nuclei with mass numbers $`A>100`$ within the presented model, since for lighter nuclei, the curve of zeros relevant for the quenching of pairing correlations points away from the real axis, and therefore, one cannot claim, within the model, the existence of a pairing phase transition for light nuclei. On the left-hand panel of Fig. 9, the inverse critical temperature of the pairing phase transition is shown to scale approximately with $`A^{2/3}`$ in the rare-earth mass region, which is expected when assuming $`T_c=\mathrm{\Delta }/S_1`$, where $`S_1`$ is the single-particle entropy . The iron data do not quite follow this trend, since we have used a single-particle level spacing for the iron nuclei outside the global systematics of Eq. (21), see also Table I. Again, by investigating the dimensionless parameter $`\tau _1/\beta _1`$ of the pairing phase transition, the trivial mass dependence is taken out and the residual dependence of $`\tau _1/\beta _1`$ on $`A`$ will tell if the modeled pairing phase transition in the finite system under study is a phase transition in the generalized Ehrenfest sense. On the right-hand panel of Fig. 9, this residual $`A`$ dependence of $`\tau _1/\beta _1`$ has been fitted by the power law $`aA^b`$ with $`b1/3`$, again omitting the iron data due to their unsystematic value of $`ϵ`$. Thus, $`\tau _1/\beta _1`$ will approach the real axis for large mass numbers. Therefore, one can conclude that the modeled pairing phase transition is a true phase transition in the generalized Ehrenfest sense, provided that one investigates this phase transition with respect to the relevant size of the system, which is the mass number $`A`$ rather than the size of the model space $`N`$. As a final remark, it is interesting to notice that the odd-even difference of $`\beta _1`$ and $`\tau _1/\beta _1`$ becomes smaller with increasing mass number. Thus, in the thermodynamical limit, it will not matter if the system consists of an even or an odd number of particles, as it is expected.

## VI Conclusions

We have developed a model which allows the investigation of phase transitions in a small system of two or more particles. The anticipated phase transition from a paired to an unpaired system in rare earth nuclei could be produced. The order of the modeled pairing phase transition could be determined for even systems to be of second order and for odd systems to be of higher order. A second phase transition, which is of first order, is inherent in the model and connects the unpaired and a quasi-classical phase. The latter phase is characterized by the dilution of particles in phase space and might therefore be encountered in systems where the phase space is much larger in size (in terms of the number of realizations of thermal excitations) than the number of particles present. This second phase transition is a true phase transition and might be realized in nature by some physical system. In the case of modeling heavy nuclei with particle numbers much larger than the model space, however, it reflects merely the fact that the model space is still too small in order to describe those nuclei adequately at high temperatures (within the limits discussed in 44footnotemark: 4). It has been shown that the pairing phase transition and the signal of the exhaustion of the finite model space have to be carefully separated in temperature in order to obtain a clear signature of the pairing phase transition in atomic nuclei. The presented model is able to take into account a sufficient number of single-particle levels and nucleons to allow a good separation and to display conclusive evidence of the pairing phase transition in heavy mid-shell nuclei.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Part of this work was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by the University of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract No. W-7405-ENG-48. Financial support from the Norwegian Research Council (NFR) is gratefully acknowledged. We thank David Dean and Paul Garrett for interesting discussions and Emel Tavukcu for carrying out some preliminary calculations for this work.