text:
# CH3OH and H2O masers in high-mass star-forming regions

## 1 Introduction

Over the last decade, it has become clear that Class ii CH3OH and H2O maser emission is closely associated with the earliest stages of massive star formation. Much research has been focused on both maser species, but most high-resolution studies have concentrated on only one type. Little is known about the associations and connections of the CH3OH and the H2O maser emission. Motivated by this lack of information, we conducted high-resolution observations of both maser types in a large sample of high-mass protostellar objects (HMPOs) and discuss them in the context of different other probes of massive star formation.

So far, high-resolution investigations, focused either on H2O or on CH3OH maser emission, indicate independently that both maser types are found in outflows as well as in circumstellar disks. Examples of these studies on the H2O side are, e.g., Torrelles et al. (1997, 1998), Codella & Felli (1995), and Codella et al. (1996, 1997), whereas recent studies of CH3OH masers include Walsh et al. (1997, 1998), Phillips et al. (1998), Minier et al. (2000a, 2001), and Codella & Moscadelli (2000). Reviews on this subject are found in Menten (1996), Garay & Lizano (1999), Norris (2000), and Kylafis & Pavlakis (1999).

Another finding is that both maser types are occasionally spatially coincident with ultracompact Hii regions, but more often with hot molecular cores and/or massive molecular outflows (Hofner & Churchwell, 1996; Codella et al., 1996, 1997; Walsh et al., 1998; Garay & Lizano, 1999; Minier et al., 2001). Recent studies by Walsh et al. (2001) indicate that CH3OH masers often are associated with mid-infrared sources that should be luminous enough to produce strong ionizing radiation. In spite of that, a number of those maser sites is undetected in the radio continuum, and Walsh et al. (2001) conclude that these might be in an evolutionary stage prior to forming an ultracompact Hii region.

For sources in which both maser species are observed (mostly single-dish data with low spatial resolution), the velocity spread is far higher in the case of H2O maser emission than known for CH3OH masers. For example, Sridharan et al. (2002) found in a sample of high-mass protostellar candidates that the CH3OH emission is confined always to a total radial velocity extent of at most 15 km/s, whereas the H2O maser emission is found extending up to 70 km/s. In spite of the similarities outlined above, these different spectral features show that the two maser types are subject to different excitation conditions and likely occur in separate spatial regions around the evolving massive protostars.

The current status of CH3OH maser excitation studies favors a scenario in which the CH3OH maser emission is produced by radiative pumping in small, moderately hot regions ($`150`$ K) with CH3OH column densities $`>10^{15}`$ cm-2 and hydrogen number densities $`<10^8`$ cm-3 (Hartquist et al., 1995; Sobolev et al., 1997; Cragg et al., 2001). While it was suggested that CH3OH maser could be produced in disks (e.g., Norris et al. 1998), this is not unambiguously confirmed, and other scenarios like expanding shock waves or outflows have been proposed as well (e.g., Walsh et al. 1998, Minier et al. 2000b). It is quite possible that the same maser species in different sources have different origins.

In contrast, most H2O maser models explain the excitation by collisional pumping with H2 molecules within shocks associated with outflows and/or accretion (Elitzur et al., 1989; Garay & Lizano, 1999). For example, the model by Elitzur et al. (1989) requires dissociative shocks in dense gas (preshock densities around $`10^7`$ cm-3) with temperatures up to $`400`$ K. In many sources, it is believed that the H2O masers form within outflows, but there are also examples claiming that the H2O masers are produced in disks (Garay & Lizano, 1999).

The high-resolution study of H2O and CH3OH maser emission in 29 high-mass star-forming regions presented here intends to compare the characteristics of these important signposts of massive star formation. The study is part of a long term project studying very early evolutionary stages of massive star formation, prior to, or during the formation of an ultracompact Hii region. The entire sample of 69 sources presented first by Sridharan et al. (2002) is distributed mainly between 1 kpc and 10 kpc distance from the sun. For many sources, only kinematic distances are known, and the data suffer from the distance ambiguity of this approach (Sridharan et al., 2002). The bolometric luminosities of the sources range roughly between $`10^{3.5}`$ L and $`10^{5.6}`$ L, and the core masses vary between a few 100 M and a few $`10^4`$ M. Detailed analyzes of different sample properties (luminosities, density distributions, outflows) are presented in Sridharan et al. (2002) and Beuther et al. (2002a, b). In spite of the non-detection in Galaxy-wide single-dish cm surveys, more sensitive interferometric studies revealed that in some of the sources cm emission occurs, whereas in others we do not find any free-free emission down to 1 mJy. This makes the sample ideally suited for the study of associations of masers with different kinds of sources and evolutionary stages. The basic source properties of the sub-sample analyzed in this paper are summarized in Table 1. We compare the maser emission mainly with mm dust emission tracing the massive core (Beuther et al., 2002a), cm wavelength emission believed to be due to free-free emission in those sources where it had been detected (Sridharan et al., 2002), and mid-infrared emission likely due to warm dust around embedded objects.

## 2 Observations

### 2.1 Single-dish H2O and CH3OH maser data

An H2O (22.2 GHz) and Class ii CH3OH Class (6.7 GHz) maser survey of the the whole sample of 69 high-mass protostellar objects, as introduced by Sridharan et al. (2002), was conducted with the Effelsberg 100 m telescope in two runs in 1998. Altogether, 29 H2O and 26 CH3OH masers were found. The observations are described and statistically analyzed in Sridharan et al. (2002). Follow-up observations of the maser detections were conducted with high spatial resolution with the VLA and the ATCA.

### 2.2 H2O maser observations with the VLA

High-resolution images of the 22.2 GHz H2O maser line were obtained with the Very Large Array (VLA) in the B configuration with a spectral resolution of 0.65 km/s, a synthesized HPBW of $`0.4^{\prime \prime }`$, and a primary beam FWHM of $`2^{}`$. The snapshot mode was used with $`3\times 5`$ minutes integrations spread over the transit of each source. We reduced the data with the AIPS software package using standard procedures. The typical $`1\sigma `$ sensitivity is 1 Jy.

For 22 out of 26 observed sources, the signal-to-noise ratio and the UV coverage were sufficiently good to derive absolute positions to an accuracy better than $`1^{\prime \prime }`$. The accuracy of relative positions of different maser features is around $`0.1^{\prime \prime }`$.

### 2.3 CH3OH maser observations with the ATCA

To get high-resolution images of the Class ii 6.7 GHz maser line of CH3OH, we employed the Australian Telescope Compact Array (ATCA) which is part of the Australia Telescope National Facility. From the 26 sources initially found to be associated with CH3OH maser emission, 21 are south of declination 20 which is necessary to be observable with the ATCA. Six of the 21 sources had already been observed with the ATCA by Walsh et al. (1998). Thus, we observed the remaining 15 objects in the snapshot mode with a series of 6 short integration cuts of 5 minutes for each source. Phase calibrators were observed every 20 minutes. The field of view of the ATCA at this frequency is $`(8^{})^2`$, and the effective HPBW of the synthesized beam is $`1.9^{\prime \prime }`$. Observations near the equator result in elongated, elliptical beams because of the east–west elongation of the array. The spectral resolution was $`0.2`$ km/s, and the $`1\sigma `$ sensitivity was typically 0.5 Jy.

In 10 out of the 15 sources the data are sufficiently good to derive positions. The data reduction was performed with the MIRIAD software package using standard procedures. Absolute positions are estimated to be accurate to 1′′ whereas the relative positions should be accurate to $`0.1^{\prime \prime }`$. In 4 sources the signal was too weak to be detected, whereas in 1 source the signal was strong enough, but so close to the equator that no positions could be derived.

### 2.4 Other observations

Dust emission at mm wavelengths

The 29 sources presented in this paper were observed as part of the large sample of 69 high-mass protostellar objects introduced by Sridharan et al. (2002) with the MAMBO array in the 1.2 mm continuum. A detailed description of the data reduction and analysis can be found in Beuther et al. (2002b). For a few sources even higher resolution mm data were obtained with the Plateau de Bure Interferometer and the BIMA array at 2.6 mm. Plateau de Bure data are used here for 05358+3543 and 19217+1651, whereas the BIMA data were used in the cases of $`180891733`$, $`182641152`$, 18566+0408 and 23033+5951. Details of the Plateau de Bure observations are presented in Beuther et al. (2002c) and Beuther et al. (in prep.), and the BIMA observations will be published by Wyrowski et al. (in prep.).

The pointing accuracy of the MAMBO array is estimated to be around $`5^{\prime \prime }`$ and the BIMA and Plateau de Bure data should be accurate to approximately $`1^{\prime \prime }`$.

Continuum emission at cm wavelengths, likely produced by free-free emission

To know whether faint cm emission is present in some of the sources, we obtained 3.6 cm continuum images with the VLA down to a $`1\sigma `$ sensitivity of 0.1 mJy with a spatial resolution of $`0.7^{\prime \prime }`$. For more details see Sridharan et al. (2002). The positions of these data are correct to within $`1^{\prime \prime }`$.

Mid-infrared data

The Midcourse Space Experiment (MSX) point source catalog was searched for mid-infrared sources in the respective fields of view. For details on MSX see, e.g., Egan et al. (1998) and the MSX Web site111http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/ipac/msx/msx.html. In most fields, mid-infrared sources were found (Sridharan et al., 2002). For the few sources, for which the point source catalog had no entries, we examined the most sensitive MSX images at 8 $`\mu `$m and extracted source positions. The spatial resolution of MSX is approximately $`18^{\prime \prime }`$, and the sensitivity varies between the different bands between 0.1 and 30 Jy/beam. Egan et al. (1998) quote the positions to be accurate within $`4^{\prime \prime }5^{\prime \prime }`$. For 05358+3543, we use a mid-infrared source position observed by McCaughrean et al. (in prep.) with the Keck observatory at 11.7 $`\mu `$m.

## 3 Results

### 3.1 The database

Figure 1 presents maps of the 29 maser sources observed with high spatial resolution. For 6 sources the CH3OH data are taken from Walsh et al. (1998), for 19410+2336 the CH3OH maser positions are presented by Minier et al. (2000a), and for 05358+3543 no high-resolution CH3OH maser position is known (single dish detection by, e.g., Sridharan et al. 2002 and Menten 1991). Of the 6 sources in our sample north of 20 declination, Effelsberg 100 m data show that three (19410+2336, 20126+4104 & 23139+5939) contain CH3OH masers (Table 1), but because the ATCA is only capable of observing sources below 20 declination, we have accurate CH3OH maser positions only for 19410+2336 and 20126+4104, both of which were observed with the European VLBI network (EVN) by Minier et al. (2000a, 2001). Table 2 lists the positions of the maser features.

As we want to understand what kind of source is powering the masers, Fig 1 also shows other features characterizing the massive star-forming regions:
(1) mm dust continuum data, tracing the massive molecular cores in which the stars form,
(2) mid-infrared data, indicating warm dust around an embedded protostar,
(3) and cm continuum emission, probably due to optically thin free-free emission signposting recently ignited massive stars belonging to the same cluster. But as we do not have spectral index information in the cm regime, it is also possible that some of the cm features are still optically thick or could be due to jets (see also Sridharan et al. 2002).

Table 1 presents more characteristic source properties, such as the total luminosities, distances and core masses (Sridharan et al., 2002; Beuther et al., 2002a).

It is of major interest to see how the different maser types are associated with other observable features. Because of the positional accuracy of the maser and cm observations of $`1^{\prime \prime }`$, we cannot reliably separate features which are closer than $`1.5^{\prime \prime }`$ to each other. On linear scales at the given distances of a few kpc, this is still a large separation (e.g., at 4 kpc distance, $`1.5^{\prime \prime }`$ correspond to $`6000`$ AU $`0.03`$ pc), and we cannot be certain whether sources within $`1.5^{\prime \prime }`$ of each other are associated or not. It has also to be taken into account that those separations are projections on the plane of the sky, and there are probably spatial offsets along the line of sight as well. If more than one maser feature is detected we derived the separations using the nearest positions (except of the H2O maser spots in 19217+1651 because clearly two different groups exist). Lada (1999) report a mean separation between stellar objects in clusters around 0.1 pc, and McCaughrean & Stauffer (1994) find mean separations in the center of the Orion Nebula Cluster of $`0.03`$ pc. The scenario of merging intermediate-mass protostars within the innermost center of star-forming cores requires even higher protostellar densities between $`10^6`$ pc-3 and $`10^8`$ pc-3, corresponding to mean separations between 0.01 pc and 0.002 pc (Bonnell et al., 1998; Stahler et al., 2000). Taking all this different estimates into account, it is possible that a significant fraction of features, which seem to be associated within our observational accuracy, are powered by the same underlying source, but we cannot be certain, and it is possible that multiple features are powered by separate multiple sources. Within these powering sources, different maser origins are possible, e.g., outflows, disks or expanding shock waves (e.g., Garay & Lizano 1999). Furthermore, separate components of a binary or multiple system might account for the maser emission, because multiple system are more common in high-mass than in low-mass star-forming regions (Preibisch et al., 1999). Due to the lower spatial resolution and lower positional accuracy, mm and mid-infrared sources cannot be separated from the maser features when they are located within $`5^{\prime \prime }`$.

As the sample is distributed throughout the whole Galactic disk with largely different distances, we calculate linear separations between the masers and the other observable quantities (mm, cm and mid-infrared emission). For sources, where the separation is below the pointing accuracy of the observations, the derived values have to be taken cautiously because the errors are larger. As we only know kinematic distances for many of the sources, Tables 3 and 4 list the separations derived for the near and the far distance, respectively. Table 5 presents the mean separations; for sources with distance ambiguity we choose the near distance for this calculation. Additionally, a summary of the features which are, within the observing accuracy, associated with each other is given in Table 5.

### 3.2 Associations and (non-)correlations

Regarding the sources south of declination 20, which were in the observable range of both telescopes (the ATCA and the VLA), and including 19410+2336 and 20126+4104 (EVN and VLA data from Minier et al. 2000a, 2001), in 11 sources both maser types are detected, in 7 just the CH3OH masers, and in 6 only the H2O masers. Thus, $`38\%`$ of the CH3OH maser sources do not show H2O maser emission, and $`35\%`$ of the H2O maser sources do not emit in the CH3OH maser line. This shows that both maser types could be powered by similar sources, but that finding one does not necessarily imply finding the other as well. It rather confirms significant differences in the emission process as already expected by the different velocity ranges (e.g., Garay & Lizano 1999, Sridharan et al. 2002). As we are dealing with low-number statistics, we estimate the error by $`1/\sqrt{N}`$ with N being the number of sources we are investigating. Thus, the approximate statistical errors of our analysis are in the $`20\%`$ range (relative to the percentages of associations and (non-)correlations.) In sources with both maser types, the masers seem to be always associated within the accuracy of $`1.5^{\prime \prime }`$, except for $`181511208`$, the only field of view where both types are detected but in two separate mm cores, $`80^{\prime \prime }`$ apart. In contrast, in many sources just one of both maser types is present.

Both maser species are always found close to a mm core, traced by the dust continuum peak, with an average projected separation of 0.03 pc (Table 5). Considering the mean spatial separations within star-forming cluster (see 3.1), it is possible that both masers are amplified by the same powering source. Interestingly, 6 out of 22 H2O masers ($`27\pm 5\%`$) are, within the observing accuracy, also associated with cm emission, while only 3 out of 18 CH3OH masers ($`17\pm 5\%`$) are nearby the cm peaks. The statistical difference between both maser–cm associations is only weak. It is quite possible that some of the maser/cm associations are even chance alignments due to projection effects, but we cannot quantify that more precisely. We note that we do not find any source with CH3OH and cm emission without an H2O maser nearby, whereas in three sources H2O and cm peaks are coincident within our accuracy, but no observed CH3OH maser is found in the same region. An interesting example, which illustrates the different maser properties, is 19217+1651: some H2O and CH3OH features are associated with the massive mm core, whereas another H2O feature is found near the cm source approximately $`6^{\prime \prime }`$ apart (Figure 1). As the mm data are from interferometric Plateau de Bure observations (accuracy $`1^{\prime \prime }`$), the separation of the cm and mm peaks is real.

The mid-infrared sources stand somewhere between all the other features. In some cases, they seem to be associated with the mm sources and in other objects with the cm sources. The same is observed for their spatial associations with both maser species, in some sources their positions coincide within the observing accuracy, in others they do not. A very peculiar example is 18488+0000, where an archetypical cometary ultracompact Hii region is at the edge of the mm core, but most surprising, the mid-infrared source as well as the H2O maser feature do not coincide with any of them, but are located at a small secondary mm peak that looks insignificant from the mm point of view (but is still massive, $`400`$ M at the near kinematic distance of $`5`$ kpc, Beuther et al. 2002b).

To get a quantitative understanding of the spatial associations, we tried to find correlations between the linear separations of the different observed tracers and other quantities of our sample (the luminosities, core masses, H2 column densities and densities, as taken from Sridharan et al. 2002 and Beuther et al. 2002a). We did not find any correlation among all those different quantities.

### 3.3 Internal maser structure

To investigate whether the maser features show linear or arc-like structures indicative of specific emission regions (disks, outflows, or expanding shock waves, e.g., Walsh et al. 1998, Garay & Lizano 1999, Norris 2000, Kylafis & Pavlakis 1999, and Minier et al. 2000a), we focused on the 6 sources for which we have at least 3 spatially separate maser features in one or both species. Outflows are ubiquitous features in massive star-forming regions (Sridharan et al., 2002; Richer et al., 2000; Churchwell, 2000), therefore we additionally present the bipolar outflow directions found by Beuther et al. (2002b). Figure 2 shows the results.

Morphologically, one can find rings, arcs or linear structures in all cases, even between different maser species. But none of them has a coherent velocity structure and therefore cannot easily be interpreted in terms of disks, outflows or expanding shock waves. There is also no obvious correlation with the outflow direction. With only one set of observations, it is very difficult to interpret these morphological and kinematic signatures, but it is well possible that follow-up observations, and thus proper motion studies, might be capable of setting better constraints on the regions where the maser emission is produced. Such studies were successful in a number of cases, e.g., Alcolea et al. (1992) and Minier et al. (2000b).

## 4 Discussion

The observations presented in section 3 confirm that both maser species – CH3OH and H2O – are signposts of very early stages of massive star formation. While $`100\%`$ of the maser detections are clearly associated with massive molecular cores traced by mm dust continuum emission, only about $`20\%`$ are also associated with cm continuum emission that is indicative of recently ignited, and thus more evolved stars. These observations confirm results obtained for each maser species separately over the last few years, that CH3OH and H2O masers are signposts of very early stages of massive star formation, and that both seem to cease emission soon after the ignition of a central object (e.g., Tofani et al. 1995, Codella et al. 1996, 1997, Walsh et al. 1998, Minier et al. 2001). Here we show for the first time the similarities and differences of both maser types within a consistent study of a homogenous sample.

In spite of the small separations around 0.03 pc within many sources, there are clear differences between both maser types. In addition to their large velocity differences (Sridharan et al., 2002), in approximately $`30\%`$ of the sources just one maser species is found. We do find a few sources with nearby H2O maser and cm emission, but not showing CH3OH maser emission. In contrast, every source, where CH3OH maser emission is associated with a cm source, has an H2O maser nearby. This difference suggests tentatively that CH3OH maser emission might be more sensitive to the ignited central object, and may cease emitting in somewhat earlier evolutionary stages than H2O maser emission. However, it has to be noted that counterexamples exist, e.g, the W3(OH) region, where the CH3OH masers are associated with the ultracompact Hii region, and the H2O masers are approximately $`6^{\prime \prime }`$ to the east associated with the hot core W3(H2O). For a summary of the results in that region see Menten (1996).

CH3OH maser models propose that the maser emission is produced by radiative pumping in moderately hot regions ($`150`$ K) with CH3OH column densities $`>2\times 10^{15}`$ cm-2 and hydrogen number densities $`<10^8`$ cm-3 (Hartquist et al., 1995; Sobolev et al., 1997; Cragg et al., 2001). The data presented here as well as other studies (e.g., Walsh et al. 1997, 1998, Phillips et al. 1998, Minier et al. 2000a, 2001) indicate that the ignition of a massive star, and thus the formation of an ultracompact Hii region, alters these conditions swiftly and stops further CH3OH maser emission very soon.

In contrast, H2O maser models mostly explain the excitation by collisional pumping with H2 molecules in shocks associated with outflows (Elitzur et al., 1989). Such collisional pumping can also occur by accretion shocks in accretion disks (Garay & Lizano, 1999). These processes may not depend as strongly on the influence of the Hii region as the radiative pumping of the CH3OH maser, and H2O maser emission might continue some time in more evolved stages of evolution. But obviously, the statistics of the observations are not sufficient for a stronger statement.

The percentage of associated maser and mid-infrared sources ($`60\%`$) lies in a similar regime as found recently by Walsh et al. (2001). They propose that the mid-infrared objects, which are likely to be embedded luminous protostellar objects, could be the pumping sources of the maser sites. This might be true in the associated sources of our sample as well, but the percentage of associations clearly shows that detections in the mid-infrared regime are not necessary to produce the maser emission. It is possible that for high obscuration the sources are not detectable in the mid-infrared – only the maser shows up.

Additionally, we do not find strong correlations between the spatial separations of the different observed quantities and other characteristic quantities of the sources, e.g., the luminosities, core masses, column densities, and volume densities. Thus, it seems likely that both maser species need a similar environment of dense and warm gas, but that, due to the different excitation processes (radiative pumping for CH3OH and collisional pumping for H2O), no real correlation exists. Spatial associations of both maser species might be just coincidences caused by insufficient spatial resolution and projection effects.

We cannot determine accurately in any source of this sample whether the maser emission is produced in disks, outflows or shock waves. This stresses that kinematic interpretations of different maser features are difficult and not as straightforward as sometimes supposed in the past (e.g., Garay & Lizano 1999, Norris et al. 1998). CH3OH and H2O masers are excellent signposts of massive star-forming regions, but the detailed interpretation of the different kinematic and spatial features has to be treated with caution. There are definitely cases where the kinematic information gives deep insights in special sources, e.g., the H2O maser in W3(H2O) (Alcolea et al., 1992), or some of the linear structures found in CH3OH by, e.g, Walsh et al. (1998), Minier et al. (2000a), Norris et al. (1998), and Phillips et al. (1998), but as stressed by Minier et al. (2000a), proper motions and VLBI observations are needed to derive conclusive answers for such sources. We believe that the approach of kinematic interpretation of different maser features works only in a limited number of sources with a favorable geometry with respect to the observer, and then especially when proper motion observations are available. With this regard, the data presented in this paper are a well suited basis for follow-up proper motion studies of both maser species. Except of this, for most sources, the main and highly important outcome of maser observations in massive star-forming regions is their characteristics as signposts for high-mass star formation.

###### Acknowledgements.

We like to thank the referee Dr. G. Fuller for detailed comments on the first draft, which improved the quality of the paper significantly. H. Beuther got support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG project number SPP 471.


format: text

text:
# Scaling of the localization length in linear electronic and vibrational systems with long-range correlated disorder

## I Introduction and Models

A large amount of work has been done in the past decades to understand localization behavior in randomly disordered chains. Most work has been concentrated on uncorrelated  and short-range correlated disorder ( see  and references therein). In this work, the effect of power-law long-range correlated disorder on the localization properties of linear electronic and vibrational systems is discussed.

First we consider the Schrödinger equation of a single-particle electronic wavefunction in tight binding approximation (Anderson model) ,

$$\psi _{n+1}+\psi _{n1}2\psi _n=(2E+ϵ_n)\psi _n.$$
(1)
Here $`E`$ is the energy and $`|\psi _n|^2`$ is the probability to find an electron at site $`n`$, with $`n\{1,N\}`$. The $`ϵ_n`$ are the site potentials and are random numbers, taken from an interval of width $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`ϵ_n[\mathrm{\Delta }/2,\mathrm{\Delta }/2]`$ (diagonal disorder). $`ϵ^2(1/N)_{n=1}^Nϵ_n^2`$ is their variance and the average value $`ϵ(1/N)_{n=1}^Nϵ_n`$ is zero. The term $`2\psi _n`$ on both sides is introduced for technical reasons.

Second, we investigate the related problem of the localization length of vibrational states in disordered chains. In this case, the wavefunction $`\psi _n`$ of Eq. (1) is substituted by the vibrational amplitudes $`u_n`$ of $`N`$ particles at sites $`n`$, coupled by unit spring constants between them. This problem is described by the time-independent eigenvalue equation with the vibrational amplitudes $`u_n`$ and the eigenfrequencies $`\omega `$:

$$u_{n+1}+u_{n1}2u_n=m_n\omega ^2u_n$$
(2)
Contrary to the $`ϵ_n`$ of Eq. (1), all masses $`m_n`$ are positive and taken from an interval $`m_n[m\mathrm{\Delta }/2,m+\mathrm{\Delta }/2]`$, where $`m(1/N)_{n=1}^Nm_n>0`$ is their mean value and $`m^2(1/N)_{n=1}^N(m_nm)^2`$ the variance.

The localization length $`\lambda `$ in the Anderson case is defined by the exponential decay of the wavefunctions $`\psi _n`$, $`lim_n\mathrm{}|\psi _n/\psi _0|=\mathrm{exp}[n/\lambda ]`$. In the vibrational problem, $`\psi _n/\psi _0`$ is substituted by $`u_n/u_0`$, which decays accordingly.

In the standard Anderson model with uncorrelated diagonal disorder it has been recognized since long that in $`d=1`$ all states are exponentially localized , i.e., that $`\lambda `$ approaches a constant for large $`N`$. A weak disorder expansion yields $`\lambda =ϵ^2^{1/3}f((2E)/ϵ^2^{2/3})`$ close to the band edge , while at the band center, a Green’s function technique yields $`\lambda ϵ^2^1`$ . In some distance from the band center, the diagonal elements of the Green’s functions can be developed by a second-order perturbation theory, yielding $`\lambda (E)(4E^2)/ϵ^2`$ .

In the related vibrational problem with uncorrelated random masses, it is well accepted that all states in $`d=1`$ are localized, except for the case $`\omega =0`$, where the disorder term $`m_n\omega ^2`$ disappears. Transfer matrix calculations in $`d=1`$ yield $`\lambda \omega ^2`$ for small $`\omega `$ .

Here, we concentrate on long-range correlated disorder, characterized by a correlation function $`C(\mathrm{})\mathrm{}^\gamma `$. In the Anderson case, $`C(\mathrm{})`$ describes the correlations between site energies $`ϵ_n`$ and $`ϵ_{n+\mathrm{}}`$ at sites $`n`$ and $`n+\mathrm{}`$,

$$C(\mathrm{})=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{N}\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}ϵ_nϵ_{n+\mathrm{}}ϵ_nϵ_{n+\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}^\gamma $$
(3)
with the correlation exponent $`\gamma `$, $`0<\gamma 1`$. In the vibrational problem, the mass fluctuations are long-range correlated and described by $`C(\mathrm{})=\stackrel{~}{m}_n\stackrel{~}{m}_{n+\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}^\gamma `$ with $`\stackrel{~}{m}_nm_nm`$. The case $`\gamma 1`$ describes only short-range correlated potentials. From random walk theory, we expect that series with $`\gamma 1`$ fall into the same universality class as uncorrelated potentials .

For the one-dimensional Anderson model of Eq. (1) with long-range correlated potentials, a scaling form for the localization length $`\lambda (E,ϵ^2)`$ close to the band edge $`E=2`$ has been developed recently and supported by preliminary numerical simulations . For the vibrational problem, the localization length in the presence of correlations has not been adressed yet. In this paper, we determine explicitely the scaling function for the Anderson system and derive its asymptotic form by scaling arguments (section II). This leads also to an explicit expression for $`\lambda `$ at intermediate energies in some distance from the band edge (cf. Eq.(10)). In section III, we map the Anderson model onto the vibrational problem and show that for small $`\omega `$, $`\lambda (\omega )\omega ^{(1+\gamma )}`$ which agrees with the result $`\lambda \omega ^2`$ of  for random uncorrelated potentials, if we describe them by $`\gamma =1`$. Accordingly, contrary to the expectations, $`\lambda `$ is decreased by the presence of long-range correlations for $`\omega 0`$.

## II The long-range correlated Anderson model

In a previous work , it was shown by a space-renormalization procedure that at the band edge, $`E=2`$, the localization length $`\lambda `$ scales as

$$\lambda (E=2,ϵ^2)ϵ^2^{1/(4\gamma )}\lambda _0,$$
(4)
For $`E<2`$, but still in the neighborhood of $`2`$, $`\lambda `$ depends on both, $`\lambda _0`$ and $`2E`$ and can be written as:

$`\lambda (E,ϵ^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _0f_\gamma (x),`$ (5)
$`\text{where}x=\lambda _0^2(2E)`$ $`=`$ $`(2E)ϵ^2^{2/(4\gamma )}`$ (6)
and $`f_\gamma (x)`$ is a correction function that depends on $`\gamma `$ and approaches a constant for $`x0`$. For $`\gamma =1`$, one recovers the exponent $`1/(4\gamma )=1/3`$, in accordance with the result of  for uncorrelated potentials.

We are interested in the behavior of $`f_\gamma (x)`$ in the limits of large and small values of $`x`$. For uncorrelated potentials $`ϵ_n`$, we know already that $`f_{\mathrm{uncorr}}(x)\mathrm{const}`$ for $`x1`$  and $`f_{\mathrm{uncorr}}(x)x`$ for $`x1`$ . We therefore assume a power-law behavior

$$f_\gamma (x)x^\alpha $$
(7)
for correlated potentials, where $`\alpha `$ depends on $`\gamma `$.

To derive the exponent $`\alpha `$, it is helpful to realize that $`1/(2E)`$ is proportional to the square of the wavelength $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of the electronic wavefunction ($`ϵ=0`$),

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^21/(2E).$$
(8)
This can be seen most easily in an ordered chain, where all $`ϵ_n=0`$ and Eq. (1) reduces to $`\psi ^{\prime \prime }(x)/\psi (x)=(2E)`$. The solution is a harmonic function with the wavelength $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. In the case of disorder, we have calculated many states of correlated and uncorrelated chains in different disorder intervals $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ by the Lanczos algorithm and have verified by Fourier transformation that relation (8) still holds. So, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ describes the oscillating part of the wavefunction, while $`\lambda `$ describes the exponential decay of the envelope. A similar relation for the wavelength has been found for vibrations in percolation clusters in $`d=2`$ and $`d=3`$ in .

Next, we look at a wavefunction with a given wavelength $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and discuss, how $`\lambda `$ is influenced by a change of the variance of the potentials $`ϵ^2`$, i.e. by a change of $`\lambda _0`$. We discuss the cases $`x1`$ and $`x1`$ separately, which correspond to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\lambda _0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\lambda _0`$, respectively. We have to keep in mind that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is solely determined by $`E`$, whereas $`\lambda _0`$ is determined by $`ϵ^2`$ and $`\gamma `$.

(i) For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\lambda _0`$, close to the band edge, the wave amplitude decays within the first wavelength $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Accordingly, the wavefunction is independent of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and would not change for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$, i.e., by approaching the band edge, where $`\lambda \lambda _0ϵ^2^{1/(4\gamma )}`$. Hence we expect for all $`\gamma `$ that the scaling function $`f_\gamma (x)=\lambda /\lambda _0`$ approaches a constant for small $`x`$.

(ii) In the opposite case, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\lambda _0`$, the wave amplitude performs many oscillations before the envelope function decays completely. It is reasonable to assume that for the dependence of $`\lambda `$ on the potential landscape, long-range correlations are not relevant, when the wavefunction oscillates rapidly. In this case, the term $`ϵ_n\psi _n`$ on the right-hand side of Eq. (1) oscillates rapidly for both, correlated and uncorrelated potentials. So, in the case $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\lambda _0`$, we expect the same dependence of $`\lambda `$ on $`ϵ^2`$ for correlated and for uncorrelated potentials. For the latter, we know that in some distance from the band edge, the behavior of $`\lambda `$ must cross over to the result of , $`\lambda ϵ^2^1`$ and in view of the preceeding remark, we expect the same behavior also for correlated potentials. Inserting this relation into (5) and (6), we find $`f_\gamma (x)x^\alpha `$, with $`\alpha =(3\gamma )/2`$. In summary, we find for the asymptotic cases of the scaling function $`f_\gamma (x)`$ the power-law behavior

$$f_\gamma (x)x^\alpha =\{\begin{array}{cc}\text{const.}\hfill & x1\hfill \\ x^{(3\gamma )/2}\hfill & x1\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
Inserting Eq. (9) into (5) and (6), we find for the energy dependence in the case $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\lambda _0`$ with the additional constraint $`2E1`$

$$\lambda (E,ϵ^2)ϵ^2^1(2E)^{(3\gamma )/2}.$$
(10)
Accordingly, we can distinguish between three energy regimes. (a) For $`2Eϵ^2^{2/(4\gamma )}`$, i.e., very close to the band edge, we have $`\lambda ϵ^2^{1/(4\gamma )}`$, independent of $`E`$. (b) For $`12Eϵ^2^{2/(4\gamma )}`$, Eq. (10) applies. (c) For still larger values of $`2E`$, the scaling behavior breaks down.

For growing values of $`2E`$, it was obtained that in some distance from the band center $`\lambda (E)(2E)(2+E)/ϵ^2`$ for uncorrelated potentials . This expression emerges into Eq. (10), if we set $`\gamma =1`$, which yields $`\lambda (2E)/ϵ^2`$. So we can see again that the case of uncorrelated potentials is well described by $`\gamma =1`$.

In order to test this scaling function, we have generated $`\nu =1000`$ linear chains of size $`N=2^{20}`$ by the method of Fourier transformation  and calculated the individual localization lengths $`\lambda _i`$ by the transfer-matrix method . To obtain the mean localization length, we performed the typical (logarithmic) average $`\lambda (E,ϵ^2)\lambda _{\mathrm{typ}}=\mathrm{exp}[\frac{1}{\nu }_{i=1}^\nu \mathrm{ln}\lambda _i]`$.

To obtain the scaling function $`f_\gamma (x)`$, we plotted $`\lambda /\lambda _0`$ versus $`x=\lambda _0^2(2E)`$. The results are shown in Fig. 1 for (from bottom to top) uncorrelated potentials (described by $`\gamma =1`$) and correlated potentials with $`\gamma =0.5,0.1`$ and $`0.01`$. Five values of $`(2E)`$ between $`10^4`$ and $`0.3`$ were calculated while $`ϵ^2`$ varied between $`ϵ^2=10^5`$ and $`10^1`$. The figure supports the scaling theory. The data for the different $`2E`$ and $`ϵ^2`$ fall onto the same scaling functions $`f_\gamma (x)`$, which show the expected behavior (cf. Eq. (9)) in the asymptotic cases. The lines are guides to the eye with the theoretical slopes of $`\alpha =(3\gamma )/2`$. A crossover close to $`x=1`$ separates the cases $`x1`$ and $`x1`$, i.e. $`\lambda _0^21/(2E)`$ and $`\lambda _0^21/(2E)`$. In the case $`x1`$, we find $`\lambda /\lambda _0=\text{const}`$, i.e. $`\alpha =0`$.

## III The long-range correlated vibrational model

This scaling theory can be generalized to the vibrational problem, described by Eq. (2). We split $`m_n`$ into the average part $`m`$ and the fluctuation part $`\stackrel{~}{m}_n`$, $`m_n=m+\stackrel{~}{m}_n`$ and can map the Anderson problem onto the vibrational problem by replacing

$$2E\omega ^2m\text{and}ϵ_n\omega ^2\stackrel{~}{m}_n.$$
(11)
We obtain the wavelength $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(m^{1/2}\omega )^1`$ by inserting (11) into (8) and the scaling variable $`x`$ by inserting (11) into (6), yielding (with $`\stackrel{~}{m}^2=m^2`$)

$$x=m\omega ^{2\gamma /(4\gamma )}m^2^{2/(4\gamma )}.$$
(12)
Since $`m^2<m^2`$, we can easily verify that for $`\omega ^2<1/m`$, the scaling variable $`x`$ is greater than $`1`$. Therefore, contrary to the Anderson problem, we have only one scaling regime $`x>1`$. Inserting (11) into (10), we find $`\lambda `$ for the vibrational problem:

$$\lambda m^{(3\gamma )/2}m^2^1\omega ^{(1+\gamma )}.$$
(13)
This relation is valid for small values of $`\omega ^2m`$. In our simulations, we found that for e.g. $`m=0.5`$, it holds approximately for $`\omega <1`$. In order to test Eq. (13), we have calculated the typical average $`\lambda _{\mathrm{typ}}`$ of $`1000`$ chains of length $`2^{23}`$ for different values of $`\gamma `$, $`m`$ and $`m^2`$ by the transfer-matrix method. In Fig. 2, the scaled localization length $`\lambda m^2m^{(3\gamma )/2}`$ is plotted versus $`\omega `$ for $`\gamma =0.1`$ and for uncorrelated random chains (described by $`\gamma =1`$). Both, the data collapse for chains of different $`m`$ and $`m^2`$ and the slopes support Eq. (13). The lines are guides to the eye with the theoretical slopes of $`(1+\gamma )`$ and describe the behavior of $`\lambda `$ very well.

Two phenomena are worth mentioning here. First, $`\lambda `$ diverges if $`\omega 0`$. The reason is that the disorder term $`m_n`$ in (2) appears only in combination with the eigenvalue $`\omega ^2`$ and therefore disappears for $`\omega 0`$. Second, for large $`\omega `$, $`\lambda `$ is larger for the correlated than for the uncorrelated chains. However, below some crossover frequency (that depends on $`\gamma `$), this behavior changes and the vibrational excitations of the correlated chains become more localized. This, at the first glance unexpected behavior can be understood as follows.

Large $`\omega `$ correspond to small wavelengths $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Particles $`m_n`$ in distances less than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/2`$ from each other move into the same direction and can roughly be considered as an effective hyperparticle $`M_j_{n=1}^\mu m_n`$, where the sum runs over all $`\mu `$ particles in the region of the size of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/2`$. The effective disorder seen by the vibrational excitation depends on the distribution of the $`M_j`$ in the region, where the wave amplitude is large. For strongly correlated chains, there exist large regions of masses $`m_n`$ that are either below the average mass $`m`$ or above. So, as long as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/2`$ is smaller than the size of these regions, the distribution of the $`M_j`$ is more narrow for correlated than for uncorrelated chains, which leads to larger $`\lambda `$.

This behavior changes when the size of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/2`$ is well above the size of the correlated regions. Now, on scales of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/2`$ the system looks much more disordered than before. We know from random-walk theory that for large $`\mu `$ the variance of the $`M_j`$ scales as $`\mu ^{2\gamma }`$ . Hence, for large $`\mu `$ the distribution $`M_j`$ is broader in correlated than in uncorrelated chains and therefore, the disorder seen by the vibrational excitation is even larger. Therefore, we expect smaller $`\lambda `$ for the correlated chains, when $`\omega 0`$.

The same effect appears also in the Anderson model, where, according to Eq. (10), $`\lambda `$ is also smaller for correlated than for uncorrelated chains in the limit of small values of $`2E`$. For systems at the band edge, this has already been reported in .

## IV Conclusions

In summary, we have studied the effect of long-range correlated disorder on the localization lengths of electron states in the one-dimensional Anderson model and of the vibrational states of harmonic chains. In the Anderson model, the site potentials $`ϵ`$ are long-range correlated, while in the vibrational problem we have long-range correlations in the fluctuation part $`\stackrel{~}{m}_n`$ of the masses around their mean value $`m`$.

First, we studied the scaling behavior of the localization length $`\lambda `$ in the Anderson model close to the band edge $`E=2`$. We have shown that two characteristic lengths occur: the wavelength $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ that describes the oscillating part of the wavefunction and the localization length $`\lambda _0`$ that describes how the envelope of the wavefunction decays at the band edge. While $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ depends on the energy $`E`$, $`\lambda _0`$ depends on the variance $`ϵ^2`$ and the correlation exponent $`\gamma `$. We developed a scaling theory, with the scaling variable $`x=\lambda _0^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$. Using qualitative arguments, we derived the asymptotic behavior of the scaling function, both, for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\lambda _0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\lambda _0`$, and thus the behavior of $`\lambda `$ in these limits. It was found that $`\lambda `$ is independent of $`E`$ at very small values of $`2E`$. For larger distances from the band edge, but $`E`$ still in the neighborhood of $`2`$, it depends on $`2E`$ and on $`ϵ^2`$ by power-laws.

Second, we developed an analogous scaling theory for the vibrational problem by mapping the Anderson equation onto the equations of motion of harmonic vibrations. We found that $`\lambda (\omega )\omega ^{(1+\gamma )}`$ in the limit of small frequencies and for $`0<\gamma 1`$. This relation may constitute a possibility to measure correlations by determining the localization length of vibrations. It implies that $`\lambda `$ grows faster for uncorrelated than for correlated chains, when $`\omega 0`$. This is in close analogy to the behavior of $`\lambda `$ in the Anderson model at the band edge and arises from the coupling of correlated masses over very large distances, which leads to larger fluctuations than in the case of uncorrelated potentials. Accordingly, for very small frequencies, correlated chains have smaller localization lengths than uncorrelated ones.

I gratefully acknowledge valuable discussions with Armin Bunde, Shlomo Havlin, Jan Kantelhardt and Itzhak Webman and financial support from the Minerva foundation.


text:
# Experimental demonstration of a squeezing enhanced power recycled Michelson interferometer for gravitational wave detection

## Abstract

Interferometric gravitational wave detectors are expected to be limited by shot noise at some frequencies. We experimentally demonstrate that a power recycled Michelson with squeezed light injected into the dark port can overcome this limit. An improvement in the signal-to-noise ratio of 2.3dB is measured and locked stably for long periods of time. The configuration, control and signal readout of our experiment are compatible with current gravitational wave detector designs. We consider the application of our system to long baseline interferometer designs such as LIGO.

The first generation of interferometric gravitational wave (GW) detectors are expected to begin taking data in 2002. Although they will be the most sensitive devices ever built, they are predicted to detect only large, infrequent gravitational events. To regularly detect sources, and thereby allow comparison with astrophysical models, a factor of ten improvement in sensitivity is required. The second generation of detectors, such as Advanced LIGO whitepaper , is expected to reach this goal. These instruments will employ 100 W class lasers, light recycling techniques, fused silica suspension systems and high mechanical $`Q`$ sapphire mirror substrates. Early predictions are that they will be limited by quantum noise, i.e. noise arising from the quantum nature of light, over most of the GW signal frequency band (10Hz to 1000Hz) whitepaper . This has sparked an explosion of theoretical proposals on the application of quantum optical techniques to surpass the quantum limit in laser interferometry. These include: the use of squeezed states Kimble2  building on the proposal by Caves Caves ; quantum nondemolition schemes including changing of the readout parameters Braginsky  and opto-mechanical coupling techniques Buononno&Chen . What makes these theoretical proposals even more exciting is the maturity of experimental techniques for generating non-classical states of light. In 1985, the landmark experiment of Slusher *et al.*Slusher  measured 0.3dB of quantum noise suppression. Bench-top experiments currently produce over 7dB reduction of the quantum noise Schneider98.OE ; Lam99.JOB . A combination of current squeezing technology with the high power and high stability of GW detection laser and optical systems now makes 10dB of squeezing a realistic goal Kimble2 .

Despite the potential for squeezing to improve interferometric sensitivity, to date there has been no experimental demonstration of squeezing applied to an interferometer bearing any resemblance to a GW detector. Squeezing enhanced performance has been demonstrated in other interferometers, such as the Mach-Zehnder Kimble  and polarimeter Grangier . None of these experiments employed a Michelson configuration; used light recycling techniques; or utilised a signal readout scheme compatible with an advanced GW detector. Theoretical analysis of Gea-Banacloche et al. Leuchs  suggested that squeezing is broadly compatible with recycling techniques. However, the difficulty in devising a readout and control scheme compatible with both squeezing and light recycling has, until now, prevented any definitive demonstration.

In this letter, we report an experimental demonstration of a power recycled Michelson PRM2  with locked optical squeezing injected into the dark port. Our source of squeezing was an optical parametric amplifier (OPA). We used a laser system, configuration, control and readout system compatible with advanced GW detector proposals. The entire system maintained lock for long periods and we measured a signal with noise below the shot noise limit (SNL). Contrary to previous work, we found that there is a link between power recycling and squeezing. In fact, the efficiency of squeezing detected at the dark port with power recycling can be higher than for a simple Michelson. Given the success of our experiment, we review theoretically the compatibility and application of our system to long base-line detectors, such as LIGO LIGO .

The experimental setup is shown in Fig.1. Of the 700mW of power generated by our laser (Nd:YAG 1064nm), about 70% was used to pump the squeezing system. The remainder passed through a mode-cleaning cavity Rudiger , giving an output beam which was shot-noise limited above 4MHz. This beam provided both the interferometer input and a seed wave for the OPA. The low power ($`10\mu `$W) squeezed output of the OPA was phase modulated at 15.8MHz. Details of the OPA system may be found in Ref. Buchler . The squeezed light was injected into the interferometer via a Faraday rotator (Gsänger FR 1060/5) to give spatial degeneracy between the injected squeezing and the output beam of the interferometer, as required in a long baseline GW detector. The fringe visibility between the squeezing and the interferometer input beam was 99%. The squeezed beam could also be measured directly by the homodyne system via a flipper mirror. The interferometer had a power cavity of length 1m and power mirror of 90% reflectivity. The input beam to the interferometer had a power of 20mW, of which 3mW exited at the dark port where it was measured by the homodyne system. The homodyne detectors were built around ETX 500 photodiodes with 93% quantum efficiency. A GW signal was simulated by modulating one of the Michelson arm lengths using a piezo-electric transducer (PZT) at a frequency outside the power cavity bandwidth. In our case this was 5.46MHz note . The signal readout was obtained from the sum output of the homodyne detectors.

A vital feature of our setup is that the control scheme is compatible with future GW detectors and squeezed light. For squeezing to be of any use, the squeezed quadrature must be in phase with the interferometer output. The 15.8MHz phase modulation of the squeezed beam allowed us to use the Pound-Drever-Hall (PDH) PDH  method to gather an error signal for the squeezed beam phase. This was fed-back to a PZT in the squeezed beam path. The power cavity error signal was also derived using the PDH technique (using the 75MHz phase modulation) and was fed-back to the length of the power cavity, via PZTs on the Michelson mirrors. The relative length of the Michelson arms was controlled with offset locking. This error signal was derived by subtracting an offset voltage, obtained via the detector OL, from the sum voltage of the homodyne detectors offset .

The error signal was fed-back to PZTs on the Michelson mirrors. Offset locking is being used in Advanced LIGO prototypes strain  and is highly compatible with squeezing. It requires no modulation, so that unlike Schnupp/frontal modulation Schnupp , the signal readout does not require demodulation. This is a benefit as the squeezing is only required at the GW signal frequencies. If modulation techniques are used, squeezing is required at the signal frequency and twice the modulation frequency $`\pm `$ the signal frequency chickarmane . This simplification of the requirements for squeezing in a GW detector is valuable.

Squeezed states of light may also be used to suppress radiation pressure noise in GW detectors by tuning the angle of the squeezed quadrature Pace93.PRA ; Kimble2 . Our experimental setup can, in principle, be used to suppress radiation pressure noise, however our experiment does not operate in a regime where radiation pressure is significant. Suppression of radiation pressure noise is, therefore, not considered in this letter.

Shot noise arises as the electromagnetic vacuum mode enters the dark port of the beam-splitter. The vacuum mode interferes with the input beam passing on its noise characteristics. The smallest phase a SNL interferometer can measure is:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi 1/\sqrt{n},$$
(1)
where $`n`$ is the number of photons incident on the beamsplitter. Sub-shot noise sensitivity can be achieved if the vacuum mode is filled by a squeezed state. The noise suppression can be characterised by the intensity variance of the light at the interferometer output, $`V_{\mathrm{pd}}`$ (where the variance is normalised to the SNL). When optimised, this variance is a function of the input beam intensity noise, $`V_{\mathrm{LO}}`$; the squeezed state noise, $`V_{\mathrm{sqz}}`$ and the losses in the interferometer, modelled by adding vacuum noise with variance $`V_v=1`$. The normalised transfer functions for each noise input to the photodetector for our system are $`T_{\mathrm{LO}}(\omega ),T_{\mathrm{sqz}}(\omega )`$ and $`T_v(\omega )`$, so that the detected variance $`V_{\mathrm{pd}}`$ is given by

$$V_{\mathrm{pd}}=|T_{\mathrm{LO}}(\omega )|^2V_{\mathrm{LO}}+|T_{\mathrm{sqz}}(\omega )|^2V_{\mathrm{sqz}}+|T_v(\omega )|^2V_v.$$
(2)
These transfer functions are frequency independent for a simple Michelson. If a power recycling mirror is present, they are functions of the power recycling cavity linewidth. When the interferometer is locked close to a dark fringe, the intensity fluctuations on the input beam couple weakly to the interferometer output, i.e. $`T_{\mathrm{LO}}`$ is very small. The amount of squeezing that couples to the output, however, is large as $`T_{\mathrm{sqz}}(\omega )`$ is close to 1. This is the dominant term in equation (2). To model our experiment we consider 3dB of input squeezing over the detection frequency range. Theoretical plots of the frequency spectra of the detected output variance for a simple Michelson and a power recycled Michelson (PRM) are shown in Fig.2. The results show improved performance of the PRM compared to the simple Michelson. This difference is a result of two effects. Firstly, to keep the same power at the homodyne photodetector, the position of the Michelson fringe shifts, such that the effective Michelson reflectivity increases. In our experiment the reflectivity for the simple Michelson is $`0.92`$, where as it is $`0.99`$ for the PRM. The result is an increase in $`T_{\mathrm{sqz}}(\omega )`$ and a decrease in $`T_{\mathrm{LO}}(\omega )`$, so that more squeezing is transferred to the interferometer output. In the presence of a power recycling mirror, therefore, less squeezing is wasted in the interferometer. Secondly, the power mirror introduces a frequency dependence to the squeezing transfer function, $`T_{\mathrm{sqz}}`$. Outside the power cavity linewidth, the interferometer becomes highly reflective so that transfer of the squeezing becomes close to ideal.

Figure 3 shows the noise of our squeezed beam prior to entering the interferometer. The noise suppression is $``$3.5dB below the SNL. When the squeezing was injected into the interferometer, our Faraday rotator gave 15% loss (double pass). This was the dominant source of loss in our experiment. It reduced the amount of squeezing coupled into the interferometer to $``$2.8 dB (measured).

A signal at 5.46 MHz was used to characterise our Michelson interferometer. Fig. 4 trace (a) shows the result for a simple Michelson. The noise floor is at the SNL. When squeezing was introduced (trace (b)) we observed noise suppression of 1.8 $`\pm `$0.2 dB below the SNL. Traces (c) and (d) show the response of the PRM with and without the squeezed input. The signal power is proportional to the circulating power. Our power recycling factor of $``$ 4 therefore gives the PRM a signal $``$ 4 times larger than the simple Michelson. The noise floor of trace (d) is 2.3 $`\pm `$ 0.2 dB lower than SNL. The predicted improvement of the squeezing performance with power recycling is evident in the different noise floors of traces (b) and (d). If the electronic noise is subtracted from trace (d), the squeezed noise floor is found to lie 3.0 $`\pm `$ 0.2 dB below SNL. Our experiment maintained lock for periods longer than 15 minutes, and was limited only by the temperature stability of our laboratory.

These results confirm that squeezing is compatible with power recycling, however the practicality of using squeezed light in existing and future GW detectors depends on the compatibility with current designs and the amount of squeezing that will be actually available. We will briefly look at these two issues.

In terms of compatibility to proposed GW detectors, there are three outstanding considerations: the requirement of arm cavities; signal recycling and the generation of squeezing in the GW signal band. The arm cavities introduce fractionally higher loss into the interferometer ($``$1% Kimble2 ), and require additional locking servos. The extra loss will result in only $``$0.1dB reduction of the squeezing, while the locking of the arm cavities will be independent of the squeezing.

With regard to signal recycling, modelling of a system with long signal storage times chickarmane  has shown that the squeezing will sense an impedance matched cavity and therefore be transmitted through the interferometer at the signal frequency. Squeezing is nonetheless advantageous as it will broaden the bandwidth of the signal recycling. With resonant sideband extraction (RSE) RSE , the injected squeezing will sense a reflective cavity. In this case we do not expect significant degradation of squeezing due to signal recycling. Employing squeezing and signal recycling together, while feasible, might not be a worthwhile exercise. Squeezing is only helpful if quantum noise sources are limiting the interferometer performance. A combination of RSE and squeezing is likely to reach a regime where other noise sources, particularly thermal noise, will be dominant at low frequencies whitepaper . In this case, squeezing will only be of benefit at higher frequencies, outside the thermal noise bandwidth. Instead, one may imagine a squeezed, power recycled interferometer with arm cavities as an alternative to RSE Kimble2 ; McClellandTAMA .

With respect to the squeezing bandwidth, our experiment shows squeezing at MHz, rather than the $``$100Hz range required for GW detection. The major impediment to bench-top low frequency squeezing is laser technical noise. The lowest squeezing frequency in a continuous wave beam reported to date is 200kHz, which was achieved by the use of two OPAs, enabling common-mode rejection of the classical noise Bowen02.OL . Fortunately, GW detection facilities provide the ideal environment for low frequency squeezed state generation. In particular there will be a ready supply of laser light shot noise limited to frequencies as low as 10Hz strain , suitable for generation of squeezing inside the GW detection bandwidth.

The key issue governing the amount of squeezing that can be realistically injected into a GW detector is the availability of low loss optics, both for squeezing generation and application to the interferometer. The dominant loss in our interferometer was the 15% double pass transmission of the rotator. Given the low absorption of the materials used in rotators (such as TGG with absorption of 0.55% cm<sup>-1</sup>), careful tuning of the magnetic fields around the crystal should provide rotators with $`<`$ 5% double pass loss. The amount of squeezing generated is limited by material losses in the OPA crystal. The high laser powers available in GW facilities will allow squeezing generation in regimes not possible in bench-top system. High laser powers may be used to pump OPA cavities with much lower finesse, thereby reducing the loss of the squeezing that occurs inside the OPA cavity. Given that bench-top squeezing experiments currently measure 7 dB of quantum noise suppression Schneider98.OE ; Lam99.JOB , over 10dB of squeezing is a realistic target in a GW facility.

In summary, the technology of high precision interferometry and squeezed state generation, have now reached a stage where their fusion presents a genuine alternative configuration for future gravitational wave detectors. Our results, which show the compatibility of advanced interferometer design and squeezed light, represent the first step toward this goal.

The authors would like to acknowledge Malcolm Gray for the design of the electronics used in our experiment and the funding of the Australian Research Council.


text:
# Interaction between superconductive films and magnetic nanostructures

## I Introduction

The structure of vortices in thin films was first investigated in detail by Pearl. He found that such vortices interacts mainly via their stray field, which extends far into the nonsuperconducting medium. Later, this theory has been extended to thin film systems with and without anisotropy. It has also been of cnsiderable interest to understand Josephson vortices in thin film junctions. To this end, a very interesting result was obtained by Kogan $`et`$ $`al.`$ , who found that the field from a Josephson junction is a superposition of fields from Pearl vortices along the junction with a certain line density. This result was derived by noting that the Pearl solution is the Green’s function for arbitrary sources.

The possibility of enhancing the critical currents by magnetic nanostructures have been studied by many researchers. In particular, Bulaevskii $`et`$ $`al.`$ showed that magnetic domain structures in a magnetic film in close contact with a superconducting film may enhance pinning of vortices, since this gives an opportunity to pin the magnetic flux of the vortex rather than its core. It was suggested that the pinning of vortices in superconductor/ferromagnetic multilayers can be many times greater than the pinning by columnar defects.

In general, the interaction between superconductivity and magnetism has been studied for several decades. Systems composed of magnetic and superconductive materials are of interest not only because they are model systems for the interplay of competing superconducting and magnetic order parameters, but also because of numerous possible applications. Recently, the development of magnetic thin film technology has triggered a lot of interest in this field. Of particular importance has been the possibility of examining the interaction between superconductivity and magnetism in high-temperature superconductors.

In a recent paper we estimated the interaction between a bulk superconductor and a Bloch wall. It was shown that the Bloch wall shrinks on cooling through the superconducting transition temperature. Furthermore, we suggested that if the magnetization of the Bloch wall is strong enough, it may capture and move the vortices.

The aim of the current paper is to study the interaction between Pearl vortices and magnetic nanostructures in more detail. We solve the generalized London equation, and compute the magnetic fields, the energy and the interaction forces. In the case of a movable magnetic nanostructure (e.g. a domain wall), one may be able to manipulate the static as well as the dynamic behaviour of the vortices. Thus, tunable and movable nanomagnets may be used as vortex manipulators.

## II The thin film system

Consider a thin superconductive film and thin magnetic film, both located at z=0 with thicknesses much smaller than the penetration depth of the superconductor, see Fig. 1. The two are separated by a very thin oxide layer (of thickness t) to avoid spin diffusion and proximity effects (which may supress the superconductive and magnetic order parameters). In general, the current density is a sum of the supercurrents and magnetically induced currents, which can be expressed through the generalized London equation as

$$\mathbf{}\mathbf{\times }𝑱=\frac{1}{\lambda ^2}𝑯+\frac{1}{\lambda ^2}V(𝝆)\widehat{𝒆}_z+\mathbf{}\mathbf{\times }\mathbf{}\mathbf{\times }𝑴_v,$$
(1)
where $`𝑱`$ is the current density, $`\lambda `$ is the penetration depth, $`𝑯`$ is the magnetic field and $`\mathbf{}\times 𝑴_v`$ is the magnetically induced current. The vortex is aligned in the z direction, and its source function $`V(𝝆)`$ is assumed to be rotational symmetric. In the case of a Pearl vortex we may set $`V(\rho )=(\mathrm{\Phi }_0/\mu _0)\delta (\rho )`$, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ is the flux quantum and $`\mu _0`$ the permeability of vacuum. The requirement of rotational symmetry should be relaxed when dealing with certain types of anisotropic superconductors, which are known to have azimuthal corrections to the vortex core. In this case one should also use the anisotropic version of Eq. (1).

Recently, the Ginzburg-Landau theory was used to calculate the vortex states in a thin mesoscopic disk in the presence of step-like external magnetic field. Naturally, one may expect more accurate results from the Ginzburg-Landau theory, in particular when the dimensions are small. On the other hand, the generalized London theory considered here gives significantly reduction in computational efforts, and some important points could be deduced without numerical analysis. Moreover, the inherent shortcomings of the London model can be relaxed by introducing corrections to the vortex core. Thus, we believe that the generalized London model adopted in this paper is a reasonable first approach.

We solve the current London equation by adopting a generalization of the very useful approach of Refs.. The current can only flow in a thin layer of thickness $`d`$ ($`d\lambda `$), and it is therefore necessary to average over this thickness and consider the z component only

$$H_z+\lambda _e\left(\frac{J_y^s}{x}\frac{J_x^s}{y}\right)=V(𝝆)+\lambda _e\left(\mathbf{}\mathbf{\times }\mathbf{}\mathbf{\times }𝑴\right)_z,$$
(2)
where $`\lambda _e=\lambda ^2/d`$ is the effective penetration depth, and $`𝑴=d𝑴_v`$. The sheet current flowing in the thin layer is now given by $`𝑱_s=d𝑱`$. The Maxwell equation $`\mathbf{}\mathbf{\times }𝑯=𝑱`$ gives

$$J_x=\frac{H_z}{y}\frac{H_y}{z},J_y=\frac{H_x}{z}\frac{H_z}{x}.$$
(3)
Since all derivatives $`/z`$ are large compared to the tangential $`/𝝆`$, we may set

$$J_x^sH_y^{}H_y^+,J_y^sH_x^+H_x^{},$$
(4)
where $`H_i^+`$ and $`H_i^{}`$ (i=x, y) are the components at the upper and lower surfaces, respectively. Since the enviroments of the upper and lower half-spaces are identical, we have $`H_i^+=H_i^{}`$, which results in

$$J_x^s2H_y^+,J_y^s2H_x^+.$$
(5)
Here we will only consider the upper half-space. Using $`\mathbf{}\mathbf{}𝑯=0`$, Eq. (2) becomes

$$H_z2\lambda _e\frac{H_z}{z}=V(𝝆)+\lambda _e\left(\mathbf{}\mathbf{\times }\mathbf{}\mathbf{\times }𝑴\right)_z.$$
(6)
We now apply the superposition principle to separate the contributions from the vortex and the magnetic nanostructure. The vortex part of Eq. (6) can be written as

$$H_{vz}2\lambda _e\frac{H_{vz}}{z}=V(𝝆),$$
(7)
whereas the magnetic part is

$$H_{mz}2\lambda _e\frac{H_{mz}}{z}=\lambda _e\left(\mathbf{}\mathbf{\times }\mathbf{}\mathbf{\times }𝑴\right)_z.$$
(8)
### A Vortex solution

In order to solve Eq. (7), it is useful to note that $`\mathbf{}\mathbf{\times }𝑯=\mathbf{}\mathbf{}𝑯=0`$ outside the thin films. Therefore, we can introduce a scalar potential $`\varphi `$ which vanishes at $`z\mathrm{}`$

$$\varphi _v(𝝆,z)=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\varphi (𝒌)\mathrm{exp}(i𝒌\mathbf{}𝝆k|z|)d^2k,$$
(9)
where $`k=\sqrt{k_x^2+k_y^2}`$, and $`𝑯=\mathbf{}\varphi `$. It is helpful to note that $`H_z(𝒌)=k\varphi (𝒌)`$ for the upper half-space.

Applying the 2D Fourier transform to Eq. (7) we obtain

$$\varphi _v(𝒌)=\frac{V(k)}{(1+2\lambda _ek)k}.$$
(10)
In the case that the vortex is displaced a distance $`\rho _0`$ from the origin we may set

$$\varphi _v(𝒌,\rho _0)=\frac{V(k)\mathrm{exp}(i𝒌\mathbf{}𝝆_\mathrm{𝟎})}{(1+2\lambda _ek)k}.$$
(11)
However, for the moment we assume that the vortex is located at the origin, and therefore the resulting scalar potential is

$$\varphi _v(𝝆,z)=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{V(k)\mathrm{exp}(i𝒌\mathbf{}𝝆k|z|)}{k(1+2\lambda _ek)}d^2k.$$
(12)
Due to the rotational symmetry the potential is found to be

$$\varphi _v(𝝆,z)=\frac{1}{2\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}V(k)\frac{J_0(k\rho )}{1+2\lambda _ek}\mathrm{exp}(k|z|)𝑑k,$$
(13)
where we have used that

$$_0^{2\pi }\mathrm{exp}(ik\rho cos\varphi )𝑑\varphi =2\pi J_0(k\rho ).$$
(14)
To obtain the magnetic field components (in the radial and z direction), we apply the following formula

$$\frac{d}{d\rho }J_0(k\rho )=kJ_1(k\rho ),$$
(15)
and find

$$H_{vz}(𝝆,z)=\frac{1}{2\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}kV(k)\frac{J_0(k\rho )}{1+2\lambda _ek}\mathrm{exp}(k|z|)𝑑k,$$
(16)
$$H_{v\rho }(𝝆,z)=\frac{1}{2\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}kV(k)\frac{J_1(k\rho )}{1+2\lambda _ek}\mathrm{exp}(k|z|)𝑑k.$$
(17)
In the case of a Pearl vortex the magnetic potential and fields reduce to

$$\varphi _v(𝝆,z)=\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}{2\pi \mu _0}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{J_0(k\rho )}{1+2\lambda _ek}\mathrm{exp}(k|z|)𝑑k,$$
(18)
$$H_{vz}(𝝆,z)=\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}{2\pi \mu _0}_0^{\mathrm{}}k\frac{J_0(k\rho )}{1+2\lambda _ek}\mathrm{exp}(k|z|)𝑑k,$$
(19)
$$H_{v\rho }(𝝆,z)=\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}{2\pi \mu _0}_0^{\mathrm{}}k\frac{J_1(k\rho )}{1+2\lambda _ek}\mathrm{exp}(k|z|)𝑑k.$$
(20)
### B Magnetic solution

In general, Eq. (8) can be solved for arbitrary magnetization distributions. For simplicity, we will here consider only magnetization distributions which are directed in the z direction and have no volume charges, $`\mathbf{}\mathbf{}𝑴=0`$. Inserted in Eq. (8) this gives

$$H_z2\lambda _e\frac{H_z}{z}=\lambda _e(\mathbf{}^2𝑴)_z.$$
(21)
The potential from the magnetic nanostructure can be obtained in the same way as for the vortices. We will here only work out explicitly the solution for two-dimensional (2D) magnetic distributions, but the 1D solution is found in a similar manner. Applying the 2D Fourier transform to Eq. (9) results in

$$\varphi _m(𝒌)=\lambda _e\frac{kM(𝒌)}{1+2\lambda _ek},$$
(22)
which gives the following magnetic potential:

$$\varphi _m(𝝆,z)=\frac{\lambda _e}{(2\pi )^2}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{kM(k)}{1+2\lambda _ek}\mathrm{exp}(i𝒌\mathbf{}𝝆)\mathrm{exp}(k|z|)d^2k.$$
(23)
In the case of a rotational symmetric magnetization distribution, we may write

$$\varphi _m(𝝆,z)=\frac{\lambda _e}{2\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}J_0(k\rho )\frac{k^2M(k)}{1+2\lambda _ek}\mathrm{exp}(k|z|)𝑑k.$$
(24)
Using that $`𝑯=\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }`$, we can calculate the radial and vertical field components:

$$H_{mz}(𝝆,z)=\frac{\lambda _e}{2\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}J_0(k\rho )\frac{k^3M(k)}{1+2\lambda _ek}\mathrm{exp}(k|z|)𝑑k,$$
(25)
and

$$H_{m\rho }(𝝆,z)=\frac{\lambda _e}{2\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}J_1(k\rho )\frac{k^3M(k)}{1+2\lambda _ek}\mathrm{exp}(k|z|)𝑑k.$$
(26)
So far we have neglected the thickness of the oxide layer. However, to a first approximation, it is easy to show that the only effect of this layer is to shift the z coordinate, $`zzt`$.

### C Energies and forces

We now work out the energies and forces in the case of a circular symmetric 2D magnetization distribution, but will later also discuss briefly a 1D distribution as well. Consider a vortex located a distance $`\rho _0`$ from the origin, and a magnetization distribution centered at the origin. The three contributions to the energy are the magnetic self-energy, the direct interaction energy and the energy associated with the vortex.

The magnetic self-energy is given by

$$E_m=\frac{1}{2}\mu _0_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑴\mathbf{}𝑯_𝒎d^2\rho .$$
(27)
This expression can be transformed by using the following formula:

$$_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}A(\rho )B(\rho )d^2\rho =\frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}A(k)B(k)d^2k.$$
(28)
Thus, in the case of a circular symmetric magnetization distribution we have

$$E_1=\frac{\mu _0\lambda _e}{4\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}k^3\frac{M(k)M(k)}{1+2\lambda _ek}𝑑k,$$
(29)
where we have used that M(-k)=M(k) and also that $`d^2kkdkd\varphi `$ (and integrated over the azimuthal angle).

The direct interaction energy between the vortex and the magnetization is given by

$$E_{vm}=\mu _0_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑴\mathbf{}𝑯_𝒗d^2\rho ,$$
(30)
where the vortex is assumed to be displaced a distance $`\rho _0`$ from the origin. Then, in the cylindrical symmetric situation one finds

$$E_{vm}=\frac{\mu _0}{2\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}kV(k)\frac{M(k)J_0(k\rho _0)}{1+2\lambda _ek}𝑑k.$$
(31)
The associated force can be found by taking the derivative with respect to $`\rho _0`$, resulting in

$$F_{vm}=\frac{\mu _0}{2\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}k^2V(k)\frac{M(k)J_1(k\rho _0)}{1+2\lambda _ek}𝑑k.$$
(32)
The energy associated with vortex field is expressed as

$$E_3=_V\left(\frac{1}{2}\mu _0H_v^2+\frac{1}{2}n_smv_s^2\right)𝑑V,$$
(33)
where $`n_s`$ is the density of superconducting electrons and $`v_s`$ is their velocity. This expression is most easily transformed by applying the formalism of Ref. . In particular, the energy associated with a Pearl vortex can be evaluated to logarithmic accuracy as

$$E_3\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_0^2}{4\pi \mu _0\lambda _e}ln\left(\frac{4\pi \lambda _e}{\xi }\right),$$
(34)
where $`\xi `$ is the coherence length. More accurate expressions are obtained by introducing the appropriate vortex source function, but this will not be considered here.

## III Interaction with a bubble

Consider first a magnetic bubble that can be moved, generated or annihilated by external stress patterns or magnetic fields. Let the vortex be separated a distance $`\rho _0`$ from the magnetic bubble located at the origin. The system has cylindrical symmetry, and the magnetic bubble have a magnetization vector pointing in the z direction given by

$$𝑴=\{\begin{array}{cc}M_0\widehat{𝒆}_z\hfill & \text{if }\rho W\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{if }\rho >W\hfill \end{array}.$$

The Fourier transform of this distribution is

$$M(k)=2\pi M_0W\frac{J_1(kW)}{k},$$
(35)
which generates the following magnetic field components:

$$H_z^b(𝝆,z)=\lambda _eWM_0_0^{\mathrm{}}J_0(k\rho )\frac{k^2J_1(kW)}{1+2\lambda _ek}\mathrm{exp}(k|z|)𝑑k,$$
(36)
$$H_\rho ^b(𝝆,z)=\lambda _eWM_0_0^{\mathrm{}}J_1(k\rho )\frac{k^2J_1(kW)}{1+2\lambda _ek}\mathrm{exp}(k|z|)𝑑k.$$
(37)
These components were also found in Refs.  using a different method. To obtain the total field one should add the vortex contribution. The energy is found to be

$$E_b=\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_0^2}{4\pi \mu _0\lambda _e}ln\left(\frac{4\pi \lambda _e}{\xi }\right)M_0\mathrm{\Phi }_0W_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{J_1(kW)J_0(k\rho _0)}{1+2\lambda _ek}𝑑k\lambda _e\mu _0M_0^2\pi W^2_0^{\mathrm{}}k\frac{J_1^2(kW)}{1+2\lambda _ek}𝑑k,$$
(38)
and the direct force between the bubble and the vortex is given by

$$F_{vm}=M_0W\mathrm{\Phi }_0_0^{\mathrm{}}k\frac{J_1(kW)J_1(k\rho _0)}{1+2\lambda _ek}𝑑k.$$
(39)
Figure 2 shows the force when $`W=\lambda _e`$, and we see that it falls off rather quickly. Moreover, we note that there are peaks at the maximum magnetization gradients, as expected. A vortex in the vicinity of the bubble will be either repelled or attracted to the center of the bubble, where it eventually comes to rest. The vortex-bubble system may still attract more vortices, but now vortex-vortex repulsion must be taken into account, which is outside the scope of the current study.

Consider now an annular structure as illustrated in Fig. 3 where the inner dot has magnetization $`M_1`$ and the outer annulus $`M_2`$. Then the force becomes

$$F_{vm}=M_1W_1\mathrm{\Phi }_0_0^{\mathrm{}}\left[J_1(kW_1)+\frac{M_2W_3}{M_1W_1}J_1(kW_3)\frac{M_2W_2}{M_1W_1}J_1(kW_2)\right]\frac{kJ_1(k\rho _0)}{1+2\lambda _ek}𝑑k.$$
(40)
As and example, Fig. 4 displays the force when $`M_1=|M_2|`$, $`W_1=0.5\lambda _e`$, $`W_3=2W_1`$, and $`W_2=1.5W_1`$. The solid line shows the case of a positive $`M_2`$, whereas the dashed line corresponds to negative $`M_2`$. A slowly moving vortex approaching the annular structure from the outside will experience attraction if $`M_2>0`$, and its equilibrium position is directly under the annulus. If $`M_2`$ suddenly switches sign, then the vortex is attracted to the center of the annular structure (i.e. directly under the dot) and kept there. Thus, this annular structure could be used to catch and trap vortices by switching the sign of the outer annulus. This could in principle be done by using a soft magnetic material with at the outer annulus, whereas the inner dot consists of a hard magnetic material. Naturally, the magnetic forces must overcome the Lorentz forces generated by the external magnetic field. Moreover, it is probably not so easy to fabricate such a structure. Therefore, it is doubtful whether this circuit could find any practical realization, although it is a nice example of a vortex manipulation structure.

## IV Interaction with a 1D magnetization

Most domains and walls are not cylindrical symmetric. In fact, they are more often one dimensional (1D), and therefore the corresponding London equation should be solved for this symmetry. Consider a 1D magnetization distribution with the vector pointing in the z direction. Then we may apply the methods presented in this article (using the 1D Fourier transform), and find the following expression for the scalar potential:

$$\varphi _m(x,z)=\frac{\lambda _e}{\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{k_xM(k_x)cos(k_xx)}{1+2\lambda _ek_x}\mathrm{exp}(k_x|z|)𝑑k_x,$$
(41)
where we have assumed that the Fourier transform of the magnetization is real. The magnetic field components are given by

$$H_{mz}(x,z)=\frac{\lambda _e}{\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}k_x^2\frac{M(k_x)cos(k_xx)}{1+2\lambda _ek_x}\mathrm{exp}(k_x|z|)𝑑k_x,$$
(42)
$$H_{mx}(x,z)=\frac{\lambda _e}{\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}k_x^2\frac{M(k_x)sin(k_xx)}{1+2\lambda _ek_x}\mathrm{exp}(k_x|z|)𝑑k_x.$$
(43)
The energy of the system is found to be

$$E=\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_0^2}{4\pi \mu _0\lambda _e}ln\left(\frac{4\pi \lambda _e}{\xi }\right)\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}{\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{M(k_x)cos(k_xx_0)}{1+2\lambda _ek_x}𝑑k_x\frac{\lambda _e\mu _0}{2\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}k_x^2\frac{M^2(k_x)}{1+2\lambda _ek_x}𝑑k_x.$$
(44)
To find the interaction force between the magnetization distribution and the vortex, we simply take the negative derivative of the interaction energy, and obtain

$$F(x_0)=\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}{\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}k_x\frac{M(k_x)sin(k_xx_0)}{1+2\lambda _ek_x}𝑑k_x.$$
(45)
As an example, Fig. 5 shows the z component of the magnetic field generated by the following magnetization distribution (which is looks like a Bloch wall separated by in-plane magnetized domains):

$$𝑴=\{\begin{array}{cc}M_0\delta (z)\widehat{𝒆}_z\hfill & \text{if }WxW\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{if }|x|W\hfill \end{array}.$$

Here we have chosen W=$`\lambda _e/50`$, z=0 and t=$`\lambda _e/2000`$. Note in particular the peaks near the edges of the Bloch wall. In general, it is also seen that there is a small field directly above the magnetization distribution which is not screened by the superconductor. It can be shown that the corresponding force on the vortex has a shape similar to that of Fig. 2, with its maximum near the edges of the magnetization distribution.

## V Conclusion

The interplay between magnetic and superconductive films is studied. The generalized London equation for this system is solved, and the magnetic fields, the energy and the interaction forces are computed. In particular, we focus on how to manipulate vortices using magnetic nanostructures. The formalism presented here could be generalized to arbitrary magnetization vectors, and we therefore hope that it will be useful in future studies.

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5