text:
# Resonance states below pion-nucleon threshold and their consequences for nuclear systems

## I Introduction

The experimental search for exotic states in one-baryon and two-baryon spectra has a long history, see review Troyan93 . The enthusiasm has been revived in the field after two recent experimental reports T97 ; Filkov01 . In ref. T97  the reaction $`ppp\pi ^+X`$ was investigated and three narrow peaks (width $`5`$ MeV) in the missing mass spectrum were seen at $`M_X=1004`$ , $`1044`$ and $`1094`$ MeV with high statistical significance. Ref. Filkov01  reported about the study of the reaction $`pdppX_1`$. Three peaks of the 5 MeV width were clearly observed in the missing mass $`M_{pX_1}`$ spectrum at $`M_{pX_1}=1904\pm 2`$ , $`1926\pm 2`$ and $`1942\pm 2`$ MeV. In the missing mass $`M_{X_1}`$ spectrum the peaks are located at $`M_{X_1}=966\pm 2`$ , $`986\pm 2`$ and $`1003`$ MeV. The correspondence between peaks in refs. T97 ; Filkov01  was discussed in Beck01 .

The evident regularity of the peaks observed in T97 ; Tat02  contrasts with previous experimental data Troyan93  limited by a lower resolution in energy and lower statistics, although the compiled analyses of all available data of ref. Tat99 ; Tat02  shows that a similar pattern glimpses in the old data too.

The true nature of these resonances is obscure so far and three interpretations are suggested in the literature: (i) The peaks can be assigned to supernarrow dibaryon resonances ($`D^{}`$), which have been predicted theoretically within the bag bag  and the chiral soliton Kopel95  models; (ii) The peaks can be interpreted as new nucleon resonances ($`N^{}`$); (iii) They are bound states of one or two nucleons with several light pseudoscalar particles ($`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$) having mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}21\pm 2.6`$ MeV W01 .

The above interpretations imply that the new particles should have an exotic internal quark structure, having only a small overlap with usual nucleon and pion states. Otherwise they would be produced with a large probability and would manifest themselves in many nuclear reaction channels, where they are not seen, as we know. For the dibaryonic interpretation, the smallness of the production cross sections Filkov01 ; Filkov00  and estimates Filkov00  suggest that the pion-$`D^{}`$-deuteron coupling should be at least ten times weaker than the standard $`\pi NN`$ coupling. Nucleon resonances below the $`\pi N`$ threshold should have tiny couplings to $`\pi N`$ and $`\gamma N`$ states otherwise they would spoil the dispersion relations for $`\pi N`$ and Compton scattering, which are fulfilled with good precision disprel . Smallness of the $`\gamma NN^{}`$ coupling requires also smallness of $`\omega NN^{}`$ and $`\rho ^0NN^{}`$ couplings. The coupling of ”light pions” ($`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$) to usual pions and nucleons should also be strongly suppressed in order not to contradict the data on $`\pi \pi `$ and $`\pi N`$ interactions, cf. discussions in ref. W01 .

Despite the fact that the exotic states do not show up on the typical time scale of strong interactions, according to their properties mentioned above, they could manifest themselves in long living nuclear systems, such as atomic nuclei and neutron stars (NS). They could be also produced with a detectable probability in particle-nucleus and nucleus-nucleus collisions as well as other rare probes (photons, di-leptons, strange particles, etc). The small probability of an elementary reaction is enhanced in latter case due to a large number of interactions.

In the present notes we shall discuss possible consequences of the very existence of these three suggested hypothetical states ( $`D^{}`$, $`N^{}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$) for the nuclear systems. In order to make our analysis more transparent, we consider the lightest state in the dibaryon spectrum, $`m_D^{}=1904`$ MeV, and the two lightest states in the nucleon spectrum $`m_{N_1^{}}=966`$ MeV and $`m_{N_2^{}}=986`$ MeV. For ”light pions” we take $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}=22`$ MeV.

We shall model the equation of state (EoS) of nuclear matter using the parameterization HH99 , which is a good fit to the optimal EoS of the Urbana–Argonne group APR98  up to a 4 times nuclear saturation density, $`\rho _0=0.16`$ fm-3 smoothly incorporating the causality limit at higher densities. The energy density, counted from the nucleon mass, is

$`E_N(\rho _N)`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _N_N(n=\rho _N/\rho _0,x=\rho _p/\rho _N),`$
$`_N(n,x)`$ $`=`$ $`_0n{\displaystyle \frac{2.2n}{1+0.2n}}+S_0n^{0.6}(12x)^2,`$ (1)
where $`\rho _{p(n)}`$ is the proton (neutron) density, $`\rho _N=\rho _p+\rho _n`$, $`_0=15.8`$ MeV and $`S_0=32`$ MeV. Having the compressibility modulus $`K200`$ MeV, this EoS allows for the NS masses up to $`2.2M_{}`$ , where $`M_{}=2\times 10^{33}`$ g is the solar mass.

## II Light dibaryons

Consider a mixture of nucleons and dibaryons with the total baryon density $`\rho _B`$ and the dibaryon density $`\rho _D^{}`$. The energy density of such a system is given by

$`E=E_N(\rho _B2\rho _D)+\delta m_D^{}\rho _D^{}+E_{D^{}N}^{\mathrm{pot}}+E_{D^{}D^{}}^{\mathrm{pot}},`$ (2)
where $`\delta m_D^{}=m_D^{}2m_N=28`$ MeV, and quantities $`E_{D^{}N}^{\mathrm{pot}}`$ and $`E_{D^{}D^{}}^{\mathrm{pot}}`$ are potential-energy densities of dibaryon-nucleon and dibaryon-dibaryon interactions. Following Tat99  we assume here that dibaryons are composed of neutrons (having isospin zero), obey Bose statistics, and occupy, therefore, single lowest-energy state. They are compact systems. Thus we may assume that they do not undergo the Mott transition in the baryon matter at densities we are interested in.

Consider first the case of a small dibaryon concentration. Expanding (2) in $`\rho _D^{}`$ for isospin symmetrical matter and $`\rho _D^{}\rho _B`$, we obtain

$`EE_N(\rho _B)(2\mu _N^{(0)}\mu _D^{}^{(0)})\rho _D^{}+\kappa \rho _D^{}^2/2.`$ (3)
Here $`\mu _D^{}^{(0)}=\delta m_D^{}+\delta \mu _{D^{}N}`$ and

$`\mu _N^{(0)}={\displaystyle \frac{E_N}{\rho _B}}|_{\rho _B=\rho _N},\delta \mu _{D^{}N}={\displaystyle \frac{E_{D^{}N}^{\mathrm{pot}}}{\rho _D^{}}}|_{\rho _D^{}=0},`$
$`\kappa =4{\displaystyle \frac{^2E_N}{\rho _B^2}}|_{\rho _B=\rho _N}+{\displaystyle \frac{^2(E_{D^{}N}^{\mathrm{pot}}+E_{D^{}D^{}}^{\mathrm{pot}})}{\rho _D^{}^2}}|_{\rho _D^{}=0}.`$ (4)
Minimizing (3) with respect to $`\rho _D^{}`$, we find that for $`\kappa >0`$ a dibaryon admixture becomes energetically favorable, if $`2\mu _N>\mu _D^{}`$. Then the dibaryon density and the energy density gain are:

$`\rho _D^{}{\displaystyle \frac{2\mu _N^{(0)}\mu _D^{}^{(0)}}{\kappa }},\mathrm{\Delta }E_D^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa }}\left(2\mu _N^{(0)}\mu _D^{}^{(0)}\right)^2.`$ (5)
To model the unknown dibaryon-nucleon interaction we assume that $`D^{}N`$ potential is proportional to $`NN`$ potential and $`\delta \mu _{D^{}N}=\zeta (\mu _N^{(0)}ϵ_\mathrm{F})`$. Here $`ϵ_\mathrm{F}`$ is the Fermi energy of the isospin symmetrical matter, $`ϵ_\mathrm{F}=ϵ_{\mathrm{F},p}=ϵ_{\mathrm{F},n}`$, with $`ϵ_{\mathrm{F},i}=(m_N^2+p_{\mathrm{F},i}^2)^{1/2}m_N`$ and $`p_{\mathrm{F},i}=(3\pi ^2\rho _i)^{1/3}`$ for $`i=n,p`$. The exotic internal structure of light dibaryon states implies that the parameter $`\zeta `$ is small. Specifically, ref. Filkov01 ; Filkov00  put a constraint $`0.1\stackrel{>}{_{}}\zeta 0`$. A naive quark counting would give, on the other hand, $`\zeta =2`$ (such an assumption is analogous to that one in ref. FBKM98 ). A repulsive dibaryon self-interaction can be introduced with $`E_{D^{}D^{}}^{\mathrm{pot}}=\pi f_{D^{}D^{}}\rho _D^{}^2/m_D^{}`$ , where $`f_{D^{}D^{}}>0`$ is the $`D^{}D^{}`$ scattering length. It can be estimated using the assumption, justified in the bag model bag , that the hard core radius in the third power scales as the particle mass, $`f_{D^{}D^{}}r_N^{\mathrm{cor}}(m_D^{}/m_N)^{1/3}0.4`$ fm, with $`r_N^{\mathrm{cor}}0.3`$ fm. The coefficient $`\kappa `$ can be evaluated using that at saturation density $`^2E_N/\rho _N^2|_{\rho _N=\rho _0}=K/(9\rho _0)`$, and assuming that $`E_{D^{}N}^{\mathrm{pot}}`$ is exhausted by the term $`\rho _D^{}\rho _N`$, giving , thereby, $`^2E_{D^{}N}^{\mathrm{pot}}/\rho _D^{}^2|_{\rho _D^{}=0}=0`$. Then we have $`\kappa 610`$ $`\mathrm{MeV}\mathrm{fm}^3`$ .

Applying now the results (5) to atomic nuclei we find that for the favorite choice $`\zeta 0`$ we have $`\mu _D^{}^{(0)}>0`$ and dibaryons are absent in atomic nuclei, since nucleons are bound with $`\mu _N^{(0)}<0`$. Thus,  *the dibaryon interpretation of experiments T97 ; Filkov01 ; Tat99  does not contradict the atomic nucleus experiments*, if their interaction with nucleons is, indeed, sufficiently weak. Note, that choosing $`\zeta =2`$, according to a quark counting, we would have at saturation density $`2\mu _N^{(0)}\mu _D^{}^{(0)}p_\mathrm{F}^2/m_N\delta m_D^{}46`$ MeV corresponding to $`\rho _D^{}0.5\rho _N`$. This would evidently contradict the known properties of nuclei. The critical value of $`\zeta `$ at which dibaryons would just appear in nuclei is $`\zeta _c=(\delta m_D^{}2\mu _N^{(0)})/(ϵ_F\mu _N^{(0)})`$ , that gives $`\zeta _c0.8`$ for 56Fe with $`\mu _N^{(0)}8`$ MeV.

We turn now to NS, which could in principle contain an admixture of dibaryons. Consider a NS consisting of neutrons, protons, dibaryons, electrons, and muons. Following the assumptions above we model the nucleon-dibaryon potential energy as:

$`E_{D^{}N}^{\mathrm{pot}}={\displaystyle \frac{\zeta }{2}}(V_n+V_p)\rho _D^{},V_i={\displaystyle \frac{E_N}{\rho _i}}ϵ_{\mathrm{F},i},`$ (6)
with $`i=n,p`$. The chemical potentials of nucleons and dibaryons are given by:

$`\mu _i={\displaystyle \frac{(E_N+E_{D^{}N}^{\mathrm{pot}})}{\rho _i}},\mu _D^{}=\delta m_D^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{(E_{D^{}N}^{\mathrm{pot}}+E_{D^{}D^{}}^{\mathrm{pot}})}{\rho _D^{}}}.`$
The composition of the NS matter is controlled by conditions of charge-neutrality and $`\beta `$-equilibrium G97 . The latter means, particularly, that $`\mu _D^{}=2\mu _n`$. Calculations (in line with the standard procedure G97 ) show that the presence of dibaryons would completely change the NS composition. Dibaryons appear at very small densities. For homogeneous baryon matter it happens at $`\rho _B0.2\rho _0`$. With further increase of the baryon density they expel protons and strongly reduce the neutron concentration, e.g. at $`\rho _B4.5\rho _0`$ we have $`\rho _n/\rho _B\rho _D/\rho _B0.33`$ and $`\rho _p/\rho _B10^4`$ .

The total energy density, $`E_{\mathrm{tot}}`$, is given by (2) plus the kinetic energy of the leptons. The latter contributions are very small since the number of leptons, being equal to the number of protons, is suppressed in presence of dibaryons. The pressure is equal to $`P=_a\mu _a\rho _aE_{\mathrm{tot}}`$, where the sum goes over all species present in the system.

In Fig. 1 we show the pressure vs. the full relativistic energy density, $`E^{\mathrm{rel}}=m_N\rho _B+E`$, of the NS matter with and without dibaryons, calculated for various values of parameters $`\zeta `$ and $`f_{D^{}D^{}}`$ . We observe that dibaryons make the EoS very soft. In presence of dibaryons the pressure is typically smaller by an order of magnitude than that one without dibaryons. The stiffness of EoS is increased with increase of $`f_{D^{}D^{}}`$ . However, even for the case $`f_{D^{}D^{}}=1`$ fm, corresponding to the most stiff EoS among those presented in Fig. 1, the maximum mass of the NS, as we calculated, is significantly less than the observational lower limit $`1.4M_{}`$. Moreover, an increase of $`f_{D^{}D^{}}`$ up to unrealistically large values $`f_{D^{}D^{}}10`$ fm would not lead to the increase of the NS maximum mass up to $`1.4M_{}`$. EoS becomes softer if one assigns dibaryons to the isospin one states, assuming thereby the existence of charged dibaryons. The same happens for finite values of $`\zeta `$. For $`\zeta =0.8`$ and $`f_{D^{}D^{}}=1`$ fm, the pressure would be negative in some density interval, indicating that the system would undergo the collapse to a superdense state, which would be bound even in the absence of the gravity.

Thus, the analysis above, allows us to conclude that  *the existence of the light dibaryons would be in severe contradiction with information on NS masses*.

## III Nucleon resonances

We turn now to another possible interpretation of experiments T97 ; Filkov01  with the help of exotic nucleon resonances of isospin 1/2. Consider two lightest resonances $`N_1^{}`$ and $`N_2^{}`$ with $`\delta m_{N_1^{}}=m_{N_1^{}}m_N=28`$ MeV and $`\delta m_{N_2^{}}=m_{N_2^{}}m_N=48`$ MeV. We denote neutral and positively charged particles as $`n_{1,2}^{}`$ and $`p_{1,2}^{}`$ by analogy with neutrons and protons. Our treatment of the $`N^{}`$ resonances in the NS matter is similar to that one for hyperons, cf. G97 . However, the critical density for the appearance of $`N^{}`$ is much smaller due to the smaller $`N^{}`$ mass. In line with ref. T97 ; Tat02 , we assume that the $`N^{}`$ resonances have the quark structure quite different from the nucleon one, and, therefore, the Pauli principle is not operating between them and nucleons.

The energy density of the system with the baryon density $`\rho _B`$, composed of nucleons and $`N_{1,2}^{}`$ resonances with the density $`\rho _{N_{1,2}^{}}=\rho _{n_{1,2}^{}}+\rho _{p_{1,2}^{}}`$ is:

$`E`$ $`=`$ $`E_N(\rho _B\rho _{N_1^{}}\rho _{N_2^{}})+{\displaystyle \underset{i^{}=p_{1,2}^{},n_{1,2}^{}}{}}E_i^{}^{\mathrm{kin}}`$ (7)
$`+`$ $`E_{N^{}N}^{\mathrm{pot}}+E_{N^{}N^{}}^{\mathrm{pot}},`$
where $`E_{p^{}(n^{})}^{\mathrm{kin}}`$ denotes the kinetic energy of the $`p^{}(n^{})`$ resonance counted from the nucleon mass. Similarly to (2), the quantity $`E_{N^{}N(N^{}N^{})}^{\mathrm{pot}}`$ stands for the $`N^{}N(N^{}N^{})`$ potential-energy density. Assuming $`\rho _{N_1^{}}\rho _B`$ ($`\rho _{N_2^{}}=0`$ for this case) we expand (7) in $`\rho _N^{}`$ and obtain for the case of isospin symmetrical matter

$`E=E_N(\rho _B)(\mu _N^{(0)}\mu _{N_1^{}}^{(0)})\rho _{N_1^{}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _{N_1^{}}^{5/3}}{m_{N_1^{}}}}({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\pi ^2)^{2/3},`$
$`\mu _{N_1^{}}^{(0)}=\delta m_{N_1^{}}+E_{N^{}N}^{\mathrm{pot}}/\rho _N^{}|_{\rho _{N_1^{}}=\rho _{N_2^{}}=0},`$ (8)
where we retained $`\rho _{N_1^{}}^{5/3}`$ terms but dropped the higher order terms, and $`\mu _N^{(0)}`$ is defined, as in (3). Minimization of the energy density over the $`\rho _{N_1^{}}`$ yields the following $`N^{}`$ density and energy gain:

$`\rho _{N_1^{}}`$ $``$ $`2[m_{N_1^{}}(\mu _N^{(0)}\mu _{N_1^{}}^{(0)})]^{3/2}/(3\pi ^2),`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{N_1^{}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{15\pi ^2}}m_{N_1^{}}^{3/2}(\mu _N^{(0)}\mu _{N_1^{}}^{(0)})^{5/2},`$ (9)
if $`\mu _N^{(0)}>\mu _{N_1^{}}^{(0)}`$ and zero otherwise. As for dibaryons, we express the $`N_1^{}`$ chemical potential through the nucleon chemical potential, $`\mu _{N_1^{}}^{(0)}=\delta m_{N_1^{}}+\zeta ^{}(\mu _N^{(0)}ϵ_\mathrm{F})`$ , with the same constraint $`0.1\stackrel{>}{_{}}\zeta ^{}0`$. For $`\zeta ^{}=0`$ there are no $`N^{}`$ resonances in atomic nuclei, since $`\mu _N^{}^{(0)}=\delta m_N^{}>0`$ and $`\mu _N^{(0)}<0`$. A quark counting suggests $`\zeta ^{}=1`$, and, correspondingly, we would get $`\mu _N^{(0)}\mu _{N_1^{}}^{(0)}p_\mathrm{F}^2/(2m_N)\delta m_{N_1^{}}9`$ MeV in atomic nuclei. This gives $`\rho _N^{}0.04\rho _0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_N^{}0.2`$ MeV, which are rather small contributions. The critical value of $`\zeta ^{}`$, when $`N_1^{}`$ resonances could just appear in atomic nuclei, is $`\zeta _c^{}0.9`$. For $`0.1\stackrel{<}{_{}}\zeta ^{}\stackrel{<}{_{}}\zeta _c^{}`$, even if $`N^{}`$ resonances are absent in atomic nuclei, they could be produced and detected in nuclear reactions. This is, however, not the case. Therefore, $`\zeta ^{}`$ should be small and for small $`\zeta ^{}`$ *the existence of light nucleon resonances would not contradict known properties of atomic nuclei*.

Consider now the NS matter in $`\beta `$-equilibrium consisting of nucleons, $`N_1^{}`$, $`N_2^{}`$ and leptons. We express the $`N^{}N`$ and $`N^{}N^{}`$ potential energies as:

$`E_{N^{}N}^{\mathrm{pot}}`$ $`=`$ $`\zeta ^{}\left[V_n(\rho _{n_1^{}}+\rho _{n_2^{}})+V_p(\rho _{p_1^{}}+\rho _{p_2^{}})\right],`$
$`E_{N^{}N^{}}^{\mathrm{pot}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi f_{N^{}N^{}}}{m_{N_1^{}}}}(\rho _{N_1^{}}+\rho _{N_2^{}})^2,`$
where the nucleon potentials, $`V_{n,p}`$ are given in (6), and we take $`f_{N^{}N^{}}r_N^{\mathrm{cor}}0.3`$ fm. The chemical potentials of nucleons and $`N^{}`$ are then as follows

$`\mu _i={\displaystyle \frac{(E_N+E_{N^{}N}^{\mathrm{pot}})}{\rho _i}},\mu _i^{}=ϵ_{\mathrm{F},i^{}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(E_{N^{}N}^{\mathrm{pot}}+E_{N^{}N^{}}^{\mathrm{pot}})}{\rho _i^{}}},`$
where $`i=n,p`$, $`i^{}=n_{1,2}^{},p_{1,2}^{}`$ and $`ϵ_{\mathrm{F},i^{}}=(m_{N_{1,2}^{}}^2+p_{\mathrm{F},i^{}}^2)^{1/2}m_N`$ with $`p_{\mathrm{F},i}=(3\pi ^2\rho _i^{})^{1/3}`$. The $`\beta `$-equilibrium requires that $`\mu _n=\mu _{n_1^{}}=\mu _{n_2^{}}`$ and $`\mu _p=\mu _{p_1^{}}=\mu _{p_2^{}}`$.

The composition of the NS matter would be significantly changed in presence of $`N^{}`$ resonances. For $`\zeta ^{}=0`$ and $`f_{N^{}N^{}}=0.3`$ fm neutron and proton concentrations decrease continuously starting from $`\rho _B0.2\rho _0`$ (in the approximation of homogeneous medium) with neutrons, being replaced, first, by $`n_1^{}`$ and then after $`1.2\rho _0`$ by $`n_2^{}`$. At $`\rho _B4\rho _0`$ the chemical potential $`\mu _p^{}`$ exceeds $`m_N^{}`$. At this point all protons are replaced by $`p_1^{}`$ resonances, whose population grows slowly, reaching 0.5% at $`10\rho _0`$. The $`p_2^{}`$ resonances do not appear. The pressure of the NS matter with $`N^{}`$ resonances is shown in Fig. 2 (left panel) as a function of the energy density $`E^{\mathrm{rel}}`$. We see that $`N^{}`$ resonances make the EoS softer, decreasing the pressure by factor about 2 to 5 for $`0\zeta ^{}1`$ and $`0.3\mathrm{fm}f_{N^{}N^{}}1\mathrm{fm}`$. The softness of EoS increases with increase of $`\zeta `$ and decrease of $`f_{N^{}N^{}}`$. In the right panel of Fig. 2 we show the masses of NS cores as a function of central baryon densities, $`\rho _c`$. The full dots indicate the maximum masses of NS, $`M_{\mathrm{max}}`$. Since astronomical observations put the limit $`M_{\mathrm{max}}1.4M_{}`$ G97 , we can conclude from Fig. 2 that *the existence of $`N^{}`$ resonances would contradict information on the NS masses for $`\zeta ^{}0`$ and $`f_{N^{}N^{}}\stackrel{<}{_{}}1`$ fm.* To reach the observational limit of $`1.4M_{}`$ the $`N^{}N^{}`$ repulsion should be as large as with $`f_{N^{}N^{}}\stackrel{>}{_{}}2`$ fm. A further stiffening of the EoS of nuclear matter (1) would not help since then $`N^{}`$ resonances would appear at even smaller densities, leading to the same consequences for NS.

## IV Light pions

We follow now the assumption of ref. W01  that there exist light pions ($`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$) whose strong coupling constant is essentially suppressed.

Our approach here is similar to that one used for pion condensate systems, cf. M71 ; MSTV90  and refs. therein. Negative light pions could be accumulated in nuclei due to reaction $`np+\stackrel{~}{\pi }^{}`$, if $`\mu _n\mu _p\stackrel{>}{_{}}\mu _{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}`$ . Having a suppressed strong coupling constant, light negative pions satisfy the Klein-Gordon equation

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi +[(\omega V)^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}^2]\varphi =0,`$ (10)
where $`\varphi `$ is the $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }^{}`$ wave function and $`V`$ is the Coulomb potential well. Multiplying (10) by $`\varphi ^{}`$ and averaging over the volume we find the solution

$`\omega =\overline{V}+\left(m_{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}^2+\overline{k^2}+(\overline{V})^2\overline{V^2}\right)^{1/2},`$ (11)
where $`\overline{k^2}=|\varphi |^2𝑑\stackrel{}{r}`$. The critical value of the pion energy $`\omega `$ at the $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }^{}`$ condensation point is $`\omega =\mu _n\mu _p0`$, for isospin-symmetrical nuclei. For the light pions the Compton wave length is $`10`$ fm that is larger than the radius ($`R`$) of the nucleus. Thus, $`\overline{k^2}`$ is the dominating term in (11).

Let us first model a nucleus as a spherical potential well of the constant depth $`V=V_0Ze^2/R`$ for $`r<R1.2A^{1/3}`$ fm and $`V=0`$ for $`r>R`$, where $`e`$ is the electron charge and $`A`$ is an atomic number. Then the pion spectrum follows from the equation $`kR\mathrm{cot}(kR)=\lambda R`$, with $`k=\sqrt{(\omega +V_0)^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}^2}`$ and $`\lambda =\sqrt{m_{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}^2\omega ^2}`$. In the limit $`Rm_{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}1`$ the spectrum of deeply bound states can be found from the condition $`\mathrm{cos}(kR)=0`$ and in the opposite limit, $`Rm_{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}1`$, from $`\mathrm{sin}(kR)=0`$. In the most favored case for the $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }^{}`$ condensation ($`\mathrm{cos}(kR)=0`$) the critical condition reads $`V_0=(m_{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}^2+\pi ^2/(4R^2))^{1/2}`$ . For atomic nuclei (with the atomic number $`A\stackrel{<}{_{}}200`$) we then estimate $`(m_{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}^2+\pi ^2/(4R^2))^{1/2}>50`$ MeV, and the critical condition is not yet achieved. Solution of (11) with the realistic Coulomb potential does not change this conclusion. *Thus, there is no $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }^{}`$ condensate in atomic nuclei,* their size and the value of the Coulomb field are too small for that.

In refs. MSTV90 ; V77  it was argued that, if there existed light bosons of the mass $`<30`$ MeV, then there could exist exotic objects, ”nuclei-stars”, of an arbitrary size, having the density $`\rho \rho _0`$, and being bound by strong and electromagnetic interactions. The light pion proposed in ref. W01  could play such a role. To demonstrate this idea, let us consider the spherical nuclear ball of a constant density $`\rho _0`$ and the radius $`1\mathrm{km}Rm_{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}^1`$, consisting of $`A`$ nucleons. Then we may neglect both surface and gravitational effects. The total energy is given by

$`_0A+S_0(A2Z)^2/A+Zm_{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}.`$ (12)
Minimizing the energy over $`Z`$ at fixed $`A`$, we get $`Z/A0.41`$ and the corresponding binding energy $`_N/A5.7`$ MeV. Although this quantity is slightly larger than the binding energy per particle for the $`\alpha `$ particle ($`7`$ MeV), the $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$-nucleus cannot decay into $`\alpha `$ particles and light pions or atomic nuclei and light pions. The total energy per particle of $`\alpha +2\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ is $`7\mathrm{MeV}+m_{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}/2=3`$ MeV. This is larger than the energy per particle of the initial bound state ($`5.7`$ MeV). (This, however, does not exclude a possibility of the weak radioactive decays of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$-nuclei.) At finite temperature (excitation energy) $`T>T_{c1}`$ several MeV the binding energy reaches zero and condensate melts. The system, however, still exists as a whole, being in a metastable state, until excess of energy is smaller than $`Zm_{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}`$. Such an excited object cools down via $`\gamma `$\- and $`\nu `$-radiation from weak $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ decays. At $`T>T_cm_{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}`$ the system decays, expanding into the vacuum.

Consider light pions in NS matter. Here we first assume that the $`N^{}`$ resonance and $`D^{}`$ dibaryon do not exist as elementary particles, and the experiments T97 ; Filkov01 ; Tat02  are explained with the help of the usual nucleons and the light pions only. In case of homogeneous baryon matter $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }^{}`$ mesons could appear already at the density $`\rho _B0.05\rho _0`$, when the electron chemical potential reached $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}`$. Then at higher densities, in the NS interior, $`\mu _e=m_{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}`$, and the positive proton charge is compensated by the negative charge of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }^{}`$ meson condensate. It leads, first, to the isospin equilibration of NS matter. E.g. at $`\rho =2\rho _0`$ the ratio $`\rho _p/\rho _B0.44`$, increasing further with the baryon density. Second, with the $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }^{}`$ condensate the EoS of NS matter becomes softer, as it is illustrated in Fig. 3. The pressure is negative at $`0.3\rho _0<\rho _B<\rho _0`$, indicating that the system is self-bound at $`\rho _B=\rho _0`$ (when $`P=0`$) even in the absence of the gravity. The softening of the EoS reduces the maximal mass of the NS but still keeps this value above the observational limit of $`1.4M_{}`$. *Thus the existence of light pions would not contradict the observed NS masses.* If light pions coexist with N’ resonances and/or D’ baryons the EoS would be softer than in the case without light pions. Such a situation would contradict to observable neutron star masses.

In heavy-ion collisions, $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ mesons would contribute to dilepton spectra and could be seen as a peak in the dilepton spectrum at $`20`$ MeV energy.

## V Summary

Being motivated by recent experimental studies T97 ; Filkov01 ; Tat99  and their interpretations, we have investigated how the existence of exotic light dibaryon, nucleon resonance and pion states, would manifest itself in nuclear systems. We have shown that dibaryons and $`N^{}`$ resonances below the $`\pi N`$ threshold would be absent in atomic nuclei, if their interactions with nucleons are sufficiently small, as it is demanded by their production rates. Also light pions cannot be accumulated in atomic nuclei.

In the neutron star matter the new exotic states could manifest themselves remarkably: they would drastically change the composition of a neutron star and make the equation of state much softer. The equation of state with dibaryons and nucleon resonances becomes so soft that it would not be able to support neutron stars with the observed masses. Thus the dibaryon and nucleon-resonance interpretations of the above mentioned experiments should be questioned.

The existence of light pions would not lead to a contradiction with observed neutron star masses. The presence of light pions would allow the existence of abnormal nuclei ($`A\stackrel{>}{_{}}10^3`$) and “nuclei-stars” of arbitrary size, bound by strong and electromagnetic interactions.

Thus, the importance of astrophysical consequences of the low-mass resonance states should strongly motivate further experimental investigations, as well as a search for new theoretical interpretations.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors thank W. Weise and L.V. Filkov for helpful remarks. D.N.V. acknowledges hospitality and support of GSI Darmstadt. His work has been supported in part by DFG (project 436 Rus 113/558/0), and by RFBR grant NNIO-00-02-04012.


format: text

text:
# A comparison of search templates for gravitational waves from binary inspiral — 3.5PN update

## I Introduction

In this note we update Tables I and II in Ref. DIS3  (henceforth referred to as DIS3) in view of the recent theoretical progress made in the dynamics of, and radiation from, binary systems to 3.5PN order DJS00 ; BF00 ; DJS01 ; BFIJ01 . Before giving a comprehensive list of the corresponding updates, we take this opportunity to correct some misprints in Ref. DIS3 . Results in DIS3  are not changed since they used the correct formulas free of the misprints below.

The expansion coefficients in Table I and Table II of DIS3, are all Newton-normalised coefficients. In the notation of the paper, there should be overhats on all these coefficients, except $`e_k`$ (that is, $`\widehat{E}_k,`$ $`\widehat{}_k,`$ $`\widehat{t}_k^v,`$ $`\widehat{\varphi }_k^v,`$ $`\widehat{\varphi }_k^t,`$ $`\widehat{F}_k^t,`$ and $`\widehat{\tau }_k`$). The coefficients $`\widehat{t}_5^v,`$ $`\widehat{F}_5^t`$ and $`\widehat{\tau }_2`$ in Table II (which were correct in the eprint version) contain typographical errors in the published version of DIS3. Their correct expressions are:

$$\widehat{t}_5^v=\left(\frac{7729}{252}\frac{13}{3}\eta \right)\pi ,$$
(1)
$$\widehat{F}_5^t=\left(\frac{7729}{21504}\frac{13}{256}\eta \right)\pi ,$$
(2)
$$\widehat{\tau }_2=\frac{5}{9}\left(\frac{743}{84}+11\eta \right).$$
(3)
The second of the equations in Eq. (4.5) of DIS3 should read

$$p_\phi ^0=\left[\frac{r_0^23\eta }{r_0^33r_0^2+5\eta }\right]^{1/2}r_0,$$
(4)
the factor $`r_0`$ outside the square brackets on the right-hand side is missing both in the eprint and published version of DIS3.

## II Updates

The energy DJS00 ; BF00 ; DJS01  and flux BFIJ01  functions have now been computed up to order $`v^7`$ in post-Newtonian theory. The corresponding expansion coefficients are as follows. The 3PN coefficients in the expansion of the various energy functions are:

$`\widehat{E}_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{675}{64}}+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{34445}{576}}{\displaystyle \frac{205\pi ^2}{96}}+{\displaystyle \frac{10\omega _s}{3}}\right]\eta `$ (5)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{155}{96}}\eta ^2{\displaystyle \frac{35}{5184}}\eta ^3,`$
$`e_3`$ $`=`$ $`9+\left({\displaystyle \frac{4309}{72}}{\displaystyle \frac{205}{96}}\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{10}{3}}\omega _s\right)\eta `$ (6)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{103}{36}}\eta ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{81}}\eta ^3,`$
with the Padé approximant $`e_{P_6}`$ determined using Eq. (2.17) of DIS3, wherein $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ are as in DIS3 and $`c_3`$ is given by

$$c_3=\frac{e_1e_3e_2^2}{e_1\left(e_1^2e_2\right)}.$$
(7)
The dimensionless parameter $`\omega _s`$ (used in DJS00 ) is related to the parameter $`\lambda `$ (used in BF00 ) by $`\omega _s=1987/84011\lambda /3`$, so that we alternatively have

$`\widehat{E}_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{675}{64}}+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{209323}{4032}}{\displaystyle \frac{205\pi ^2}{96}}{\displaystyle \frac{110\lambda }{9}}\right]\eta `$ (8)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{155}{96}}\eta ^2{\displaystyle \frac{35}{5184}}\eta ^3,`$
$`e_3`$ $`=`$ $`9+\left({\displaystyle \frac{26189}{504}}{\displaystyle \frac{205}{96}}\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{110}{9}}\lambda \right)\eta `$ (9)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{103}{36}}\eta ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{81}}\eta ^3.`$
The numerical value of $`\omega _s`$ has been recently determined by dimensional regularization DJS01  to be simply equal to $`\omega _s=0`$, which corresponds to $`\lambda =1987/3080`$. \[Note that there is a sign misprint in the second term on the right-hand-side of Eq.(4.7) in the last reference in DJS00 ; it should read $`\lambda =3\omega _s/111987/3080`$.\] Concerning the 3PN update of the effective one-body Hamiltonian, it is explicitly given in section IVD of the second reference in DJS00 .

The expansion coefficients in Table II of DIS3 at 3PN and 3.5PN are as follows. The coefficients in the expansion of the flux are:

$`\widehat{}_6^v`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{6643739519}{69854400}}+{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi ^2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1712}{105}}\gamma `$ (10)
$`+`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{11497453}{272160}}+{\displaystyle \frac{41\pi ^2}{48}}+{\displaystyle \frac{176}{9}}\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{88}{3}}\mathrm{\Theta }\right)\eta `$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{94403}{3024}}\eta ^2{\displaystyle \frac{775}{324}}\eta ^3,`$
$$\widehat{}_7^v=\left(\frac{16285}{504}+\frac{214745}{1728}\eta +\frac{193385}{3024}\eta ^2\right)\pi ,$$
(11)
and $`\widehat{}_{l6}^v=\frac{1712}{105}.`$ Here $`\gamma `$ is the Euler constant, $`\gamma =0.577\mathrm{},`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ and $`\lambda `$ are two undetermined parameters in Ref. BFIJ01 . We use the letter $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ to denote what is denoted by $`\theta `$ in BFIJ01  ( this should not be confused with the related undetermined 3PN quantity $`\widehat{\theta }=\theta 7\lambda /3`$ which is also used in some formulas of BFIJ01 ). The $`\lambda `$ appearing in the flux function is the same quantity as in the energy function, arising, as it does, from the time derivatives of the mass quadrupole moment involved in computing the far-zone flux. The quantity $`\widehat{F}_{l6}^v`$ is the coefficient of the log term that arises, for the first time, at the 3PN order; to the usual Newton-normalized Taylor expansion DIS1  one must add $`\widehat{}_{l6}^v\mathrm{log}(4v)v^6`$ to complete the PN expansion. Beware that if expressions are rewritten in terms of $`\omega _s`$ rather than $`\lambda `$, the rational numerical coefficient in the $`\eta `$ term will change. For ready reckoning, in the above and subsequent formulas, we indicate this explicitly as follows: ($`11497453/272160+(176\lambda )/914930989/272160(16\omega _s)/3`$). This means the flux formula may be alternatively written in terms of $`\omega _s`$ by the indicated replacement.

Coefficients in the expansion of time as a function of the invariant velocity parameter $`v=(\pi mf)^{1/3},`$ where $`f`$ is the gravitational-wave frequency, are

$`\widehat{t}_6^v`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{10052469856691}{23471078400}}+{\displaystyle \frac{128}{3}}\pi ^2`$ (12)
$`+`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{15335597827}{15240960}}{\displaystyle \frac{451}{12}}\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{352}{3}}\mathrm{\Theta }{\displaystyle \frac{2464}{9}}\lambda \right)\eta `$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{6848}{105}}\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{15211}{1728}}\eta ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{25565}{1296}}\eta ^3,`$
$$\widehat{t}_7^v=\left(\frac{15419335}{127008}\frac{75703}{756}\eta +\frac{14809}{378}\eta ^2\right)\pi ,$$
(13)
and $`\widehat{t}_{l6}^v=\frac{6848}{105},`$ where $`\widehat{t}_{l6}^v`$ is the coefficient of the log term; to the usual Newton-normalized Taylor expansion one must add $`\widehat{t}_{l6}^v\mathrm{log}(4v)v^6`$ to complete the PN expansion. ($`15335597827/15240960(2464\lambda )/918027490051/15240960+(224\omega _s)/3`$).

Coefficients in the expansion of the gravitational wave phase as a function of the invariant velocity $`v`$ are

$`\widehat{\varphi }_6^v`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{12348611926451}{18776862720}}{\displaystyle \frac{160}{3}}\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1712}{21}}\gamma `$ (14)
$`+`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{15335597827}{12192768}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2255}{48}}\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3080}{9}}\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{440}{3}}\mathrm{\Theta }\right)\eta `$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{76055}{6912}}\eta ^2{\displaystyle \frac{127825}{5184}}\eta ^2,`$
$$\widehat{\varphi }_7^v=\left(\frac{77096675}{2032128}+\frac{378515}{12096}\eta \frac{74045}{6048}\eta ^2\right)\pi ,$$
(15)
and $`\widehat{\varphi }_{l6}^v=\frac{1712}{21},`$ where, as in the previous cases, $`\widehat{\varphi }_{l6}^v`$ is the coefficient of the log term; to the usual Newton-normalized Taylor expansion one must add $`\widehat{\varphi }_{l6}^v\mathrm{log}(4v)v^6`$ to complete the PN expansion. ($`15335597827/12192768+(3080\lambda )/918027490051/12192768(280\omega _s)/3`$).

The expansion coefficients of the phase as a function of the time parameter111 The dimensionless time variable $`\theta `$ here is related to $`\tau `$ in BF00 , by $`\theta =\tau ^{1/8}`$ leading to minor differences in the coefficients here and in BF00 .  $`\theta =[\eta (t_{\mathrm{ref}}t)/(5m)]^{1/8}`$ where $`t_{\mathrm{ref}}`$ is a reference time at which the PN-expanded GW frequency formally goes to infinity, are given by,

$`\widehat{\varphi }_6^t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{831032450749357}{57682522275840}}{\displaystyle \frac{53}{40}}\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{107}{56}}\gamma `$ (16)
$`+`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{123292747421}{4161798144}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2255}{2048}}\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{385}{48}}\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{55}{16}}\mathrm{\Theta }\right)\eta `$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{154565}{1835008}}\eta ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1179625}{1769472}}\eta ^3.`$
$$\widehat{\varphi }_7^t=\left(\frac{188516689}{173408256}+\frac{488825}{516096}\eta \frac{141769}{516096}\eta ^2\right)\pi ,$$
(17)
and $`\widehat{\varphi }_{l6}^t=\frac{107}{56}`$, where, as before, $`\widehat{\varphi }_{l6}^t`$ is the coefficient of the log term; to the usual Newton-normalized Taylor expansion one must add $`\widehat{\varphi }_{l6}^t\mathrm{log}(2\theta )\theta ^6`$ to complete the PN expansion. ($`123292747421/4161798144+(385\lambda )/48144827885213/4161798144(35\omega _s)/16`$).

Finally, coefficients in the expansion of the gravitational-wave frequency in terms of the time parameter $`\theta `$ are given by

$`\widehat{F}_6^t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{720817631400877}{288412611379200}}+{\displaystyle \frac{53}{200}}\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{107}{280}}\gamma `$ (18)
$`+`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{123292747421}{20808990720}}{\displaystyle \frac{451}{2048}}\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{77}{48}}\lambda +{\displaystyle \frac{11}{16}}\mathrm{\Theta }\right)\eta `$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{30913}{1835008}}\eta ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{235925}{1769472}}\eta ^3,`$
$$\widehat{F}_7^t=\left(\frac{188516689}{433520640}\frac{97765}{258048}\eta +\frac{141769}{1290240}\eta ^2\right)\pi .$$
(19)
and $`\widehat{F}_{l6}^t=\frac{107}{280},`$ where, $`\widehat{F}_{l6}^t`$ is the coefficient of the log term; to the usual Newton-normalized Taylor expansion one must add $`\widehat{F}_{l6}^t\mathrm{log}(2\theta )\theta ^6`$ to complete the PN expansion. ($`123292747421/20808990720(77\lambda )/48144827885213/20808990720+(7\omega _s)/16`$).

In computing Pade coefficients of the new flux function DIS1  one needs the first seven continued fraction coefficients. The first six of these are as in Appendix A of Ref. DIS1 , except that the last term in the first line of $`c_6`$ should be $`c_3^2(c_2c_1).`$ The coefficient $`c_7`$ is too long to be quoted in this brief note; an electronic version can be obtained from the authors.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank J-Y. Vinet for pointing out the missing factor in Eq. (4.5) of DIS3 and L. Blanchet for help received in confirming 3PN and 3.5PN expansion coefficients. BSS would like to thank Max-Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics, Albert Einstein Institute, for hospitality, where this Brief Communication was written.


text:
# Experimental Investigation of Microwave Enhanced Cotunneling in SET Transistors

## I Introdution

The unique properties of single electron tunneling (SET) devices has made them the subject of extensive research. This research includes applications such as current standards,Kautz et al. (1999) capacitance standards,Keller et al. (1999) electrometers,Aassime et al. (2001) quantum computing,Vion et al. (2002) and thermometry.Kauppinen et al. (1998); Bergsten et al. (2001) The first-order behaviour is adequately described by the well-established orthodox theory.Averin and Likharev (1991); Ingold and Nazarov (1992) The so-called cotunneling, a second-order phenomenon in which one electron tunnels through each of the SET junctions at the same time, has also received some attention, as this constitutes an important error process in many SET applications. The dependence of the cotunneling current on voltage and temperature has been studied theoretically Averin and Nazarov (1990) as well as experimentally.Geerlings et al. (1990); Eiles et al. (1992); Pasquier et al. (1993); Paul et al. (1994) Furthermore, Covington et al.Covington et al. (2000) have studied the frequency dependence for 4- and 6-junction pumps. This paper investigates experimentally the theoretical prediction by Flensberg Flensberg (1997) that the cotunneling current should depend not only on temperature and voltage, but also on the amplitude and frequency of an applied oscillating field.

The paper is organized as follows: The theory for cotunneling derived by Flensberg and others is briefly summarized in section II. The measurement setup is thoroughly described in section III. The experimental results on cotunneling are presented in section IV, and in section V the results are discussed. Finally, section VI summarizes our conclusions.

## II Theory

Cotunneling (also referred to as macroscopic quantum tunneling of electric charge or q-MQT) is a second-order process by which an electron tunnels through the junctions of the SET transistor via an intermediate virtual state.Averin and Odintsov (1989); Averin and Nazarov (1990) The inelastic cotunneling current in a single SET transistor for low temperature ($`k_\mathrm{B}T_\mathrm{e}\mathrm{\Delta }^\pm `$) and bias voltage ($`eV_{\mathrm{DC}}\mathrm{\Delta }^\pm `$) was derived by Averin and Nazarov asAverin and Nazarov (1990)

$$I_{\mathrm{cot}}^{(3)}=\frac{R_\mathrm{K}}{24\pi ^2R_1R_2}\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }^+}+\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }^{}}\right)^2\left[\left(2\pi k_\mathrm{B}T_\mathrm{e}\right)^2+\left(eV_{\mathrm{DC}}\right)^2\right]V_{\mathrm{DC}}$$
(1)
Here, $`R_{1,2}`$ are the tunneling resistances of the left and right electrodes, respectively, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^\pm =(e/C_\mathrm{\Sigma })(e/2C_\mathrm{G}V_\mathrm{G})(\mathrm{mod}(e^2/C_\mathrm{\Sigma }))`$ are the energies to add/remove one electron to/from the island, $`T_\mathrm{e}`$ is the temperature of the electron system, and $`R_\mathrm{K}=h/e^2`$. In the maximum blockade state, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^\pm `$ reduce to the charging energy $`E_\mathrm{C}=e^2/2C_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, where $`C_\mathrm{\Sigma }=C_1+C_2+C_\mathrm{G}`$ is the total capacitance of the island (the ground capacitance is assumed negligible). The validity of Eq. 1 has been verified experimentally in metallic systems by several researchers: Geerlings et al.Geerlings et al. (1990) first reported the observation of cotunneling current and its scaling with the conductances and voltage. The scaling of the current, rather than the quantitative value, made the results clearly distinguishable from thermally enhanced sequential tunneling. Later, the experiments by Eiles et al.Eiles et al. (1992) confirmed the temperature and gate bias dependence quantitatively. Furthermore, Pasquier et al.Pasquier et al. (1993) and other groups have investigated cotunneling in 2DEG systems. Since it seems well-confirmed by experiments, Eq. 1 will be assumed valid here.

Flensberg Flensberg (1997) has extended the analysis by Averin & Nazarov to the case where a harmonically varying signal $`V_{\mathrm{AC}}\mathrm{cos}(2\pi ft)`$ is applied on top of the DC bias. His result for the cotunneling current, obtained by expansion to the third order in the energies, becomes in the adiabatic (low-frequency, low-temperature, low-amplitude) limit

$$\begin{array}{c}I_{\mathrm{cot}}^{(3)}=\frac{R_\mathrm{K}}{24\pi ^2R_1R_2}\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }^+}+\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }^{}}\right)^2\hfill \\ \hfill \times \left[\left(2\pi k_\mathrm{B}T_\mathrm{e}\right)^2+\left(eV_{\mathrm{DC}}\right)^2+\frac{3}{2}\left(eV_{\mathrm{AC}}\right)^2\right]V_{\mathrm{DC}}\end{array}$$
(2)
In restating his equations we assume (as is the case for our experiments) that the alternating bias is applied to the left lead, while the right is kept at a constant potential.

Eq. 2 is not surprising, as this is what one would obtain from Eq. 1 by making the substitution $`V_{\mathrm{DC}}V_{\mathrm{DC}}+V_{\mathrm{AC}}\mathrm{cos}(2\pi ft)`$ and averaging over time. However, because of the power expansion approach, Flensberg was able to derive also the next leading order correction to Eq. 2 by an expansion to fourth order in the energies:

$$\begin{array}{c}I_{\mathrm{cot}}^{(4)}=\frac{R_\mathrm{K}}{48\pi ^2R_1R_2}\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }^+}+\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }^{}}\right)^2\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }^{}}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }^+}\right)\hfill \\ \hfill \times \left[\left(2\pi k_\mathrm{B}T_\mathrm{e}\right)^2+\frac{3}{4}\left(eV_{\mathrm{AC}}\right)^2+\left(hf\right)^2\right]\left(eV_{\mathrm{AC}}\right)^2\end{array}$$
(3)
The temperature, amplitude and frequency are assumed low enough that an expansion in powers of these is appropriate. Note that in the case of maximum Coulomb blockade, $`I_{\mathrm{cot}}^{(4)}`$ vanishes, since then $`\mathrm{\Delta }^\pm =E_\mathrm{C}`$ and thus the third multiplicative term becomes zero.

The aim of the work on cotunneling presented here is to experimentally verify or disprove Eq. 2. We do this by applying microwaves to the device and measuring the differential conductance by a lock-in technique in zero DC bias. This ensures that the current predicted by Eq. 3 does not contribute to the result. Measurements to verify Eq. 3 are planned for the near future.

Using the familiar Master Equation approach for the orthodox theory, we have calculated the curve shown in Fig. 1 for a SET transistor with the parameters measured for the sample reported on here (JYU NM3). The figure shows the sequential tunneling and cotunneling conductances in zero bias and maximum Coulomb blockade, as function of temperature. It is seen that the conductances have the same order of magnitude, which means that sequential tunneling should be taken into account when interpreting the results.

## III Experimental Setup

The samples are fabricated on 500 $`\mu `$m thick oxidized silicon. Gold pads and leads are made by a standard UV lithography technique. Before fabrication, the wafers are cleaned by ultrasound. A standard PMMA(-MAA) two-layer resist system is then applied and exposed by a pattern designed for 50 nm line with and 100 nm overlap. The line width becomes a little larger; 70-100 nm due to the exposure equipment and development. After exposure, the pattern is developed, and cleaned by reactive ion etching. Two layers of aluminium (40 and 30 nm thick) are evaporated at an angle, with an intermediate oxidation in 2 mbar O2 for 3 minutes. After the last metal evaporation, the sample is oxidized again in 2 mbar O2 for several minutes. Finally, the result is lifted off in acetone.

The samples were measured in the KelvinOx™ dilution refrigerator at the Institute of Physics, DTU. The plastic mixing chamber has been replaced by a metal one, and the sample is mounted on a cold finger extending into a superconducting magnet, which, in order to suppress the superconductivity of the aluminium, was set to one Tesla in all measurements presented here. The dilution refrigerator is set up in a shielded room, with the mechanical pumps outside the shielding. The temperature of the mixing chamber could be measured with calibrated germanium and ruthenium-oxide thermometers. The loaded base temperature is 50 mK.

The samples were biased symmetrically using locally fabricated low-noise electronics. The electronics is mounted in an RF tight, compact metal box for shielding. For bias, an input amplifier adds two incoming signals; in this case a DC bias and a small low-frequency modulation provided by a lock-in amplifier. The added signal is then symmetrized by by an inverting and a non-inverting amplifier. Finally, the signal is voltage divided on each side to a suitable bias level $`V_\mathrm{B}`$, and fed to the sample through two large resistors $`R_\mathrm{B}`$. These were set to 10 M$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in all measurements presented. A FET input, low-noise voltage preamplifier with a gain of 1000 was used to measure the resulting voltage $`V_{\mathrm{DC}}`$ across the sample, and the voltage signal is further amplified 10 times by an external PAR113 low-noise amplifier. The current through the sample is then calculated as $`(V_\mathrm{B}V_{\mathrm{DC}})/2R_\mathrm{B}`$. A small-amplitude modulation, with frequency 2 Hz, was applied from the output of a SR850 lock-in amplifier on top of the DC bias to measure dynamic resistances. This results in a current modulation across the device of about 10 pA. After amplification in the FET preamplifier, the voltage response was fed back to the lock-in amplifier for measurement. With the measured zero-bias conductances, a 10 pA excitation corresponds in the worst case (2 $`\mu \mathrm{S}`$ differential conductance) to 50 aW heat input, and the voltage magnitude of the excitation is 5 $`\mu \mathrm{V}`$, corresponding to about 3% of $`e/C_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. From the measured noise level at 2 Hz, combined with the equivalent noise bandwidth of the lock-in amplifier, we estimate the RMS noise to be at most 2.5% of the signal responses obtained.

There are 20 DC connections from the room temperature electronics to the sample at the base temperature. Starting from the 300 K top flange, there are first 20 Thermocoax® cables (length approx. 1.5 m) connect from room temperature to the 1.2 K level, then 20 superconducting wires in a ribbon to the mixing chamber (for thermal isolation), and finally 20 Thermocoax cables from the mixing chamber to the sample (length approx. 25 cm). The 20 Thermocoax cablesand the method of wiring minimize cross-talk and external noise input. The cables are thermally anchored at all temperature levels. The Thermocoax cables provide filtering of the room temperature thermal radiation;Zorin (1995) for $`f`$ = 10 GHz (corresponding to $`hf/k_\mathrm{B}=0.5`$ K) the attenuation of the cable is about 140 dB/m. The attenuation in dB increases as the square root of the frequency. Using a thermally conductive paste, the sample is mounted inside a thick-walled copper cavity and contacted electrically by “buckling wires” which tread on the sample. The 25 cm Thermocoax cables and the sample holder are enclosed in a copper shield at the mixing chamber temperature, which shields them from the surrounding 4.2 K radiation.

The individual shielding of the measurement leads also decreased the cross-capacitances considerably, which in turn minimizes cross-talk. The total capacitance to cryostat ground was measured to be 840 pF per lead at room temperature, which is in agreement with Zorin’s result.Zorin (1995) It is worth noticing that the leakage resistance in these Thermocoax cables is quite low when the cryostat is at room temperature (down to tens of M$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$), but increases to many G$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ when cooled down. We conjecture that this may be due to water vapor being absorbed in the MgO insulation powder at room temperature and pressure, but being cryopumped and/or frozen out when cooling the cryostat. This is important because the resistance of the SET transistor can be very high in the Coulomb blockade state. A matrix connector at room temperature and a “switchboard” (20 connectors which can be connected to any of the 20 slots connecting to the sample) at the mixing chamber further enables us to choose the very best cables for the critical connections. Cross-talk can only take place in the room temperature electronics, the matrix board, the superconducting ribbon, in the “switchboard” at the mixing chamber, and in the on-chip wiring.

To avoid microphonic pick-up from mechanic vibrations in the building (pumps etc.), the whole cryostat can be suspended using three inflated rubber tubes. Furthermore, lateral vibrations are damped with a fourth rubber tube concentric with the cryostat. This arrangement proved very efficient; components deriving from the asynchronous pumps (around 49 Hz) and other components at around 30 Hz vanish upon inflation of the rubber tubes.

The high capacitances in the filters and Thermocoax cables force us to use quite low modulation frequencies. For our symmetric biasing setup, the cut-off frequency is about $`(G_\mathrm{D}+1/2R_\mathrm{B})/(2\pi C_{\mathrm{}})`$, where $`R_\mathrm{B}`$ is the value of the the bias resistor, $`G_\mathrm{D}`$ is the differential conductance of the device, and $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the total capacitance per lead (the 4-point biasing means that there are two leads contributing to the capacitance on each side). Because of the high internal cut-off frequency of the device, we find it reasonable to assume a simple resistive behaviour for the SET device at these frequencies. In the worst case, $`G_\mathrm{D}`$ is smaller than $`1/2R_\mathrm{B}`$, and in this case the cut-off will be at $`1/(4\pi R_\mathrm{B}C_{\mathrm{}})`$. We have used $`R_\mathrm{B}`$ = 10 M$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in all experiments reported here, giving a worst-case cut-off at 8 Hz. The modulation frequency was chosen to be 2 Hz, from which we have calculated the worst-case amplitude error due to the filters to be a few percent at the lowest conductances (about 2 $`\mu \mathrm{S}`$).

To apply microwaves to the device, there is a separate coaxial connection to the mixing chamber. At room temperature, a vacuum tight feedtrough connects an SMA connector to a standard 0.05” 50 $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ stainless steel coaxial cable inside the cryostat. A DC break is inserted before the vacuum feedthrough at room temperature, as well as before the thermal anchoring at 4.2 K. From this thermal anchor, the signal is fed through a short length of Thermocoax cable to another thermal anchor at the 1.2 K level. The Thermocoax cable serves as a cold attenuator (about 20 dB) for the microwave signal as well as unwanted signals such as room temperature radiation. The signal is then connected to the mixing chamber through a 20 m long superconducting 0.05” 50 $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ Nb coax cable, which is thermally anchored at the 0.6 K level. The superconductivity of the Nb provides a microwave connection while retaining thermal isolation of the mixing chamber. Before connecting to the mixing chamber, a third DC break is inserted in the line. All DC breaks are ”inside-outside” breaks, meaning that both the inner and outer conductors are interrupted. The final microwave connection to the samples is provided by one of the 25 cm Thermocoax cables also used for the DC connections. This gives further attenuation of the signal.

As a consequence of the distributed attenuation and possible resonances in the microwave transmission line and wiring to the SET device, the actual power applied to the sample is unknown. It would me meaningless to make a throughput measurement at room temperature, since the damping characteristics are different at low temperature, and the coupling to the sample is unknown. Therefore, all power values are measured at the leveled output of the microwave synthesizer. The attenuation of the line at each frequency will be a fitting parameter in the data. For a given frequency, it is assumed that the actual power delivered to the SET device is a fixed fraction of the power from the high-frequency source.

Pressures and temperatures in the circulation system are continuously monitored by a computer, which also controls the biasing of the sample and reads the results measured by the voltage meters etc. through a GPIB bus. The GPIB bus is separated electrically from all measurement electronics by an optical link, which galvanically separates the computer from the measurement, and also enables the computer to be moved out of the shielded room if necessary.

## IV Results

### IV.1 Device Characterization

For the particular SET transistor reported on here, the DC $`I`$-$`V_{\mathrm{DC}}`$ curve (Fig. 3) yield the device parameters $`R_\mathrm{\Sigma }=R_1+R_2=95.0\mathrm{k}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`C_\mathrm{\Sigma }=C_1+C_2=1030\mathrm{aF}`$. From the $`V_{\mathrm{DC}}`$-$`V_\mathrm{G}`$ curves (not shown) we get $`C_\mathrm{G}=0.94\mathrm{aF}`$. The set of $`V_{\mathrm{DC}}`$-$`V_\mathrm{G}`$ curves at different current biases also provided evidence that the device is symmetric, which we will assume in the following. The particular sample was chosen from a batch for its charging energy, which also means a higher tunneling resistance (for fixed $`RC`$ product). Our simulations show that a high charging energy is more important than a low tunneling resistance in obtaining a high cotunneling/sequential tunneling ratio.

Since we want to first compare with the theory for zero current bias and maximum blockade, it is important to make sure that this is actually the case in the measurements. To do this, we use the following procedure: First, the maximum Coulomb blockade is found by sweeping across a peak in the $`V_{\mathrm{DC}}`$-$`V_\mathrm{G}`$ curve, and fitting to find the exact location of the peak. Then, the zero DC bias point was found in a similar manner by recording and $`I`$-$`V_{\mathrm{DC}}`$ curve around zero DC bias and fitting the dynamic resistance to find the peak. This procedure was carried out before each measurement.

The microwave connection obviously exhibits resonances (see section III), at which the signal received by the SET is higher. It is advantageous for us to utilise these resonance frequencies for the microwave bias, and to determine them we used the SET device as a self-detector. It was assumed that the frequency dependence of the device response was small in the relatively narrow frequency range probed. The resonances are determined by measuring the dynamic resistance at zero DC bias and maximum blockade (using the method described above) in small steps. The method is based on the assumption of a response both from the sequential tunneling and cotunneling contributions, as neither of these are linear around zero bias. The result is shown in Fig. 2, where some clear peaks in the dynamic resistance are seen at various frequencies. The results shown in this paper are measured at the frequencies marked by arrows.

### IV.2 Temperature of the measurements

An important question relating to any measurement at low temperature is: What is the correct temperature? First of all, the sample may be far away from the cooling source; in our case the mixing chamber of the dilution refrigerator. This means that any heat delivered to the sample by Joule heating or radiation may give a higher temperature at the sample than at the mixing chamber. Second, there is the question of whether the electron system is in thermal equilibrium with the phonon system.Wellstood et al. (1994) This suggests that it is not correct to rely on the temperature measured by the thermometers at the mixing chamber, even when these are well-calibrated.

To get an estimate of the real temperature temperature of the electron system in the SET transistor, we use the results of the differential conductance measurements at maximum blockade and zero bias. Using both the cotunneling theory (Eq. 2) and the orthodox theory, the temperature has been fitted to make the differential conductance $`G_\mathrm{D}`$ agree. The junction parameters were fixed at the values determined in the previous section, leaving $`T_\mathrm{e}`$ as the only free parameter. The results of this temperature fitting is shown in Fig. 4 as function of the mixing chamber temperature $`T_{\mathrm{ph}}`$ (which we, following Ref. Wellstood et al., 1994, assume equal to the phonon temperature, hence the symbol). The temperature has been fitted both to the sequential tunneling conductance alone (squares), which will give an upper bound on the temperature, and to the tunneling conductance with cotunneling included (circles), which will give a lower bound under the assumption that other effects can be neglected. Thus in the last case we have implicitly assumed that we can use the theory for cotunneling by Averin & Nazarov at low temperatures, which has been confirmed by several researchers.Geerlings et al. (1990); Eiles et al. (1992) Also shown is the “strong coupling” curve $`T_\mathrm{e}=T_{\mathrm{ph}}`$ (dashed line), which can be considered a “hard” lower bound.

It is seen that the fitted electron temperatures indeed saturate at low mixing chamber temperatures, as suggested in the work by Wellstood et al.Wellstood et al. (1994) However, attempts to make the results fit to the $`T_\mathrm{e}=\sqrt[5]{T_0^5+T_{\mathrm{ph}}^5}`$ form, which applies for uniform heating in a thin film, seem to fail for our SET structure ($`T_0`$ is the temperature at which $`T_\mathrm{e}`$ saturates for $`T_{\mathrm{ph}}0`$). A much more reasonable fit is provided by the form $`T_\mathrm{e}=\sqrt[2.5]{T_0^{2.5}+T_{\mathrm{ph}}^{2.5}}`$ (solid line). This form respects the lower bound as well as the limit at $`T_{\mathrm{ph}}0`$. Such a dependence is not entirely unreasonable, considering that the heating is localized in the SET transistor, and that heat transfer is provided only by the leads, which should probably be considered between one- and two-dimensional. Indeed the experiments of Wellstood et al. on local heating of a SQUID with cooling fins gave a $`T_\mathrm{e}^{2.7}`$ form.

We will adopt the $`T_\mathrm{e}=\sqrt[2.5]{T_0^{2.5}+T_{\mathrm{ph}}^{2.5}}`$ form as our best estimate of the temperature in the following. We make no claims that this is the accurate temperature, only that it seems to be a reasonable approximation which makes a sensible transition from the low-temperature to the high-temperature regime.

### IV.3 $`V_{\mathrm{RF}}^2`$ dependence

In this section, we present measurements at maximum blockade, which means that $`\mathrm{\Delta }^\pm `$ reduce to the charging energy $`E_\mathrm{C}`$. Also, since there is no asymmetry in the device at zero bias and maximum blockade (no tunneling direction is favored), there should be no frequency dependence in the differential conductance, which is also predicted by theory. The absence of frequency dependence enables us to find the relative damping of the line at the individual frequencies. Without frequency dependence, the zero bias conductance $`G_\mathrm{D}`$ as function of the microwave amplitude $`V_{\mathrm{RF}}`$ should be the same at all frequencies. This means that the relative damping can be found by minimizing the mean square difference between the $`G_\mathrm{D}`$-$`V_{\mathrm{RF}}`$ curves at the individual frequencies, using the damping as free parameter. This procedure provided us with the relative damping values 0.0, 3.8, 9.1, 11.5, 14.8 17.3, and 17.6 dB for the frequencies marked in Fig. 2. As expected from Fig. 2, the damping increases with frequency. However, it should be noted that the optimal values vary slightly with temperature, suggesting that there might be a co-dependence on temperature and frequency.

The additional damping (i.e. the damping that should be added to the relative damping to get the absolute damping) should be the same at all frequencies and temperatures. The absolute damping is unfortunately unknown. All we can do is to find a damping value that is consistent with theory. In Fig. 5, the resulting theoretical prediction of the $`G_\mathrm{D}`$-$`V_{\mathrm{RF}}`$ curves at different temperatures are shown along with the measured values, assuming an additional damping of 37.9 dB. It is seen that the curves from different frequencies have indeed collapsed into one, especially at the lowest temperature. At higher temperatures, where the change in tunneling is more modest, the picture is not as perfect. Also shown is the predicted excess conductance with and without cotunneling at the same temperature added to the zero-power conductance. It is seen that the measured conductance fits the predicted one quite well, especially at low temperatures.

The results just presented could lead to the hasty conclusion that the theory for coherent photon assisted cotunneling is correct. However, there are several points which cause concern. First, the additional damping required to make the curves fit changes with temperature, which it should not, unless the change from about 200 mK to about 500 mK really increases the damping (which seems very improbable). There could be a range of other explanations for this result. For example, the change could be an artefact of the fitting procedure: If the excess cotunneling conductance becomes smaller than predicted by theory at higher temperatures (which seems reasonable), this will show up in the fit as a higher damping. A related problem is that the quality of the fit should be the same at all temperatures if the temperature used for the theoretical prediction is correct (i.e. equal to the actual electron temperature). This is because the temperature does not (in the theory) contribute to the excess cotunneling conductance; it only gives a constant contribution (compare Eq. 2). However, the fit is best at low temperatures.

One ‘sanity check’ that should be performed is whether the orthodox theory alone can explain the results. Using the value 36.2 dB for the additional damping gives the result in Fig. 6. It is seen that the results cross the prediction for the orthodox tunneling at this damping value. At higher damping, the conductance would be too high at high amplitudes, while a lower damping the conductance would be too low at low amplitudes. Thus the results can not be explained by the orthodox theory, even if one assumes a higher electron temperature and another damping. The electron temperature would also have to be substantially higher than at the mixing chamber at all temperatures, as seen in Fig. 4. Note that although it would seem that we are applying a double standard here, since the horizontal scale is different in Fig. 5 and 6. However, the orthodox theory should be valid for all voltages and thus amplitudes, while the cotunneling theory only claims validity for $`eV_{\mathrm{RF}}\mathrm{\Delta }^\pm `$.

### IV.4 The $`\mathrm{\Delta }^\pm `$ dependence

The dependence of the cotunneling on $`\mathrm{\Delta }^\pm `$ has been investigated by measuring the dynamic conductance at zero bias as function of $`V_\mathrm{G}`$. Zero bias was found as described previously, and the device was biased within one $`e`$-period of the gate bias. The result is shown in Fig. 7, along with the predictions of the excess conductance with and without cotunneling added to the maximum-blockade result. For the prediction including cotunneling, the assumed electron temperature is used (solid line in Fig. 4); for the sequential tunneling the temperature fitting the maximum-blockade point (squares in Fig. 4). As expected, the cotunneling prediction fits reasonably well near maximum blockade, but diverges quickly when approaching minimum blockade, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }^\pm 0`$. Also shown is the sequential tunneling contribution to the current; it is seen that if the temperature used is correct, the sequential tunneling more or less ‘takes over’ as $`\mathrm{\Delta }^\pm `$ approaches zero. The sequential tunneling alone seems to fit surprisingly well. One explanation for the good fit is that as $`\mathrm{\Delta }^\pm `$ approaches zero, the threshold voltage becomes smaller,Eiles et al. (1992) and thus the orthodox theory will account for most of the current.

### IV.5 Photon assisted cotunneling away from blockade

The theory derived by Flensberg Flensberg (1997) applies for $`eV_{\mathrm{DC}},k_\mathrm{B}T_\mathrm{e},eV_{\mathrm{RF}},hf\mathrm{\Delta }^\pm `$. Thus, when one of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^\pm `$ becomes smaller, the voltage/temperature/amplitude interval where this assumption is valid becomes smaller. Measurements similar to those presented in the previous sections have been performed also at $`C_\mathrm{G}V_\mathrm{G}/e=0.25,0.50,0.75`$, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }^\pm /E_\mathrm{C}=0.5,0.0,0.5`$. Thus the bounds of validity for $`V_{\mathrm{DC}}`$, $`T_\mathrm{e}`$ and $`V_{\mathrm{RF}}`$ are diminished at $`C_\mathrm{G}V_\mathrm{G}/e=0.25,0.75`$ (slopes in the $`V_{\mathrm{DC}}`$-$`V_\mathrm{G}`$ curve), while the condition is impossible to satisfy at $`C_\mathrm{G}V_\mathrm{G}/e=0.50`$ (minimum blockade), where $`\mathrm{\Delta }^\pm =0`$. Another way of stating this is that Eq. 2 diverges at $`\mathrm{\Delta }^\pm 0`$.

The results are presented in Fig. 8. It is seen that on the slopes, the observed conductance falls between the predictions with and without cotunneling, which is expected since the cotunneling should be overestimated at these values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^\pm `$. At minimum blockade the conductance approaches the prediction from the orthodox theory alone, which is reasonable for a SET transistor in the minimum blockade, where the sequential tunneling dominates (this is similar to approaching the charging voltage at maximum blockade).

## V Discussion

The interpretation of the results involves several explicit and implicit assumptions. To determine the lowest temperatures, it is assumed that both the orthodox theory for sequential tunneling and the original cotunneling theory by Averin & Nazarov Averin and Nazarov (1990) were correct within the given bounds of validity. The orthodox theory has been extensively confirmed since the first theories were published, and also the original cotunneling has been verified.Geerlings et al. (1990); Eiles et al. (1992) It is further assumed that the coupling from the electron system to the mixing chamber through the phonon system was strong enough at high temperatures to assume a convergence towards the mixing chamber temperature here.

The largest problem in the interpretation of the results is that both the electron temperature of the device and the damping in the microwave line were not known exactly. Since it is certainly insufficient to use the mxing chamber temperature, which is not in equilibrium with the electron temperature, it is necessary to rely on existing theories and some assumptions to get an estimate of the electron temperature. Similarly, it is necessary to rely on the absence of frequency dependence in the device to determine the relative damping values at the different frequencies. The additional damping is then an adjustable parameter. Here it is implicitly assumed that the damping does not depend on amplitude. Ideally, it should also have been checked thoroughly that the differential conductance measurement was independent of the modulation amplitude. However, this was only done sporadically, i.e. by halving and doubling the amplitude and checking that the response followed.

Another problem is that the temperatures did not range to below about $`T_\mathrm{C}/4`$ (another way of saying this is that the tunnel capacitances were somewhat too high). Thus it is difficult to say with conviction that the condition $`k_\mathrm{B}T_\mathrm{e}\mathrm{\Delta }^\pm `$ is satisfied, even at the lowest temperatures.

Among the other assumptions are that the the SET transistor exhibited a resistive behaviour at low frequencies (should be reasonable since $`R_\mathrm{\Sigma }C_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ corresponds to about 1.7 GHz), that the damping in the microwave line is linear, that the leads are equal (small correction), and that other effects, such as noise and the environment, can be neglected.

Under the given assumptions, the damping could be chosen such that results are consistent with the theory at low temperatures. Furthermore, it is shown that sequential tunneling alone could not explain the results. Thus, the results speak in favor of the cotunneling theory. At least we can say that more than the orthodox theory is needed to explain the results, and that cotunneling is a resonable explanation. However, due to the dicrepancies observed, it is clear that a more complete theory is needed.

There is still the unsettling matter of the required additional damping given by the fitting procedure is changing with temperature. A number of explanations can be offered for this. It could be the coupling that changes, but it is hard to see how such a small change in temperature (from 200 mK to 500 mK) would cause a change of 10 dB in the damping. A more reasonable explanation could be that the enhancement of cotunneling by a coherent source must be temperature dependent (i.e. if the real temperature contribution becomes smaller than predicted by the theory, this will in the fitting be compensated by increasing the damping, making the microwave contribution smaller instead), which would require the assumed electron temperatures to be approximately correct. For example, we may conjecture that at higher temperatures, the limit of validity is not far away; i.e. that we should require something like $`(2\pi k_\mathrm{B}T_\mathrm{e})^2+(eV_{\mathrm{DC}})^2+\frac{3}{2}(eV_{\mathrm{RF}})^2(\mathrm{\Delta }^\pm )^2`$ in Eq. 2. Another possibility is that the temperatures used are too low, with the error increasing with temperature. This would make the orthodox prediction too high, which would then be compensated in the fit by a higher damping. However, the orthodox theory prediction approaches the conjectured electron temperatures at high temperatures, making the error margin upwards smaller.

Also the relative damping varied with temperature, hinting that also the frequency might have a different effect on the conductance at different temperatures, again contrary to the theoretical prediction. Indeed the charging frequency of the device is $`f_\mathrm{C}=18.8`$ GHz, which means that the frequencies used range from $`0.11f_\mathrm{C}`$ to $`0.28f_\mathrm{C}`$. Similar arguments as above could be applied to this matter.

## VI Conclusion and Outlook

The enhancement of cotunneling by a coherent microwave source was investigated experimentally and compared with theory. The results on cotunneling seem to confirm the theory for adiabatic enhancement of cotunneling by a coherent microwave source. However, the presence of assumptions and adjustable parameters should inspire modesty in the strength of the conclusions drawn. Furthermore, the results seem to suggest that the effect of microwave amplitude and temperature are not independent, contrary to what is suggested by theory. Thus a more complete theory is needed. Experimentalists would very much appreciate a theory which gives a method of actually calculating the cotunneling current at all voltages, temperatures etc. (e.g. something like the Master Equation approach). In any case, the presence of microwave induced cotunneling enhances the importance of taking cotunneling into account in the calculation of SET devices.

It is vital in future measurements to have samples with a high charging energy to make the charging temperature higher. Also one could attempt to lower the electron temperature, e.g. by using cooling fins on the sample. Cold resistors and cross-correlation voltage measurements should be used to improve the noise. A new voltage bias electronics, which will reduce the noise and eliminate the problem with resistive biasing of a high-impedance sample, is under construction. The measurements should focus on verifying the photon-assisted current in Eq. 3, e.g. by biasing in zero voltage and observing the current as function of amplitude and frequency. A careful determination of the device parameters and damping of the microwave line is essential, as there will be adiabatic contributions from both sequential tunneling and cotunneling. It should futher be checked that the differential conductance result is idependent of the amplitude of the lock-in modulation. Also the measurements should be performed on many more samples to rule out sample-specific effects.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors would like to thank the SET groups at PTB for many fruitful discussions. Mikkel Ejrnæs is gratefully acknowledged for his work on improving the cryostat and the computer measurements. Karsten Flensberg is thanked for clarifying discussions and thoughtful comments. The project was supported in parts by the Danish Natural Science Foundation, the Hartmann Foundation, and EU (contract IST-1999-10673). MS acknowledges a grant from Tekniikan Edistämissäätiö (TES).


text:
# Electronic Ferroelectricity in the Falicov-Kimball Model

0pt0.4pt 0pt0.4pt 0pt0.4pt

(Received )

## Abstract

I show that a spontaneous electric polarization exists in the solution of the Falicov-Kimball model by mapping the strong coupling limit of this Hamiltonian into an $`xxz`$ spin $`1/2`$ model with a magnetic field. In this way, I determine the phase diagram of the strongly interacting model and show the existence a transition to a mixed valence regime containing two phases: an orbitally ordered state and a Bose-Einstein condensation of excitons with a built-in electric polarization.

The Falicov-Kimball Falicov  model (FKM) was introduced to explain semiconductor-metal transitions and has been extensively used to describe valence transitions in heavy fermion compounds. Its original version contains a dispersive band of itinerant $`d`$ electrons interacting with localized $`f`$ orbitals via an on-site Coulomb interaction. If hybridization between both bands is included, the $`f`$ charge occupation is no longer a good quantum number, and it is possible to build coherence between the $`d`$ electrons and the $`f`$ holes. Based on a mean field solution of the FKM with a hybridization term, Portengen et al Portengen  proposed that this coherence gives rise to a spontaneous electric polarization associated with a Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) of $`df`$ excitons.

Ferroelectrics are of considerable theoretical and technological interest because of their highly unusual properties Kittel . The ferroelectric (FE) transitions have traditionally been considered as a subgroup of the structural phase transitions. As in the case of superconductivity, the existence of ferroelectrics based on a purely electronic mechanism would provide a new set of physical properties Portengen  and technological applications; for instance, it would open the possibility of controlling optical properties with magnetic fields.

The proposal of electronic ferroelectricity in the FKM was recently tested theoretically using different techniques. An analytical calculation in infinite dimension for the weak coupling limit Czycholl  did not confirm its existence. By using numerical methods to solve finite-size chains, Farkašovský Farka0  arrived at the same conclusion for the intermediate and the strong coupling regimes. Recently, Zlatić et al Zlatic  calculated the spontaneous polarization in the FKM from its exact solution in infinite dimensions. They found that the spontaneous hybridization susceptibility diverges when the temperature goes to zero, indicating a possible non-zero polarization of the ground state.

Hybridization between the bands however is not the only way to develop $`df`$ coherence. An $`ff`$ hopping also induces it. Furthermore, I will show that in the mixed valence regime, the ground state of the FKM with $`ff`$ hopping is either an orbitally-ordered (chessboard) state or a BEC of electron-hole pairs (excitons). In particular, the condensate has a built-in spontaneous FE or antiferroelectric (AFE) polarization induced by a pure electronic mechanism. The FE or AFE character of the solution depends on the relative sign of the $`dd`$ and the $`ff`$ hoppings.

I obtain the complete phase diagram of the extended FKM by mapping the original Hamiltonian into an effective spin model. The mapping is exact in the strong coupling limit and the resulting spin Hamiltonian is a spin 1/2 $`xxz`$ model with an applied magnetic field along the $`\widehat{𝐳}`$ axis. This spin model is exactly solvable in one dimension and its phase diagram has been determined very accurately for two dimensional ($`D=2`$) systems (the exact solution has been numerically obtained for a $`96\times 96`$ square lattice Schmid ). In this way, the results obtained in this paper prove that the phase diagram of the extended FKM contains FE and AFE phases induced by an electronic mechanism.

Recently, high dielectric constants were observed in oxides of the type ACu3Ti4O12. In particular, the largest dielectric constant ever observed is exhibited by CaCu3Ti4O12 ($`ϵ_080000`$ for single-crystal samples at room temperature) Subramanian ; Ramirez ; Homes . In addition, high resolution x-ray and neutron powder diffraction measurements of CaCu3Ti4O12 rule out a conventional FE structural phase transition. The electronic ferroelectricity proposed by Portengen et al Portengen  was also ruled out due to the large value of the optical gap ($`\mathrm{\Delta }1.5eV`$) He . The strong coupling theory introduced in this paper shows that the excitons condense in the presence of a large gap.

I will consider an extended FKM for spinless fermions on a $`D`$-dimensional hypercubic lattice:

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_d{\displaystyle \underset{𝐢}{}}n_𝐢^d+ϵ_f{\displaystyle \underset{𝐢}{}}n_𝐢^f+t_d{\displaystyle \underset{𝐢,𝐣}{}}d_𝐢^{}d_𝐣^{}`$ (1)
$`+`$ $`U^{fd}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐢}{}}n_𝐢^dn_𝐢^f+t_f{\displaystyle \underset{𝐢,𝐣}{}}f_𝐢^{}f_𝐣^{},`$
where $`n_𝐢^d=d_𝐢^{}d_𝐢^{}`$, and $`n_𝐢^f=f_𝐢^{}f_𝐢^{}`$ are the occupation numbers of each orbital. For historical reasons, I denote the orbitals by $`f`$ and $`d`$ but in general they can represent any pair of atomic orbitals with different parity. For instance, in CaCu3Ti4O12 there are $`d`$ states which are hybridized with $`p`$ bands He . This fact is another important motivation to include a non-zero $`t_f`$.

The Hamiltonian $`H`$ can be rewritten as an asymmetric Hubbard model if the orbital flavor is represented by a pseudospin variable. A spin 1/2 is required to describe the two orbitals (flavors) on each site:

$`c_𝐢^{}`$ $`=`$ $`d_𝐢^{}c_𝐢^{}=d_𝐢^{},`$
$`c_𝐢^{}`$ $`=`$ $`f_𝐢^{}c_𝐢^{}=f_𝐢^{},`$ (2)
where the pseudospin generators are:

$`\tau _𝐢^x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(d_𝐢^{}f_𝐢^{}+f_𝐢^{}d_𝐢^{})`$
$`\tau _𝐢^y`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(f_𝐢^{}d_𝐢^{}d_𝐢^{}f_𝐢^{})`$
$`\tau _𝐢^z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(n_𝐢^dn_𝐢^f).`$ (3)
The expression for $`H`$ in the new language is:

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`e_d{\displaystyle \underset{𝐢,\sigma }{}}n_{i\sigma }+{\displaystyle \underset{𝐢,𝐣,\sigma }{}}t_\sigma (c_{𝐢\sigma }^{}c_{𝐣\sigma }^{}+c_{𝐣\sigma }^{}c_{𝐢\sigma }^{})`$ (4)
$`+`$ $`U^{fd}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐢}{}}n_𝐢n_𝐢+B_z{\displaystyle \underset{𝐢}{}}\tau _i^z,`$
where $`e_d=\frac{1}{2}(ϵ_d+ϵ_f)`$ and $`B_z=ϵ_dϵ_f`$. The new version of $`H`$ is a Hubbard model with different hoppings for each spin flavor, $`t_{}=t_d`$ and $`t_{}=t_f`$, plus a Zeeman coupling with a magnetic field $`B_z`$. Both terms break the $`SU(2)`$ symmetry of the original Hubbard model ($`t_{}=t_{}`$ and $`B_z=0`$). The remaining symmetries are the $`U(1)`$ groups associated with the conservation of the total charge and the total $`\tau ^z`$. In the original language, these $`U(1)`$ symmetries correspond to the conservation of the total number of particles in each band ($`[H,_𝐢n_𝐢^f]=[H,_𝐢n_𝐢^d]=0`$).

I will consider from now on the half filled case, i.e. one particle per site. For this concentration, it is well known that the Hubbard model in the strong coupling limit can be reduced to an effective Heisenberg model. In a similar fashion, I can reduce $`H`$ to an effective spin model when $`t_\sigma U^{fd}`$. The lowest energy subspace for infinite $`U^{fd}`$ is the one generated by states having one particle at each site, i.e., the charge degrees of freedom are frozen (the system is a Mott insulator) and an effective spin is localized at each site. In this limit there is a complete spin degeneracy because the energy does not depend on the orientation of each spin. To lift this degeneracy it is necessary to consider the lowest order processes in $`t_\sigma /U^{fd}`$. This can be done by a canonical transformation which eliminates the linear terms in the hopping $`t_\sigma `$ and keeps the terms of quadratic order. Up to an irrelevant constant $`C=N𝒵J_z/8`$, where $`𝒵`$ is the coordination number and $`N`$ is the number of sites, the resulting effective spin Hamiltonian is Fath :

$$H_{eff}=\underset{𝐢,𝐣}{}J_z\tau _𝐢^z\tau _𝐣^z+J_{}(\tau _𝐢^x\tau _𝐣^x+\tau _𝐢^y\tau _𝐣^y)+B_z\underset{𝐢}{}\tau _𝐢^z,$$
(5)
with $`J_z=\frac{2(t_{}^2+t_{}^2)}{U^{fd}}`$ and $`J_{}=\frac{4t_{}t_{}}{U^{fd}}`$. $`H_{eff}`$ is a spin 1/2 $`xxz`$ model with an applied magnetic field along the $`\widehat{𝐳}`$ direction. The model is Ising-like ($`J_z>J_{}`$). However it is important to consider the whole phase diagram because the ratio $`J_z/J_{}`$ can take any value if non-zero nearest-neighbor repulsions are added to $`H`$.

$`H_{eff}`$ has been exactly solved in one dimension by means of the Bethe anzatz technique Yang . The one dimensional (1D) quantum phase diagram is similar to the 2D one that I describe below. The only important difference is that, as required by the Mermin-Wagner theorem Mermin , the excitonic condensate is critical at zero temperature (power law correlations) for the 1D case. The phase diagram of $`H_{eff}`$ has been determined recently for 2D systems by solving up to $`96\times 96`$ lattices with quantum Monte Carlo loop algorithm Schmid . The zero temperature phase diagram is shown in Fig. 1 and the corresponding name of each phase translated back to the original language of the FKM. Since $`H_{eff}`$ is symmetric under a reflection in the $`xy`$ plane, the phase diagram must be symmetric under a change of sign of the magnetic field. The fully polarized solutions, obtained for large values of $`|B_z|`$, correspond to a full $`f`$ band for positive $`B_z`$ ($`ϵ_fϵ_d`$) and a full $`d`$ band for $`B_z`$ negative ($`ϵ_fϵ_d`$). The spectrum of both phases has a finite charge transfer (pseudospin gap) $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{CT}=|B_z𝒵(|J_{}|+J_z)/2|`$. This gap vanishes at the quantum critical points $`|B_z^c|=\frac{𝒵}{2}(|J_{}|+J_z)`$, which are the boundaries for the mixed valence phase that emerges when the $`f`$ and $`d`$ bands are sufficiently close: $`|ϵ_fϵ_d|<\frac{𝒵}{2}(|J_{}|+J_z)`$. If $`J_z>J_{}`$, two phases are possible within the mixed valence regime. For small values of $`|B_z|`$, the $`J_z`$ term dominates and induces a longitudinal antiferromagnetic (AFM) phase (chessboard state in the original language). When $`|B_z|`$ is larger than a critical value, the magnetic field suppresses the Ising-like ordering and the $`J_{}`$ term induces a magnetic ordered state in the $`xy`$ plane(BEC of electron-hole pairs). The line separating the orbitally ordered state and the BEC corresponds to a first order transition. This line ends at the Heisenberg point ($`J_z=J_{}`$) where both phases coexist. For $`J_z<J_{}`$, the only phase in the mixed valence regime is the BEC. In a real material, changing $`B_z=ϵ_dϵ_f`$ can be achieved by applying pressure or alloying.

The $`df`$ exciton condensate has a built-in electric polarization Portengen . This can be easily seen by realizing that the spin version of the order parameter for the BEC is the uniform $`xy`$ magnetization for negative $`J_{}`$ (condensation at $`𝐤=\mathrm{𝟎}`$) and the staggered $`xy`$ magnetization for positive $`J_{}`$ (condensation at the AFM wave vector $`𝐤=𝐐`$):

$`𝐌^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐢}{}}(\tau _𝐢^x\widehat{𝐱}+\tau _𝐢^y\widehat{𝐲})forJ_{}<0`$
$`𝐌_{ST}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐢}{}}e^{i𝐐𝐫_𝐢}(\tau _𝐢^x\widehat{𝐱}+\tau _𝐢^y\widehat{𝐲})forJ_{}>0.`$ (6)
Since $`𝐌^{}`$ is a two dimensional vector, it can also be represented by a complex number $`|𝐌^{}|e^{i\varphi }`$ ($`\mathrm{tan}\varphi =M^x/M^y`$) which is the usual expression for the order parameter of the BEC. The sign of $`J_{}`$ is determined by the relative sign of $`t_d`$ and $`t_f`$. On the other hand, the uniform polarization operator is Portengen :

$$𝐏=\frac{𝝁}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\underset{𝐢}{}(d_𝐢^{}f_𝐢^{}+d_𝐢^{}f_𝐢^{})=\frac{2𝝁}{\mathrm{\Omega }}M^x,$$
(7)
where $`𝝁`$ is the inter-band dipole matrix element and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the volume of the system. Therefore, the condensate has a built-in electric polarization which is proportional to the $`\widehat{𝐱}`$ (real) component of its order parameter. For positive $`J_{}`$, the condensate becomes AFE because the staggered electric polarization:

$$𝐏_{ST}=\frac{𝝁}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\underset{𝐢}{}e^{i𝐐𝐫_𝐢}(d_𝐢^{}f_𝐢^{}+d_𝐢^{}f_𝐢^{})=\frac{2𝝁}{\mathrm{\Omega }}M_{ST}^x$$
(8)
is proportional to $`M_{ST}^x`$.

The three dimensional (3D) quantum phase diagram of $`H_{eff}`$ Fisher  is similar to the two dimensional (2D) one shown in Fig.1. The same is not true for the finite temperature phase diagrams due to the Mermin-Wagner theorem Mermin . The transition temperature associated to the BEC is finite only for the 3D case. From the finite temperature phase diagram obtained in Ref. Schmid , the BEC of electron-hole pairs undergoes a Kosterlitz-Thouless phase transition in a 2D system.

I will now analyze the effect that a time dependent electric field $`𝐄e^{i\omega t}`$ induces in our FE or AFE condensate of excitons. The coupling term between the electric field and the uniform polarization:

$$H_I=𝐄𝝁\frac{e^{i\omega t}}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\underset{𝐢}{}(d_𝐢^{}f_𝐢^{}+d_𝐢^{}f_𝐢^{}),$$
(9)
corresponds, in the spin language, to the application of a uniform time dependent magnetic field $`𝐁_1(t)=2𝐄𝝁e^{i\omega t}\widehat{𝐱}/\mathrm{\Omega }`$. From the point of view of the spin variables this is like a magnetic resonance experiment since $`H_{eff}`$ already includes a uniform static field $`B_z\widehat{𝐳}`$. Therefore, the equivalent magnetic system will have a resonant absorption at the frequency which tends to $`\omega _0=B_z/\mathrm{}`$ when $`𝐁_1`$ tends to zero. Back to the original language, this means that for small electric fields the optical absorption will be resonant at $`\mathrm{}\omega _0=ϵ_dϵ_f`$. This is an experimental fingerprint of the excitonic condensate.

Since the above theory is only valid in the strong coupling limit, it is natural to ask whether the chessboard ordering and the excitonic condensate survive in the intermediate and weak coupling regimes. To answer this question it is more convenient to use the Hubbard-like representation of $`H`$ (see Eq. (4)). The dispersion relation for the non-interacting part of $`H`$ ($`U^{fd}=0`$) is: $`ϵ(𝐤,\sigma )=e_d+B_z\sigma +2t_\sigma _\nu \mathrm{cos}(k_\nu )`$. At half filling and for $`B_z=0`$ the Fermi surface of the non-interacting problem nests at $`𝐤=𝐐`$. This indicates that an infinitesimal value of $`U^{fd}`$ is sufficient to induce an AFM (chessboard ordering in the original language) instability. Again the presence of a non-zero magnetic field will induce a transition from the orbitally ordered state to the BEC of excitons. For the 3D case, if $`U^{fd}<U_c^{fd}2.85(|t_a|+|t_b|)`$ the magnetic field $`B_z`$ induces an insulator-metal transition before the saturation of the magnetization (non-mixed valence regime) is reached Dogen . This means that for weak coupling a new metallic phase appears between the BEC of exctions and the non-mixed valence regime (see Fig.1). For these reasons, I expect the phase diagram of $`H`$ to contain an electric polarized BEC in the weak and intermediate coupling regimes as well. This subject will be studied more extensively in Ref. Jim .

What happens if we consider electrons instead of spinless fermions? In this case each orbital can be occupied by two electrons and therefore it is natural to include local Coulomb repulsions $`U^{ff}`$ and $`U^{dd}`$. By doing so the FKM is replaced by a two orbital Hubbard model and the large $`U^{\alpha ,\beta }`$ expansion gives rise to a Kugel-Khomskii like model Kugel  containing spin $`𝐬`$ (magnetic) and pseudospin $`𝝉`$ (orbital) degrees of freedom. If $`t_a=t_b=t`$ and $`U^{ff}=U^{dd}=U`$ (the most general case will be analyzed in Ref. Cristian ), the effective spin Hamiltonian is:

$`H_{eff}^{s,\tau }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{J_0}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐢,𝐣}{}}𝐒_𝐢𝐒_𝐣+(J_zJ_0){\displaystyle \underset{𝐢,𝐣}{}}\tau _𝐢^z\tau _𝐣^z+B_z{\displaystyle \underset{𝐢}{}}\tau _𝐢^z`$
$`+`$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{𝐢,𝐣}{}}[J_0\tau _𝐢^𝐳\tau _𝐣^𝐳J_{}(\tau _𝐢^x\tau _𝐣^x+\tau _𝐢^y\tau _𝐣^y)](𝐒_𝐢𝐒_𝐣+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}),`$
where $`J_0=4t^2/U`$. The ground state of $`H_{eff}^{s,\tau }`$ is ferromagnetic (FM) if $`J_0<J_0^c`$. For the FM solution, $`H_{eff}^{s,\tau }`$ reduces to $`H_{eff}`$ because all the electrons have the same spin orientation and hence can be considered as spinless fermions. Therefore the charge degrees of freedom ($`𝝉`$) of the FM solution are exactly described by $`H_{eff}`$, and the phase diagram is the one of Fig. 1; i.e., ferromagnetism coexists with chessboard ordering or a FE BEC of excitons. If $`J_0>J_0^c`$, the system becomes AFM. In this case the effective transverse coupling for the pseudospin variables, $`J_{}^{eff}=2J_{}(𝐒_𝐢𝐒_𝐣+\frac{1}{4})`$, changes its sign because $`(𝐒_𝐢𝐒_𝐣+\frac{1}{4})`$ turns to be negative. For this reason the AFM solution coexists with an AFE condensate. This means that when a magnetic field induces a transition from an AFM phase to a FM one, it simultaneously changes the electric polarization from AFE to FE. This important property gives rise to new technological applications.

From now on I will continue with the spinless case just to isolate the basic mechanism for FE and AFE which is associated with the charge degrees of freedom. An important aspect of this analysis is the inclusion of a non-zero hybridization term:

$$H_V=V\underset{𝐢,\nu }{}(d_𝐢^{}f_{𝐢+\widehat{𝐞}_\nu }^{}+f_{𝐢+\widehat{𝐞}_\nu }^{}d_𝐢^{}f_𝐢^{}d_{𝐢+\widehat{𝐞}_\nu }^{}d_{𝐢+\widehat{𝐞}_\nu }^{}f_𝐢^{}),$$
(10)
where $`\nu `$ runs over the different spatial directions ($`x`$, $`y`$ and $`z`$ in three dimensions). The different signs in the hybridization terms are due to the different parities of the two orbitals. (The crystal has inversion symmetry.) By adding $`H_V`$ to $`H`$, we get the following additional terms for $`H_{eff}`$ (large $`U`$ expansion):

$`H_{eff}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`J^{}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐢,\nu }{}}𝝉_i𝝉_{i+\widehat{e}_\nu }+J_{xz}^{}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐢,\nu }{}}(\tau _𝐢^z\tau _{𝐢+\widehat{𝐞}_\nu }^x\tau _{𝐢+\widehat{𝐞}_\nu }^z\tau _𝐢^x)`$
$``$ $`2J^{}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐢,\nu }{}}\tau _𝐢^x\tau _{𝐢+\widehat{𝐞}_\nu }^x,`$
where $`J^{}=4V^2/U^{fd}`$ and $`J_{xz}^{}=4V(t_a+t_b)/U^{fd}`$. Let me now consider the perturbative effects of the hybridization ($`J^{},J_{xz}^{}J_z,J_{}`$) on the phase diagram of Fig. 1 for the FE case ($`J_{}<0`$). The first term is a Heisenberg interaction which just produces a renormalization of $`J_z`$ and $`J_{}`$. The mean value of the second term is zero in the FE phase (BEC of excitons) and therefore they do not make any contribution. The last term introduces an easy axis anisotropy along the $`\widehat{𝐱}`$ direction and lifts the U(1) degeneracy. The BEC then is replaced by an Ising-like FE state characterized by the breaking of the remaining $`Z_2`$ symmetry. Therefore, the spontaneous ferroelecricity remains when the hybridization is included perturbatively; however, the resonant response to a time dependent electric field (see Eq. ) disappears due to the absence of Goldstone modes. In other words, the hybridization makes the electronically induced FE phase similar to the ones induced by structural phase transitions.

In summary, I derived the phase diagram of the FKM with a $`t_f`$ hopping term in the strong coupling limit. The insulating phase obtained at half filling has a transition from a non-mixed valence to a mixed valence regime as a function of the energy difference between the centers of both bands. Two different phases are present in the mixed valence regime: a BEC of excitons with a built-in electrical polarization which starts just at the valence transition and an orbitally ordered (chessboard) state which appears when the centers of the bands are sufficiently close. These results were extended to the intermediate and weak coupling regimes due to the nesting property of the Fermi surface of hypercubic lattices. I also mentioned the effect of including spin degrees of freedom in $`H`$: the interplay between magnetic and charge degrees of freedom gives rise to the coexistence of FE and FM phases which are coupled to each other. This opens the possibility of controlling optical properties by applying magnetic fields or controlling magnetic properties by applying electric fields.

The effect of a non-zero hybridization was also considered. The main conclusion is that the $`U(1)`$ degeneracy associated to the BEC of excitons is lifted by the hybridization and replaced by an Ising-like FE state (broken $`Z_2`$ symmetry). Then, the resonant response to a time dependent electric field disappears because the Goldstone modes acquire a finite mass (gap).

These results indicate that the following characteristics are favorable to the formation of an electronically driven FE state: a) The system must be in a mixed-valence regime and the two bands involved must have different parity. b) It is best, though not necessary, if both bands have similar bandwidths. c) A local Coulomb repulsion ($`U^{fd}`$) between the different orbitals is required. d) The hybridization between the bands must be small compared to their bandwidths.

I wish to thank L. Sham, J. E. Gubernatis, J. Thompson, J. Sarrao, N. Kawashima, and A. A. Aligia for stimulating discussions. This work was sponsored by the US DOE under contract W-7405-ENG-36.