text:
# Vortex viscosity in the moderately clean limit of layered superconductors

## I Introduction

At low temperature the energy dissipation in the vortex cores is the main source of resistivity in the mixed state of type-II superconductorsLarkin-Ovchinnikov . If a supercurrent flows through a superconductor, it exerts a force on the vortices. Unless pinned by impurities or inhomogeneities, the vortices are brought into motion, which in turn leads to dissipation. Depending on the level of disorder, the vortices may move at different angles with respect to the direction of the supercurrent. At weak disorder, the vortices move together with the supercurrent (“ballistic limit”, with the Hall angle close to $`\pi /2`$). At sufficiently strong disorder, the vortex motion is directed perpendicular to the supercurrent (“dissipative limit”, small Hall angle). Both limits are well understood within the quasiclassical description GK73 ; Bardeen-Sherman ; LO76 ; Kopnin-Kravtsov ; Kopnin94 ; Kopnin-Lopatin . A simplified approach describing the dissipative limit goes back to the theory of Bardeen and Stephen treating the vortex as a region of normal phase inside a superconductor Bardeen-Stephen . In spite of neglecting the structure of the quasiparticle excitations in the vortex core CDGM , the Bardeen–Stephen theory gives the same result (up to a numerical factor) as the accurate quasiclassical calculation GK73 ; Bardeen-Sherman ; LO76 ; Kopnin-Kravtsov ; Kopnin94 ; Kopnin-Lopatin .

It has been recently suggested that the microscopic structure of the core excitations may play a much more prominent role in that part of the dissipative regime where the excitation spectrum remains discrete (sharp quasiparticle levels), specifically in layered superconductorsFS ; LO98 ; KL ; GP . In the clean limit (i.e., for scattering rates $`\mathrm{}/\tau `$ much smaller than the superconducting gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$), the motion of quasiparticles in the vortex core is ballistic: they cross the vortex core many times before scattering off impurities. Therefore in this limit the spectral properties are sensitive to the details of disorder realization. In the superclean regime ($`\mathrm{}/\tau \mathrm{\Delta }^2/E_F`$, where $`E_F`$ is the Fermi energy) the levels inside a two-dimensional vortex split into two sets (‘combs’) of equally spaced levels LO98 . The transformation of this correlated spectrum into a featureless uncorrelated one with increasing disorder proceeds in distinct steps: within the moderately clean regime ($`\mathrm{\Delta }^2/E_F\mathrm{}/\tau \mathrm{\Delta }`$) a new intermediate region ($`\mathrm{\Delta }^2/E_F\mathrm{}/\tau \mathrm{\Delta }\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }/E_F}`$) has been found LO98 ; KL  where the comb structure remains preserved but is randomly shifted in energy (the number of impurities in the core has to be small enough to preserve the ‘combs’, while being large enough to randomize the overall shift). Increasing the impurity concentration further (already in the moderately clean limit for weak impurities SKF , and ultimately in the dirty limit Zirnbauer ), the ‘comb’ structure is destroyed with a crossover to the class $`C`$ random-matrix ensembleAZ .

Keeping within the moderately clean regime with a discrete spectrum, in two-dimensional (or layered) superconductors there further exist two limits of dissipation FS : The first one applies to the slowly moving vortex with a discrete quasiparticle spectrum (“discrete-spectrum regime”) where the dissipation is due to Landau–Zener transitions between individual levels LZ ; Wilkinson . The second limit is with levels smeared into a continuum either by the vortex motion or by inelastic processes (“continuum-spectrum regime”); the dissipation then is given by the linear-response Kubo formula Kubo . At low temperatures, the inelastic smearing can be neglected and the crossover between these two regimes is controlled by the vortex velocity with the characteristic velocity given by $`v_K(\mathrm{\Delta }/p_F)/\sqrt{k_Fl}`$ (here, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the superconducting gap and $`l`$ denotes the elastic mean free pathFS ).

In the framework of random-matrix models with time-dependent Hamiltonians, the dissipation in the discrete-spectrum and continuum-spectrum regimes was considered by Wilkinson Wilkinson . He finds that, in the case of the unitary Wigner–Dyson ensemble, the linear dissipative response remains valid in the whole range of velocities, both in the continuum-spectrum (high velocity) and in the discrete-spectrum (low velocity) regimes. Based on this fact and on the similarity between the unitary and class $`C`$ ensembles, it was shown that with the class $`C`$ level statistics the dissipation rate nearly follows the Bardeen-Stephen prediction, even in the limit of small velocities $`v<v_K`$ where the quasiclassical description is no longer valid FS . Contrary, it was claimed in Ref. KL,  that the additional correlation between levels (the ‘two-comb’ structure) may lead to an anomalously high vortex viscosity in the moderately clean regime in the low-velocity limit.

In our paper, we reconsider the problem of the vortex viscosity in a two-dimensional $`s`$-wave superconductor, taking full account of the discreteness of the vortex spectrum and of the microscopic structure of the quasiparticle levels. We assume the moderately clean limit with an appropriate number of impurities in the core, such that the spectrum possesses the randomly shifted two-comb structure (the precise condition is given in Section III). We find that in spite of the level correlations derived in Refs. LO98, ; KL, , the vortex viscosity does not differ from the well-known quasiclassical result GK73 ; Bardeen-Sherman ; LO76 ; Kopnin-Kravtsov ; Kopnin94 ; Kopnin-Lopatin  for three-dimensional superconductors. Within the same microscopic model we consider separately the discrete-spectrum and continuum-spectrum regimes of dissipation: in both limits we arrive at the Bardeen–Stephen result for the dissipation,

$$\sigma _{xx}=\frac{ecn\omega _0\tau }{B}\sigma _n\frac{H_{c2}}{B},$$
(1)
where $`n`$ is the electron density, $`\mathrm{}\omega _0\mathrm{\Delta }^2/E_F`$ is the spacing between the levels in the coreCDGM , and $`B`$ is the magnetic field. The two-comb level structure found in Refs. LO98, ; KL,  may be classified as the circular unitary random-matrix ensemble of dimension twoMehta . Therefore our findings may be considered as a generalization of Wilkinson’s results Wilkinson  to circular ensembles. We also find the scattering time $`\tau `$ for quasiparticles in the core in the $`s`$-wave approximation: for a weak impurity strength, the effective $`1/\tau `$ is larger than the bulk scattering rate $`1/\tau _n`$ by the logarithm of the impurity strength. A similar logarithmic correction was previously derived in Refs. Kopnin94, ; Kopnin-Lopatin, .

The paper is organized as follows. In Section II we prepare for the calculation by deriving the microscopic Hamiltonian projected onto the relevant subgap states in the vortex core. In Section III we review the results of Refs. LO98, ; KL,  on the circular random-matrix ensemble appearing in a disordered vortex at the intermediate level disorder. We then describe the two limiting regimes of dissipation (Sect. IV), the discrete-spectrum and the continuum-spectrum regimes, and set up the stage for the calculations. In Section V we treat the case of the discrete energy spectrum (low velocities and no inelastic level broadening), while Section VI is devoted to the opposite continuum-spectrum limit where the levels are broader than the interlevel distance. Finally, we discuss our findings in Section VII. The sensitivity of the energy levels to the vortex displacement is calculated in an Appendix.

## II Microscopic Hamiltonian of the moving vortex

Before discussing the moving vortex, let us review the excitation spectrum of a clean two-dimensional vortex at rest. The corresponding wave functions are given by the solutions to the Bogoliubov–deGennes equations

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}H_0& \mathrm{\Delta }(𝐫)\\ \mathrm{\Delta }^{}(𝐫)& H_0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}u\\ v\end{array}\right)=E\left(\begin{array}{c}u\\ v\end{array}\right),$$
(2)
where $`H_0=𝐩^2/2mE_F`$. We assume an axially symmetric vortex with the order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐫)=\mathrm{\Delta }(r)e^{i\theta }`$, where the modulus of the order parameter depends only on the radial component $`r`$ and the phase winds with the angular coordinate $`\theta `$. We neglect the magnetic field in the vortex core, assuming a large magnetic penetration depth $`\lambda \xi `$, where $`\xi =v_F/\pi \mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the superconducting coherence length (here and below we choose units with $`\mathrm{}=1`$). In the quasiclassical limit $`k_F\xi 1`$, the spectrum and the eigenfunctions may be easily foundCDGM . The eigenvalues form a spectrum of equidistant levels

$$E_\mu =\mu \omega _0,$$
(3)
where the angular momentum $`\mu `$ takes half-integer values, $`\mu =n+1/2`$, and

$$\omega _0=\frac{_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(r)}{k_Fr}e^{2K(r)}𝑑r}{_0^{\mathrm{}}e^{2K(r)}𝑑r},$$
(4)
$$K(r)=_0^r\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(r^{})}{v_F}𝑑r^{};$$
(5)
$`r`$ is the distance from the core center. The basic electronic energy scale in the vortex core takes the value $`\omega _0\mathrm{\Delta }^2/\epsilon _F`$, up to a possible logarithmic prefactor $`\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Delta }/T)`$ due to the shrinkage of the vortex core at small temperatures $`T`$ (Kramer–Pesch effectKramer-Pesch ). The eigenstates $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu =(u_\mu ,v_\mu )^T`$ take the form

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu (𝐫)=𝒜\left(\begin{array}{c}J_{\mu 1/2}(k_Fr)e^{i(\mu 1/2)\theta }\\ J_{\mu +1/2}(k_Fr)e^{i(\mu +1/2)\theta }\end{array}\right)e^{K(r)},$$
(6)
where $`𝒜^2=[4k_F^1_0^{\mathrm{}}e^{2K(r)}𝑑r]^1k_F/\xi `$ is the normalization factor, and $`J_n(x)`$ are the Bessel functions.

In the following, we will be interested in processes at energies far below the superconducting gap and thus project all the operators onto the subgap states (6). It will be convenient to take the Fourier transform of these eigenvectors in the variable $`\mu `$ and introduce a new angular variable $`\varphi `$ labelling the direction of the quasiclassical motion of the quasiparticle,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_\varphi (𝐫)\underset{\mu }{}\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu (𝐫)e^{i\mu \varphi }=𝒜\left(\begin{array}{c}e^{i\varphi /2}\\ e^{i\varphi /2}\end{array}\right)e^{K(r)}e^{i𝐤_\varphi 𝐫},$$
(7)
where we introduced the vector $`𝐤_\varphi =k_F(\mathrm{sin}\varphi ,\mathrm{cos}\varphi )`$ pointing perpendicular to the direction specified by the angle $`\varphi `$, with absolute value $`k_F`$. The plane-wave exponent in (7) is then $`𝐤_\varphi 𝐫=k_Fr\mathrm{sin}(\varphi \theta )`$. This basis of wave functions has a very simple structure: in addition to the phase winding $`\mathrm{exp}(\pm i\varphi /2)`$ (providing the antiperiodic boundary conditions in $`\varphi `$), these wave functions are plane waves in the direction of the wave vector $`𝐤_\varphi `$ restricted to a region of size $`\xi `$ around the vortex center. Note that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\varphi (𝐫)`$ is not an eigenfunction of the Hamiltonian (2). Prepared in such a state at $`t=0`$, the wave function will rotate in the $`\varphi `$-basis according to $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫,t)=\mathrm{\Psi }_{\varphi \omega _0t}(𝐫)`$.

We now turn to the problem of the moving vortex with impurities. It can be described by the time-dependent Bogoliubov–deGennes equations

$$i\frac{}{t}\mathrm{\Psi }=H(t)\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(8)
where $`H(t)`$ is the Hamiltonian of the vortex at the position $`𝐫=𝐯t`$ with $`𝐯`$ the vortex velocity,

$$H(t)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}H_0+U(𝐫)& \mathrm{\Delta }(𝐫𝐯t)\\ \mathrm{\Delta }^{}(𝐫𝐯t)& H_0U(𝐫)\end{array}\right),$$
(9)
and $`U(𝐫)`$ is the potential set up by the impurities.

In the clean limit ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau 1`$), the admixture of bulk states (with energies greater than $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$) to the vortex states may be neglected. We project the Hamiltonian (9) onto the subgap states of a clean vortex (7) by substituting

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫,t)=_0^{2\pi }\frac{d\varphi }{2\pi }a(\varphi ,t)\mathrm{\Psi }_\varphi (𝐫𝐯t).$$
(10)
Defined in this way, the amplitude $`a(\varphi ,t)`$ has antiperiodic boundary conditions in $`\varphi `$, $`a(\varphi +2\pi )=a(\varphi )`$. The time evolution of the coefficients $`a(\varphi ,t)`$ obeys the Schrödinger-type equation

$$i\frac{}{t}a=i\omega _0\frac{}{\varphi }a+\frac{d\varphi ^{}}{2\pi }T_{\varphi \varphi ^{}}a(\varphi ^{})+\frac{d\varphi ^{}}{2\pi }L_{\varphi \varphi ^{}}a(\varphi ^{}),$$
(11)
where the kernel

$`T_{\varphi \varphi ^{}}`$ $`=\mathrm{\Psi }_\varphi (𝐫𝐯t)\left|\left(i{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\right)\right|\mathrm{\Psi }_\varphi ^{}(𝐫𝐯t)`$
$`=i𝐯\mathrm{\Psi }_\varphi ||\mathrm{\Psi }_\varphi ^{}`$ (12)
is produced by the vortex motion, and the kernel

$$L_{\varphi \varphi ^{}}=\mathrm{\Psi }_\varphi (𝐫𝐯t)\left|U(𝐫)\tau _z\right|\mathrm{\Psi }_\varphi ^{}(𝐫𝐯t)$$
(13)
is due to the impurities.

The $`T`$-kernel may be easily computed from the explicit form (7) of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\varphi `$. In the limit $`k_F\xi 1`$, the matrix element (12) takes the form

$$T_{\varphi \varphi ^{}}=2\pi \delta (\varphi \varphi ^{})𝐤_\varphi 𝐯$$
(14)
and we identify this term with the “Doppler shift”.

The impurity potential $`U(𝐫)`$ is taken as a sum over point-like impurities,

$$U(𝐫)=\underset{i}{}V_i\delta (𝐫𝐫_i).$$
(15)
Then the scattering kernel may be expressed as KL ; SKF

$$L_{\varphi \varphi ^{}}=2i𝒜^2\mathrm{sin}\frac{\varphi ^{}\varphi }{2}\underset{i}{}V_ie^{2K(|𝐫_i𝐯t|)}e^{i(𝐤_\varphi ^{}𝐤_\varphi )(𝐫_i𝐯t)}.$$
(16)
Summarizing, we end up with the equation of motion (11) containing three terms: The first term describes the circular (“chiral”) motion of the quasiparticle in the vortexCDGM ; LO98 ; KL . The second term is the Doppler shift due to the vortex motion. And the third term describes the scattering off impurities (taking point-like impurities is equivalent to including only $`s`$-wave scattering). We are interested in the energy pumping in this time-dependent model. Note that the physical energy is given by the first and third terms in the evolution operator (11) but does not include the second term ($`T`$-term) which arises from the time-derivative of the basis wave functions. This discrepancy between the energy and the evolution operator may be resolved by an appropriate time-dependent gauge transformation

$$\stackrel{~}{a}(\varphi )=a(\varphi )e^{i𝐤_\varphi 𝐯t}.$$
(17)
This gauge transformation has a dual effect on the equation of motion (11): Firstly, it makes the energy operator coincide with the evolution operator. The old $`T`$-kernel is now replaced by a time-dependent one,

$$\stackrel{~}{T}_{\varphi \varphi ^{}}=2\pi \delta (\varphi \varphi ^{})\omega _0(𝐧_z\times 𝐤_\varphi )𝐯t,$$
(18)
where $`𝐧_z`$ is the unit vector perpendicular to the plane (this gauge transformation resembles the one in electrodynamics replacing a static electric field with a magnetic field linearly growing in time). Secondly, the $`L`$-kernel is transformed as well and the new kernel takes the form

$$\stackrel{~}{L}_{\varphi \varphi ^{}}=2i𝒜^2\mathrm{sin}\frac{\varphi ^{}\varphi }{2}\underset{i}{}V_ie^{2K(|𝐫_i𝐯t|)}e^{i(𝐤_\varphi ^{}𝐤_\varphi )𝐫_i},$$
(19)
which differs from Eq. (16) by the cancellation of the velocity term $`𝐯t`$ in the last exponent.

The physical content of the two gauges may be understood in the following way: The basis wave functions (7) are quasiclassical plane waves (at the wave vector $`k_F`$) cut off by the long-wavelength envelope $`\mathrm{exp}(2K(r))`$ of the size of order $`\xi `$. In the original gauge \[with variables $`a(\varphi ,t)`$\], this basis was chosen by simply translating the basis (7) together with the vortex. In the new gauge \[with variables $`\stackrel{~}{a}(\varphi ,t)`$\], only the long-wavelength envelope is translated, without shifting the phases of the quasiclassical plane waves.

This difference in matching phases of plane waves at different vortex positions produces two different descriptions of the moving vortex. In the first gauge \[variables $`a(\varphi ,t)`$\], the evolution equation (11) contains impurities moving with respect to the vortex (fast oscillations in $`L_{\varphi \varphi ^{}}`$). This description is similar to the approach taken in Refs. FS, ; LO98, ; KL, , a static vortex subject to moving impurities. However, in those references, the $`T`$-term was omitted. We will show below that omitting this term does not change the result for the dissipation in the moderately clean limit, thus justifying the approach of Refs. FS, ; LO98, ; KL, . In the second gauge \[variables $`\stackrel{~}{a}(\varphi ,t)`$\], there are no oscillating terms in $`L_{\varphi \varphi ^{}}`$ (except for the slowly varying envelope $`K(r)`$ whose time derivative may be neglected in most cases). All the oscillations in the $`L`$-term in the first gauge may be removed by a single gauge transformation, as all impurities move with respect to the vortex with the same velocity and in the same direction. This fact has not been properly taken into account in Ref. KL, , which has lead to an unphysical result. We shall comment in more detail on the derivation of Ref. KL,  in Sec. V; here we just remark that the parallel motion of the impurities with respect to the vortex requires special care in the calculations within the first gauge, but is automatically taken into account in the second gauge.

## III Circular unitary ensemble of the quasiparticle levels in the disordered vortex

In this section, we review the derivation of the two-comb spectral statistics in the vortex from Refs. LO98, ; KL,  and set up the notation for the calculations in the later sections. For the discussion of the spectral statistics in this section we take the vortex at rest ($`𝐯=0`$). Then the Hamiltonian in the equation of motion (11) contains only two terms, the kinetic term $`i\omega _0/\varphi `$ and the scattering term $`L_{\varphi \varphi ^{}}`$ (for a vortex at rest there is no difference between $`L_{\varphi \varphi ^{}}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{L}_{\varphi \varphi ^{}}`$).

At not very high impurity concentration \[see Eq. (38) below\], the scattering kernel $`L_{\varphi \varphi ^{}}`$ may be approximated as a sum of two local terms \[this approximation is due to the rapidly oscillating exponent in (16)\],

$$L_{\varphi \varphi ^{}}=4\pi i\omega _0\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}[J_i\stackrel{ˇ}{\delta }_{\varphi ,\varphi _i}\stackrel{ˇ}{\delta }_{\varphi ^{},\varphi _i+\pi }J_i^{}\stackrel{ˇ}{\delta }_{\varphi ,\varphi _i+\pi }\stackrel{ˇ}{\delta }_{\varphi ^{},\varphi _i}],$$
(20)
where $`N`$ is the number of impurities in the core, the parameters $`\varphi _i`$ specify the angular positions of the impurities, and $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\delta }_{\varphi _1,\varphi _2}`$ are $`\delta `$-functions smeared over the width $`(\varphi _1\varphi _2)(k_F\xi )^{1/2}`$ and antiperiodically continued in $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ ($`\stackrel{ˇ}{\delta }_{\varphi _1,\varphi _2+2\pi }=\stackrel{ˇ}{\delta }_{\varphi _1+2\pi ,\varphi _2}=\stackrel{ˇ}{\delta }_{\varphi _1,\varphi _2}`$). Note that the regularization (20) as a product of two smeared $`\delta `$-functions is important for evaluating the scattering matrix (24) below LO98 ; KL . The effective strength of the $`i`$-th impurity is

$$J_i=\frac{i𝒜^2V_ie^{2K(r_i)+2ik_Fr_i}}{\omega _0k_Fr_i}i\vartheta _i\frac{\xi }{r_i}e^{2K(r_i)+2ik_Fr_i},$$
(21)
where $`\vartheta _i=mV_i`$ is the Born parameter of the impurity (an additional imaginary unit compared to the notation in Ref. KL,  is due to the antiperiodic boundary conditions employed).

The matrix elements (20) couple only angles with difference close to $`\pi `$. Introducing the two-component vector

$$\psi (\varphi )=\left(\begin{array}{c}a(\varphi )\\ a(\varphi +\pi )\end{array}\right),\varphi [0;\pi ],$$
(22)
the scattering becomes local in $`\varphi `$. The individual scattering events in (11) then may be integrated separately and formulated in terms of a boundary condition KL

$$\psi (\varphi _i+0)=M_i\psi (\varphi _i0),$$
(23)
where

$$M_i=\frac{1}{1+|J_i|^2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1|J_i|^2& 2J_i\\ 2J_i^{}& 1|J_i|^2\end{array}\right).$$
(24)
The boundary condition for $`\psi (\varphi )`$ going around the half circle is

$$\psi (0)=i\sigma _y\psi (\pi ).$$
(25)
Thus the energy levels are determined by the eigenvalues of the matrix $`i\sigma _yM`$, where

$$M=M_N\mathrm{}M_2M_1,\pi >\varphi _N>\mathrm{}>\varphi _1>0.$$
(26)
The full “scattering matrix” $`i\sigma _yM`$ is a unitary matrix with the eigenvalues $`\mathrm{exp}(\pm i\pi E/\omega _0)`$, so that the energy levels $`E`$ are solutions to the equation

$$\mathrm{cos}(\pi E/\omega _0)=\frac{i}{2}tr\sigma _yM.$$
(27)
The evolution of the wave function $`\psi (\varphi )`$ is schematically shown in Fig. 1.

In the moderately clean limit with a sufficiently large (but not too large) number of impurities in the core, the matrix $`M`$ (and thus also $`i\sigma _yM`$) is random with a uniform distribution over the $`SU(2)`$ group. Such a random-matrix ensemble is classified as the “circular unitary” ensemble with dimension two Mehta . The density of states and the level correlations may be easily computed from Eq. (27). For example, the average density of states is given byKL

$$\rho (E)=\frac{2}{\omega _0}\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\pi \frac{E}{\omega _0}\right).$$
(28)
The spectrum consists of two combs of equidistant levels: A level is characterized by the comb number $`s=\pm 1`$ and its position in the comb, $`E_{\pm ,k}=\pm (E_0+2\omega _0k)`$, where $`E_0`$ is the eigenvalue of the lowest level with positive energy ($`0E_0<\omega _0`$). The eigenfunctions can be written explicitly as

$$\psi _{\pm ,k}(\varphi )=e^{i\varphi E_{\pm ,k}/\omega _0}M_{\varphi ,0}\psi _\pm (\varphi =0),$$
(29)
where $`\psi _\pm (\varphi =0)`$ are the two eigenvectors of $`i\sigma _yM`$, and the scattering matrices $`M_{\varphi ,\varphi ^{}}`$ are defined as

$$M_{\varphi ,\varphi ^{}}=M_{i_n}\mathrm{}M_{i_1},\varphi >\varphi _{i_n}>\mathrm{}>\varphi _{i_1}>\varphi ^{},$$
(30)
where the product is taken over all impurities between the angles $`\varphi ^{}`$ and $`\varphi `$. Eq. (30) introduces $`M_{\varphi ,\varphi ^{}}`$ for $`\varphi >\varphi ^{}`$; furthermore, it is convenient to define the scattering matrix for $`\varphi <\varphi ^{}`$ as $`M_{\varphi ,\varphi ^{}}=M_{\varphi ^{},\varphi }^{}`$. The symmetry of the $`SU(2)`$ matrices

$$M_{\varphi ,\varphi ^{}}^{}=\sigma _yM_{\varphi ,\varphi ^{}}\sigma _y$$
(31)
allows us to translate easily between the eigenfunctions for the two series of levels via

$$\psi _{,k}(\varphi )=\sigma _y\psi _{+,k}^{}(\varphi ).$$
(32)
In our calculations, we shall need not only the properties of the spectrum, but also some statistical properties of the wave functions in the regime of the circular unitary ensemble. At any given point $`\varphi `$ and for any energy level, the wave function $`\psi (\varphi )`$ is a spinor pointing in a random direction. All directions are equally probable, allowing us to compute equal-point correlation functions such as

$`\psi ^{}(\varphi )\sigma _\alpha \psi (\varphi )\psi ^{}(\varphi )\sigma _\beta \psi (\varphi )`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{\alpha \beta }}{3}},`$ (33a)
$`\psi ^{}(\varphi )\sigma _\alpha \psi ^{}(\varphi )\psi ^T(\varphi )\sigma _\beta \psi (\varphi )`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2\delta _{\alpha \beta }}{3}}.`$ (33b)
The correlations between wave functions at different values of $`\varphi `$ may be expressed in terms of the properties of the scattering matrices (30). The angular correlations between scattering matrices decay exponentially,

$$M_{\varphi ,\varphi ^{}}^{}\sigma _zM_{\varphi ,\varphi ^{}}=e^{|\varphi \varphi ^{}|/\varphi _\tau }\sigma _z,$$
(34)
where

$$\frac{1}{\omega _0\tau }\frac{1}{\varphi _\tau }=16n_{\mathrm{imp}}_0^{\mathrm{}}r𝑑r\frac{|J(r)|^2}{(1+|J(r)|^2)^2},$$
(35)
and $`n_{\mathrm{imp}}`$ is the impurity concentration. In (35) we have assumed (for simplicity) that all impurities have equal Born parameters, in which case the effective impurity strength $`J_i`$ as given by (21) becomes a function of $`r_i`$ and is denoted $`J(r)`$ in (35). In order to derive (34) and (35) one takes a small increment of $`M_{\varphi ,\varphi ^{}}^{}\sigma _zM_{\varphi ,\varphi ^{}}`$ in $`\varphi `$ and averages over a single impurity scattering matrix,

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{}{\varphi }M_{\varphi ,\varphi ^{}}^{}\sigma _zM_{\varphi ,\varphi ^{}}=2n_{\mathrm{imp}}_0^{\mathrm{}}r_i𝑑r_i\hfill \\ \hfill \times \left[M_{\varphi ,\varphi ^{}}^{}M_i^{}\sigma _zM_iM_{\varphi ,\varphi ^{}}M_{\varphi ,\varphi ^{}}^{}\sigma _zM_{\varphi ,\varphi ^{}}\right].\end{array}$$
(36)
The last averaging is performed independently over $`M_{\varphi ,\varphi ^{}}`$ and $`M_i`$. In averaging, we first account for the rapidly oscillating off-diagonal elements in (24) and arrive at (34), (35).

For strong impurities with the Born parameter $`\vartheta mV_i1`$ (as above, we assume that all impurities are of equal strength), the scattering time $`\tau `$ is of the order of the bulk normal-state elastic mean-free time $`\tau _n`$. For weak impurities with $`\vartheta 1`$, the integral in Eq. (35) has a logarithmic dependence on the Born parameterKL ,

$$\frac{1}{\tau }\frac{1}{\tau _n}\mathrm{ln}\frac{1}{\vartheta }.$$
(37)
A similar logarithmic behavior of the scattering rate was also derived in Refs. Kopnin94, ; Kopnin-Lopatin, . The relaxation angle $`\varphi _\tau `$ in (35) plays a central role in the context of vortex dissipation, as it enters the expression for the friction coefficient and hence also for the flux flow conductivity. In Ref. KL,  this quantity entered the numerator in the expression for the conductivity, while in our results it enters the denominator in the Bardeen–Stephen form (1). We comment in detail on our disagreement with Ref. KL,  in Section V and in the Appendix.

The physical meaning of $`\varphi _\tau `$ is the correlation length of the scattering matrix $`M_{\varphi ,\varphi ^{}}`$ and $`\tau `$ is the corresponding scattering time. We shall see later that it is the correlation function (34) which determines the rate of interlevel transitions. In principle, one can derive a similar exponential decay “in the $`x`$ and $`y`$ directions” \[with $`\sigma _z`$ replaced by $`\sigma _x`$ or $`\sigma _y`$ in (34)\], in which case the correlation length $`\varphi _\tau ^{(xy)}`$ is twice larger than $`\varphi _\tau `$ “in the $`z`$ direction”. This is due to the specific form (24) of the scattering matrix $`M_i`$.

In order to realize the regime of the circular unitary random-matrix ensemble it is necessary that $`\varphi _\tau \pi `$, which defines the lower bound for the moderately clean regime, $`\omega _0\tau 1`$. However, the region of the circular unitary ensemble does not extend over the whole moderately clean regime KL . The additional restriction originates from the breaking of the instant-scattering approximation (20) in the limit of too strong disorder. Indeed, the typical width of the smeared $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\delta }`$-functions in this equation can be estimated as $`\delta \varphi 1/\sqrt{k_F\xi }`$ (that corresponds to an impurity at the distance of the order of $`\xi `$ from the vortex center). On the other hand, the number of impurities in the core is $`Nn_{\mathrm{imp}}\xi ^21/\omega _0\tau _n\vartheta ^2`$. The solution for the spectrum discussed above is justified as long as the $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\delta }`$-functions in Eq. (20) do not overlap, which is equivalent to the condition $`N\delta \varphi 1`$. Thus, the circular unitary ensemble is realized only in a relatively narrow range of disorder strengths

$$\frac{\omega _0}{\mathrm{ln}1/\vartheta }\frac{1}{\tau _n}\vartheta ^2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _0}$$
(38)
\[we assume that the Born parameter $`\vartheta 1`$ and make use of Eq. (37); for $`\vartheta 1`$ one should replace $`\mathrm{ln}1/\vartheta `$ by 1\]. For stronger disorder (i.e., larger scattering rate $`1/\tau _n`$) or smaller Born parameter $`\vartheta `$ the instant-scattering approximation (20) fails and the circular unitary ensemble crosses over to the class $`C`$ ensemble Zirnbauer ; SKF . A phenomenological approach to this crossover has been discussed in Ref. BHL,  and the results of numerical simulations are available in Ref. Fujita, .

## IV Two regimes of dissipation

The time evolution of the core states is described by Eq. (11). Since the evolution operator is nonstationary (i.e., explicitly time-dependent), it causes transitions between levels with different energy. In a fermionic system, the rate of downward transitions is suppressed compared to the rate of upward transitions due to the Pauli exclusion principle, leading to an increase of the average energy with time. The energy pumped into the system will finally be transferred to the thermal bath via the interaction with phonons or other soft degrees of freedom, thus producing a finite dissipation.

There are two different mechanisms of dissipation depending on whether the individual energy levels can be resolved or not Wilkinson . If the discrete spectrum is smeared into a continuous one, the energy pumping can be calculated with the help of the standard linear-response Kubo formula Kubo . This regime is naturally realized when the inelastic width $`\gamma _{\mathrm{in}}`$ of an energy level exceeds the mean level spacing $`\omega _0`$. On the other hand, the spectrum may turn out effectively continuous even at $`\gamma _{\mathrm{in}}\omega _0`$ if the time dependence of the evolution operator on the right-hand side of Eq. (11) is so fast that it destroys the instantaneous adiabatic spectrum Wilkinson . In this case, the frequency $`\gamma _v`$ of perturbations due to the nonadiabaticity of the spectrum exceeds $`\omega _0`$ and plays the role of the effective level width. In the opposite case, when $`\gamma _{\mathrm{in}},\gamma _v\omega _0`$, the spectrum is essentially discrete and the dissipation is due to rare Landau–Zener transitions LZ  taking place when two levels come very close to each other.

In a normal metal at low temperatures, the inelastic widths due to the electron-electron and electron-phonon interactions are given by $`\gamma _{ee}T^2/E_F`$ and $`\gamma _{eph}T^3/\mathrm{\Theta }_D^2`$, respectivelyinelastic  ($`\mathrm{\Theta }_D`$ is the Debye temperature). Since $`\gamma _{ee}`$ is of the order of $`\omega _0`$ already at $`T\mathrm{\Delta }`$, it does not contribute to the level smearing at lower temperatures. Furthermore, for the states localized in the vortex core the interaction with phonons appears to be strongly suppressed compared to the normal-state rate e-ph ; one of the main reasons is that the quasiparticles with energy $`\mu \omega _0\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are composed of nearly equal mixtures of electron and hole components \[i.e., $`u_\mu ^2v_\mu ^2`$, cf. Eq. (6)\] with negligible net charge. Thus, at sufficiently small temperatures $`T\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the inelastic width of the core states $`\gamma _{\mathrm{in}}\omega _0`$ and the regime of dissipation is determined solely by the vortex velocity. In Ref. FS,  the crossover velocity $`v_K`$ separating the regimes with discrete and continuous spectra was estimated as

$$v_K\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }/p_F}{\sqrt{k_Fl}}$$
(39)
and we will present a microscopic derivation of this result below.

For model Hamiltonians from the three Wigner-Dyson random-matrix ensembles Mehta , dissipation was calculated by Wilkinson Wilkinson ; Wilkinson-comment  in the regimes of small ($`vv_K`$) and large ($`vv_K`$) velocities (in the limit $`\gamma _{\mathrm{in}}=0`$). He finds that if the Hamiltonian $`H(X)`$ of the system depends on time through $`X=vt`$ then the energy dissipation is determined by the variance of the (off-diagonal, $`ik`$) matrix elements $`C(0)|H_{ik}/X|^2/\omega _0^2`$ normalized by the mean level spacing $`\omega _0`$. In the continuous-spectrum regime specified by $`vv_K\omega _0C^{1/2}(0)`$, the energy dissipation rate as given by the Kubo formula,

$$W_{\mathrm{Kubo}}=\pi C(0)v^2,$$
(40)
is the same for the orthogonal ($`\beta =1`$), unitary ($`\beta =2`$), and symplectic ($`\beta =4`$) ensembles and describes viscous damping. In the discrete-spectrum regime, at $`vv_K`$, the result depends on the level-repulsion parameter $`\beta `$, which determines the probability $`P(\epsilon )\epsilon ^\beta `$ to find two levels at a distance $`\epsilon \omega _0`$. In this situation the energy dissipation rate is given by the expression Wilkinson

$$W_\beta v^{(\beta +2)/2},$$
(41)
hence the dissipation is superohmic for the Gaussian orthogonal ensemble, while for the Gaussian unitary ensemble it remains ohmic with $`W_2=\pi C(0)v^2`$, exactly coinciding with $`W_{\mathrm{Kubo}}`$ despite a very different mechanism of dissipation.

In the next sections we calculate the dissipation rate for the vortex motion in the regime of the Koulakov–Larkin ‘two-comb’ spectrum KL , both in the limits of small and large velocities, thus extending Wilkinson’s considerations to the case of circular unitary ensembles.

## V Dissipation in the discrete spectrum (Landau–Zener regime)

In this section we calculate the dissipation for the two-comb level structure described in Section III at small velocities. We will work in the ‘tilded’ basis $`\stackrel{~}{a}(\varphi ,t)`$ introduced in Eq. (17), where the energy coincides with the expectation value of the evolution operator (11), with $`T_{\varphi \varphi ^{}}`$ and $`L_{\varphi \varphi ^{}}`$ substituted by their tilded counterparts (18) and (19). In the low-velocity limit, the energy is pumped into the system when two levels come very close to each other and a nonadiabatic Landau–Zener transition becomes possible. Due to the symmetry of the two-comb spectrum the rate $`R_{\mathrm{LZ}}`$ of such transitions is the same for each neighboring pair of levels. We will calculate $`R_{\mathrm{LZ}}`$ by considering the lowest level with positive energy $`\epsilon `$ and its mirror image with energy $`\epsilon `$. For simplicity we assume that the vortex moves in the $`x`$ direction, $`v_y=0`$.

Following the logic of Ref. Wilkinson, , we diagonalize the Hamiltonian at $`t=0`$ and restrict it to the $`2\times 2`$ matrix involving the pair of states considered,

$$\stackrel{~}{H}(t)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\epsilon +h_{11}t& h_{12}t\\ h_{12}^{}t& \epsilon h_{11}t\end{array}\right),$$
(42)
where $`h_{ij}`$ are the elements of the matrix $`H/t`$ (neglecting the quadratic term $`(^2H/t^2)t^2`$ is justified in the Landau–Zener regime since the duration of a nonadiabatic transition is proportional to the gap of the avoided crossing and is small at $`vv_K`$). The instantaneous adiabatic spectrum takes the form

$$E(t)=\pm \sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{LZ}}^2+A^2(tt_{\mathrm{LZ}})^2},$$
(43)
where

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{LZ}}^2={\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^2|h_{12}|^2}{A^2}},A^2=h_{11}^2+|h_{12}|^2,t_{\mathrm{LZ}}={\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon h_{11}}{A^2}}.`$ (44)
Equation (43) describes an avoided crossing with the minimal distance (Landau–Zener gap) $`2\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{LZ}}`$ between the spectral branches realized at $`t=t_{\mathrm{LZ}}`$. The probability of the Landau–Zener transition at such a crossing is $`\mathrm{exp}(\pi \mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{LZ}}^2/A)`$. The mean rate of transitions is given by

$$R_{\mathrm{LZ}}=\delta (t_{\mathrm{LZ}})\mathrm{exp}\left(\pi \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{LZ}}^2}{A}\right),$$
(45)
where the role of $`\delta (t_{\mathrm{LZ}})`$ is to count each avoided crossing once. The average in Eq. (45) is taken over the distribution of the parameters $`\epsilon `$, $`h_{11}`$, and $`h_{12}`$ describing the avoided crossing. The energy $`\epsilon `$ is expressed through the transfer matrix $`M`$ according to Eq. (27). The coefficients $`h_{11}`$ and $`h_{12}`$ are the matrix elements of the perturbation (18) over the exact wave functions $`\psi _\pm (\varphi )\psi _{\pm ,0}(\varphi )`$ \[which depend on the trajectory $`M_{\varphi ,0}`$ via Eq. (29)\],

$`h_{11}=\omega _0k_Fv{\displaystyle _0^\pi }{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi }{\pi }}\psi _+^{}(\varphi )\sigma _z\psi _+(\varphi )\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,`$ (46)
$`h_{12}=\omega _0k_Fv{\displaystyle _0^\pi }{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi }{\pi }}\psi _+^{}(\varphi )\sigma _z\psi _{}(\varphi )\mathrm{cos}\varphi .`$ (47)
We come to the crucial point: The quantities $`\epsilon `$, $`h_{11}`$, and $`h_{12}`$ have different dependencies on the transfer matrix $`M_{\varphi ,0}`$. In the moderately clean limit, when the number of impurities in the core is sufficiently large and $`\varphi _\tau 1`$, the matrix $`M_{\varphi ,0}`$ performs many rotations over the $`SU(2)`$ group. Therefore, we conclude that (i) $`\epsilon `$, $`h_{11}`$, and $`h_{12}`$ are uncorrelated, and (ii) the distribution of $`h_{11}`$ and $`h_{12}`$ is Gaussian. We further calculate the variances of $`h_{11}`$ and $`h_{12}`$. For $`h_{11}^2`$ we obtain with the help of Eq. (34),

$`h_{11}^2=`$ $`(\omega _0k_Fv)^2{\displaystyle _0^\pi }{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi }{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi ^{}}{\pi }}\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{cos}\varphi ^{}e^{|\varphi \varphi ^{}|/\varphi _\tau }`$
$`\times \psi _+^{}(\varphi )\sigma _z\psi _+(\varphi )\psi _+^{}(\varphi )\sigma _z\psi _+(\varphi ).`$ (48)
Integrating over $`\varphi \varphi ^{}`$ and averaging over the spinor $`\psi (\varphi )`$ according to (33a) we find

$$\frac{h_{11}^2}{(\omega _0k_Fv)^2}=\frac{\varphi _\tau }{\pi }(\psi _+^{}\sigma _z\psi _+)^2=\frac{\varphi _\tau }{3\pi }.$$
(49)
Analogously, with the help of Eq. (33b) we obtain

$$\frac{|h_{12}|^2}{(\omega _0k_Fv)^2}=\frac{\varphi _\tau }{\pi }|\psi _+^{}\sigma _x\psi _+^{}|^2=\frac{2\varphi _\tau }{3\pi }.$$
(50)
In the same way it can be shown that $`h_{11}h_{12}=0`$, thus proving the statistical independence of $`h_{11}`$ and $`h_{12}`$. We conclude that $`h_{11}`$, $`\mathrm{}h_{12}`$, and $`\mathrm{}h_{12}`$ are independently distributed with the same distribution

$$𝒫(h)=\sqrt{\frac{3}{2\varphi _\tau }}\frac{1}{\omega _0k_Fv}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{3\pi h^2}{2\varphi _\tau (\omega _0k_Fv)^2}\right).$$
(51)
The distribution function for $`\epsilon `$ is provided by the density of states (28), in the limit $`\epsilon \omega _0`$, $`𝒫(\epsilon )=2\pi ^2\epsilon ^2/\omega _0^3`$.

Averaging Eq. (45) over $`\epsilon `$, $`h_{11}`$, and $`h_{12}`$ with the distributions $`𝒫(\epsilon )`$ and $`𝒫(h)`$, we obtain for the mean rate of Landau–Zener transitions

$$R_{\mathrm{LZ}}=\frac{k_F^2v^2\varphi _\tau }{2\omega _0}.$$
(52)
The energy dissipation rate is given by $`W=\omega _0R_{\mathrm{LZ}}\eta v^2`$ with the vortex viscosity

$$\eta =\frac{1}{2}k_F^2\varphi _\tau =\frac{1}{2}k_F^2\omega _0\tau .$$
(53)
As defined by Eq. (53), $`\eta `$ is a two-dimensional viscosity. In a layered superconductor, it determines the friction force $`𝐅=\eta 𝐯`$ exerted on the vortex from excitation of quasiparticles within one layer.

The statistics (51) of the matrix elements of $`H/t`$ determines the sensitivity of the spectrum to the vortex motion and allows one to find the critical velocity $`v_K`$ separating the regimes of discrete and continuum spectra. The discrete spectrum can be resolved if the change of the Hamiltonian during the time $`\omega _0^1`$, $`\delta Hh/\omega _0`$, is smaller than $`\omega _0`$. Taking for $`h`$ the dispersion of the distribution (51), we find for the critical vortex velocity

$$v_K\frac{\omega _0}{k_F\sqrt{\varphi _\tau }},$$
(54)
coinciding with the estimate (39) found in Ref. FS, .

Comparing with Ref. KL, , we find that our result (53) for the viscosity is smaller by a factor $`\varphi _\tau ^2`$ and the expression (54) for $`v_K`$ is larger by the factor $`1/\varphi _\tau `$. In Ref. KL, , following the analysis in Refs. FS, ; LO98, , it was assumed that the dissipation is produced by impurities moving with respect to the vortex, equivalent to neglecting the Doppler-shift term $`T_{\varphi \varphi ^{}}`$ in Eq. (11). In order to identify the origin of the discrepancy in the results and verify the validity of omitting the Doppler shift, we reconsider below the treatment of Ref. KL,  — we will see that the source of the disagreement is not in the neglect of the Doppler-shift term but in the neglect of cross-correlations between the motion of different impurities. To demonstrate this, we adopt the approach of Ref. KL,  (omitting the Doppler-shift term) and re-calculate the correlator of the spatial gradients of the matrix $`M`$ KL-comment1

$$𝒞=\frac{1}{4}<\left(tr\frac{M}{x}\right)^2>,$$
(55)
from which the viscosity follows via $`\eta =2𝒞/\pi `$. Comparison between Eqs. (55) and (40) shows that the quantity $`(2/\pi ^2)𝒞`$ plays the role of the correlation function $`C(0)`$.

The matrix $`M`$ specified in Eq. (26) is a product of transfer matrices of individual impurities. Therefore, there are two contributions to the correlator (55), one originating from derivatives over the coordinates of the same impurity (diagonal part) and a second one from derivatives taken on different impurities (off-diagonal part),

$`𝒞_{\mathrm{diag}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}tr{\displaystyle \frac{M}{x_i}}tr{\displaystyle \frac{M}{x_i}},`$ (56)
$`𝒞_{\mathrm{off}\mathrm{diag}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}tr{\displaystyle \frac{M}{x_i}}tr{\displaystyle \frac{M}{x_j}}.`$ (57)
The diagonal part is given by KL

$$𝒞_{\mathrm{diag}}=\frac{\pi k_F^2}{4\varphi _\tau }.$$
(58)
The cross term, expressing the correlated nature of the motion of the impurities with respect to the vortex, has been missed in Ref. KL, . Its calculation is presented in the Appendix and the result takes the form

$$𝒞_{\mathrm{off}\mathrm{diag}}=\frac{\pi k_F^2}{4\varphi _\tau (1+\varphi _\tau ^2)}.$$
(59)
We thus see that the two contributions $`𝒞_{\mathrm{diag}}`$ and $`𝒞_{\mathrm{off}\mathrm{diag}}`$ nearly cancel each other and the net sensitivity of the spectrum to the vortex motion appears to be significantly lower than that found in Ref. KL, ,

$$𝒞=\frac{\pi k_F^2\varphi _\tau }{4},$$
(60)
where we employed the condition $`\varphi _\tau 1`$ of the moderately clean limit. Using Eq. (55) one recovers the result (53) for the vortex viscosity. The above consideration not only corrects the result of Ref. KL, ; in addition, it serves as a microscopic justification of the model adopted in Refs. FS, ; LO98, ; KL, , where the dissipation is due to impurities moving through the core and the Doppler-shift term $`T`$ in Eq. (11) is neglected.

## VI Dissipation in the continuum spectrum (Kubo formula)

If the vortex velocity $`v`$ exceeds $`v_K`$ the discrete spectrum is smeared and transitions between non-nearest levels become possible. In this limit, the energy dissipation can be calculated with the help of the Kubo formula; as in Sec. V we will use the ‘tilded’ basis (17). Neglecting the slow time dependence of $`\stackrel{~}{L}_{\varphi \varphi ^{}}`$, we write the evolution operator as $`\stackrel{~}{H}(t)=H_0+It`$, where $`H_0`$ is the Hamiltonian of the vortex at rest and $`I=\stackrel{~}{T}/t`$ takes the form

$$I_{\varphi \varphi ^{}}=2\pi \delta (\varphi \varphi ^{})I(\varphi ),I(\varphi )=\omega _0k_Fv\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,$$
(61)
where we again assumed that $`v_y=0`$. The energy dissipation rate

$$W\frac{dE}{dt}=t|\frac{}{t}\stackrel{~}{H}(t)|t$$
(62)
is calculated as the linear response to the term $`It`$ with the help of the Kubo formula

$$W=i_{\mathrm{}}^0t^{}𝑑t^{}0|[(t^{}),(0)]|0,$$
(63)
where

$$(t)=_0^{2\pi }I(\varphi )\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}(\varphi ,t)\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\varphi ,t)\frac{d\varphi }{2\pi }$$
(64)
and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\varphi ,t)`$ is a second-quantized operator in the interaction representation. The latter can be rewritten in terms of the (exact disorder dependent) eigenfunctions $`\stackrel{~}{a}_n(\varphi )`$ and eigenvalues $`E_n`$ of the Hamiltonian $`H_0`$,

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\varphi ,t)=\underset{n}{}\widehat{c}_n\stackrel{~}{a}_n(\varphi )e^{iE_nt},$$
(65)
with $`\widehat{c}_n`$ the corresponding annihilation operators. Averaging over the initial state of the vortex at rest (so that $`\stackrel{~}{a}_n(\varphi )`$ coincides with $`a_n(\varphi )`$) one arrives at the expression

$`W=i{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^0}t^{}𝑑t^{}{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi d\varphi ^{}}{(2\pi )^2}I(\varphi )I(\varphi ^{})\underset{km}{}(n_kn_m)}`$
$`\times a_k(\varphi )a_k^{}(\varphi ^{})a_m(\varphi ^{})a_m^{}(\varphi )e^{i(E_kE_m)(t^{}t)},`$ (66)
where $`n_k=\widehat{c}_k^{}\widehat{c}_k`$ is the distribution function at the energy $`E_k`$. This expression can readily be represented (cf., e.g., Ref. Mahan, ) in terms of the Green functions

$$G_E^{R,A}(\varphi ,\varphi ^{})=\underset{n}{}\frac{a_n(\varphi )a_n^{}(\varphi ^{})}{EE_n\pm i\delta },$$
(67)
$`W={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi d\varphi ^{}}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{dE}{2\pi }\frac{n(E)}{E}I(\varphi )I(\varphi ^{})}`$
$`\times [G_E^R(\varphi \varphi ^{})G_E^A(\varphi \varphi ^{})][G_E^R(\varphi ^{}\varphi )G_E^A(\varphi ^{}\varphi )].`$ (68)
The above formula for the dissipation rate is not restricted to the regime of the circular unitary ensemble but is valid in the whole moderately clean limit regime as long as $`vv_K`$. In particular, one can easily recover the result of the standard quasiclassical analysis by assuming the $`\tau `$-approximation: within this approach the Green function is diagonal in the momentum representation,

$$G_E^{R,A}(\mu )=\frac{1}{E\omega _0\mu \pm \frac{i}{2\tau }},$$
(69)
and evaluating the integral in (68) one finds the energy dissipation rate $`W=\eta _\tau v^2`$ with the vortex viscosity coefficient

$$\eta _\tau =\frac{1}{2}k_F^2\omega _0\tau .$$
(70)
The $`\tau `$-approximation is the simplest approach to the problem where all spectral correlations are neglected. Below, we will calculate the vortex viscosity for the case of the Koulakov-Larkin two-comb statistics and check how the presence of the two-comb correlations in the energy levels modifies the result (70). To this end we rewrite Eq. (68) in terms of the wave functions $`\psi _{sk}(\varphi )`$ introduced in (29),

$`W={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{s,s^{},k,k^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi d\varphi ^{}}{\pi ^2}\frac{dE}{2\pi }\frac{n(E)}{E}𝑑t𝑑t^{}e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }}}`$ (71)
$`\times I(\varphi )I(\varphi ^{})\psi _{s^{}k^{}}^{}(\varphi )\sigma _z\psi _{sk}(\varphi )\psi _{sk}^{}(\varphi ^{})\sigma _z\psi _{s^{}k^{}}(\varphi ^{}),`$
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }=E(tt^{})E_{sk}t+E_{s^{}k^{}}t^{}`$. We first re-express the wave functions $`\psi _{sk}(\varphi )`$ via (29) and perform the summation over $`k`$ and $`k^{}`$ according to the summation formula

$$\underset{k}{}e^{iE_{sk}t}=\frac{\pi }{\omega _0}e^{iE_{s,0}t}\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\delta (tm\pi /\omega _0)$$
(72)
(which produces a double infinite sum of $`\delta `$-functions of $`t`$ and $`t^{}`$). We cut off the integrals over $`t`$ and $`t^{}`$ at some time scale smaller than $`\pi /\omega _0`$ — such a cut-off is equivalent to assuming a smearing of the energy levels with widths larger than $`\omega _0`$. Under this assumption, only one term of the double infinite sum survives with $`t=t^{}=(\varphi \varphi ^{})/\omega _0`$. Next, the integrations over $`t`$, $`t^{}`$, and $`E`$ can be trivially performed. Finally, we sum over $`s`$ and $`s^{}`$ and arrive at

$$\begin{array}{c}\psi _s^{}^{}(0)M_{\varphi ,0}^{}\sigma _zM_{\varphi ,0}\psi _s(0)\psi _s^{}(0)M_{\varphi ^{},0}^{}\sigma _zM_{\varphi ^{},0}\psi _s^{}(0)\hfill \\ \hfill =trM_{\varphi ^{},\varphi }^{}\sigma _zM_{\varphi ^{},\varphi }\sigma _z.\end{array}$$
(73)
This average is calculated with the help of Eq. (34) yielding

$$\begin{array}{c}\eta =\frac{k_F^2}{4\pi }_0^\pi 𝑑\varphi 𝑑\varphi ^{}\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{cos}\varphi ^{}trM_{\varphi ^{},\varphi }^{}\sigma _zM_{\varphi ^{},\varphi }\sigma _z\hfill \\ \hfill =\frac{1}{2}k_F^2\omega _0\tau .\end{array}$$
(74)
The form of the above result coincides with (70) calculated within the $`\tau `$-approximation. The microscopic expression for the elastic relaxation time $`\tau `$ is given by Eq. (35). In case the inelastic relaxation time is shorter than $`\tau `$, it substitutes the latter in Eq. (74).

To conclude this section we mention that the same result (74) can be obtained in the model where the Doppler-shift term $`T_{\varphi \varphi ^{}}`$ in Eq. (11) is neglected and the dissipation is due to the motion of impurities with respect to the vortex. Within that model the energy dissipation rate is calculated as a linear response to a change in the impurity positions. The derivation formally repeats the one presented above but with the operator $`I_{\varphi \varphi ^{}}=vL_{\varphi \varphi ^{}}/x`$. Performing the same manipulations leading to Eqs. (71) and (74) we obtain

$$\eta =\frac{1}{4\pi }tr\frac{M^{}}{x}\frac{M}{x},$$
(75)
where $`M`$ is the product of scattering matrices defined in (26). The above correlation function for the random $`SU(2)`$ matrix $`M`$ can be related to the correlation function (55) and is equal to $`8𝒞`$. Therefore, Eq. (75) exactly coincides with its low-velocity analogue (55) and reproduces the result (74).

## VII Discussion

The main conclusion of this paper is that the Bardeen-Stephen expression for the flux flow conductivity is extremely insensitive to the details of the level correlations in the vortex core. We calculated the energy dissipation rate for the case of the Koulakov–Larkin two-comb level structure when the spectral correlations are most pronounced. Such a statistics, classified as the circular unitary ensemble of dimension two, is obtained for layered superconductors within the region of the moderately clean limit specified by Eq. (38). We found that the vortex viscosity is the same for the regimes of discrete ($`v<v_K`$) and continuum ($`v>v_K`$) spectra and coincides with the result (70) of the phenomenological $`\tau `$-approximation. The viscosity $`\eta `$ determines the flux-flow dissipative conductivity via the standard relation $`\sigma _{xx}=ec\eta /\pi B`$. Assuming a cylindrical Fermi surface, we arrive at the result (1) obtained previously via several quasiclassical approaches GK73 ; Bardeen-Sherman ; LO76 ; Kopnin-Kravtsov ; Kopnin94 ; Kopnin-Lopatin .

Despite we found the same result for $`\sigma _{xx}`$ in the limits of small and large vortex velocities, it is worth emphasizing that the physics of energy dissipation is quite different in the two limits. In the Kubo regime ($`v>v_K`$) the energy is pumped continuously, whereas in the Landau-Zener regime ($`v<v_K`$) it is absorbed in discrete portions of size $`\omega _0`$. The equivalence between the $`\tau `$-approximation and the result of the exact microscopic treatment is not very surprising in the Kubo regime, as in this limit it is determined by the net sensitivity of the spectrum to the vortex displacement rather than by interlevel correlations. On the other hand, in the Landau-Zener regime, this equivalence is a matter of coincidence: it relies on the fact that the vortex Hamiltonian belongs to the circular unitary universality class characterized by a level repulsion parameter $`\beta =2`$.

The other outcome of the present work is that it provides a justification for neglecting the Doppler-shift $`T`$-term, Eq. (12), that was implicitly assumed in earlier papers FS ; LO98 ; KL . Without the $`T`$-term, the system is equivalent to a vortex at rest with impurities moving through its core. The dissipation is then related to the change of the level positions due to the motion of the impurities. On the other hand, the $`T`$-term describes the electric field in the core, which is the source of energy dissipation in the Bardeen-Stephen model — omitting this term is a bit confusing. Nevertheless, our analysis indicates that the vortex viscosities calculated with and without this term coincide in the moderately clean limit. One may expect, however, that a correct treatment of this term is crucial in the calculation of the Hall conductivity and in the superclean limit.

In this paper we considered a strictly two-dimensional superconductor (or layered superconductor with negligible interlayer coupling). In the case of the Koulakov–Larkin circular unitary ensemble statistics, the effect of interlayer hopping is small provided that the effective quasiparticle temperature in the core, $`T_{\mathrm{core}}`$, is smaller than $`\omega _0(m_c/m_{ab})`$, where $`m_c/m_{ab}`$ is the effective mass anisotropy. This condition ensures that the interlayer hopping amplitude is always smaller than $`\omega _0`$ and can be neglected. This behavior is to be contrasted with the one for the class $`C`$ random-matrix statistics realized in the moderately clean case for weak impurities ($`\vartheta 1`$) and in the dirty ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau 1`$) limit. In that case, the interlayer coupling leads to tunneling from the $`n`$-th level in one layer to the $`m`$-th level (with $`mn`$) in the adjacent layer, thereby opening an interlayer channel for energy dissipation. The competition between the intralayer and interlayer channels may lead to a strong deviation from the Bardeen–Stephen formula (1) and even to hysteretic behavior of the current-voltage curveSF00 . On the contrary, the two-comb spectrum is absolutely rigid: the $`n`$-th level in one layer can have an avoided crossing only with the $`n`$-th level in the adjacent layer and the tunneling between these two levels does not result in dissipation.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank M. V. Feigelman for many useful discussions. This research was supported by the SCOPES program of Switzerland, the Dutch Organization for Fundamental Research (NWO), the Russian Foundation for Basic Research under grant 01-02-17759, the program “Quantum Macrophysics” of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Russian Ministry of Science, the Russian Science Support Foundation (M. A. S.), and the Swiss National Foundation. M. A. S. thanks ETH Zürich for hospitality.

## Appendix

Here, we calculate the off-diagonal correlation function $`C_{\mathrm{off}\mathrm{diag}}`$ defined in Eq. (57). To this end we divide the angle interval $`[0,\pi ]`$ into many small pieces $`[\varphi ^{(k1)},\varphi ^{(k)}]`$ of width $`\delta \varphi 0`$ so that each piece contains one impurity at maximum. The transfer matrix of the $`k`$-th interval is hence either $`M_{\varphi ^{(k)},\varphi ^{(k1)}}=1`$ (no impurities) or $`M_{\varphi ^{(k)},\varphi ^{(k1)}}=M_i`$ (if the angle of the $`i`$-th impurity $`\varphi _i[\varphi ^{(k1)},\varphi ^{(k)}]`$). Then

$`C_{\mathrm{off}\mathrm{diag}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{kp}{}}trM_{\pi ,\varphi ^{(k)}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_{\varphi ^{(k)},\varphi ^{(k1)}}}{x}}M_{\varphi ^{(k1)},0}\times trM_{\pi ,\varphi ^{(p)}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_{\varphi ^{(p)},\varphi ^{(p1)}}}{x}}M_{\varphi ^{(p1)},0}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{kp}{}}trRY(k)\times trRM_{\varphi ^{(p1)},\varphi ^{(k)}}^{}\stackrel{~}{Y}(p)M_{\varphi ^{(p1)},\varphi ^{(k)}}`$ (76)
where $`R=M_{\varphi ^{(k)},0}M_{\pi ,\varphi ^{(k)}}`$ and

$$Y(k)=\frac{M_{\varphi ^{(k)},\varphi ^{(k1)}}}{x}M_{\varphi ^{(k)},\varphi ^{(k1)}}^{},\stackrel{~}{Y}(p)=M_{\varphi ^{(p)},\varphi ^{(p1)}}^{}\frac{M_{\varphi ^{(p)},\varphi ^{(p1)}}}{x}.$$
(77)
The representation (76) is suitable for averaging over disorder, since one can independently average the matrices $`R`$, $`Y`$, $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$, and $`M_{\varphi ^{(p1)},\varphi ^{(k)}}`$. The statistical independence of $`Y(k)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{Y}(p)`$, and $`M_{\varphi ^{(p1)},\varphi ^{(k)}}`$ follows from the fact that the intervals $`[\varphi ^{(k1)},\varphi ^{(k)}]`$, $`[\varphi ^{(k)},\varphi ^{(p1)}]`$, and $`[\varphi ^{(p1)},\varphi ^{(p)}]`$ do not overlap. As we will see below, the correlator (76) is essentially nonzero at $`|\varphi ^{(k)}\varphi ^{(p)}|\varphi _\tau `$. The matrix $`R`$, which couples $`\varphi ^{(k)}`$ and $`\varphi ^{(k)}`$ through the point $`\varphi =\pi `$, is the product of a large number of matrices $`M_i`$ and looses all correlations within the interval $`[\varphi ^{(p1)},\varphi ^{(p)}]`$.

In calculating $`Y(k)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Y}(p)`$ with the help of Eqs. (24) and (21) only the fast phase of $`J_i`$ should be differentiated,

$$Y(k)=\stackrel{~}{Y}(k)=i\sigma _z2k_F\mathrm{cos}\varphi ^{(k)}\delta \varphi _0^{\mathrm{}}2nr𝑑r\frac{4|J(r)|^2}{(1+|J(r)|^2)^2}=i\sigma _zk_F\frac{\delta \varphi }{\varphi _\tau }\mathrm{cos}\varphi ^{(k)},$$
(78)
with the last relation following from the definition (35) of the angle coherence length $`\varphi _\tau 1`$. Taking the continuum limit $`\delta \varphi 0`$ we obtain

$$C_{\mathrm{off}\mathrm{diag}}=\frac{k_F^2}{4\varphi _\tau ^2}_0^\pi 𝑑\varphi _1𝑑\varphi _2\mathrm{cos}\varphi _1\mathrm{cos}\varphi _2trR\sigma _z\times trRM_{\varphi _2,\varphi _1}^{}\sigma _zM_{\varphi _2,\varphi _1}.$$
(79)
Averaging over $`M_{\varphi _1,\varphi _2}`$ according to Eq. (34) and integrating over $`(\varphi _1+\varphi _2)/2`$ we find

$$C_{\mathrm{off}\mathrm{diag}}=\frac{\pi k_F^2}{4\varphi _\tau ^2}trR\sigma _z\times trR\sigma _z_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\varphi e^{\varphi /\varphi _\tau }\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,$$
(80)
where the upper limit is substituted by infinity due to the fast convergence of the integral. Finally, averaging over $`R`$ uniformly distributed over the $`SU(2)`$ group and evaluating the remaining integral, we arrive at Eq. (59).


format: text

text:
# Polarized excitons in nanorings and the ‘optical’ Aharonov-Bohm effect

## Abstract

The quantum nature of matter lies in the wave function phases that accumulate while particles move along their trajectories. A prominent example is the Aharonov-Bohm phase, which has been studied in connection with the conductance of nanostructures. However, optical response in solids is determined by neutral excitations, for which no sensitivity to magnetic flux would be expected. We propose a new mechanism for the topological phase of a neutral particle, a polarized exciton confined to a semiconductor quantum ring. We predict that this magnetic-field induced phase may strongly affect excitons in a system with cylindrical symmetry, resulting in switching between ‘bright’ exciton ground states and novel ‘dark’ states with nearly infinite lifetimes. Since excitons determine the optical response of semiconductors, the predicted phase can be used to tailor photon emission from quantum nanostructures.

It is known that the quantum mechanical phase of a state wave function is not a physical observable. This understanding, true in its absolute form, does not preclude the important possibility of observing relative phases in a suitably prepared system. In fact, much of the physics in meso- and nanoscopic systems is intrinsically connected to interference or phase-shift phenomena that manifest themselves in a number of experimentally measurable quantities. Prominent examples include the superconducting quantum interference devices (SQUIDs) 1  the quantum-phase factors induced by adiabatic changes (known as geometric Berry phases) 2 , their generalization to non-adiabatic changes due to Aharonov and Anandan 3 , and the well known Aharonov-Bohm (AB) effect 4 . Such a case appears naturally in systems with ring geometry in the presence of a magnetic field. In fact, recently available semiconductor rings $`10`$–100nm in diameter allow one to explore this interesting physics in readily attainable magnetic fields. We report here on a new mechanism of phase difference acquired in a magnetic field by a composite and polarizable object with overall zero charge. Such neutral particles, excitons, are bound states of an electron and a hole in semiconductors, and are responsible for optical emission of crystals at low temperatures. The predicted interference effect has important observable consequences, as it affects the exciton emission and lifetime in nanoscopic semiconducting rings, and provides a novel phase interference phenomenon, the ‘optical’ AB effect. In particular, we predict a striking effect: the exciton emission can be strongly suppressed in certain magnetic-field windows.

The AB phase is most simply described as the phase acquired by a charge as it traverses a region where a magnetic flux exists, while no effects of the classical Lorentz force are present. The AB effect has been verified in a number of beautiful experiments using superconducting rings 5 , where electrons move in the regions with zero magnetic field. In semiconductors, the AB effect has been used in fascinating experiments to measure the relative phases of alternative paths in electronic interferometers 6 , and proposed as a mechanism to distinguish singlet and triplet states in coupled quantum dots, in connection with their use in solid state quantum computers 7 ; 8 .

The exciton bound state of electron and a corresponding hole is a neutral object basically insensitive to external magnetic fields or fluxes (except for a weak diamagnetic behavior). In fact, excitons in quantum dots a few tens of nanometers in radius and an even smaller height, have been studied in recent times 9 ; 10 ; 11 ; 12 . Moreover, thanks to the infrared absorption studies of Lorke et al., we know that semiconductor quantum rings are possible 13 , where the electrons are coherent around the ring and non-localized. In this type of structures excitons in individual nanorings in strong magnetic fields can be generated and monitored using near-field scanning optics techniques 9 ; 14 . Indeed, micro-photoluminescence ($`\mu `$PL) experiments in individual quantum rings would provide an opportunity to explore the AB effect in neutral excitons 15 ; 16 . We should emphasize that the AB oscillations of the ground state are predicted to be negligible at typical size/fields in the 1D rings 16 . However, as we explain below, the in-plane radial polarization of the exciton in finite-width quantum rings produces a strong modulation of the oscillator strength of the excitonic transition with magnetic field, due to the AB effect.

Figure 1a illustrates Berry’s gedanken experiment to explain how the adiabatic evolution of the Hamiltonian in a system gives rise to an additional phase 2 . The Berry phase is accumulated as the particle placed in an isolating box is slowly rotated around the field lines. Since the evolution is adiabatic, the system returns to its original state after a full cycle, and only a topological phase accumulates. The phase is given by the total flux in terms of the flux quantum, $`\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$, and is equivalent to the AB phase. When the object is a composite of two particles, one can imagine a similar adiabatic evolution, although here we rotate a polarized exciton having a radial dipole moment. After one full revolution, the particles obtain topological phases again, but these phases will be different, since the electron and hole have different trajectories. The phase difference is due to the unequal magnetic fluxes penetrating their paths. It is important, however, that the net relative phase would be effectively sampled/measured when the two carriers in the system combine to emit the photon seen in the PL experiment. The accumulated phase shift depends intrinsically on the polarizability of the composite object, and can even make optical transitions impossible, resulting in suppression of optical emission in well-defined windows of magnetic field. We demonstrate this effect using a model of a polarized exciton rotating in a quantum ring (QR). Notice that topological phases on point dipoles have been considered 17 , but their internal structure was not of interest in that case.

Today’s semiconductor technology offers a variety of nanometer-size structures, including self-assembled QR’s 13 ; 18 , and type-II quantum dots 19 ; 20 . In a ring-shaped nanostructure, any asymmetry in the confinement potential may cause the polarization of excitons in the radial direction (Fig. 1c), so that an electron and hole may move along different circles. In fact, the existence of such an asymmetry is natural since an electron and hole have very different masses and move in different potentials, $`U_e`$ and $`U_h`$ 21 . Namely, in self-assembled QR’s (Fig. 1c), the lighter electron tends to tunnel toward the ring center, whereas the heavier hole is localized mostly near the ring radius, producing a net radial polarization 20 . Such polarization is easily calculated from a parameterized model of a quantum ring, $`U_{e(h)}=m_{e(h)}\mathrm{\Omega }_{e(h)}^2(r_{e(h)}R_r)^2/2`$, where $`r`$ is the distance to the center of the ring, and $`m_{e(h)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{e(h)}`$ are the effective masses and single-particle confinement frequencies, respectively. Moreover, the radial polarization in the exciton can appear also due to the deformation potential in a QR, which can produce drastically different effective potentials in the valence and conduction bands. The structural in-plane radius of a QR determined from atomic force micrographs is about 40nm (Fig. 1c), however, the electronic radius $`R_r`$ estimated from optical experiments turns out to be much smaller, $`R_r16`$nm 13 . As the vertical, $`z`$-extension of the QR’s is much smaller than their lateral size, we consider here only the in-plane motion, assuming strong quantization in the $`z`$-direction. In the case of type-II quantum dots, the radial dipole moment in an exciton appears because the quantum dot structure potential in its center forms a barrier for electrons and a well for holes. This situation results then in the electron and hole moving along different circles 22 . To describe excitons in both of these systems, we use a model of two ‘parallel’ one-dimensional rings, one for the electron and another for the hole (insert in Fig. 2), having different radii, $`R_e`$ and $`R_h`$, respectively.

The Hamiltonian of the exciton in this model reads

$$\widehat{H}_{tot}=\widehat{T}_e+\widehat{T}_h+U_e+U_h+U_C(|𝐫_e𝐫_h|),$$
(1)
where $`𝐫_{e(h)}`$ are the in-plane coordinates, $`\widehat{T}_{e(h)}`$ are the kinetic energies in the presence of a normal magnetic field, and $`U_C`$ is the Coulomb potential. Now we assume that the quantization in the radial direction is stronger than that in the azimuthal direction. It allows us to separate variables in the exciton wave function, $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫_e,𝐫_h)=f_e(\rho _e)f_h(\rho _h)\psi (\theta _e,\theta _h)`$. Here $`𝐫=(\rho ,\theta )`$. The radial wave functions $`f_{e(h)}`$ are strongly localized near the radii, $`R_{e(h)}`$. The Hamiltonian describing the angular wave function $`\psi (\theta _e,\theta _h)`$ is (up to a $`B`$-independent constant term),

$`\widehat{H}_{exc}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m_eR_e^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\theta _e^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{}\omega _e}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta _e}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m_hR_h^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\theta _h^2}}`$ (2)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{}\omega _h}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta _h}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_e\omega _e^2R_e^2+m_h\omega _h^2R_h^2}{8}}`$
$`+`$ $`u_C(|\theta _e\theta _h|),`$
where $`\omega _{e(h)}=|e|B/[m_{e(h)}c]`$ are the cyclotron frequencies of the particles, $`B`$ is the normal magnetic field, and $`u_c`$ is the Coulomb potential averaged over the coordinate $`\rho `$ involving the radial wave functions. Now it is convenient to introduce new variables, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta =\theta _e\theta _h`$, and $`\theta _0=(a\theta _e+b\theta _h)/(a+b)`$, where $`\theta _{e(h)}`$ is the angular coordinates of each particle, $`a=m_eR_e^2`$, and $`b=m_hR_h^2`$. The Hamiltonian then reads $`\widehat{H}_{exc}=\widehat{H}_{rot}(\theta _0)+\widehat{H}_{int}(\mathrm{\Delta }\theta )`$, where the translation of the whole exciton around the ring and the internal motion, are separate. The eigenfunctions are of the form $`\psi (\theta _e,\theta _h)=\psi _0(\theta _0)\psi _1(\mathrm{\Delta }\theta )`$. Here, $`\widehat{H}_{rot}`$ is given by

$$\widehat{H}_{rot}(\theta _0)=\epsilon _0\left[i\frac{}{\theta _0}+\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{\Delta }R}}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}\right]^2,$$
(3)
where $`\epsilon _0=\mathrm{}^2/(2R_0^2M)`$, $`R_0=(R_e+R_h)/2`$, $`M=(m_eR_e^2+m_hR_e^2)/R_0^2`$, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{\Delta }R}=\pi (R_e^2R_h^2)B=2\pi \mathrm{\Delta }RR_0B`$ is the magnetic flux penetrating the area between the electron and hole trajectories (Fig. 1b); and $`\mathrm{\Delta }R=R_eR_h`$.

The internal-motion Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_{int}`$ involves the Coulomb potential. In small QR’s, the quantization due to kinetic motion is much stronger than the Coulomb interaction, and the picture is basically that of single particles. This limit corresponds to $`R_{e(h)}<a_0^{}`$, where $`a_0^{}`$ is the effective Bohr radius in the semiconductor. In large QR’s, where $`R_{e(h)}>a_0^{}`$, the motion becomes strongly correlated, as the particles form a tightly-bound exciton and move together around the ring.

It is possible to obtain analytic solutions for the spectrum in these two limiting cases. For small QR’s, the electron and hole move independently (Fig. 2, insert). There, the exciton spectrum is given by

$$E_{exc}=E_g+\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m_eR_e^2}\left(L_e+\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_e}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}\right)^2+\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m_hR_h^2}\left(L_h\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_h}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}\right)^2,$$
(4)
where $`E_g`$ is the magnetic field-independent term which includes the band-gap energy. $`L_e`$ and $`L_h`$ represent the angular momenta. The magnetic field $`B`$ enters Eq. (4) through the magnetic fluxes $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{e(h)}=\pi R_{e(h)}^2B`$, which describe the quantum phase accumulating in the wave function of each particle as it travels along the ring.

For the limit of the tightly-bound exciton (Fig. 3, insert), the spectrum is determined by $`\widehat{H}_{rot}`$ and takes the form

$$E_{exc}^{}=E_g^{}+\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2MR_0^2}\left(L+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}\right)^2,$$
(5)
where $`L=L_e+L_h`$ is the total momentum, $`M`$, $`R_0`$ are as above, and $`E_g^{}`$ is field-independent. The net magnetic flux through the area between the electron and hole trajectories, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }`$, is proportional to the radial dipole moment of the exciton, $`D=e(R_eR_h)`$.

The $`B`$-dependent terms from Eqs. (4) and (5) are shown in the upper panels of Figs. 2 and 3. Since emission spectra of semiconductors at low temperatures are governed by the exciton ground-state, one must pay special attention to the lowest energy states. The figures show that the ground state changes with increasing magnetic field, and may acquire non-zero angular momentum values. For small quantum rings (Fig. 2), the ground state $`(L_e,L_h)=(0,0)`$ changes successively in favor of the states (0,+1), ($`1`$,+1), ($`1`$,+2), etc., as the field increases, producing a sequence of ground state total angular momentum values of 0, 1, 0, 1, etc. On the other hand, for the strongly-correlated exciton in large rings (Fig. 3), the ground-state momentum changes increasingly from $`L=0`$ to $`L=+1`$,+2,+3 …, with magnetic field.

Only the excitons with zero total momentum can emit photons. This condition arises as the photon’s angular momentum is exhausted by the atomic wave functions involved in the optical transition. The optical selection rule $`L=0`$ means that the emission intensity of a QR can be dramatically suppressed in $`B`$-intervals where the exciton ground state acquires a non-zero momentum. This suppression implies that the exciton lifetime becomes significantly longer, as its dipole-allowed decay is forbidden. Such behavior is seen in the lower panels of Figs. 2 and 3. Thus, we predict a striking manifestation of the AB effect in the emission spectra of QR’s at low temperatures. Of course, the emission intensity as a function of the magnetic field strongly depends on Coulomb correlations in the exciton (compare Figs. 2 and 3). However, the appearance of the $`B`$-windows in the emission of QR’s of various sizes has a common origin – the electric dipole moment in the radial direction. The dipole moment is therefore responsible for the magnetic interference effect while the exciton moves along the QR. Previous models of QR’s with $`R_e=R_h`$ could not (and did not) exhibit this important effect 15 .

Our discussion implies the conservation of angular momentum in a QR which can be, in principle, destroyed by defects. However, as mentioned already, recent experiments on optical and electronic properties of QR’s give strong evidence of coherent motion of electrons in these self-assembled nanostructures 13 .

It is important to emphasize that these transitions depend on the net magnetic flux $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }`$ through the area between the electron and hole trajectories (Fig. 1b). Due to the global conservation of angular momentum, the exciton spinning with nonzero momentum cannot emit a photon and becomes dark (very long lifetime) in well-defined intervals of magnetic field, which can be observed as noticeable ‘blinking’ PL response for different fields. This allows tailoring of excitonic transitions by switching the ground state from radiative to non-radiative wave function configurations.

The novel property of the topological Berry phase for a polarized exciton lies in the complex nature of this quasi-particle. For an electron and hole in the exciton, the difference of phases plays an important role rather than simply the phase of the single particle. Since the exciton ‘stores’ a photon, such a phase difference determines whether the QR is bright or dark in optical emission. This offers the unique opportunity to observe microscopic electronic phases in optical emission experiments.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Axel Lorke for providing us with the quantum rings AF micrograph, and P. Petroff, J.P. Kotthaus, A.V. Chaplik, and A.V. Kalameitsev for useful discussions. We acknowledge support of US-DOE grant DE-FG02-91ER45334, and the CMSS Program at OU.


text:
# Self-consistent model of fermions

## 1 Introduction

The Standard Model of particle physics does not explain the hierarchical pattern observed in the masses of quarks and leptons because it uses these masses as its input parameters and it is not aimed at answering the question as to why the masses are distributed in the particular way they are. At a first glance they seem to be random, except for the fact that the masses generally increase with the generation number.

Numerous attempts to solve this puzzle have been made over the last twenty years, but the problem is still there. The observed pattern of the particle masses insistently points to structures beyond the quark scale. A number of models for these hypothetical structures have been proposed, focusing on the ideas of unification , technicolor , supersymmetric unification , strings and branes . The latter approach gives some encouraging results, such as distributions resembling the observed families of particles, but no more.

There exist also models where the fundamental particles are composite entities , but these models are not very popular, being far from reality and facing problems with resolving the mass paradox and meeting the ’t Hooft anomaly matching constraints. Finally, there are models discussing the possibility of randomness of these masses , which could easily be falsified by constructing a counter-example where the fermion masses would be functionally dependent. For example, G.R.Filewood proposed a model , regarding particles as almost crystalline symmetric structures, predicting some fermion masses with based on the geometrical approach to the structures a fairly good accuracy. This shows that at least some of the particle masses have a common origin. Here we shall discuss yet another composite model based on sub-quark primitive particles usually called preons. In author’s view, this model is closer to reality – at least it correctly reproduces the masses of all three generations of the fundamental fermions.

## 2 Simple structures

Let us suppose that the preon $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ (the basic building block of the composite fermions) could be regarded as a source of a spherically-symmetric pairwise field $`F`$ with the colour (tripolar) symmetry, $`\mathrm{\Pi },\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}\mathrm{𝟑}_𝐜`$. Except for its tripolarity, the field $`F`$ is analogous to the Lennard-Jones fields used in molecular physics for modelling long-range attractive ($`\varphi _s`$) and short-range repulsive ($`\varphi _e`$) forces. A trade-off between these forces leads to equilibrium configurations of basic particles. Assuming that infinite energies are not accessible in nature we can hypothesise that the energy of both $`\varphi _s`$ and $`\varphi _e`$, after reaching the maximum, decays to zero at the origin. The simplest form for such a pairwise field would be:

$$\begin{array}{cc}& F=\varphi _s+\varphi _e,\hfill \\ & \varphi _s=s\mathrm{exp}(\rho ^1),\varphi _e=\varphi _s^{}(\rho ),\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
where the signature $`s=\pm 1`$ indicates the sense of the interaction (attraction or repulsion); the derivative of $`\varphi _s`$ is taken with respect to the radial coordinate $`\rho `$. Far from the source, the second component of the field $`F`$ mimics the Coulomb gauge, whereas the first component extends to infinity being almost constant (similarly to the strong field). Let us formally represent the preon by using a set of auxiliary $`3\times 3`$ singular matrices $`\mathrm{\Pi }^i`$ with the following elements:

$${}_{}{}^{\pm }\pi _{jk}^{i}=\pm \delta _j^i(1)^{\delta _j^k},$$
(2)
where $`\delta _j^i`$ is the Kronecker delta-function; the $`\pm `$-signs correspond to the sign of the charge; and the index $`i`$ stands for the colour ($`i=1,2,3`$ or red, green and blue). The diverging components of the field can be represented by reciprocal elements: $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{jk}=\pi _{jk}^1`$. Then, we can define the preon’s (unit) charges and masses by summation of these matrix elements:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill q_\mathrm{\Pi }& =𝐮^{}\mathrm{\Pi }𝐮,\stackrel{~}{q}_\mathrm{\Pi }=𝐮^{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}𝐮\hfill \\ \hfill m_\mathrm{\Pi }& =|𝐮^{}\mathrm{\Pi }𝐮|,\stackrel{~}{m}_\mathrm{\Pi }=|𝐮^{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}𝐮|\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
($`𝐮`$ is the diagonal of a unit matrix; $`\stackrel{~}{q}_\mathrm{\Pi }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}_\mathrm{\Pi }`$ diverge). By assuming that the field $`F(\rho )`$ does not act instantaneously at a distance we can define the mass of a system containing, say, $`N`$ preons, as proportional to the number of these particles, wherever their field flow rates are not cancelled. For this purpose, we shall regard the total field flow rate, $`v_N`$, of such a system as a superposition of the individual volume flow rates of its $`N`$ components. Then, the net mass of the system can be calculated (to a first order of approximation) as the number of particles, $`N`$, times the normalised to unity (Lorentz-additive) field flow rate $`v_N`$:

$$m_N=|Nv_N|.$$
(4)
Here $`v_N`$ is computed recursively from:

$$v_i=\frac{q_i+v_{i1}}{1+|q_iv_{i1}|},$$
(5)
with $`i=2,\mathrm{},N`$ and putting $`v_1=q_1`$. The normalisation condition (5) expresses the common fact that the superposition flow rate of, say, two antiparallel flows ($``$) with equal rate magnitudes $`|𝐯_{}|=|𝐯_{}|=v`$ vanishes ($`v_{}=0`$), whereas, in the case of parallel flows ($``$) it cannot exceed the magnitudes of the individual flow rates ($`v_{}v`$). Then, when two unlike-charged preons combine (say, red and antigreen), the magnitudes of their oppositely directed flow rates cancel each other (resulting in a neutral system). The corresponding acceleration also vanishes, which is implicit in (4). This formula implies the complete cancellation of masses in the system with vanishing electric fields (converted into the binding energy of the system), but this is only an approximation because in our case the preons are separated from each other by distance of equilibrium, whereas the complete cancellation of flows is possible only when the flow source centres coincide. Making use of the known pattern of attraction and repulsion between colour charges (two like-charged but unlike-coloured particles are attracted, otherwise they repel) we can write the signature $`s_{ik}`$ of the chromoelectric interaction between two preons with colours $`i`$ and $`k`$ as

$$s_{ik}=𝐮^{}\mathrm{\Pi }^i\mathrm{\Pi }^k𝐮.$$
(6)
This pattern implies that the preons of different colours and charge polarities will cohere in structures, the simplest of which will be the charged and neutral colour-doublets (dipoles)

$$\varrho _{ik}^\pm =𝚷^i+𝚷^k,$$

$$g_{ik}^0=𝚷^i+\overline{𝚷}^k,i,k=1,2,3.$$

According to (3),

$$q(\varrho _{ik})=\pm 2,m(\varrho _{ik})=2,\stackrel{~}{m}(\varrho _{ik})=\mathrm{},$$

and

$$q(g_{ik})=0,m(g_{ik})=0,\stackrel{~}{m}(g_{ik})=\mathrm{}.$$

If an additional charged preon is added to the neutral doublet, the mass and the charge of the system are restored:

$$q(g_{ik})=\pm 1,m(g_{ik})=1,$$
(7)
but still

$$\stackrel{~}{m}(g_{ik})=\mathrm{}.$$
(8)
The charged dipoles $`\varrho `$ ($`2\mathrm{\Pi }`$ and $`2\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}`$) cannot be free because of their diverging strong fields. Any distant preon of the same charge but with a complementary colour will be attracted to the dipole, thus, forming a (charged) tripole denoted here as $`y`$ (and $`\overline{y}`$ for the opposite polarity):

$$y=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}𝚷^i\mathrm{or}\overline{y}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\overline{𝚷}^i.$$

The tripole ($`y`$-particle) is colourless at infinity but colour-polarised nearby, which means that tripoles can combine strings (pole-to-pole to each other) due to their residual chromaticism. In order to formalise representation of these structures let us introduce the following matrices:

$$\alpha _0=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)\text{}\overline{\alpha }_0=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 1& 1\\ 1& 0& 1\\ 1& 1& 0\end{array}\right),$$

$$\alpha _1=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\\ 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right)\text{}\overline{\alpha }_1=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 1\\ 1& 1& 0\\ 0& 1& 1\end{array}\right),$$

$$\alpha _2=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 1\\ 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right)\text{}\overline{\alpha }_2=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 1& 0\\ 0& 1& 1\\ 1& 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$

Pairs of like-charged tripoles $`y`$ would combine in short strings with their components $`180^{}`$-rotated with respect to each other. The corresponding charged structure $`\delta ^\pm `$ can be written as

$$\delta ^\pm =\alpha _iy+\overline{\alpha }_iy.$$

with $`q_\delta =\pm 6`$, $`m_\delta =\stackrel{~}{m}_\delta =6`$. The states corresponding to different $`i`$ are equivalent. The pairs of unlike-charged $`y`$-particles would also combine (rotated by $`\pm 120^{}`$ with respect to each other):

$$\gamma ^0=\alpha _iy+\alpha _k\overline{y}$$
(9)
with $`q_\gamma =0`$, $`m_\gamma =\stackrel{~}{m}_\gamma =0`$, $`ik`$, $`\gamma ^03(g\overline{g})`$.

The $`Z_3`$-symmetry of the tripole $`y`$ implies that a string of three like-charged tripoles (triplet) would close in a loop $`3y`$ (or $`3\overline{y}`$) denoted here as $`e`$ because, as we shall see, this structure by its properties can be identified with the electron. The triplet $`e`$ is charged, with its charge $`q_e=\pm 9`$ and mass $`m_e=9`$ (expressed in units of preon’s charge and mass). The tripoles in this structure can be directed with their vertices towards or away from the centre of the loop. However, these configurations correspond to two different phases of the same structure, since the tripoles here have a rotational degree of freedom (around their common ring-closed axis). At the same time, the tripoles will orbit the centre of the structure moving along the ring-closed axis. The resulting currents have helical shapes with two possible helicity signs (clockwise or anticlockwise). These different helicities can be identified with two spins of the structure ($`e_{}`$ and $`e_{}`$). The pairs of unlike-charged tripoles can form longer strings:

$$\nu _e=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\alpha _0& \alpha _1& \overline{\alpha }_1& \overline{\alpha }_2\\ \alpha _2& \alpha _0& \overline{\alpha }_0& \overline{\alpha }_1\\ \alpha _1& \alpha _2& \overline{\alpha }_2& \overline{\alpha }_0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}y\\ \overline{y}\\ \overline{y}\\ y\end{array}\right)$$

or

$$\nu _e=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\alpha _0& \alpha _2& \overline{\alpha }_2& \overline{\alpha }_1\\ \alpha _1& \alpha _0& \overline{\alpha }_0& \overline{\alpha }_2\\ \alpha _2& \alpha _1& \overline{\alpha }_1& \overline{\alpha }_0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}y\\ \overline{y}\\ \overline{y}\\ y\end{array}\right).$$

with the pattern of colour charges repeating after each six consecutive $`y\overline{y}`$-pairs, which allows the closure of such a string in a loop (denoted here as $`\nu _e=6y\overline{y}`$). The structure $`\nu _e`$ (formed of 36 preons) is electrically neutral and has a vanishing mass, according to (4), unless combined with a charged particle, say $`y`$ or $`3y`$, which would restore the entire mass of the system.

## 3 Combining $`y`$, $`e`$, and $`\nu _e`$

Since the strong fields of $`3y`$ ($`e`$) and $`6y\overline{y}`$ ($`\nu _e`$) are closed, these particles can be found in free states. The particles $`y`$, $`e`$, and $`\nu _e`$ can combine with each other because of their residual chromaticism. The structure $`y_1=y+\nu _e`$ will have a mass of 39 preon units ($`m_{y_1}=n_\nu +m_y=36+3`$) and be charged, with its charge $`q_{y_1}=\pm 3`$, corresponding to the charge of the $`y`$-particle. The charge of the configuration $`e+\nu _e`$ will correspond to the charge of the triplet $`e`$ ($`q_{\nu _ee}=\pm 9`$). Its mass will be 45 units as expressed in preon’s units of mass ($`n_\nu +m_e=36+9`$).

Like-charged particles $`y_1`$ of the same helicity signs would further combine (through an intermediate $`\nu _e`$-particle with the opposite helicity) forming three-component strings. The string $`y_1e`$ $`y_1`$ can be identified with the u-quark. Its charge will correspond to the charge of two $`y`$-particles ($`q_u=\pm 6`$) and its mass will roughly be the sum of the masses of its two $`y_1`$-components: $`m_u=2\times 39=78`$ (preon mass units). The positively charged $`u`$-quark (78 preon mass units) would be able to combine with the negatively charged particle $`e^{}\nu _e`$ (45 preon mass units) mass, forming the d-quark with a mass of 123 preon mass units, $`m_d=m_u+m_{e\nu _e}=78+45=123`$, and with the charge derived from the charges of its constituents $`q_d=q_u+q_e=+69=3`$ units.

The interactions between the particles $`e`$ and $`\nu _e`$ is be helicity-dependent. The configuration of colour charges of the structure $`\nu _e`$ does not match that of the structure $`e_{}`$, which would lead to the mutual repulsion of these particles. Only the structures $`e_{}`$ \+ $`\nu _e`$ or $`e_{}`$ \+ $`\nu _e`$ can be formed since the combined potential of these structures implies attraction between their components. By contrast, if two structures of the same kind combine (e.g., $`e`$ with $`e`$ or $`\nu _e`$ with $`\nu _e`$), their helicity signs must be opposite in order to create an attractive force between the components of the pair. This coheres with and probably explains the Pauli exclusion principle, which suggests identifying the helicities of the structures in question with their spins.

Normalised to the number of its constituents (divided by nine) the charge of the $`3y`$-particle, gives us the conventional unit charge of the electron. Then, the charges of the $`y`$ and $`\delta `$-particles (fractions of the nine-unit electron charge) would correspond to the quark fractional charges.

It is not unnatural to suppose that the particles of the second and third generations of the fundamental fermions are formed of simpler structures belonging to the first generation. For example, the muon-neutrino can be a bound state of the positively and negatively charged particles $`y_1`$ and $`\overline{y}_1`$:

$$\nu _\mu =y\nu _e\nu _e\nu _e\overline{y}=y_1\nu _e\overline{y}_1,$$
(10)
whereas the muon’s structure can be written as

$$\mu =(\nu _ee_{}^{}\overline{y})(\nu _e\nu _e\nu _ey)=\overline{\nu }_ee^{}\nu _\mu .$$
(11)
Similarly, the structures of the other higher-generation fermions can be found. It is difficult to regard these structures as rigid bodies: they are rather oscillating clusters with multiple resonances, whose oscillatory energies are likely to contribute to the masses of these systems. In (11) we have enclosed the supposedly clustered components in parenthesis. Obtaining the masses of these systems is not a straightforward task, but one can show that, in principle, they are computable by using a simple empirical formula, which relates the oscillatory energies of the components to the sum $`M`$ of their masses $`m_k`$:

$$M=\underset{k}{}m_k,$$
(12)
multiplied by the sum $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ of their reciprocal masses $`1/\stackrel{~}{m}_k`$:

$$\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{M}}=\underset{k}{}\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{m}_k}.$$

Then, by setting for simplicity the unit-conversion coefficient to unity, we can compute the masses of the combined structures as

$$M_{\mathrm{total}}=M\stackrel{~}{M}$$

We shall abbreviate this summation rule by using the overlined notation:

$$M_{\mathrm{total}}=\overline{m_1+m_2+\mathrm{}+m_N}=\frac{m_1+m_2+\mathrm{}+m_N}{\stackrel{~}{m}_1^1+\stackrel{~}{m}_2^1+\mathrm{}+\stackrel{~}{m}_N^1}.$$
(13)
As an example, let us compute the muon’s mass. The masses of its components, according to its structure, are: $`m_1=\stackrel{~}{m}_1=48`$, $`m_2=\stackrel{~}{m}_2=39`$ (in preon mass units). Then, the mass of the muon will be

$$m_\mu =\overline{m_1+m_2}=\frac{m_1+m_2}{\stackrel{~}{m}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}+\stackrel{~}{m}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}}=1872(\mathrm{preon}\mathrm{mass}\mathrm{units}).$$

For the $`\tau `$-lepton, according to its structure, $`m_1=\stackrel{~}{m}_1=156`$, $`m_2=\stackrel{~}{m}_2=201`$, so that

$$m_\tau =\overline{m_1+m_2}=31356(\mathrm{preon}\mathrm{mass}\mathrm{units}).$$

For the proton, positively charged particle consisting of two $`u`$, and one $`d`$ quarks submerged in a cloud of gluons $`g_{ij}`$, the masses of its components are $`m_u=\stackrel{~}{m}_u=78`$, $`m_d=\stackrel{~}{m}_d=123`$, $`m_g=2m_u+m_d=279`$, $`\stackrel{~}{m}_g=\mathrm{}`$. The resulting proton mass is

$$m_p=\overline{m_u+m_u+m_d+m_g}=16523(\mathrm{preon}\mathrm{mass}\mathrm{units}).$$
(14)
We can convert $`m_\mu `$ and other particle masses from preon mass units into proton mass units, $`m_p`$ by dividing these masses by the quantity (14). The computed masses of the composite fermions \[converted into the $`m_p`$-units with the use of (14)\] are presented in Table 1, where the experimental fermion masses  are listed in the last column for comparison (expressed also in units of the proton mass).

This Table illustrates the family-to-family similarities in the particle structures. For instance, in each family, the $`d`$-like quark is a combination of the $`u`$-like quark, with a charged lepton belonging to the lighter family. Charged leptons appear as combinations of the neutrino from the same family with the neutrinos and charged leptons from the lighter family. It is conceivable that ring-closed strings, similar to that of the the electron neutrino, may appear on higher structural levels of the hierarchy, which could be regarded as “heavy neutrinos”, $`\nu _h=6y_1\overline{y}_1`$. They can further form “ultra-heavy” neutrinos $`\nu _{uh}=3(\overline{y}_1\nu _hu)e^{}`$, and so on. With these neutral structures the components $`y_2`$ and $`y_3`$ of the $`c`$\- and $`t`$-quarks can be written as: $`y_2=u\nu _eu\nu _ee^{}`$ and $`y_3=\nu _{uh}y`$.

The experimental masses of the charged leptons are known with high accuracy. They are given in the last column of Table 1 for comparison, so that we can estimate the accuracy of our model to be of about 0.5% (only the experimental masses of the charged leptons are used for the comparison). A higher accuracy could be achieved by taking into account some extra factors contributing to the masses, such as binding energies and/or the (non-vanishing) neutrino masses.

## 4 Conclusions

Our model explains the origin of the observed variety of elementary particles and reproduces the masses of three generations of the fundamental fermions without using input parameters. The accuracy of this model is estimated to be of about 0.5%.