text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In 1980 von Klitzing identified that $`e^2/h`$ can be measured from the plateau in the Hall resistivity. The values measured by this method are found to be correct. Since accurate measurement of the fundamental constants can be of interest, von Klitzing was awarded the Nobel prize by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in 1985. In 1982, Tsui, Stomer and Gossard found that the plateau occurs at $`(1/3)e^2/h`$ in addition to the one at $`e^2/h`$ and the physics of the problem giving rise to fractional effective charge, is different from that of the integer, $`e^2/h`$. Therefore, another Nobel prize was awarded to Tsui and Stormer in 1998. In the first publication, it was thought that the “fine structure” is important and the numerical values of the electron charge, Planck’s constant and that of the velocity of light were correct. However, later on, it was realized that the problem has nothing to do with the atomic fine structure. Then what the value of $`e^2/h`$ is due to? The experiment of Tsui and Stormer showing $`(1/3)e`$ is all the more puzzling but Robort Laughlin wrote down the wave function for a quasiparticle of charge $`(1/3)e`$ so he shared half of the Nobel prize of 1998. No one tried to explain the origin of either $`e^2/h`$ or $`(1/3)e^2/h`$. If we know the wave function of quasiparticles of charge $`(1/3)e`$, does it mean that we can explain the Hall effect? Usually, the Hall effect gives the concentration of carriers but the wave function is not used to find the Hall resistivity. So it does not help to know the wave function and the experiment remains unexplained.

In 1987, a publication appeared by Willett, Eisensein, Stormer, Tsui, Gossard and English . Let us take only the first author of this paper, Willett, but what is more important is that earlier to this paper, the fractions reported were isolated. The authors wanted to report a new fraction every time, a new plateau was found. So there were lots of fractions in the literature. The paper of Willett et al changed the discovery from $`e^2/h`$ to a full series of fractions. Thus the credit of the discovery of the series is assigned to Willett. The experiments are done at the temperature of a few mK so that only a few laboratories in the world can do. Therefore, most likely, the assignment of the discovery of series of fractions to Willett is correct. In 1999, Willett, West and Pfeiffer showed  that the experimental data is symmetric about $`\nu =1/2`$. Again, taking only the first author, we select Willett.

The OEB prize was awarded to B.I. Halperin in 1982 and to P. A. Lee in 1991. Therefore, we can safely ignore Halperin and Lee from the credits to be given to Halperin, Lee and Read. However, Halperin, Lee and Read  is an extension of Jain . Halperin et al used the series $`\nu =p/(2p+1)`$ which is the same as one of Jain’s. Therefore, there is no need to expand on Read any further.

The motion of an electron in a curved path produces a magnetic field normal to the plane of the path. This is, of course, well known principle of making a magnet. What Jain has said is that even number of flux quanta, $`\varphi _o=hc/e`$, are attached to the electron so that the magnetic field produced by electron with flux quanta attached is $`B\pm 2n\varphi _o`$ where $`n`$ is the number of electrons per unit area. The sign depends on the alignment of flux quanta with respect to the external magnetic field. Apparently, this kind of flux attachment gives the correct series of fractions which are the same as those experimentally found by Willett.

Thus we have selected Jain, Read and Willett (in alphabetical order) to receive the prestigious Oliver E. Buckley (OEB) prize of the American Physical Society in March 2002.

## 2 The Discovery.

The value of transverse and longitudinal resistivities, $`\rho _{xx}`$ and $`\rho _{xy}`$ in the Hall effect of a single interface of GaAs/AlGaAs have been measured by Willett et al at a temperature of 150 mK and at high fields at 85 mK. One of the very good measurements is shown in Fig.1. This graph shows the fraction 2/5, 3/7, 5/11 and 6/13 symmetrically located on the right hand side of 1/2. The values on the left hand side are 2/3, 3/5, 4/7, 5/9, 6/11 and 7/13. The resistivity is written as

$$\rho _{xy}=\frac{h}{\nu e^2}$$
(1)
and $`\nu `$ determines the fractions as given above. It can be interpreted as the fractional charge,

$$e_{eff}=\nu e.$$
(2)
The symmetry around $`\nu =1/2`$ has been emphasized again in a later work where it is pointed out that Jain’s formula is correct.

Jain suggested that flux-quanta attached to the electron explains the quantum Hall effect. It produces the series of charges, $`\nu =p/(2p\pm 1)`$ and then the magnetic field becomes $`B^{}=B2n\varphi _o`$. Jain’s series of effective charges is correct and agrees with the experimental data of Willett. The effective magnetic field is a result of having the correct series of charges. The expression for the effective charge is constructed from even number plus or minus one, with a number in the numerator. This construction leads to an effective magnetic field. The charges are, 1,2, or 3 divided by an odd number, and this is what is found in the experimental data. Fixing the charges, fixes the field as $`B2n\varphi _o`$ and hence even number of flux quanta are attached to the electron. If some how, the field expression can be proved to be correct, then the model can be accepted.

Assuming that the field expression can be found to be correct in the future, we can justify the award of OEB to Jain, Read and Willett.

## 3 Is the field correct?

Let us subject the field to a few tests. (a) Flux quantization.

Usually the flux is quantized as,

$$AB=n\varphi _o$$
(3)
with $`n/A=n_o`$, the number per unit area, $`\varphi _o=hc/e`$ and $`B`$ is the field. So, what is the difference between flux quantization above and Jain’s formula,

$$B^{}=B2n\varphi _o\text{(Jain)}$$
(4)
The Jain’s formula for the field is inconsistent with the flux quantization. If, it is a new discovery, then it need be consistent with flux quantization. (b) Even feature.

The field required by the Jain’s formula is $`B^{}=B\pm 2n\varphi _o`$. If even number of flux quanta are attached, there should be features at

$$B2n\varphi _o,B+2n\varphi _o,B4n\varphi _o,B+4n\varphi _o,\text{etc}$$
(5)
when a Hall resistivity is plotted against field, there should occur some feature at the above fields but no such feature is present in the experimental data. (c) Nuclear magnetic resonance.

Let us do the NMR to measure the magnetic field. This is a well known method to measure the magnetic field. We take some odd nuclei such as $`{}_{}{}^{1}H`$ (proton, i.e., hydrogen in water). The resonance occurs when,

$$\omega =\gamma H$$
(6)
where $`\gamma `$ is the nuclear gyromagnetic ratio. We can use the nuclear $`g`$-factor, $`g_N`$ and the nuclear magneton, $`\mu _N`$ to write the above expression as,

$$g_N\mu _NH=\mathrm{}\omega .$$
(7)
We can change $`\omega `$ from a r.f. oscillator to detect the resonance so that if we know $`H`$, we can determine $`g_N`$ and of course, if we know $`g_N`$, we can determine the field. This is usually a continuous field. Now if CF theory is correct the Ga nuclei will not see $`H`$ but they will see $`B2n\varphi _o`$. The NMR experiment near a Hall plateau has actually been performed but such fields with flux attached have not been found. Some of the Ga nuclei may see $`B`$ and some others see $`B^{}`$, then NMR will be split. No such splitting has been seen.

(d) Electron spin resonance. The electron spin resonance occurs at the resonance frequency determined by,

$$g\mu _BH=h\nu .$$
(8)
If such fields as $`B2n\varphi _o`$ are present, the electrons will see them as,

$$g\mu _B(B2n\varphi _o)=h\nu .$$
(9)
Many ESR experiments have been done but such fields with flux attached have never been found.

(e) Biot and Savart’s law. The field is proportional to the current. Therefore, additional flux can not be added to $`B`$. Therefore, the flux attachment violates the elementary electrodynamics.

In view of the above five experimental data, the idea of “flux attached to electrons” should be dropped. Jain back calculated the field from the quantum Hall effect data and such a field is not found. Recent experiments performed by Spielman et al in Caltech require a boson so that the composite fermion (CF) model will not explain the data.

## 4 Statistics.

The consistency demands that Jain’s quasiparticles should be “composite fermions”. There is no way for them to become “bosons” because of the even number of flux quanta attachment. The odd number of flux quanta attached shall be “composite bosons”. However, it has been reported that the composite fermions become mixtures of bosons and fermions. Therefore, model of “composite fermions” is internally inconsistent.

Therefore, CF model is incorrect. It creates a really helpless situation. We are left with no theory at all for the fine experimental work of Bell Laboratories. Let us go back to the wave function of Laughlin. What the wave function does is to create quasiparticles of fractional charge by introducing “incompressibility”. However, if GaAs is compressed, the charge leaks and the fractionally charged particles disappear. Therefore, Laughlin’s theory is not relevant to the experimental data on quantum Hall effect.

## 5 Special handling.

The APS is observing special handling of manuscripts so that only papers arriving from a closed group of authors are published and others are rejected. Therefore, only new type of interpretation is sought for quantum Hall effect and more conventional interpretations are not considered. When it comes to awarding OEB prize, the APS members living outside U.S.A. should also be considered but that means that there are two issues, to publish the papers is one problem and to award prizes is another. If the manuscripts of only a certain group of authors are published, the prize can still go to articles published in non-APS journals. That is very strange, the best articles are published in the APS journals and yet the prize should go to articles published in non-APS journals.

## 6 The correct series.

In the section 2 above, we pointed out that the series which gives the effective fractional charge, i.e. $`\nu =p/2p+1`$ is correct. Indeed, the series $`p/2p+1`$ is correct but it was found by Shrivastava  at least three years before Jain. It is based on $`l`$ and $`s`$ values so that the effective fractional charge comes from the modifications of the Bohr mangeton. The symmetry about $`\nu =1/2`$ found by Willett is also present in Shrivastava’s paper. If that is the case, then why $`g`$-values were not considered by the APS? The APS authors would have liked to discover the correct series from the $`g`$ values but such values were very high and did not agree with the data. Therefore, they were ignored by most of the authors. What is the meaning of $`g`$ values? You can get $`g`$-values by comparing the Zeeman energy, $`g\mu _BH.S`$ with the klystron frequency which can be tuned upto resonance. In semiconductors there is a band gap so that when $`g\mu _BH=gap`$, a different type of $`g`$ value emerges. Actually, Shrivastava considered half the $`g`$ value, many values of $`l`$ and $`s`$, including negative $`s`$. The entire data from PRL and PRB was considered and in all cases Shrivastava’s theory is found to be correct. It is amazing that Shrivastava has a quasiparticle of zero charge and spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$, with a new phenomenon called “superresistivity”. Laughlin has a wave function of charge 1/3. In Shrivastava’s paper 1/3 comes from a certain combination of $`l`$ and $`s`$. Laughlin talks about spinons of spin 1/2 and zero charge. In Shrivastava’s formula zero charge gives infinite resistivity and spin 1/2, which are not due to Laughlin.

It may be added that quantization of resistivity at $`h/e^2`$ is not due to atomic fine structure, it is due to flux quantization, and the quantization at fractional charge is not due to quasiparticles of fractional charge and fluxes are not attached to electrons. The fractional quantization occurs due to combinations of $`l`$ and $`s`$.

The correct theory of the quantum Hall effect which explains the experimental data is given in a recently published book .

## 7 Conclusions.

There is no doubt that the fine experimental work of Willett is different from that of integer quantized Hall effect for which von Klitzing was awarded the Nobel prize in 1985. The experimental identification of series of effective charges is also different from that of fractional plateaus found by Tsui and Stormer which was also awarded the Noble prize of 1998. It is thought that Read’s papers are developments of original work done by others. Jain’s back calculation of fields from the experimental data is surely not correct and the claim made that flux quanta are attached to the electrons is not justified and the award of the OEB prize relies on possible future developments. Shrivastava’s work published several years before Jain, is pointed out as the correct interpretation of the quantum Hall effect.

Keshav Shrivastava obtained his Ph.D. from the Indian Institute of Technology in 1966. He worked in the UC Santa Barbara, Univ. Houston, Univ. Nottingham, the State University, Utrecht, etc. He has published 170 papers in the last 36 years. He is the author of Superconductivity: Elementary Topics, World Scientific, 2000.

References

1. R. Willett, J.P. Eisenstein, H.L. Stormer, D.C. Tsui, A.C. Gossard, and J.H. English, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 1776 (1987).
2. R.L. Willett, K.W. West and L.N. Pfeiffer, Phys. Rev. lett. 83, 2624 (1999).
3. B.I. Halperin, P.A. Lee and N. Read, Phys. Rev. B47, 7312 (1993).
4. J.K. Jain, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 199 (1989).
5. K.N. Shrivastava, Phys. Lett. A113, 435 (1986); A115, 459 (1986)(E).
6. K.N. Shrivastava, Introduction to Quantum Hall Effect, Nova Science Publishers Inc., New York (2002).

* The integer quantized Hall effect and the fractional quantized Hall effect have disappeared and a “series quantized Hall effect has appeared when data is recorded properly. The experimental data of Willett et al is shown. The series on the right hand side of 1/2 as well as that on the left hand side are the same as in ref. 5.


format: text

text:
# Modern Techniques in Galaxy Kinematics: CDI and the Planetary Nebula Spectrograph

## 1. Introduction

Planetary nebulae: to most of the participants at this conference, beautiful
objects displaying a range of structures, spherical, bipolar and rhomboidal,
riotous colours, and the complex spectral signature of ionised gases, shocks, and dust. To others, the extragalactic crowd, they are seen as featureless points of light with the simplest of all possible spectra, a solitary green emission line.

## 2. Observations of PNe in external galaxies

The peculiar obervational properties of PNe at large distance have made them popular probes of galaxy dynamics. A large fraction of the total luminosity of the central star is re-emitted at the 5007Å \[OIII\] wavelength, making PNe easy to detect as individual objects even at the distances required by curent galaxy studies ($`20`$-30 Mpc). Detection is usually limited by the galaxy’s own diffuse light, so PNe are most useful in the fainter, outer parts. Therefore they complement the use of integrated stellar spectroscopy, which is generally limited to the central 1-2 effective radii. Determining the radial velocities of the PNe is in principle straightforward on account of their narrow emission-line spectra.

At IAU Symposium 180 we reported plans for a new instrument, designed to measure the positions and radial velocities of PNe in a single observation. We are pleased to report that this “Planetary Nebula Spectrograph” was commissioned at the William Herschel Telescope (the 4.2m telescope at La Palma Observatory) on July 16 2001, just a few months before the current meeting.

## 3. Why a dedicated instrument?

Detection of PNe in external galaxies is normally done by means of an on-band/off-band survey to detect emission-line objects at the \[OIII\] wavelength, followed by multi-object spectroscopy to measure the radial velocities. These two steps are usually completely disjoint in terms of the instrument and telescope used, leading to significant astrometric errors so that in practice the spectroscopy often returns unsatisfactory results in terms of completeness and accuracy.

The PN.Spectrograph uses slitless spectroscopy both to find the PNe and to measure their radial velocities. By splitting the light from the telescope between two gratings, a pair of images is obtained in which the dispersion directions are opposite: we call this counter-dispersed imaging (CDI). From these two frames, the velocities of the point-like objects can be obtained.

Thus, the entire observation consists of a single deep integration with the PN.Spectrograph. The total time spent is longer than that required by the traditional on-band/off-band survey, but not by much. For one thing, switching between filters is no longer required, since emission-line sources can be distinguished on the basis of their shape (see Fig. 1). Also, the dedicated design has allowed us to optimise all the components at 5007Å and thus reach high optical efficiency (33%). More importantly, the entire multi-object spectroscopy stage is rendered redundant. The fact that (relative) velocities are determined by the displacement of point-like objects on the stable medium of a CCD lends itself to very high accuracy. The absolute velocity scale is fixed by use of a calibration mask which, like the field of interest, is registered simultaneously in both arms of the spectrograph. The PN.Spectrograph is currently returning exciting data and progress may be monitored through our website111PN.S website: http://www.astro.rug.nl/$``$pns.


text:
# Possible Universal Cause of High-Tc Superconductivity in Different Metals

## Abstract

Using the theory of the high temperature superconductivity based on the idea of the fermion condensation quantum phase transition (FCQPT), we show that neither the $`d`$-wave pairing symmetry, nor the pseudogap phenomenon, nor the presence of the Cu-O2 planes are of decisive importance for the existence of the high-$`T_c`$ superconductivity. We analyze recent experimental data on this type of superconductivity in different materials and show that these facts can be understood within the theory of superconductivity based on FCQPT. The latter can be considered as a universal cause of the high-$`T_c`$ superconductivity. The main features of a room-temperature superconductor are discussed.

It has been a long-standing problem to develop a theory describing the high temperature superconductivity (HTS) observed in copper oxide based compounds. These compounds are extremely complex materials having a great number of competing degrees of freedom, which produce a great variety of physical properties. In turn, these properties can compete and coexist with the superconductivity hiding the understanding of the universal cause of the superconductivity. As a result, it was suggested that the unique superconducting properties in these compounds are determined by the presence of the Cu-O2 planes, by the $`d`$-wave pairing symmetry, and by the existence of the pseudogap phenomena in optimal doped and underdoped cuprates (see e.g. ).

However, recent studies of quasiparticle tunneling spectra of cuprates have revealed that the pairing symmetry may change from $`d`$ to $`s`$-wave symmetry, depending on the hole, or electron, doping level . Then the high temperature $`s`$-wave superconductivity has been observed in electron doped infinite layer cuprates with a sharp transition at $`T=43`$ K, without a pseudogap . Therefore, we can conclude that the $`d`$-wave symmetry of pairs and the pseudogap phenomena are not necessary parts of HTS. Recent studies of HTS in chemically doped A3C60  have shown that the presence of the Cu-O2 planes is also not a necessary condition for the existence of HTS. Moreover, it was recently demonstrated that strongly overdoped cuprates Tl-2201 obey the Wiedemann-Franz law perfectly . This fact, manifesting that excitations which carry heat also carry charge $`e`$, shows that these quasiparticles have the same properties as Landau quasiparticles. This imposes serious constrains upon the possible theories of HTS. For instance, this fact demonstrates that there is no spin-charge separation  as was suggested in one group of proposals . On the other hand, it is well known that the superconducting transition temperature $`T_c^{\alpha \gamma }(x)`$ of the oxides appears to pass through a bell-shaped curve as a function of the hole (or electron) mobile charge carrier density $`x`$ (see e.g. ). Here $`\alpha `$ denotes the material, say C60 or Tl-2201, etc., and $`\gamma `$ denotes hole or electron doping. It is essential to note that the shape of the functions $`T_c^{\alpha \gamma }(x)`$ is similar in different samples, so that there exist empirical formulas, which connect the transition temperature $`T_c^{\alpha \gamma }(x)`$ with the carrier concentration $`x`$. For example, in case of Tl-2201, see e.g. , $`T_c(x)=T_c^M(182.6(p0.16)^2)`$. Here $`T_c^M`$ is the maximum value of the transition temperature. Thus, we can use a simple approximation

$$T_c^{\alpha \gamma }(x)=T_1^\alpha T_2^\gamma (x_1x)x,$$
(1)
where the coefficients $`T_1^\alpha `$ and $`T_2^\gamma `$ define the transition temperature $`T_c`$ for a given hole (or electron) metal, with $`x`$ obviously going continuously to zero at the insulator-metal transition. It directly follows from Eq. (1) that the transition temperature reaches its maximum value $`T_c^M`$ at the optimal doping level $`x_{opt}`$

$$T_c^M=T_c^{\alpha \gamma }(x_{opt})=T_1^\alpha T_2^\gamma \left(\frac{x_1}{2}\right)^2.$$
(2)
The general shape of the function $`T_c(x)`$ points to the fact that the generic properties of HTS are defined by the 2D charge (electron or hole) strongly correlated liquid rather then by solids which hold this liquid. As to the solids, they arrange the presence of the pseudogap phenomena, $`s`$ or $`d`$-wave pairing symmetry, the electron-phonon coupling constant defining $`T_c`$, the variation region of $`x`$, and so on.

It is well-known that consideration of strongly correlated liquids is close to the problem of systems with a big coupling constant, which is the most important in many-body physics. One solution of this problem has been offered by Landau theory of normal Fermi liquids, which introduce the notion of quasiparticles and parameters characterizing the effective interaction between them . As a result, the Landau theory has removed high energy degrees of freedom and kept a sufficiently large number of relevant low energy degrees of freedom to treat the liquid’s low energy properties. Usually, it is assumed that the breakdown of the Landau theory is defined by the Pomeranchuk stability conditions and occurs when the Landau amplitudes being negative reach critical value. The new phase, in which the stability conditions are restored can in principle be again described in the framework of the theory. However, it was demonstrated recently  that the Pomeranchuk’s conditions do not cover all possible limitations: the overlooked one is connected to the situation when, at temperature $`T=0`$, the effective mass can become infinitely big. It has been demonstrated that such a situation, leading to profound consequences, can take place when the corresponding amplitude, being positive, reaches a critical value, producing a completely new class of strongly correlated Fermi liquids with the fermion condensate (FC) . This liquid is separated from a normal Fermi liquid by the fermion condensation quantum phase transition (FCQPT) . In such a case we are dealing with the strong coupling limit where an absolutely reliable answer, based on pure theoretical first principle ground, cannot be given. Therefore, the only way to verify whether the FC occurs is to consider experimental facts, which can signal to the existence of such a state. It seems to us that there are strong indications on FC existence in high-$`T_c`$ superconductors.

In this Letter we show that the above mentioned new experimental facts are the desirable evidences and that they can be explained within the theory of HTS based on FCQPT . We also describe the main features of corresponding room-temperature superconductors.

Let us start with a brief consideration of the general properties of a two-dimensional electron liquid in the superconducting state, when the system has undergone FCQPT . At $`T=0`$, the ground state energy $`E_{gs}[\kappa (𝐩),n(𝐩)]`$ is a functional of the order parameter of the superconducting state $`\kappa (𝐩)`$ and of the quasiparticle occupation numbers $`n(𝐩)`$ and is determined by the well-known equation of the weak-coupling theory of superconductivity (see e.g. )

$$E_{gs}=E[n(𝐩)]+\lambda _0V(𝐩_1,𝐩_2)\kappa (𝐩_1)\kappa ^{}(𝐩_2)\frac{d𝐩_1d𝐩_2}{(2\pi )^4}.$$
(3)
Here $`E[n(𝐩)]`$ is the ground-state energy of a normal Fermi liquid, $`n(𝐩)=v^2(𝐩)`$ and $`\kappa (𝐩)=v(𝐩)\sqrt{1v^2(𝐩)}`$. It is assumed that the pairing interaction $`\lambda _0V(𝐩_1,𝐩_2)`$ is weak. By minimizing $`E_{gs}`$ with respect to $`\kappa (𝐩)`$ we obtain the equation connecting the single-particle energy $`\epsilon (𝐩)`$ to $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐩)`$

$$\epsilon (𝐩)\mu =\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐩)\frac{12v^2(𝐩)}{2\kappa (𝐩)}.$$
(4)
The single-particle energy $`\epsilon (𝐩)`$ is determined by the Landau equation, $`\epsilon (𝐩)=\delta E[n(𝐩)]/\delta n(𝐩)`$ , and $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential. The equation for the superconducting gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐩)`$ takes form

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐩)=\lambda _0V(𝐩,𝐩_1)\kappa (𝐩_1)\frac{d𝐩_1}{4\pi ^2}.$$
(5)
If the coupling constant $`\lambda _00`$, the maximum value $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ of the superconducting gap tends to zero, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_10`$, and Eq. (4) reduces to that proposed in

$$\epsilon (𝐩)\mu =0,\mathrm{if}\kappa (𝐩)0,(0<n(𝐩)<1);p_ipp_fL_{FC}.$$
(6)
At $`T=0`$, Eq. (6) defines a new state of a Fermi liquid with FC, for which the modulus of the order parameter $`|\kappa (𝐩)|`$ has finite values in $`L_{FC}`$ range of momenta $`p_ipp_f`$ occupied by FC, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_10`$ in $`L_{FC}`$ . Such a state can be considered as superconducting, with an infinitely small value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ so that the entropy of this state is equal to zero. This state, created by the quantum phase transition, disappears at $`T>0`$ .

It follows from Eq. (6) that the system brakes into two quasiparticle subsystems: the first one in the $`L_{FC}`$ range is occupied by the quasiparticles with the effective mass $`M_{FC}^{}1/\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$, while the second by quasiparticles with finite mass $`M_L^{}`$ and momenta $`p<p_i`$. It is seen from Eq. (6) that at the point of FCQPT $`p_fp_ip_F`$, the effective mass is as large as $`1/\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$. Equation (6) acquires nontrivial solutions at $`r_s=r_{FC}`$ and FCQPT takes place if the Landau amplitudes depending on the density are positive and sufficiently large, so that the potential energy prevails over the kinetic energy and the transformation of the Fermi step function $`n(p)=\theta (p_Fp)`$ into the smooth function defined by Eq. (6) becomes possible .

Looking now for a simple situation where we can solve Eqs. (4) and (5) analytically, we assume that $`\lambda _00`$ and is small, so that we can employ the standard theory of superconductivity. In that case $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ becomes finite, leading to finite value of the effective mass $`M_{FC}^{}`$ in $`L_{FC}`$, which can be obtained from Eq. (4)

$$M_{FC}^{}p_F\frac{p_fp_i}{2\mathrm{\Delta }_1},$$
(7)
while the effective mass $`M_L^{}`$ is disturbed weakly. Here $`p_F`$ is the Fermi momentum. It follows from Eq. (7) that the quasiparticle dispersion can be presented by two straight lines characterized by the effective masses $`M_{FC}^{}`$ and $`M_L^{}`$ respectively. These lines intersect near the binding energy $`E_0`$ of electrons, which defines an intrinsic energy scale of the system:

$$E_0=\epsilon (𝐩_f)\epsilon (𝐩_i)\frac{(p_fp_i)p_F}{M_{FC}^{}}2\mathrm{\Delta }_1.$$
(8)
Equations (7) and (8) lead to the following general result for the maximum value $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ coming from the contribution of FC

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_1\beta \epsilon _F\frac{p_fp_i}{p_F}\mathrm{ln}(1+\sqrt{2}),$$
(9)
where $`\epsilon _F=p_F^2/2M_L^{}`$ is the Fermi energy and $`\beta `$ is the dimensionless coupling constant. If the FC contribution to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ becomes comparatively small then $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ is given by the well known relation, being proportional to the exponent of $`(1/\beta )`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{exp}(1/\beta )`$.

In fact, as it is seen from Eqs. (4) and (5), a Fermi liquid with FC is absorbed by the superconducting phase transition and never exhibits the dispersionless plateau associated with $`M_{FC}^{}\mathrm{}`$. As a result, a Fermi liquid beyond the point of FCQPT can be described by two types of quasiparticles characterized by two finite effective masses $`M_{FC}^{}`$ and $`M_L^{}`$ respectively, and by the intrinsic energy scale $`E_0`$ . It is reasonably reliable to suggest that we have returned to the Landau theory by integrating out high energy degrees of freedom and introducing the quasiparticles. The sole difference between the Landau Fermi liquid and Fermi liquid undergone FCQPT is that we have to increase the number of relevant low energy degrees of freedom by adding both a new type of quasiparticles with the effective mass $`M_{FC}^{}`$, given by Eq. (7), and the energy scale $`E_0`$ given by Eq. (8). We have also to bear in mind that the properties of these new quasiparticles of a Fermi liquid with FC cannot be separated from the properties of the superconducting state, as follows from Eqs. (7), (8) and (9). We may say that the quasiparticle system in the range $`L_{FC}`$ becomes very “soft” and is to be considered as a strongly correlated liquid. On the other hand, the system’s properties and dynamics are dominated by a strong collective effect having its origin in FCQPT and determined by the macroscopic number of quasiparticles in the range $`L_{FC}`$. Such a system cannot be disturbed by the scattering of individual quasiparticles and has the features of a quantum protectorate . On the other hand, as soon as the energy scale $`E_00`$, the system is driven back into the normal Landau Fermi liquid .

Recent studies of photoemission spectra discovered an energy scale in the spectrum of low-energy electrons in cuprates, which manifests itself as a kink in the single-particle spectra . The spectra in the energy range (-200—0) meV can be described by two straight lines intersecting at the binding energy $`E_0(5070)`$ meV . Then, in underdoped copper oxides, there exists the pseudogap phenomenon and the shape of single-particle excitations strongly deviates from that of normal Fermi liquid (see, e.g. ). In the highly overdoped regime slight deviations from the normal Landau Fermi liquid are observed . All these peculiar properties are naturally explained within a model proposed in  and allow one to relate the doping level, or the charge carriers density $`x`$, regarded as the density of holes (or electrons) per unit area, to the density of Fermi liquid with FC. We assume that $`x_{FC}`$ corresponds to the highly overdoped regime at which FCQPT takes place, and introduce the effective coupling constant $`g_{eff}(x_{FC}x)/x_{FC}`$. According to the model, the doping level $`x`$ at $`xx_{FC}`$ in metals is related to $`(p_fp_i)`$ in the following way:

$$g_{eff}\frac{(x_{FC}x)}{x_{FC}}\frac{p_fp_i}{p_F}\frac{p_f^2p_i^2}{p_F^2}.$$
(10)
Consider now two possible types of the superconducting gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐩)`$ given by Eq. (5) and defined by interaction $`\lambda _0V(𝐩,𝐩_1)`$. If this interaction is dominated by a phonon-mediated attraction, the even solution of Eq. (5) with an $`s`$-wave, or an $`s+d`$ mixed waves, will have the lowest energy. If the pairing interaction $`\lambda _0V(𝐩_1,𝐩_2)`$ is a combination of attractive and repulsive interaction, a $`d`$-wave odd superconductivity can take place(see e.g. ). But both an $`s`$-wave even and $`d`$-wave odd symmetries lead to approximately the same values of the gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ in Eq. (9) . Therefore, the non-universal pairing symmetries in HTS are likely the results of the pairing interaction, and the $`d`$-wave pairing symmetry cannot be considered as absolutely necessary for HTS existence, in accord with experimental findings . If only $`d`$-wave pairing would exists, the transition from superconducting gap to pseudogap can take place, so that the superconductivity will be destroyed at the temperature $`T_c`$, with the superconducting gap being smoothly transformed into the pseudogap, which closes at some temperature $`T^{}>T_c`$ . In the case of $`s`$-wave pairing we can expect that the pseudogap phenomena do not exists, in accordance with the experimental observation (see  and references therein).

We turn now to consideration of the maximum value of the superconducting gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ as a function of the mobile charge carriers density $`x`$. Being rewritten in terms of $`x`$ and $`x_{FC}`$ related to the variables $`p_i`$ and $`p_f`$ by Eq. (10), Eq. (9) takes the form

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_1\beta (x_{FC}x)x.$$
(11)
Here we take into account that the Fermi level $`\epsilon _Fp_F^2`$, the density $`xp_F^2`$, and thus, $`\epsilon _Fx`$. We can reliably assume that $`T_c\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ because the empirically obtained simple bell shaped curve $`T_c(x)`$ should reflect only a smooth dependence. Then, instead of Eq. (11) we have

$$T_c^{\alpha \gamma }\beta ^\alpha \beta ^\gamma (x_{FC}x)x.$$
(12)
In Eq. (12), we made the natural change $`\beta =\beta ^\alpha \beta ^\gamma `$ since the coupling constant $`\beta `$ is fixed by the properties of metal in question. Now it is seen that Eq. (12) coincides with Eq. (1) producing the universal optimal doping level $`x_{opt}=x_{FC}/2=x_1/2`$ in line with the experimental facts.

Let us make here few remarks. In Ref., HTS was observed in such fullerides as C60, CHBr3, and CHCl3. In the case of hole metals, the $`T_c^M`$ ratios were measured for C60/CHBr3-C60/CHCl3-C60, and the same ratios were also found for the respective electron metals . It follows from Eq. (12) that among these hole doped fullerides, the $`T_c^M`$ ratios for C60/CHBr3-C60/CHCl3-C60 have to be the same as in the case of the respective electron doped fullerides because the factor $`\beta ^\gamma `$, related to hole or electron doping, drops out of the ratios. We believe that our calculations present evidences to the correctness of these experimental facts. Then, it was also shown that a Fermi liquid with FC, which exhibits strong deviations from the Landau Fermi liquid behavior, is driven into the Landau Fermi liquid by applying a magnetic field $`B`$. This field-induced Landau Fermi liquid behavior provides an $`A+BT^2`$ dependence of the resistivity $`\rho `$. A re-entrance into the strongly correlated regime, when $`\rho `$ is a linear function of the temperature $`T`$, is observed if the magnetic field $`B`$ decreases to some critical value $`B_{cr}`$ . We expect that the similar behavior can be observed in case of strongly overdoped high-temperature compounds at the temperatures $`T0`$. If the superconductivity is depressed by the critical field $`B_c`$, the $`T^2`$ behavior of the resistivity $`\rho `$ can be restored at fields $`B_{cr}>B_c`$. We assume that this behavior was observed in overdoped Tl-2201 compounds at millikelvin temperatures .

As an example of the implementation of the previous analysis let us consider the main features of a room-temperature superconductor. As follows from Eq. (9), $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1\beta \epsilon _F\beta /r_s^2`$. Noting that FCQPT takes place in three-dimensional systems at $`r_s20`$ and in quasi two-dimensional systems at $`r_s8`$ , we can expect that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ of 3D system comprises 10% of the corresponding maximum value of 2D superconducting gap, reaching values as high as 60 meV for underdoped crystals with $`T_c=70`$ . On the other hand, it is seen from Eq. (9) that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ can be even larger, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_175`$ meV, and one can expect $`T_c300`$ K in the case of the $`s`$ wave pairing as it follows from the simple relation $`2T_c\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$. In fact, we can safely take $`\epsilon _F300`$ meV, $`\beta 0.5`$ and $`(p_fp_i)/p_F0.5`$. Thus, we can conclude that a possible room-temperature superconductor has to be a quasi two-dimensional structure and has to be an $`s`$-wave superconductor in order to get rid of the pseudogap phenomena, which tremendously reduces the transition temperature. The density $`x`$ of the mobile charge carriers must satisfy the condition $`xx_{FC}`$ and be flexible to reach the optimal doping level. It is worth noting that the coupling constant $`\beta `$ is to be sufficiently big because FC giving rise to the order parameter $`\kappa (𝐩)`$ does not produce by itself the gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. For instance, the coupling constant can be enhanced by intercalation or by some kind of a disorder. It is pertinent to note, that FCQPT can take place in three-dimensional metals at the usual metallic densities, as in heavy-fermion metals, when the effective mass is sufficiently large . In that case, the potential energy can easily prevail over the kinetic energy leading to FCQPT at sufficiently high densities. Then, we can expect the appearance of HTS if the coupling constant is large to ensure high values of the superconducting gap.

In summary, we have shown by a simple self-consistent analysis that the general features of the shape of the critical temperature $`T_c`$ as a function of the density $`x`$ of the mobile carriers in metals and the value of the optimal doping $`x_{opt}`$ can be understood within the framework of the theory of high-$`T_c`$ superconductivity based on FCQPT. We have demonstrated that neither the $`d`$-wave pairing symmetry, nor the pseudogap phenomenon, nor the presence of the Cu-O2 planes are of importance for the existence of the high-$`T_c`$ superconductivity. Our theory explains the experimental observation that a strongly correlated Fermi liquid in heavily overdoped cuprates transforms into a normal Landau liquid. The main features of a room-temperature superconductor have also been outlined.

This work was supported in part by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, No 01-02-17189.


text:
# Energy fluctuations at the multicritical point in two-dimensional spin glasses

## 1 Introduction

The two-dimensional spins glasses, especially the $`\pm J`$ Ising model and the random $`q`$-state Potts model, have been studied both by theoretical and numerical methods. Some exact results have been derived , the phase diagram has been drawn  and recently the exact location of the multicritical point has been predicted . However the characteristics of the multicritical point are not well understood except that the critical exponents have different values than those along the ferro-para critical curve . The properties of the multicritical point are of great interest because this point represents one of the simplest non-trivial renormalization group fixed points in random spin systems  and also because we may be able to understand the significance of the Nishimori line from the study of the multicritical point.

In the present paper we investigate the sample-to-sample fluctuations of the internal energy near the multicritical point. The thermal average of the Hamiltonian, namely the internal energy, has different values from one bond configuration to another, given a fixed probability parameter ($`p`$ for the ferromagnetic bonds in the $`\pm J`$ model, for example). Although the internal energy is self-averaging, the variance of its distribution is of order $`N`$, the system size. If the variance is anomalously large and singular at some point, it would mean that a non-trivial (and possibly drastic) change happens in the bond configuration at that point because the value of the internal energy fluctuates strongly from sample to sample. This is exactly what we shall show in the present paper to exist at the multicritical point by observing the system along the Nishimori line.

The Nishimori line plays an important role in the determination of the phase diagram. In particular it is believed that the multicritical point lies on the line . We have another advantage to study the sample-to-sample fluctuations along the Nishimori line: These fluctuations are directly related to the average specific heat on the line. This fact reduces numerical efforts considerably because it is not necessary to generate very many samples to calculate the variance. Only the average of the specific heat needs to be computed. We shall make full use of this relation later.

In the next section, we show that the sample-to-sample fluctuations of the internal energy are very simply related to the specific heat on the Nishimori line. This facilitates numerical calculations enormously as mentioned above. In section 3 we investigate numerically the behaviour of these fluctuations near the multicritical point on the Nishimori line for three models: the $`\pm J`$ Ising model, three-state Potts model and four-state Potts model. We will see that these fluctuations show a maximum at the multicritical point. The physical significance of the results is discussed in the final section.

## 2 Average fluctuations of the internal energy

Let us consider the random $`Z_q`$ model with gauge symmetry which includes the $`\pm J`$ Ising model and the random $`q`$-state Potts model. The general Hamiltonian is written as follows:

$$H=\underset{ij}{}V(S_iS_j+J_{ij}),$$
(1)
where $`S_i=0,1,\mathrm{},q1`$ is the $`q`$-state spin variable, $`J_{ij}=0,1,\mathrm{},q1`$ is the quenched random bond variable and $`V`$ is an interaction function of period $`q`$. The summation is taken over the first-neighbouring sites of the square lattice. The $`J_{ij}`$ variable follows the probability distribution

$$P(J_{ij};\beta _p)=\frac{\mathrm{}^{\beta _pV(J_{ij})}}{{\displaystyle \underset{\eta =0}{\overset{q1}{}}}\mathrm{}^{\beta _pV(\eta )}}.$$
(2)
The Hamiltonian (1) is invariant under the gauge transformation $`S_iS_i\sigma _i,J_{ij}J_{ij}+\sigma _i\sigma _j`$, where $`\sigma _i=0,1,\mathrm{},q1`$, but $`P(J_{ij};\beta _p)`$ is not. Using the gauge theory  some exact results can be derived such as the average internal energy on the so-called Nishimori line defined by $`\beta 1/T=\beta _p`$,

$$[E][H]=N_B\frac{_\eta V(\eta )\mathrm{}^{\beta V(\eta )}}{_\eta \mathrm{}^{\beta V(\eta )}}.$$
(3)
Here the square brackets denote the configurational average, the angular brackets are for the thermal average and $`N_B`$ is the number of bonds. If we denote

$$\{V\}=\underset{\eta =0}{\overset{q1}{}}V(\eta )P(\eta ;\beta ),$$

equation (3) is expressed as

$$[E]=N_B\{V\}.$$
(4)
In the case of the $`\pm J`$ Ising model, $`q=2`$, $`V(0)=+J`$ and $`V(1)=J`$, the average internal energy (3) reduces to

$$[E]=N_BJ\mathrm{tanh}(\beta J).$$

In the case of the $`q`$-state Potts model with $`V(0)=+J`$ and $`V(1)=V(2)=\mathrm{}=V(q1)=0`$,

$$[E]=N_BJ\frac{1}{1+(q1)\mathrm{}^{\beta J}}.$$

We also find from the gauge theory that

$$[H^2]=N_B\{V^2\}+N_B(N_B1)\{V\}^2,$$
(5)
when $`\beta =\beta _p`$, thus, with equation (4),

$$N_B(\{V^2\}\{V\}^2)=[H^2][H]^2.$$
(6)
Since the specific heat is defined by

$$T^2[C]=[H^2H^2],$$
(7)
we obtain, combining equations (6) and (7),

$$N_B(\{V^2\}\{V\}^2)T^2[C]=[E^2][E]^2(0).$$
(8)
The right-hand side of equation (8) is the sample-to-sample fluctuations of the internal energy, $`[(\mathrm{\Delta }E)^2]`$. Note that equation (8) holds only on the Nishimori line $`\beta =\beta _p`$. In the case of the $`\pm J`$ Ising model equation (8) reduces to the well-established inequality

$$T^2[C]N_BJ^2\mathrm{sech}^2(\beta J).$$

Equation (8) indicates that the sample-to-sample fluctuations of the internal energy can be evaluated from the average of the specific heat because the quantity $`\{V^2\}\{V\}^2`$ is trivially calculated. This fact is a great advantage since it eliminates the necessity to evaluate the variance directly by using a large number of samples; the specific heat is a self-averaging quantity and therefore can be calculated with high precision from a small number of samples with sufficiently large system size. Away from the Nishimori line, we do not have such a simple relation because equations (4) and (5) do not hold.

Since the actual distribution of bond values (and therefore of frustration) changes from sample to sample in finite-size systems with given $`\beta _p`$, the internal energy takes various values from one set of bonds to another around the average value. The relation (8) helps us to estimate the variance of the internal energy $`[(\mathrm{\Delta }E)^2]`$, and directly depends on the distribution of frustration, which has a geometrical nature: The sample-to-sample fluctuations of the internal energy should reflect the geometrical structure of the distribution of frustration, which is a quantity independent of thermal variables but depends only on the bond configuration. This argument suggests that we may be able to investigate the properties of the distribution of frustration by looking at the sample-to-sample fluctuations of the internal energy, or equivalently, the average specific heat on the Nishimori line. It is believed that the Nishimori line intersects the phase boundary between paramagnetic and ferromagnetic phases  (see figure 1). If the distribution of frustration goes under a sharp change of its behaviour, it would be reflected in anomalously large sample-to-sample fluctuations of physical quantities including the internal energy. Such an anomaly, if it exists on the right-hand side of equation (8), is related to the singularity of the specific heat at the multicritical point on the Nishimori line due to equation (8). Since the specific heat is singular at the multicritical point, we may conclude that the sample-to-sample fluctuations are also singular there. Hence, by calculating the average specific heat near the multicritical point, we are able to investigate the structure of the distribution of frustration, which is of purely geometrical nature. A similar argument has been used to relate the free energy and the entropy of frustration . The next section gives us some numerical supports to confirm this idea.

## 3 Numerical calculations

We have tested the ideas of the previous section by numerically calculating the average specific heat on long strips by transfer matrix method. We have studied three models: the $`\pm J`$ Ising model, three-state Potts model and four-state Potts model. We have used long strips of length 5000 and of various widths with free boundary conditions and without external field. By the transfer matrix method we calculated the free energy along the Nishimori line. The specific heat was obtained from numerical second derivative of the free energy by the inverse of the temperature. We averaged the specific heat over ten samples.

For the $`\pm J`$ Ising model the widths of the lattice are $`3L14`$. The lattice size (up to $`5000\times 14`$) and number of samples (ten) are much smaller than the existing numerical transfer matrix studies . However, since our purpose is much more modest than these investigations (not trying to evaluate the critical exponents, for instance), our system size turns out to be sufficient as we shall show. Another reason for the small scale of our computation is that the use of the formula (8) greatly reduces the necessary number of samples as discussed in the previous section.

We define the parameter $`p`$ for the $`\pm J`$ Ising model by

$$\mathrm{}^{2\beta _pJ}=\frac{p}{1p}.$$

Thus $`p`$ is the probability that $`J_{ij}=0`$ $`i.e.`$ $`V(J_{ij})=+J`$ 111Notice that we use the Hamiltonian (1) where $`J_{ij}`$ takes the values 0 and 1. This notation is completely equivalent to the usual Hamiltonian $`H=J_{ij}S_iS_j`$ where $`S_i`$,$`S_j`$ and $`J_{ij}/J`$ take the values $`\pm 1`$.. Each bond follows the probability distribution

$$P(J_{ij})=p\delta (J_{ij})+(1p)\delta (J_{ij}1),$$

and we restrict our studies to $`0.5<p<1`$. For the three-state Potts model, $`3L9`$ and for the four-state Potts model, $`3L7`$. For the $`q`$-state Potts model, we define

$$\mathrm{}^{\beta _pJ}=\frac{1}{p}(q1),$$

and the probability distribution (2) is then

$$P(J_{ij})=(1(q1)p)\delta (J_{ij})+\underset{l=1}{\overset{q1}{}}p\delta (J_{ij}l),$$

with $`0<p<1/(q1)`$.

For each point on the Nishimori line $`\beta =\beta _p`$ we extrapolate the specific heat to the limit $`L\mathrm{}`$. We have found that the extrapolation by the $`L^1`$-law works quite well in almost all cases (see figures 2, 3 and 4). This is natural because we are mostly treating values of $`p`$ away from the multicritical point. Exactly at the multicritical point, the extrapolation needs some care, in particular if one wishes to estimate the critical exponents . However, for our purpose to confirm the existence of a peak in the sample-to-sample fluctuations of the internal energy at the multicritical point, the method of extrapolation is rather irrelevant, which we confirmed by using other powers such as $`L^{1.5}`$ in some cases. The error bars in the extrapolated values have been estimated by changing the range of extrapolation fitting, for example, from comparison of extrapolation using $`3L14`$ with the one using $`6L14`$.

The resulting values of the energy fluctuations are plotted in figures 5, 6 and 7 for the $`\pm J`$ Ising model, three-state Potts model and four-state Potts model, respectively. The position of the multicritical points are predicted in reference : for the $`\pm J`$ Ising model $`p_c=0.889972`$, for the three-state Potts model $`p_c=0.0797308`$ and for the four-state Potts model $`p_c=0.0630965`$. By comparison of those values with figures 5, 6 and 7 we see clearly that the sample-to-sample fluctuations of the internal energy have a maximum at (or at least very near) the multicritical point for each model. It seems reasonable to expect similar behaviour in other random models with $`Z_q`$ symmetry.

## 4 Conclusion

We have studied the $`\pm J`$ Ising model, three-state Potts model and four-state Potts model by the numerical transfer matrix method. We have first shown that the sample-to-sample fluctuations of the internal energy are, on the Nishimori line, related to the specific heat and are expected to have a peculiar behaviour at the multicritical point. It was found indeed from numerical calculations that the sample-to-sample fluctuations become anomalously large at or very near the multicritical point in all the models we investigated. Since these fluctuations are related to the specific heat by equation (8), they should have a singularity at the multicritical point (as the specific heat is singular there) although it is difficult to see this effect within our numerical precision. The existence of a peak at the multicritical point in conjunction with the existence of a singularity, anyway, suggests that the bond distribution and the distribution of frustration go under an anomalous change of the behaviour at $`p=p_c`$. This point of view is in agreement with the argument in reference  that the phase transition at the multicritical point along the Nishimori line is induced by geometrical anomaly 222This never implies that the critical exponents should coincide with those of the simple conventional percolation transition.. Since the rate of the thermal excitations ($`\mathrm{}^{\beta J}/\mathrm{}^{\beta J}`$) coincides with the ratio of the bond configurations ($`(1p)/p`$) on the Nishimori line, the physical situations are very special there, which may be one of the reasons for the existence of a maximum in the configurational variance of the thermal quantity at the multicritical point along the Nishimori line. It is an interesting future problem to investigate what happens on the sample-to-sample fluctuations of physical quantities away from the Nishimori line.

Note added in proof. We have found after submission of the paper that the sample-to-sample fluctuations of the energy, equation (8), is proportional to the derivative of the energy by $`K_p`$ with $`K`$ fixed. Thus a maximum in these fluctuations means that the energy changes most dramatically at the multicritical point as $`K_p`$ changes. The exact upper bound on the specific heat is the sum of two derivatives by $`K`$ and $`K_p`$ and corresponds to the derivative along the Nishimori line.

## References


text:
# X-ray vs. Optical Variations in the Seyfert 1 Nucleus NGC 3516: A Puzzling Disconnectedness

## 1. Introduction

The paradigm that active galactic nuclei (AGNs) are powered by accretion onto massive black holes (MBHs) has recently gained strong observational support, with the detection, in several AGNs, of X-ray emission lines that are thought to be broadened by relativistic effects near the MBH horizon (Nandra et al. 1997; Sako et al. 2002), the evidence for dormant black holes in many normal nearby galaxies (Gebhardt et al. 2000; Ferrarese & Merritt 2000), and the estimates of MBH masses in several tens of AGNs via reverberation mapping (Kaspi et al. 2000). However, the detailed mechanisms by which accretion produces the observed spectral energy distributions, as well as other properties, of AGNs are unknown, and observations have placed few constraints on the many theoretical scenarios proposed.

It has been hoped that flux variations in different energy bands would provide clues toward understanding the AGN emission processes. In particular, a number of bright Seyfert-1 galaxies have been subject to contemporaneous X-ray and UV/optical monitoring aimed at detecting inter-band lags, which could etablish a relation between emission components, e.g., by identifying the primary and secondary (i.e., reprocessed) emissions (Done et al. 1990; Clavel et al. 1992; Kaspi et al. 1996; Crenshaw et al. 1996; Warwick et al. 1996; Edelson et al. 1996; Nandra et al. 1998; Edelson et al. 2000; Peterson et al. 2000; Pounds et al. 2001; Turner et al. 2001; Collier et al. 2001; Shemmer et al. 2001). However, the results of these programs, which have searched for correlations and lags on timescales of hours to weeks, have not been conclusive. It is generally true that UV/optical variation amplitudes are much smaller than those in the X-rays, which could argue that the X-rays are the primary emission. Clear lags between X-ray and UV/optical variations have not been seen. In those cases where correlation at a lag between different X-ray bands has been detected (sometimes with debatable significance), the lag increased with band energy, indicating the X-rays are secondary (e.g. Chiang et al. 2000). In a variant on the idea of searching for correlations between fluxes at different bands, Nandra et al. (2000) found that the X-ray spectral index in NGC 7469 was correlated with UV flux at zero lag during a month-long campign on this Seyfert 1 galaxy. Papadakis, Nandra, & Kazanas (2001) have analyzed the cross-spectrum of variations in several X-ray bands in this object, and found that harder X-rays are delayed with respect to soft ones, with the delay proportional to the Fourier period probed. Such behavior is common in Galactic black hole binaries, but several competing theoretical explanations exist for it.

The studies mentioned above have tended to be of limited duration - often just a few days (Peterson et al. 2000 being the main exception). A potential pitfall of short duration studies is that they may detect few or no large-amplitude variation events with which to search for inter-band correlations. Furthermore, the results of variability studies may depend on the timescale sampled, and different behavior may pertain to different sources. In 1997 we initiated a long-term X-ray/optical program to monitor continuously several Seyfert 1 galaxies, such that month- and year-long variation timescales can be properly probed, as well as shorter timescales. X-ray observations are obtained with the Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer (RXTE), and optical data are from the Wise Observatory 1m telescope.

In Maoz, Edelson, & Nandra (2000, hereafter Paper I), we presented the first 1.5 year of X-ray and optical data for NGC 3516. Paper I found that the low-frequency component of the X-ray variations appeared to mimic the optical variation during the first year, but with a lag of $`100`$ days. However, this correlation ceased in the last 6 months of the data. Paper I found that the correlation was significant at the $``$99% level, based on Monte Carlo simulations that assumed power-law fluctuation power spectra with slope –1.0 in the X-rays and –1.75 in the optical. This was reasonable based on the best information available at the time (Edelson & Nandra 1999). More recent data suggest a steeper X-ray power spectrum slope, of –1.35 (Markowitz & Edelson 2002). As discussed in Paper I, steeper slopes will yield lower significance levels, and revised simulations will be reported in a future paper (Edelson, Uttley, & Markowitz 2002). Although we proposed some physical explanations for the correlation, we cautioned that it was driven by a single variation “event” and could therefore be a statistical coincidence. Here, we revisit NGC 3516 after having accumulated 5 years of contemporaneous X-ray and optical data.

## 2. Optical and X-ray Light Curves

The optical data presented in this paper span the period from 1997, March 5, to 2002, March 7, and were obtained with the Wise Observatory 1m telescope in Mitzpe Ramon, Israel. On the nights when the galaxy was observed, Johnson-Cousins $`B`$\- and $`R`$-band images were obtained once per night. We used a $`1024\times 1024`$-pixel thinned Tektronix CCD at the Cassegrain focus, with a scale of $`0.7^{\prime \prime }`$ pixel<sup>-1</sup>. Exposure times were 3 min in $`R`$ and 5 min in $`B`$. During this 1828-day period, useful data were obtained for 209 epochs in $`R`$ and for 184 epochs in $`B`$. The reader is referred to Paper I for details of the optical data reduction, aperture photometry, and derivation of light curves relative to comparison stars (up to six) in each frame.

Figure 1 shows the optical light curves we have obtained for NGC 3516. In Figure 2 we plot on the same scale for each optical band the constant, to within errors, light curve of one of the comparison stars, calculated relative to the other five stars. As in Paper I, the $`R`$ and $`B`$ light curves of NGC 3516 in Figure 1 show very similar variability patterns, with peak-to-peak amplitudes of 0.5 mag and 0.9 mag, respectively. The exact amplitude of the variations depends on the choice of photometric extraction aperture, which will include a particular fraction of stellar light from the galaxy. The above numbers are therefore lower limits on the intrinsic variability amplitude of the nucleus in each band, which is difficult to estimate. Galaxy contamination is larger in the $`R`$ band, and at least some of the difference in amplitude between $`B`$ and $`R`$ variations is due to this. In the last epoch presented here, the optical flux was at its lowest in the past 5 years, and falling.

The observations and reduction leading to the new RXTE data we present are as described in Edelson & Nandra (1999), but using the most up to date background and calibration files. The RXTE data span the period from 1997, March 15 to 2002, February 26. Up until 2000, Feb 18, the sampling interval between points was generally about 4.3 days, except for several periods of more intense monitoring. Then, after a 140-day period when RXTE did not observe NGC 3516, the monitoring resumed and continued with a sampling interval of about 17 days, except for a continuous 110 ks scan on 2001 April 10-11.

Since the $`R`$ and $`B`$ light curves are very similar, we will refer to them collectively as “the optical light curve”. We will use mainly the $`R`$ light curve, which is slightly better sampled than $`B`$, in the figures and discussion below. Figure 3 (top panel) shows again the $`R`$ light curve of NGC 3516, but with a relative linear (rather than magnitude) flux scale. The bottom panel shows the RXTE X-ray (2-10 keV) light curve. As found in Paper I, which covered the first one-third of the baseline shown in Fig. 3, the X-ray light curve has much larger variation amplitude than the the optical, particularly at short timescales. In the last 3 years, or so, the nucleus is faint relative to the first year, in the X-rays as well as in the optical, if one ignores the occasional large X-ray flicker on small timescales.

As mentioned in §1, a central and surprising result in Paper I was an apparent optical-to-X-ray cross-correlation signal at $`100`$ day lag, driven by the slow component of an outburst that appears in Figure 3 between days 600 and 900 in the optical, and between days 700 and 1000 in X-rays. We revisit this issue now with our much-expanded dataset. To isolate the relative contributions to the light curves and the correlations made by fast and slow variations, we have smoothed the light curves with a 30-day boxcar running mean. The smoothing was done by replacing each observed flux with the mean of all fluxes that are within $`\pm 30`$ days of it. In addition to the unaltered light curves, we examine these smoothed versions and the residual light curves (i.e., the original light curves minus their respective smoothed versions).

Figure 4 shows the smoothed X-ray and optical light curves superimposed. To facilitate comparison of the two, all fluxes are plotted on a relative linear scale, but the amplitude of the smoothed X-ray variations have been scaled down by a factor of 4. The top panel shows the two light curves with no lag, and the bottom panel shows them with the X-rays advanced by 100 days. Clearly, the match of the first year at 100-day lag does not persist or repeat in the new data. Furthermore, a correlation at zero lag, noted in Paper I, and driven by the simultaneous dip in the light curves around day 1000, does not hold up. To study this question more quantitatively, and see if there are some other lags at which any of the light curves are correlated, we have calculated the cross-correlation functions among the various light curves. The z-transformed discrete correlation function (ZDCF; Alexander 1997), a modification of the discrete correlation function (Edelson & Krolik 1988) was used.

Figure 5, top left panel, shows the cross-correlation between $`B`$ and $`R`$. The high peak is at zero lag, confirming a result from Paper I. The top right panel shows the ZDCF between the residual (i.e., after subtraction of a smoothed version) $`B`$ and $`R`$ light curves. The null correlation between these close bands, expecially around zero lag, suggests that the short-timescale variations in the optical light curves (or at least in one of them) are dominated by measurement error. This is not surprising, given the estimated errors, and the small amplitude of the actual fast optical variations, as previously quantified in this object in more sensitive and densely sampled HST data (Edelson et al. 2000).

The bottom left panel of Fig. 5 cross correlates the $`R`$-band and 2-10 keV light curves. A peak is seen at a lag of about 100 days, in the sense that X-rays lag the optical. The bottom-right panel shows the ZDCF for the smoothed optical and X-ray light curves. The peak correlation at 100-day lag is strengthened, indicating it is driven by the slow components of the light curves. The position and height of the ZDCF peaks in the latter two plots are very similar to those found in Paper I, based on the first one-third of the data. Moreover, various other large maxima and minima that appeared in these cross-correlations in Paper I do not appear in the present, expanded, dataset, arguing that those peaks, at least, were artifacts of the sampling.

However, it is easy to confirm formally the visual impression from Fig. 4, that the correlation at 100 days is still driven only by the first year’s outburst. Figure 6, top-left panel, correlates the smoothed X-ray and optical light curves, but excluding the first year’s data. The peak at 100 days is gone, and there is no clear and significant signal at any lag. The top right panel of Fig. 6 shows that there is also no clear correlation between the fast components of the $`B`$ and X-ray light curves, as represented by the residual light curves. Note, however, that the point at zero lag is the highest. Possibly there is, buried inside the optical light curves, a positive correlation with the X-rays, which could be recovered if the optical measurements had milli-magnitude accuracies, rather than a few percent. Reaching such accuracies is probably unrealistic in ground-based observations of a point source (the AGN) on a bright galaxy background, but could be achieved with a photometrically stable space telescope. On the other hand, Edelson et al. (2000) carried out such an experiment (albeit limited to 3 days duration) and did not find such a correlation.

Finally, we investigate whether the optical and X-ray variations can be related via some observable other than the total flux. Following the lead of Nandra et al. (2000, see §1), we have calculated the ZDCFs of the optical light curve vs the “softness” ratio of counts in different X-ray bands. Testing among the various X-ray count ratios that can be formed from the 2-4 keV, 4-7 keV, and 7-10 keV bands, their smoothed versions, and the various optical light curves, we find no case of a clear correlation. For example, the bottom panels of Fig. 6 show the ZDCFs of $`R`$ vs the 4-7 keV/ 7-10 keV count ratio, for both smoothed and unsmoothed light curves. Interestingly, although there is no single clear peak, there is a fairly high correlation plateau between about zero and 400 days lag. The source of this can be seen in Fig. 7, which compares the optical light curve to the smoothed 4-7 keV/ 7-10 keV ratio curve. Both time series are plotted on a relative scale. One sees that, although there is no one-to-one correspondence among the light curves, the X-ray spectrum was softer until March 1999, when the optical flux was generally high, than after May 1999, when the optical flux was generally low. It is the lack of detailed correspondence in this trend that washes out the correlation to a broad plateau in the ZDCF. Naturally, we cannot say whether this trend is real, as it is based not even on a full “event” (e.g. a rise and fall) in the light curves. We also note that there is no analogous effect at lower X-ray energies, as seen in the relative 2-4 keV/4-7 keV ratio plotted in the bottom panel of in Fig. 7. In both of these softness ratio plots, the typical errors on the ratios are 5-10%. The large fluctuations in the ratios are therefore significant, but some of the “spikiness” in the latter parts of these curves results from the 17-day sampling intervals during the last 600 days, and hence the modest effect of the 30-day smoothing.

## 3. Discussion

Much current thinking about the emission processes in AGNs centers around the notion that the X-rays arise from very close (within a few Schwarzschild radii) of a massive black hole. Support for this idea has come from the rapid variability that is observed in X-rays (implying small physical scales), as well as the detection in X-rays of a broad Fe K-shell emission line in many Seyfert 1s (e.g., Nandra et al. 1997). The emission line is thought to be gravitationally and Doppler broadened fluorescence of the inner parts of an accretion disk, after the disk is illuminated by the X-rays. More recently, such relativistic emission lines from the Ly$`\alpha `$ transitions of several hydrogen-like ions may have been detected in XMM-Newton data for two Seyfert galaxies (Branduardi-Raymont et al. 2001; Sako et al. 2002), though this claim has been contested using Chandra data (Lee et al. 2001). The continuum-emission mechanism is not known, but most commonly it is assumed that the X-rays are optical/UV photons which have been upscattered by a population of hot electrons (e.g., Sunyaev & Truemper 1979). The acceleration mechanism and geometry of the X-ray source is not known. Neither is the source of seed photons, and despite some substantial problems it is still usually assumed that the optical/UV arises directly from an accretion disk (Shields 1978; Malkan 1983). It has also been hypothesized that X–rays illuminating the disk, or other optically thick gas, might be responsible for some or all of the optical/UV radiation, via reprocessing (Guilbert & Rees 1988; Clavel et al. 1992).

Variability data such as those we have presented above can provide constraints on possible models. In summary of the observational results, we have found a similarity between the optical and X-ray light curves during the first year of our program, when optically the source was particularly bright, and with the X-rays lagging the optical variations by about 100 days. This correlation disappeared in the last 4 years of the data, during which we see no clear correspondence at any lag between the optical and the X-rays. Furthermore we do not find any clear trends when we examine X-ray softness ratios, rather than fluxes. The only positive signal we find are a rough trend for a softer spectrum in the 4-10 keV range when the source is optically brighter. (The relation between X-ray spectral slope and brightness in X-rays will be examined in a separate paper on the X-ray properties of this object.)

Phenomenologically, the reality of any of these trends is debatable, and all of them may be chance coincidences. A more stringent test must await the results of continued monitoring, during which NGC 3516 may perhaps recover to the high optical brightness it attained between mid-1997 and mid-1998. The lack of any straightforward correlation between X-ray and optical fluxes, in its simplest interpretation, argues that there is no physical relation between the emission in the two bands, except perhaps that both ultimately derive their energy from the central black hole. If there is a connection between the emission mechanisms in these two wavelength regimes, at the very least it must be complex enough to wash out any evidence for it in the variability data.

Is NGC 3516 peculiar among AGNs in its lack of a clear correlation between X-ray and optical/UV fluxes? To address this, we critically review the results of previous campaigns on this and other Seyfert galaxies.
NGC 4051 Done et al. (1990) monitored NGC 4051 for 2 days, and found no correspondence between the large-alplitude 2-10 keV variations seen with Ginga and the constant (to $`<1\%`$) optical flux. Peterson et al. (2000) monitored this galaxy for 3 years with RXTE at 2-10 keV and with ground-based optical spectroscopy. Typical sampling intervals were 1-2 weeks in both wavelength regimes. In the third year, the source went into an extremely low X-ray state. While confirming the lack of correlation found by Done et al. (1990) on short timescales, Peterson et al. (2000) found that the light curves are correlated at near-zero lag after smoothing on 30-day timescales.
NGC 5548 Clavel et al. (1992) observed NGC 5548 simultaneously with Ginga at 2-10 keV and with IUE at 1350 Å over a period spanning 51 days. The source brightness was lower than average both in UV and in X-rays. The authors claimed a significant zero-lag correlation, yet this was based on nine epochs, and basically one-half of an “event” in the light curves. Chiang et al. (2000) observed NGC 5548 for 2.8 days simultaneously with EUVE (0.14-0.18 keV), ASCA (0.5-1 keV), and RXTE (2-20 keV), with 44 EUVE epochs. They found a good correlation between the three bands, but as in the previous experiment on this object by Clavel et al. (1992), the correlation is dominated by a single “step” in the light curves. The connection of the extreme-UV with the UV range was previously given by Marshall et al. (1997) who compared EUVE measurements to IUE and HST UV observations, but the correlation they claimed was based on 10 data points spaced over 10 days, and a low correlation coefficient.
NGC 4151 Edelson et al. (1996) combined 14 epochs of Rosat 1-2 keV data and four epochs of ASCA (0.5-1 keV) data (Warwick et al. 1996), and compared them to IUE ultraviolet (Crenshaw et al. 1996), and Wise Observatory optical (Kaspi et al. 1996) measurements of NGC 4151 which were comtemporaneous over 10 days. The source was near its peak historical brightness. In this case, the light curves at all bands showed zero-lag similarities on $`1`$-day timescales. However, the X-ray light curves had an overall rising trend during the 10-day period, whereas a constant or falling trend was seen in the UV and optical light curves. Thus, the X-ray to UV/optical correspondence was far from perfect, and in some sense opposed.
NGC 7469 Nandra et al. (1998) observed NGC 7469 for over a period of 30 days with 30 epochs (after averaging) and found that the RXTE 2-10 keV and IUE UV fluxes were poorly correlated. Nandra et al. (2000) then found in these data a better correlation of the UV flux with the X-ray slope, rather than X-ray flux. The object was close to its average brightness in X-rays and in UV.
Akn 564 This narrow-line Seyfert 1 was monitored approximately daily for 50 days in the optical (Shemmer et al. 2001), in the UV with HST (Collier et al. 2001), and in the X-rays with ASCA at 0.7-1.3 keV (Turner et al. 2001) and with RXTE at 2-10 keV (Pounds et al. 2001). Although variation amplitudes in the UV and optical were only of order a few percent, a correlation at $`<1`$ day lag between UV and X-raya was reported by Shemmer et al. (2001), as well as a possible correlation between X-ray and optical, if only a particular segment of the optical light curve, surrounding a relatively large event, is used in the analysis.
NGC 3516 Edelson et al. (2000) monitored NGC 3516 continuously for 3 days with RXTE and ASCA at 2-10 keV, and with HST in the optical. They found no significant correlation between X-ray and optical variations. Those observations took place on days 917-920 (see Fig. 4) when the source optical brightness was average but the X-ray flux was relatively high. In the present work on this AGN, we find no correlation between optical and 2-10 keV variations on timescales of days to 5 years, except possibly a 100-day delayed correlation during 1997-1998, when the source was extremely bright. We do not see a correlation with X-ray slope analogous to that found in NGC 7469 by Nandra et al. (2000).

If we now attempt to synthesize the above results, the following picture emerges. There have been several cases of little or no correspondence between X-ray and UV/optical variability. There have also been several cases where a correlation has been claimed, but the result is not conclusive due to poor sampling, insufficient variability, or low significance. Perhaps the most convincing flux correlation has been seen by Edelson et al. (1996) between soft (1-2 keV) X-rays and UV/optical flux in NGC 4151, yet, as mentioned above, the longterm trends in the two bands were opposed, and no rigorous simulations have been done to quantify the significance of the correlation. The correlation between UV flux and X-ray slope found in NGC 7469 by Nandra et al. (2000) also seems secure. These latter two results could arise if (but do not necessarily imply that) the UV/optical is better correlated with soft ($`<2`$ keV) X-ray variations than with the hard X-rays. It is also important to note that, in terms of timescales, there has been no evidence in any Seyfert 1 of a relation between X-ray and UV/optical variations at short ($`<1`$ day) timescales, and all claimed correlations have been on $`1`$ day timescales. The fast variations therefore appear be associated mainly with the harder X-rays. This is supported by the finding by that the X-ray variation power density spectrum flattens with increasing energy in NGC 7469 (Nandra & Papadakis 2001), Akn 564, and Ton S180 (Edelson et al. 2001).

Why, then, is a relation between optical flux and X-ray slope, such as seen in NGC 7469, not seen in NGC 3516 in the present work? It can be argued that, contrary to NGC 7469, NGC 3516 has strong and variable absorption in X-rays, and that this variable absorption decorrelates an intrinsic relation in NGC 3516 that is similar to the one in NGC 7469. Evidence for this can be seen in the fact that, in the present data for NGC 3516, the 4-7 keV and 7-10 keV light curves, as well as the full 2-10 keV light curve are more similar to each other than to the 2-4 keV light curve, where absorption will be strongest.

On the other hand, the X-ray absorption in NGC 3516 is comparable to that in NGC 4151, where a UV-X-ray flux correlation is seen in a band that is only slightly softer than the RXTE band. Perhaps this objection can be overcome by noting that the NGC 4151 correlation was seen when this source was exceptionally bright. If the source brightness is a factor, it can further be argued that a flux correlation was indeed seen in NGC 3516, but only during the first year of our program, when the source was exceptionally bright, as was the case in NGC 4151. Indeed, we note in NGC 3516 that the 2-4/4-7 keV and 4-7/7-10 keV ratios and the total X-ray counts all seem to track each other better during the first 700 days, when the source was brighter. Source brightness could conceivably affect the correlations by making visible the high-energy tail of the actually correlated emission at low energies, or by ionizing the absorbing gas, and thus reducing the decorrelating effect of the variable absorption. The clear change in X-ray spectral softness around day 1300 and the accompanying optical dimming, while not necessarily connected, are at least consistent with the expectation that a more photon-starved corona will produce a harder spectrum. Alternatively, rather than source brightness playing a role, it may be intrinsic differences between objects. For example, the fast, uncorrelated X-ray emission may be always dominant in NGC 3516, and hence swamp out the soft correlated emission in the light curves.

According to this picture, then, at least two components contribute to the X-ray continuum emission of Seyfert nuclei: a soft component which is temporally related to the UV/optical continuum, and which can be discerned in $`>1`$ keV variability data only when the source is bright enough or relatively unabsorbed; and a fast/hard component that varies independently. We note that by “components” we do not necessarily mean emission from physically distinct regions (e.g., Shih, Iwasawa, & Fabian 2002). Instead, the two components that contribute to the X-rays could arise from the same region via different mechanisms. For example, the physical conditions in the coronal regions could be affected autonomously by two processes, such as by time evolution (e.g. Poutanen and Fabian 1999) and by changes in seed photon input which cause an overall temperature change in all the coronal regions. One or the other of these mechanisms could dominate in a particular source at a particular time and on a particular timescale.

This empirical two-component picture and its underlying drivers could be tested via a monitoring program using X-ray observations with sufficient spectral resolution and signal-to-noise ratio to disentangle the continuum from the absorption, and measure the variability of the intrinsic flux and spectrum. Another path is to search for the the spectral-slope/optical-flux correlation in other objects, having either strong or weak X-ray absorption. We intend to do this in future papers for NGC 4151, NGC 5548, and PG0804+762.

Future programs can also test an alternative interpretation of all previous results, namely, that there is no real correlation of any sort between variations in optical/UV and X-ray bands. In that case, even the more convincing correlations seen, such as Edelson et al. (1996) and Nandra et al. (2000) are chance coincidences arising in the comparison of unrelated red-noise light curves. The simulations testing for this possibility can also be refined. For example, the simulations in Paper I assumed an X-ray power spectrum slope of $`1`$, but recent work indicates a slope of $`1.35`$ or steeper over the time scales of interest (Markowitz & Edelson 2002), which would lead to a lowered significance level. The simulated light curves can include amplitude randomization (Timmer & Koenig 1995) as well as phase randomization. We do emphasize that all future claims of inter-band correlations would benefit by simulations demonstrating their significance.

We would like the thank the following observers at Wise, who contributed their efforts and observing time to obtain the data presented here: R. Be’eri, T. Contini, J. Dann, A. Gal-Yam, U. Giveon, A. Heller, S. Kaspi, Y. Lipkin, I. Maor, H. Mendelson, E. Ofek, A. Retter, O. Shemmer, G. Raviv, and S. Steindling. We are also grateful for the assistance of the Wise Observatory staff: S. Ben-Guigui, P. Ibbetson, and E. Mashal. T. Alexander is thanked for providing his ZDCF code, and the anonymous referee for useful comments.