text:
# Dynamic transitions between metastable states in a superconducting ring

## I Introduction

The fast development of experimental techniques makes possible the study of physical properties of samples with sizes of about several nanometers. The interest in such small objects is due to the appearance of new effects if the size of the system is comparable to some characteristic length. In case of superconductors it means that the sample should have one size at least of order the coherence length $`\xi `$ (such superconductors are called ’mesoscopic’ superconductors). For example, only for hollow cylinders or rings of radius $`\xi `$ it is possible to observe the famous Little-Parks oscillations Little .

The majority of the research in this area has been limited to the study of static or quasi-static properties of mesoscopic superconducting rings, disks and other geometries Peeters . It is surprising that the dynamics in such systems was practically not studied. However, it knows out that the dynamics is very important for systems which exhibit a series of metastable states and which may be brought far from thermal equilibrium. For such systems the fundamental problem is to determine the final state to which the system will transit too (see for example Ref. Cross ).

In the present work, we present for the first time a detailed study of the dynamic transitions between different states in a mesoscopic superconducting ring. This system is a typical example of the above mentioned systems where a set of metastable states exist. We will show that the final state depends crucially on the ratio between the relaxation time of the absolute value of the order parameter and the time of change of the phase of the order parameter. Our theoretical results explain the recent magnetization results of Pedersen et al. Pedersen  in thin and narrow superconducting $`Al`$ rings.

To solve this problem we present a numerical study of the time-dependent Ginzburg-Landau (TDGL) equations. Therefore, our results will also be applicable to other systems (for example, liquid helium) where the dynamics are described by these or similar equations. In our approach we neglect the self-field of the ring (which is valid if the width and thickness of the ring are less than $`\lambda `$ \- the London penetration length) and hence the distribution of the magnetic field and the vector potential are known functions. The time-dependent GL equations in this case are

$`u\left({\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{t}}+i\phi \psi \right)`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{i}𝐀)^2\psi +\psi (1|\psi |^2)+\chi ,`$ (1a)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\phi `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{div}\left(\mathrm{Im}(\psi ^{}(\mathrm{i}𝐀)\psi )\right),`$ (1b)
where $`\psi =|\psi |e^{i\varphi }`$ is the order parameter, the vector potential $`A`$ is scaled in units $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0/(2\pi \xi )`$ (where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ is the quantum of magnetic flux), and the coordinates are in units of the coherence length $`\xi (T)`$. In these units the magnetic field is scaled by $`H_{c2}`$ and the current density, $`j`$, by $`j_0=c\mathrm{\Phi }_0/8\pi ^2\lambda ^2\xi `$. Time is scaled in units of the Ginzburg-Landau relaxation time $`\tau _{GL}=4\pi \sigma _n\lambda ^2/c^2`$, the electrostatic potential, $`\phi `$, is in units of $`c\mathrm{\Phi }_0/8\pi ^2\xi \lambda \sigma _n`$ ($`\sigma _n`$ is the normal-state conductivity), and $`u`$ is a relaxation constant. In our numerical calculations we used the new variable $`U=exp(i𝐀𝑑𝐫)`$ which guarantees gauge-invariance of the vector potential on the grid. We also introduced small white noise $`\chi `$ in our system, the size of which is much smaller than the barrier height between the metastable states.

We consider $`u`$ as an adjustable parameter which is a measure of the different relaxation times (for example, the relaxation time of the absolute value of the order parameter) in the superconductor. This approach is motivated by the following observations. From an analysis of the general microscopic equations, which are based on the BCS model, the relaxation constant $`u`$ was determined in two limiting cases: $`u=12`$ for dirty gapless superconductors Gor'kov  and $`u=5.79`$ for superconductors with weak depairing Schmid ; Kramer . However, this microscopic theory is built on several assumptions - for example that the electron-electron interaction is of the BCS form, which influences the exact value of $`u`$. On the other hand, the stationary and time-dependent Ginzburg-Landau equations, Eqs. (1a,b), are in some sense more general and their general form does not depend on the specific microscopic model (but the value of the parameters, of course, are determined by the microscopic theories) self1 .

The paper is organized as follows. In Sect. II we present our numerical results for the solution of Eqs. (1a,b) for strictly one-dimensional ring. In Sect. III we explain the obtained results in terms of different time scales of the mesoscopic superconductor. The effect of the finite width of the ring is studied in Sect. IV where we also discuss the influence of non-zero temperature and finite $`\lambda `$.

## II Superconducting ring out of equilibrium

If the width of the ring is much smaller than $`\xi `$ and $`\lambda _{}=\lambda ^2/d`$ ($`d`$ is the film thickness) it is possible to consider the ring, of radius $`R`$, as a one-dimensional object. At first we limit ourselves to the solution of the strictly one-dimensional Eqs. (1a,b) which model the dynamics of a ring with small width. In our approach the vector potential is equal to $`A=HR/2`$, where $`H`$ is the applied magnetic field.

As shown in Refs. Tarlie ; Vodol1  the transition of the superconducting ring from a state with vorticity $`L=\varphi ds/2\pi `$ (which in general can be a metastable state) to a state with a different vorticity occurs when the absolute value of the gauge-invariant momentum $`𝐩=\varphi 𝐀`$ reaches the critical value

$$p_c=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\sqrt{1+\frac{1}{2R^2}}.$$
(2)
Let us, for simplicity, consider that the magnetic field is increased from zero (with initial vorticity of the ring $`L=0`$) to the critical $`H_c`$ where $`p`$ becomes equal to $`p_c`$ (for $`L=0`$ we have $`H_c=2p_c/R`$). In this case $`𝐩=𝐀`$ and we can write Eq. (2) as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_c/\mathrm{\Phi }_0=\frac{R}{\sqrt{3}}\sqrt{1+\frac{1}{2R^2}}.$$
(3)
For this value of the flux the thermodynamical equilibrium state becomes $`L_{eq}=\mathrm{Int}(\mathrm{\Phi }_c/\mathrm{\Phi }_0)`$. For example, if $`R=10`$ we find $`L_{eq}=6`$ (see Fig. 1). The fundamental question we want to answer is: what will be the actual value of the vorticity of the final state? Will it be the thermodynamic equilibrium state or a metastable one? This answer will be obtained from a numerical solution of the time-dependent Ginzburg-Landau equations.

For our numerical calculations we considered two different rings with radius $`R=10`$ and $`R=15`$. These values were chosen such that the final state exhibits several metastable states and, in principle, transitions can occur with jumps in $`L`$ which are larger than unity. For $`R=10`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }L`$ may attain values between 1 and 6 and for $`R=15`$ it may range from 1 to 9. Smaller rings have a smaller range of possible $`\mathrm{\Delta }L`$ values. We found that larger rings than $`R=15`$ did not lead to new effects and are therefore not considered here. In our numerical simulations we increased $`H`$ gradually from zero to a value $`H_c+\mathrm{\Delta }H`$ (we took $`\mathrm{\Delta }H=0.036H_c`$ for $`R=10`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }H=0.012H_c`$ for $`R=15`$) during a time interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, after which the magnetic field was kept constant. The magnetic field $`\mathrm{\Delta }H`$ and time $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ range was chosen sufficiently large in order to speed up the initial time for the nucleation of the phase slip process, but still sufficiently small in order to model real experimental situations in which $`H`$ is increased during a time much larger than $`u\tau _{GL}`$ (for example for $`Al`$ $`\tau _{GL}(T=0)10^{11}s`$). A change of $`\mathrm{\Delta }H`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, within realistic boundaries, did not have an influence on our final results.

From our detailed numerical analysis, we found that the vorticity $`L`$ of the final state of the ring depends on the value of $`u`$ and is not necessary equal to $`L_{eq}`$. The larger $`u`$ the larger the vorticity after the transition. The final state is reached in the following manner. When the magnetic field increases the order parameter decreases (see inset of Fig. 2(a)). First, in a single point of the ring a local suppression, in comparison with other points, of the order parameter occurs which deepens gradually with time during the initial part of the development of the instability. This time scale is taken as the time in which the value of the order parameter decreases from 1 to 0.4 in its minimal point. When the order parameter reaches the value $`0.4`$ in its minimal point the process speeds up considerably and the order parameter starts to oscillate in time at this point along the ring (see Fig. 2(a)). At the same time also oscillatory behavior of the superconducting $`j_s=\mathrm{Re}(\psi ^{}(\mathrm{i}𝐀)\psi )`$ (Fig. 2(b)) and the normal $`j_n=\phi `$ (Fig. 2(c)) current density is found at the point where the minimal value of the order parameter is found. At other places in the ring such oscillatory behavior is strongly damped (see e.g. the thin curves in Fig. 2). After some time the system evolves to a new stable state, which in the situation of Fig. 2 is $`L=3`$ for $`R=10`$ and $`L=5`$ for $`R=15`$.

In Fig. 3 the dependence on $`u`$ of the dynamics of $`|\psi |`$ in the minimal point is illustrated. Note that with increasing value of $`u`$ the number of phase slips (or equivalently the number of oscillations of the order parameter at its minimal point) increases and hence $`\mathrm{\Delta }L`$ also increases. Another important property is that the amplitude of those oscillations decreases with increasing $`u`$.

## III Time scales

The above results lead us to conclude that in a supeconducting ring there are two characteristics time scales. First, there is the relaxation time of the absolute value of the order parameter $`\tau _{|\psi |}`$. The second time scale is determined by the time between the phase slips (PS), i.e. the period of oscillation of the value of the order parameter in its minimal point (see Fig. 3). Below we show that the latter time is directly proportional to the time of change of the phase of the order parameter $`\tau _\varphi `$ and is connected to the relaxation time of the charge imbalance in the system.

In Fig. 4 the distribution of the absolute value of the order parameter $`\psi `$ and the gauge-invariant momentum $`p`$ are shown near the point where the first phase-slip occurs for a ring with radius $`R=10`$ and $`u=3`$ at different times: just before and after the first PS which occurs at $`t2.7\tau _{GL}`$. Before the moment of the phase slip the order parameter decreases while after the PS it increases. In order to understand this different behavior let us rewrite Eq. (1a) separately for the absolute value $`|\psi |`$ and the phase $`\varphi `$ of the order parameter

$`u{\displaystyle \frac{|\psi |}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{^2|\psi |}{s^2}}+|\psi |(1|\psi |^2p^2),`$ (4a)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`\phi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{u|\psi |^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{j_n}{s}}.`$ (4b)
Here $`s`$ is the arc-coordinate along the ring and we used the condition $`\mathrm{div}(j_s+j_n)=0`$. It is obvious from Eq. (4a) that if the RHS of Eq. (4a) is negative $`|\psi |`$ decreases in time and if the RHS is positive $`|\psi |`$ will increase in time. Because the second derivative of $`|\psi |`$ is always positive (at least near the phase-slip center - see Fig. 4(a)) the different time dependence of $`|\psi |`$ is governed by the term $`p^2|\psi |`$. From Fig. 4(b) it is clear that after the phase slip the value of $`p`$ is less than before this moment, with practically the same distribution of $`|\psi |`$. It is this fact which is responsible for an increase of the order parameter just after the moment of the phase slip. But at some moment of time the momentum $`p`$ can become sufficiently large, making the RHS of Eq. (4a) negative and as a consequence $`|\psi |`$ starts to decrease.

Based on our numerical calculations we may state that for every value of the order parameter in the minimal point, there exists a critical value of the momentum $`p_c^{min}`$ such that if the value of the momentum in this point is less than $`p_c^{min}`$ the order parameter will increase in time. In the opposite case the order parameter decreases which leads ultimately to the phase slip process. Therefore, when after a phase slip $`p`$ increases fast enough such that at some moment the condition $`p^{min}>p_c^{min}`$ is fulfilled, the order parameter will start to decrease which leads than to a new phase slip process.

From our results we can conclude that the change of $`p`$ (or phase of the order parameter) with time and of $`|\psi |`$ with time has a different dependence on $`u`$. Indeed from Figs. 2 and 3 it follows that with increasing $`u`$ the time relaxation of $`|\psi |`$ becomes larger with respect to the relaxation time for $`p`$ (for example, the amplitude of oscillations of $`|\psi |`$ is decreased). Moreover, the relaxation time for $`p`$ depends not only on $`u`$ but also on the history of the system: the larger the number of phase slips which have occurred in the system the longer the time becomes between the next two subsequent phase slips. In order to understand such behavior we turn to Eq. (4b).

The numerical analysis shows that the second term in the RHS of Eq. (4b) is only important for some length near the phase slip center. This length is nothing else than the length over which the electric field penetrates the superconductor. We checked this directly by solving Eqs. (1a,b) for this situation. But this length is the decay length $`\lambda _Q`$ of the charge imbalance in the superconductor (see for example Refs. Kadin ; Tinkham ). We numerically found that $`\lambda _Q`$ varies with $`u`$ (in the range $`u=1100`$) as $`\lambda _Qu^{0.27}`$. It means that the relaxation time of the charge imbalance is $`\tau _Q\lambda _Q^2u^{0.54}`$.

Lets take the derivative $`/s`$ on both side of Eq. (4b) and integrate it over a distance of $`\lambda _Q`$ near the PS center (far from it we have $`j_n0`$) we obtain the Josephson relation (in dimensionless units)

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi }{dt}=Vj_n(0)\lambda _Q,$$
(5)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =\varphi (+\lambda _Q)\varphi (\lambda _Q)`$ is the phase difference over the phase slip center which leads to the voltage $`V=(\phi (+\lambda _Q)\phi (\lambda _Q))`$ and where $`j_n(0)`$ is the normal current (or electric field in our units) in the point of the phase slip. From Eq. (5) it follows immediately that the relaxation time for the phase of the order parameter near the phase slip center is

$$\tau _\varphi \frac{1}{\lambda _Q<|j_n(0)|>},$$
(6)
where $`<>`$ means averaging over time between two consecutive phase slips. This result allows us to qualitatively explain our numerical results. Indeed, from Fig. 2(c) it is apparent that $`<|j_n(0)|>`$ decreases after each PS and as a result it leads to an increase of $`\tau _\varphi `$. With increasing $`u`$, $`\lambda _Q`$ decreases and $`\tau _\varphi `$ increases. Fitting our data (see Fig. 5) leads to the dependencies $`\tau _\varphi u^{0.21}`$ and $`\tau _\varphi u^{0.23}`$ for rings with radius $`R=10`$ and $`R=15`$, respectively (here $`\tau _\varphi `$ was defined as the time between the first and the second phase slip). This is close to the expected dependencies which follow from Eq. (6) and from the above dependence of $`\lambda _Q(u)`$ (quantitative differences follows from uncertainty in our finding $`\tau _\varphi `$ and $`\lambda _Q`$). Besides, Eq. (6) allows us to explain the decrease of $`\tau _\varphi `$ with increasing radius of the ring (see inset in Fig. 5). Namely, during the time between two phase slips the gauge-invariant momentum decreases as $`\mathrm{\Delta }p1/R`$ (because $`\varphi `$ increases as $`2\pi /2\pi R`$) in the system. Far from the phase slip center the total current practically is equal to $`j_sp`$. Because $`\mathrm{div}(j_s+j_n)=0`$ in the ring we directly obtain that during this time the normal current density in the point of the phase slip also decreases as $`1/R`$. Taking into account Eq. (6) we can conclude that $`\tau _\varphi `$ should vary as $`1/R`$ (at least for a large radius and for the first phase slip). The behavior shown in the inset of Fig. 5 is very close to such a dependence (it is interesting to note that in contrast to $`\tau _\varphi `$ the time $`\tau _{|\psi |}`$ does practically not depend on $`R`$).

On the basis of our results we can make the following statement: when the period of oscillation (time of change of the phase of the order parameter) becomes of the order, or larger, than the relaxation time of the absolute value of the order parameter the next phase slip becomes impossible in the system.

This result can be applied to the system of Ref. Kramer2  where a current carrying wire was studied. The authors found a critical current $`j_c=0.335`$ for $`u=5.79`$ and $`j_c=0.291`$ for $`u=12`$. From our observation follows that the phase slip solution may be realized as a stable solution when $`\tau _{|\psi |}>\tau _\varphi 1/(\lambda _Q<|j_n(0)|>)`$. We found that $`\lambda _Qu^{0.27}`$, $`\tau _{|\psi |}u^{0.6}`$ and $`<|j_n(0)|>j_{ext}`$ which leads to the critical current $`j_cu^{0.33}`$ which decreases with increasing $`u`$ comm1 .

Above we found that the time scale governing the change in the phase does not coincide with the relaxation time of the absolute value of the order parameter. This difference is essentially connected with the presence of an electrostatic potential in the system. In order to demonstrate this we performed the following numerical experiment. We neglected $`\phi `$ in Eq. (1a) and found that the number of PS is now independent of $`u`$ and $`R`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }L`$ equals unity. Moreover, it turned out that the time scale $`t_0`$ is an order of magnitude larger. This clearly shows that the electrostatic potential is responsible for the appearance of a second characteristic time which results in the above mentioned effects.

In an earlier paper Tarlie  the question of the selection of the metastable state was already discussed for the case of a superconducting ring. However, these authors neglected the effect of the electrostatic potential and found that transitions with $`\mathrm{\Delta }L>1`$ can occur only when the magnetic field (called the induced electro-moving force (emf) in Ref. Tarlie ) increases very quickly. In their case these transitions were connected to the appearance of several nodes in $`\psi `$ along the perimeter of the ring and in each node a single PS occurred. We reproduced those results and found such transitions also for larger values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }H`$. However, simple estimates show that in order to realize such a situation in practice it is necessary to have an extremely large ramp of the magnetic field. For example, for $`Al`$ mesoscopic samples with $`\xi (0)=100nm`$ and $`R=10\xi `$ the corresponding ramp should be about $`10^310^4T/s`$. With such a ramp the induced normal currents in the ring are so large that heating effects will suppress superconductivity.

The transitions between the metastable states in the ring are not only determined by $`u`$ and $`R`$, but also, the presence of defects play a crucial role. Their existence leads to a decrease of $`\mathrm{\Delta }L`$. This is mainly connected to the fact that with decreasing $`p_c`$ (as a result of the presence of a defect) the value of $`<|j_n(0)|>`$ decreases even at the moment of the first phase slip (because $`<|j_n(0)|>`$ cannot be larger than $`<|j_s(0)|>p_c`$) and hence $`\tau _\varphi `$ increases. We can also explain this in terms of a decreasing degeneracy of the system. For example, if we decrease $`p_c`$ with a factor of two (e.g. by the presence of defects) it leads to a twice smaller value for $`\mathrm{\Phi }_c`$ and $`L_{eq}`$. But our numerical analysis showed that the effect of defects is not only restricted to a decrease of $`p_c`$ and $`L_{eq}`$. To show this we simulated a defect by inserting an inclusion of another material with less or zero $`T_c`$. This is done by inserting in the RHS of Eq. (1a) an additional term $`\rho (r)\psi `$ where $`\rho (r)`$ is zero except inside the defect where $`\rho (r)=\alpha <0`$. The magnetic field was increased up to $`H_c`$ of the ideal ring case. We found that the number of PS was smaller as compared to the case of a ring without defects. The calculations was done for defects such that $`p_c`$ was decreased by less than a factor of 2 in comparison to the ideal ring case. In contrast, a similar calculation for a ring with nonuniform thickness/width showed that, even for ’weak’ nonuniformity (which decreases $`p_c`$ by less than $`20\%`$), $`\mathrm{\Delta }L`$ was larger than for the ideal ring case and the final vorticity approaches $`L_{eq}`$. This remarkable difference between the situation for a defect and the case of a nonuniformity may be traced back to the difference in the distribution of the order parameter: even in the absence of an external magnetic field the defect leads to a nonuniform distribution of the order parameter which is not so for the nonuniform ring case. A more thorough study of the effect of defects will be presented elsewhere.

## IV Superconducting ring with nonzero width

All the above results were based on a one-dimensional model which contains the essential physics of the decay and recovery of the superconducting state in a ring from a metastable state to its final state. However, even in the case when the effect of the self-field can be neglected the finite width of the ring may still lead to important additional effects (for example, a finite critical magnetic field). In order to include the finite width of the ring into our calculation we considered the following model. We took a ring of mean radius $`R=12\xi `$, width $`3.5\xi `$, and thickness less than $`\xi `$ and $`\lambda `$. These parameters are close to those of the ring studied experimentally in Ref. Pedersen  and they are such that we can still neglect the self-field of the ring. The obtained magnetization curves of such a ring are shown in Fig. 6 as function of the magnetic field and for two values of $`u`$. Those results were obtained from a numerical solution of the two-dimensional Ginzburg-Landau equations, Eqs. (1a,b). The magnetic field was changed with steps $`\mathrm{\Delta }H`$ over a time interval which is larger than the initial part of the phase slip process $`t_0`$ (for our parameters this procedure leads practically to an adiabatic change of the magnetic field).

From Fig. 6 we notice that the value of the vorticity jumps, $`\mathrm{\Delta }L`$, depends sensitively on the parameter $`u`$ comm2 . We found that the phase slips occur in one particular place along the perimeter of the ring. However, in contrast to our previous one-dimensional case, $`\mathrm{\Delta }L`$ depends also on the applied magnetic field. The reason is that for a finite width ring the number of metastable states decreases with increasing magnetic field (see Ref. Berger ). It means that the system cannot be moved far from equilibrium with a large superconducting current density (because the order parameter is strongly suppressed by the external field) at high magnetic field. Hence, the value of $`<|j_n(0)|>`$ will be much smaller in comparison with the one at low magnetic fields and $`\tau _\varphi `$ is larger or comparable with $`\tau _{|\psi |}`$ even for high values of $`u`$ and even for the first PS. Thus, the effect of a large magnetic field in case of a finite width ring is similar, to some respect, to the effect of defects for a one-dimensional ring.

Our numerical results are in qualitative agreement with the experimental results of Pedersen et al. (see Fig. 2 of Ref. Pedersen ). Unfortunately, no quantitative comparison is possible because of a number of unknowns, e.g. the value of $`p_c`$ (it is necessary to have the dependence of $`M(H)`$ as obtained starting from zero magnetic field), the value of $`\xi `$ is not accurately known and hence the ratio $`R/\xi `$ can therefore only be estimated. The value of both these parameters have a strong influence on the value of the vorticity jumps $`\mathrm{\Delta }L`$.

Let us discuss now finite temperature and screening effects (i.e. finite $`\lambda `$). Nonzero temperature leads to the possibility of a perturbative appearance of phase slip centers at $`H^{}<H_c`$. But if the field $`H^{}`$ does not differ too much from $`H_c`$ the average $`<|j_n(0)|>`$ is not altered strongly. As a result, after the appearance of the first thermo-activated PS center the second phase slip may appear automatically (if the ratio $`\tau _{|\psi |}/\tau _\varphi `$ is large enough) which leads to an avalanche-type of process. Unfortunately, it is impossible to apply the results of Ref. McCumber  in order to calculate the probability of this process even for the first PS. The reason is that in Ref. McCumber  the effect of the electrostatic potential (which play a crucial role as was mentioned above) was neglected.

A finite $`\lambda `$ (and large enough width of the ring) leads to a nonuniform distribution of the momentum $`p`$ over the width of the ring which can play an important role on the above considered effects. As we mentioned above such a finite width ring may be modelled as a strip with transport current in an external magnetic field. In Ref. Aranson  the condition for the entry of the first vortices in a narrow superconducting strip was studied. It turned out, that the period of vortex chain entry depends essentially on the distribution of $`p`$ over the width of the strip. When this distribution is uniform the period is infinite. But even small nonuniformities in this distribution leads to a finite period. If we translate their results to our ring geometry, the period of the vortex chain must now be discrete $`2\pi R/n`$ ($`n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$). Under a certain condition the entry of vortices becomes possible, not through a single point along the perimeter, but through two, three and more points (without increasing the ramp of the magnetic field). A finite $`\lambda `$ only increases this effect because it leads to larger nonuniformities in the dependence of $`p`$ over the ring width. In this situation there is a competition between the process of the appearance of additional nodes along the ring perimeter and the number of PS in these points. At high magnetic fields these effects becomes negligible small (because superconductivity only exists near the edges and the ring effectively can be considered as two one-dimensional rings) and we will have the situation as discussed in the present work, and, recently in Berger .

## V Conclusion

In conclusion, we studied how an unstable superconducting state of a superconducting ring evolves in time and transit to its final state. The latter is not necessary the thermodynamic equilibrium state and may be another metastable state with a different vorticity but which is stable in time. The transition between the different superconducting states occurs through a phase slip center which is a point along the ring where the superconducting amplitude decreases to zero abruptly resulting in the change of the vorticity of the superconducting state with one unit. The waiting time, or the creation time for the first phase slip, is found to be two orders of magnitude larger than the subsequent time intervals between consecutive phase slips. The latter time is connected with the time relaxation of the charge imbalance in the superconductor and increases the closer the system becomes to the final state. This circumstance allows to find this time (also as the relaxation time of the absolute value of the order parameter) from magnetic measurements of superconducting rings of large radius. Our theoretical findings are in agreement with recent experimental results of Pedersen et al. Pedersen .

###### Acknowledgements.

The work was supported by the Flemish Science Foundation (FWO-Vl), the ”Onderzoeksraad van de Universiteit Antwerpen”, the ”Interuniversity Poles of Attraction Program - Belgian State, Prime Minister’s Office - Federal Office for Scientific, Technical and Cultural Affairs,” and the European ESF-Vortex Matter. One of us (D.Y.V.) is supported by a postdoctoral fellowship of FWO-Vl.


format: text

text:
# A Chandra observation of the neutron star X-ray transient and eclipsing binary MXB 1659–29 in quiescence

## 1 Introduction

During outburst episodes, neutron star X-ray transients can be detected at luminosities of $`10^{3638}`$ erg s-1 (e.g., Chen, Shrader, & Livio 1997). During those outbursts, the transients are very similar to the persistent sources with respect to their X-ray properties. The high X-ray luminosity is very likely due to the accretion of matter onto the neutron star. These transients are characterized by their bright outbursts, but most of the time they spend in a quiescent state in which they are orders of magnitude dimmer at all wavelengths. Fortunately, using sensitive imaging instruments, we are still able to detect them at X-ray luminosities of $`10^{3234}`$ erg s-1 (e.g., van Paradijs et al. 1987; Asai et al. 1996, 1998). The high sensitivity camera’s aboard Chandra and XMM-Newton are well suited to detect quiescent systems and obtain good X-ray spectra for the brightest systems (see, e.g., Daigne et al. 2002; in ’t Zand et al. 2001; Rutledge et al. 2001a, 2001b; Wijnands et al. 2001b, 2002b). To explain the low quiescent X-ray properties, several models have been developed. For example, the X-rays could be due to the residual accretion of matter onto the neutron star or magnetospheric boundary, or the pulsar emission mechanism might be active (see, e.g., Stella et al. 1994; Corbet 1996; Campana et al. 1998b; Menou et al. 1999; Campana & Stella 2000; Menou & McClintock 2001). Currently the most successful model is that in which the X-rays are due to the thermal emission from the neutron star surface, which will be referred to as ’the cooling neutron star model’.

### 1.1 The cooling neutron star model

In the cooling neutron star model (e.g., van Paradijs et al. 1987; Campana et al. 1998b; Brown, Bildsten, & Rutledge 1998 and references therein) the emitted radiation below a few keV is thermal emission originating from the neutron star surface. Brown et al. (1998) argued that the neutron star core is heated by the nuclear reactions occurring deep in the crust when the star is accreting and this heat is released as thermal emission during quiescence. If the quiescent emission is dominated by the thermal emission of the cooling neutron star, then the quiescent luminosity should depend on the time averaged (over $`10^{45}`$ years) accretion luminosity of the system (Campana et al. 1998b; Brown et al. 1998). Thus, the quiescent luminosities of the detected systems can directly be compared with the predicted ones obtained from estimates of the long term accretion history of the sources.

The neutron star cooling model also gives clear predictions for the spectral shape of the quiescent X-ray spectrum, which should be thermal. Although a simple blackbody model can be fitted to the data, the obtained radii of the emitting regions (of the order of only a few kilometers) are considerably lower than the predicted radii of neutron stars (Shapiro & Teukolsky 1983). To circumvent this discrepancy, it has been proposed that quiescent neutron star systems do not emit a true blackbody spectrum but a modified one (Brown et al. 1998). When using blackbody models to fit such modified spectra, the effective temperatures will be overestimated and the emitting areas underestimated. By fitting more realistic models, such as the so-called ’neutron star atmosphere models’ (the non-magnetic models are appropriate for quiescent neutron star systems; e.g., Zavlin, Pavlov, & Shibanov 1996 ), to the X-ray data, emitting radii were obtained which are consistent with the expected radii of neutron stars (Rutledge et al. 1999, 2000).

The cooling neutron star model cannot fully explain all characteristics of the quiescent emission. For example, the power-law shaped spectral component which dominates the quiescent spectra above a few keV in several systems111Note that not in all detected quiescent systems this power-law component could be detected and that the flux ratio of the power-law component with the thermal component varies considerably between sources. (e.g., Asai et al. 1996, 1998; Campana et al. 1998a) cannot be explained by the cooling models. It is conceivable that this component might be described by one or more of the alternative models discussed above (in particular the residual accretion model). However, the observational results on this component and our understanding of its nature are very limited.

### 1.2 The quasi-persistent X-ray transients

Recently, a sub-group of neutron star X-ray transients has received extra attention because of their potential to test the cooling neutron star model and to determine some of the physical properties of the neutron star crust and core. These particular transients do not have traditional outbursts which only last weeks to at most a few months, but instead they stay active for several years to over a decade (and maybe even longer). These systems have been called long-duration transients or quasi-persistent sources (e.g., Wijnands et al. 2001b, Wijnands 2002). The long outburst behavior of those sources might be related to the extended episodes (several months to several years) of low-level activity seen in other transients usually after they have exhibited bright outbursts (e.g., in 4U 1630–47, Aql X-1, 4U 1608–52, or SAX J1808.4–3658; Kuulkers et al. 1997; Bradt et al. 2000; Wijnands et al. 2001c; Wachter et al. 2002), although those episodes are generally less luminous ($`<10^{36}`$ erg s-1) than the outbursts of the quasi-persistent sources ($`10^{36}10^{37}`$ erg s-1).

In ’ordinary’ (i.e., short-duration) transients, the accretion of matter will have only a very minor effect on the thermal state of the crust, but for these quasi-persistent sources the prolonged accretion episodes can heat the crust to high temperatures, considerably higher than that of the neutron star core (see Rutledge et al. 2002). When those systems become quiescent again, it might take years to decades for the crust to return to thermal equilibrium with the core and the initial quiescent properties of those systems might be dominated by the crust emission and not by the state of the core (as is the case in ordinary transients). Monitoring observations of those systems in quiescence might even allow one to follow the cooling of the crust from which the heat conductivity of the crust can be determined (Rutledge et al. 2002).

Recently, one of the quasi-persistent systems (KS 1731–260) suddenly turned off after having actively accreted for over 12.5 years. A Chandra observation taken a few months after this transition showed the source at a 0.5–10 keV luminosity of $`10^{33}`$ erg s-1 (Wijnands et al. 2001b). An XMM-Newton observation of this system performed about half a year after the Chandra observation, showed that the system had declined by a factor of $``$3 in luminosity (Wijnands et al. 2002b). If the quiescent emission from this system was dominated by the state of the crust, the decrease in luminosity within half a year strongly indicates that the crust must have a high heat conductivity (Wijnands et al. 2002b; using the cooling curves calculated for this system by Rutledge et al. 2002). In this scenario, the core temperature is expected to be lower than the crust temperature and the luminosity measured with XMM-Newton can be used as an upper limit on the core luminosity. The quiescent luminosity of KS 1731–260 is much lower than expected from its long term accretion history, and can only be explained in terms of the standard cooling model if this system is dormant for at least several thousand of years between outbursts (assuming all outbursts of this system are very similar to the last one, which might not be a valid assumption; Wijnands et al. 2001b; Rutledge et al. 2002). Alternatively, enhanced cooling processes might be active in the core, rapidly cooling it (e.g., Wijnands et al. 2001b, 2002b).

### 1.3 MXB 1659–29

In 2001 September, the opportunity arose to use another quasi-persistent system to test the cooling neutron star model: MXB 1659–29. This source is an X-ray transient and was discovered in 1976 by Lewin, Hoffman, & Doty (1976) during type-I X-ray bursts, which clearly demonstrates that the compact object in this system is a neutron star. The source was detected several times between 1976 October and 1978 September with SAS3 and HEAO (Lewin et al. 1978; Share et al. 1978; Griffiths et al. 1978; Cominsky, Ossman, & Lewin 1983; Cominsky & Wood 1984, 1989) and irregular X-ray variability was found in this system (Lewin 1979; Cominsky et al. 1983). Cominsky & Wood (1984, 1989) reported on the discovery of eclipses every $``$7.1 hours, which can be identified with the orbital period of the system. MXB 1659–29 is one of only several non-pulsating neutron star low-mass X-ray binaries for which total eclipses have been observed (The other confirmed eclipsing neutron star systems are EXO 0748–676, GRS 1747–312, and AX J1745.6–2901, although several other systems \[e.g., 4U 2129+47\] show partial eclipses; Parmar et al. 1986; In ’t Zand et al. 2000; Maeda et al. 1996; McClintock et al. 1982). During later observations, using a variety of satellites (e.g., Hakucho, EXOSAT, ROSAT), the source could not be detected anymore (Cominsky et al. 1983; Verbunt 2001). The pointed ROSAT observations in the early 1990’s failed to detected the source with a 0.5–10 keV upper limit on the unabsorbed flux of $`(12)\times 10^{14}`$ erg cm-2 s-1 (Verbunt 2001; Wijnands 2002; Oosterbroek et al. 2001).

The source remained dormant until 1999 April, when in ’t Zand et al. (1999) reported it to be active again in observations obtained with the BeppoSAX Wide Field Camera. Wachter, Smale, & Bailyn (2000) and Oosterbroek et al. (2001) obtained an updated ephemeris for the orbital period (using data obtained with the Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer \[RXTE\] and BeppoSAX). Studies of its X-ray spectrum were performed using BeppoSAX (Oosterbroek et al. 2001) and XMM-Newton (Sidoli et al. 2001), and, using RXTE data, Wijnands, Strohmayer, & Franco (2001a) found $``$567 Hz oscillations during X-ray bursts. Those oscillations are likely related to the neutron star spin frequency. The source remained bright for almost 2.5 years before it became dormant again in 2001 September (Wijnands et al. 2002a). Because of its long outburst duration, MXB 1659–29 may be classified as a quasi-persistent source. We had a Cycle 3 Chandra TOO proposal approved to obtain a quiescent observation of the next quasi-persistent source that could turn off, within a month after the transition. As part of this proposal, MXB 1659–29 was observed on 2001 October 15 using Chandra for $`19`$ ksec. Here we report on this observation.

## 2 Observation, analysis, and results

The RXTE All Sky Monitor (ASM) light curve of MXB 1659–29 is shown in Figure 1.3 (see also Wijnands et al. 2002a). As can clearly be seen, MXB 1659–29 stayed active during its last outburst for almost 2.5 years before it could not be detected anymore with the RXTE/ASM at the end of 2001 August. During more sensitive observations using the proportional counter array (PCA) aboard RXTE, the source could still be detected until 2001 September 7, but it was undetectable in observations performed on 2001 September 14, 24, and 30 (Wijnands et al. 2002a; with upper limits on the flux of 0.5–1 mCrab; 2–60 keV).

After the non-detection using the RXTE/PCA on 2001 September 14, we triggered our Cycle 3 Chandra proposal and a Chandra/ACIS-S observation on MXB 1659–29 was performed on 15 October 2001 between 16:31 and 22:24 UTC for a total of $``$18.8 ksec of on-source time. No background flares occurred during the observation so all data could be used. We used the CIAO tools (version 2.2.1) and the standard Chandra analysis threads222Listed at http://asc.harvard.edu to analyze the data. During our observation the ACIS-S3 CCD was used with a 1/4 sub-array (resulting in a frame time of 0.8 seconds). This configuration was used to reduce the possible pile-up problems in case the source had exceeded a flux level of $`10^{12}`$ erg cm-2 s-1. As demonstrated below, only about 2% pile-up occurred during our observation because of the relatively low flux of the source.

### 2.1 X-ray image and light curve of MXB 1659–29

The obtained 0.5–8 keV image of the region around MXB 1659–29 is shown in Figure 2. We used the tool wavdetect to search the complete chip for point sources. The three sources visible in Figure 2 are detected (their coordinates are listed in Tab. 1) together with two additional, rather diffuse sources, which could be truly diffuse sources or due to an elevated background count rate at those positions. In this paper, we are only interested in the properties of MXB 1659–29 so we do not further investigate the significance of those potential sources. We used the optical I-band images of Wachter et al. (2000) taken during outburst to determine possible optical counterparts for the detected Chandra sources. We tied these optical images to the 2MASS J image available for this region; the resulting image, including the Chandra positional circles, is shown in Figure 2.1. Clearly, the Chandra position of MXB 1659–29 is consistent with its optical position during outburst, with an offset of only $`0.15^{\prime \prime }`$, well within the bore sight error (Aldcroft et al. 2000) and the errors on the optical position. The positions listed in Table 1 are adjusted for this small off-set. The two extra Chandra sources do not have counterparts in the optical image.

Figure 2.2 displays the Chandra/ACIS-S light curve. It clearly shows an eclipse, which is very likely due to the obscuration of the inner X-ray emitting region by the companion star (cycle 30823 using the linear ephemeris of Oosterbroek et al. 2001). The eclipse duration (842$`\pm `$90 seconds) and the egress and ingress times ($`<247`$ and $`<400`$ seconds, respectively) have been calculated using the method outlined by Nowak et al. (2002). The obtained eclipse duration is consistent with that observed during outburst ($`900`$ seconds; Wachter et al. 2000). Eclipses in quiescence have also been observed for the neutron star transient 4U 2129+47 (Nowak et al. 2002) and from the likely neutron star transient X5 in the globular cluster 47 Tuc (Heinke et al. 2001, 2002). Besides the eclipse, the Chandra/ACIS-S light curve also shows clear dipping behavior a few kiloseconds before the eclipse, which again is very similar to 4U 2129+47 and X5 in 47 Tuc. Those dips might be due to the same process causing the dipping behavior of the source when it is still actively accreting: the dips might be due to obscuration of the central X-ray source by a large structure in the outer accretion disk, possible the impact point of the accretion stream from the companion star and the accretion disk (see also Nowak et al. 2002 and Heinke et al. 2001, 2002 for a discussion about the dips for 4U 2129+47 and X5, respectively). The decrease in count rate would then be due to an increase in the absorption column in front of the central X-ray source. This hypothesis can be tested by examining the spectrum of the source in and outside the dip (see § 2.3). Note that this hypothesis requires that residual disks are still present in quiescence without accretion occurring onto the neutron stars. Indeed such residual disks are expected from the disk instability model to explain X-ray outbursts (see Lasota 2001 for a review) and independent proof for such disks came from optical observations from quiescent X-ray transients (e.g., McClintock & Remillard 2000).

### 2.2 The X-ray spectrum of the persistent emission

All X-ray spectra were extracted using a circle with $`5^{\prime \prime }`$ in radius on the position of the source as determined using wavdetect and the background data were obtained by using an annulus on the source position with an inner radius of $`7^{\prime \prime }`$ and an outer one of $`20^{\prime \prime }`$. All obtained spectra were rebinned using the FTOOLS tool grppha into bins with a minimum of 15 counts per bin and we fitted the spectrum using XSPEC (version 11.1; Arnaud 1996). We extracted spectra for the part of the observation during which the source was relatively stable (called the ’persistent spectrum’; see Fig. 2.2; $`13.2`$ ksec of data) and for the part during the dips (called the ’dip spectrum’; Fig. 2.2; a total of $``$3.8 ksec of data).

Many single component models fit the persistent spectrum well; however, the quiescent spectra of neutron star X-ray transients are most often fit with a blackbody model or a neutron star atmosphere model. Therefore, we concentrate on those two models, using the model from Zavlin et al. 1996 (the non-magnetic case) as the atmosphere model. Theoretically it is expected that the emerging spectrum should resemble that assumed by the atmosphere model (e.g., Brown et al. 1998), however, observationally both the atmosphere model and the black body model produce equally satisfactory fits to the data. Because also our data do not allow for a rejection of the blackbody model, and to allow comparison with previous results on the quiescent spectra of neutron star X-ray transients, we also report the blackbody results. In certain systems, a power-law tail above a few keV was found, and although such a power-law component was not required by the data, we fitted the spectra with the above two models including a power-law component with a photon index of 1 or 2 to obtain an upper limit on this component.

The spectral results are listed in Table 2 and the persistent spectrum is shown in Figure 2.2. The column density $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ was left free in the fits and the obtained value is in the range of what has been observed previously for this source during outburst using BeppoSAX and XMM-Newton ($`0.130.35\times 10^{22}`$ cm-2; Oosterbroek et al. 2001; Sidoli et al. 2001). Both the blackbody and the atmosphere model fit the data well and the best-fit temperature was $``$0.3 keV for the blackbody fits and $``$0.1 keV for the atmosphere model333Using the obtained spectral parameters in this paragraph and the 0.8 frame time of our observation, we have used PIMMS to estimate the degree of pile-up in our spectrum. We found that about 2% of the photons should be piled-up and the effects on the X-ray spectral parameters were only marginal. Therefore, we have not corrected the X-ray spectrum for this effect.. When assuming a distance of 10 kpc444The distance toward the source is not well known. Using the luminosity of the X-ray bursts detected during the 1999–2001 outburst, Oosterbroek et al. (2001) obtained a range of 11–13 kpc but Muno et al. (2001) reported 10 kpc. In the remaining we will assume 10 kpc, but we note that it is rather uncertain. When appropriate we will discuss the effect of this uncertainty on the interpretation of our results., the radius for the emitting area was only a few kilometers using the blackbody model which is lower than the theoretical expected radius for a neutron star. The atmosphere model gave radii that were consistent with those expected if the emission arose from the neutron star and the complete surface was radiating, favoring the atmosphere model. For larger assumed distances the radii would increase, although the distance has to be unrealistically large ($`>20`$ kpc) for the radius obtained via the black-body model to become consistent with theoretical expectations. The atmosphere model does not allow for the distance to become much larger than assumed because the obtained radius will quickly be inconsistent with theoretical expectations.

The obtained unabsorbed 0.5–10 keV fluxes were between 3.0 and 3.6 $`\times 10^{13}`$ erg cm-2 s-1, resulting in a luminosity of $`(3.64.3)\times 10^{33}(d/10\mathrm{kpc})^2`$ erg s-1. When including a power-law component in the fit, it could not be detected significantly and its 0.5–10 keV flux could be constrained to be less than about 25%–35% (depending on photon index) of the 0.5–10 keV blackbody flux or that of the atmosphere component.

### 2.3 The spectrum during the dip

Due to the low statistics of the dip data, the source spectrum during the dip could not be constrained by using only the dip data. However, by assuming that the decrease in count rate is only due to an increase in absorption by obscuring material (as has been found during outburst; e.g., Oosterbroek et al. 2001; Sidoli et al. 2001), we fitted the persistent spectrum and the dip spectrum simultaneously using the same blackbody or atmosphere model but with different column densities. The spectral results are also listed in Table 2. The spectral parameters of the persistent emission were consistent with those obtained when only fitting the persistent emission spectrum, although the measured fluxes tend to be slightly lower. The column density of the dip spectrum is higher (by a factor of two) than that obtained for the persistent emission. Figure 2.2 shows the error ellipse of the column density of the persistent emission spectrum versus that of the dip spectrum. Clearly, at high significance it is rejected that the column density of the dip spectrum is identical to that of the persistent emission. A systematic trend is clearly seen that the dip column density is always larger than that of the persistent emission (a similar result is obtained when the atmosphere model is used instead of the blackbody model). Our results show that our data are consistent with a scenario in which the intrinsic source spectrum remains identical throughout the Chandra observation, and that the decrease in count rate during the dip is due to an increase in absorption, but we cannot exclude other mechanisms responsible for the count rate decrease. For example, the data are also consistent with a decrease in luminosity without a change in spectral shape or with a decrease of the temperature.

The observation of a dip in the quiescent X-ray light curve of MXB 1659–29 might imply that absorption by the outer disk also could occur, albeit less strong, during the orbital phases where no dips are observe, possibly effecting the spectral fits of the persistent emission. However, during the outburst phase of the source type-I X-ray bursts were observed and nearly-coherent oscillations during those bursts were seen (Wijnands et al. 2001a), implying that the neutron star is observed directly. Very likely, this will also be true during quiescence. Furthermore, the measured column density toward the source from the persistent quiescent emission is rather low and consistent with other estimates and measurements (Dickey & Lockman 1990; Oosterbroek et al. 2001; Sidoli et al. 2001) making additional absorption by the outer disk also unlikely. Therefore, we conclude that very likely we see the neutron star directly at orbital phases outside the dip and the eclipse, and our spectral results can directly be compared with the results obtained from other quiescent neutron star transients which have lower binary inclination than MXB 1659–29.

## 3 Discussion

We have presented a Chandra observation of MXB 1659–29 performed $``$5 weeks after the last clear detection of the source with the RXTE/PCA (indicating that at that time the source was still actively accreting; Wijnands et al. 2002a). During our Chandra observation, we detected the source at a luminosity of $`(3.24.3)\times 10^{33}(d/10\mathrm{kpc})^2`$ erg s-1, and its spectrum could be well described by a thermal component (either a blackbody model or a neutron star atmosphere model). The obtained luminosity and the shape of the X-ray spectrum of MXB 1659–29 resemble those obtained for other quiescent neutron star systems, strongly suggesting that the source was quiescent during our Chandra observation.

### 3.1 The cooling neutron star model

As argued by Rutledge et al. (2002), for systems which are actively accreting for long periods, the crust might have been heated to very high temperatures (probably considerably higher than that of the core) and the quiescent properties might be dominated by the thermal state of the crust rather than that of the core. Although the duration of the accretion episode of MXB 1659–29 is considerably shorter (factor of $``$5) than that of KS 1731–260 or X 1732–304 (both of which had accretion episodes of more than a decade; Wijnands et al. 2001b; Wijnands et al. 2002b; see also Guainazzi, Parmar, & Oosterbroek 1999 for X 1732–304), here we assume that the 2.5 year accretion episode of MXB 1659–29 has had a considerable effect on the state of the crust, similar to what has been argued for KS 1731–260 (Rutledge et al. 2002; although likely less extreme), .

This assumption is also supported by the fact that in the early 1990’s, the source could not be detected in quiescence using a ROSAT observation and only a 0.5–10 keV upper limit of $`(12)\times 10^{32}(d/10\mathrm{kpc})^2`$ erg s-1 could be obtained (Verbunt 2001; Wijnands 2002; Oosterbroek et al. 2001) which is about an order of magnitude lower than the luminosity we have detected during our Chandra observation. Therefore, we can conclude that the Chandra quiescent luminosity is not the rock bottom quiescent luminosity of this system and the quiescent properties for MXB 1659–29 during the Chandra observation were dominated by that of the crust and not by the core. As an upper limit on the flux due to the cooling neutron star core, we will assume the upper limit provided by ROSAT and this upper limit will be used to test the cooling neutron star model.

In order to test the model, the time averaged accretion rate has to be estimated. The last outburst was fully covered with the RXTE/ASM instrument (Fig. 1.3) and lasted for $`2.5`$ years. The 2–10 keV luminosity during this state as obtained with BeppoSAX and XMM-Newton was about $`6\times 10^{10}`$ erg cm-2 s-1 (Oosterbroek et al. 2001; Sidoli et al. 2001). Using the spectral model and the spectral parameters given by Oosterbroek et al. (2001), we inferred (by simulating the spectrum in XSPEC) that the bolometric luminosity can be at least a factor of two larger. However, the luminosity itself was variable (by a factor of a few; Fig. 1.3) during the outburst, and large uncertainties might be present in the ’typical’ outburst bolometric luminosity. However, in the rest of the discussion we assume that bolometric outburst flux was typically $`(510)\times 10^{10}`$ erg cm-2 s-1 during the last outburst.

The 1999–2001 outburst could be an atypical one for MXB 1659–29 and previous outbursts might have been less bright and/or less long (i.e., more like those of the ordinary transients). We have searched the literature for reports on detections of this source in the past and we found that the source was conclusively detected in X-rays in 1976 October, 1977 June, July555During 1977 June and July, the observations were not very sensitive to persistent X-ray emission and none was detected (e.g., Cominsky & Wood 1984, 1989). But X-ray bursts were observed from the source, indicating that also during those observations, the source was accreting, albeit at a low level., and September, and 1978 March and September using SAS3 and HEAO (Lewin et al. 1976; Lewin et al. 1978; Share et al. 1978; Griffiths et al. 1978; Lewin 1979; Cominsky et al. 1983; Cominsky & Wood 1984, 1989) and in the optical on 1978 June 1 and 1979 June 27 – July 2 (Doxsey et al. 1979; Cominsky et al. 1983). No information is available during the periods in-between those observations. Although it cannot be excluded that at those occasions, the source was in quiescence, we consider it unlikely that the source would only be active during times when it was observed with an X-ray or optical instrument and dormant when no instrument looked at the source. Therefore, it is likely that during the complete period from 1976 October until early July 1979 the source was actively accreting for over 2.5 years, especially because the recent outburst had a similar duration. If true, then this would constitute the first indication that different outbursts of quasi-persistent sources may have similar durations and that the long duration of those outbursts might be a common property of those sources.

The first reported non-detection of the source was on 1979 July 17–25 (Cominsky et al. 1983) in optical (V$`>`$22–23) and with Hakucho (no X-ray upper limits were provided). Prior to 1976, the source might have also been detected during the period 1971 to 1973 using Uhuru (classified as 4U 1704–30; Forman et al. 1978), although this identification with MXB 1659–29 is not certain and we will assume that they are two different objects (if 4U 1704–30 can be identified with MXB 1659–29 then the source might have exhibited an extra outburst during that period or it might have been active for a period of $``$7 years). The exact fluxes during the observations in the period October 1976 to early July 1979 are in the range 1 to 6 $`\times 10^{10}`$ erg cm-2 s-1, but they have large uncertainties because the exact energy range was not always quoted (if quoted it was 1–10 keV or 2–10 keV), it was unclear if the fluxes were absorbed or unabsorbed, and the assumed spectral shape was not always similar (often assumed to be Crab like) and quite different than observed with BeppoSAX and XMM-Newton during the 1999–2001 outburst (Oosterbroek et al. 2001; Sidoli et al. 2001). However, we will assume that all fluxes are for the 2–10 keV range and unabsorbed, and a bolometric flux of about twice the quoted values (as inferred above for the BeppoSAX results on MXB 1659–29). Therefore, during the outburst in the late 1970’s, the source was actively accreting for a period of at least $``$2.5 years at a bolometric flux level of 2 to 12 $`\times 10^{10}`$ erg cm-2 s-1. Although quite uncertain, this is remarkably similar to the values of the 1999–2001 outburst and for simplicity we assume that the typical outburst duration is 2.5 years and that the bolometric fluxes during outburst is 5–10 $`\times 10^{10}`$ erg cm-2 s-1.

Using the Brown et al. (1998) model (assuming standard cooling processes), the predicted quiescent flux $`F_\mathrm{q}`$ for this source would then be (Wijnands et al. 2001b; see also Rutledge et al. 2002) $`F_\mathrm{q}\frac{t_\mathrm{o}}{t_\mathrm{o}+t_\mathrm{q}}\times \frac{F_\mathrm{o}}{135}`$, with $`F_\mathrm{o}`$ the average flux during outburst (5–10 $`\times 10^{10}`$ erg cm-2 s-1), $`t_\mathrm{o}`$ the average time the source is in outburst (2.5 years), and $`t_\mathrm{q}`$ the average time the source is in quiescence ($``$21 year). This results in a predicted quiescent flux of 4–8 $`\times 10^{13}`$ erg cm-2 s-1. Remarkably, this value is very similar to the quiescent flux observed during our Chandra observations. However, as explained above, based on the ROSAT non-detection of the source, the core flux is likely at least an order of magnitude lower than this, which would make the predicted core flux considerably higher than that truly originating from the core. Similar to KS 1731–260 (Wijnands et al. 2001b, 2002b) this low core flux (and thus temperature) might be due to enhanced core cooling instead of the assumed standard core cooling in the Brown et al. (1998) model.

Despite the fact that the last two outburst episodes are likely of similar duration, it cannot be excluded that they are not typical for the source and that most of the time MXB 1659–29 exhibits short duration outbursts. If the typical outburst duration of MXB 1659–29 is not 2.5 years but instead 0.25 years (3 months) or shorter, then the predicted quiescent flux will be consistent (within the uncertainties of the model and assumptions) with the ROSAT upper limit. The higher Chandra quiescent luminosity is again due to the state of the crust which should be considerably heated during the long accretion episode.

### 3.2 Crust cooling

If during the Chandra observation the X-ray emission was dominated by thermal emission from the crust, then further quiescent observations of MXB 1659–29 will enable studies of the cooling of the crust in this system. The ROSAT flux upper limit suggests that the crust flux should eventually decrease to at least this level. When the crust will be thermally relaxed with the core, no significant further decrease of the quiescent flux is expected and from this bottom flux level the state of the core can be inferred from which the cooling models can be better constrained. For KS 1731–260 it had already been found that its quiescent luminosity decreased by a factor of 3 within half a year time (likely due to a temperature decrease), indicating a highly conductive crust (Wijnands et al. 2002b). It would be of interest to determine if such a rapid cooling will also be observed for MXB 1659–29 or if the neutron star crust in this system has a significantly lower conductivity.

In the latter case, the system should be at the Chandra quiescent luminosity for several years to decades. Using the fact that 13 years after the 1976–1978 outburst ROSAT observed an order of magnitude lower quiescent luminosity we might set already an upper limit on the crust cooling time. When assuming that shortly after the end of the 1976–1978 outburst the quiescent luminosity was similar to our measured Chandra luminosity, the cooling time of the crust is at least about a factor of 10 in luminosity per decade. Due to differences in quiescent times, outburst times, and the time averaged accretion rates between MXB 1659–29 and KS 1731–260 the cooling curves calculated for KS 1731–260 by Rutledge et al. (2002) cannot be used for MXB 1659–29. However, if those MXB 1659–29 cooling curves resemble those of KS 1731–260, then tentatively it might be concluded that also the neutron star crust in MXB 1659–29 has a high conductivity (and enhanced core cooling is suggested). We await specifically calculated cooling curves for MXB 1659–29 and further monitoring observations using Chandra or XMM-Newton in order to be conclusive about the properties of the neutron star in this system.

### 3.3 Very low thermal emission in quiescent neutron star systems?

For most quiescent neutron star X-ray transients it has been inferred that the thermal emission is in the range of a few times $`10^{3233}`$ erg s-1. However, recently, indications have been found (using XMM-Newton data) that the thermal emission from the accretion driven millisecond X-ray pulsar SAX J1808.4–3658 in its quiescent state might be as low as a few times $`10^{30}`$ erg s-1 (Campana et al. 2002; who suggested enhanced core cooling for this low thermal luminosity). Although the statistics of those results were not overwhelming and have to be confirmed with additional observations, it is an interesting possibility and if the processes which produce the quiescent emission (which has a power-law shape; Campana et al. 2002) for this system would become inactive, SAX J1808.4–3658 would become rather dim in quiescence. Such weak quiescent neutron star systems might also be suggested by the indications found for enhanced cooling processes in certain systems, such as MXB 1659–29. The possibility of dim quiescent neutron star systems raises the question of how dim certain neutron star systems can become?

The answers to this question will have implications for our understanding of quiescent X-ray binaries. It has been found that those X-ray binaries which harbor a black hole instead of a neutron star can be at least one to two orders of magnitude less luminous in quiescence than the average neutron star system. This difference has been used as evidence that the black holes have event horizons (e.g., Garcia et al. 2001 and references therein) in contrast to the surfaces of neutron stars. However, if certain neutron star systems might become similarly dim (e.g., due to enhanced core cooling or very dim outbursts), than this luminosity difference will disappear and with it the evidence for event horizons in black hole systems. The quiescent spectrum of SAX J1808.4–3658 (Campana et al. 2002) indicates that the spectrum of such systems might not be dominated by a thermal component but might have a power-law shape, similar to what has seen for the black hole systems (Kong et al. 2002) removing also the spectral differences.

Another area in which it might be important to determine the full range of the luminosity distribution of quiescent neutron star systems, is that of the study of the low-luminosity X-ray sources in globular clusters. Based on their luminosities and their X-ray spectra (when enough statistics are available), those sources which have luminosities above a few times $`10^{32}`$ erg s-1, have been classified as quiescent neutron star systems and those which have luminosities below $`10^{32}`$ erg s-1, as another type of object (possible cataclysmic variables or millisecond radio pulsars). However, the observed low luminosity of $`5\times 10^{31}`$ erg s-1 of SAX J1808.4–3658 (Dotani, Asai, & Wijnands 2000; Campana et al. 2002) already shows (irrespective of what exactly causes the X-rays in this source) that those dim sources might be quiescent neutron star transients. The fact that the spectrum of SAX J1808.4–3658 appears to be considerably harder (Campana et al. 2002) than the average quiescent neutron star spectrum indicates that classifications on hardness ratio might lead to erroneous results. The possibility that the thermal emission of SAX J1808.4–3658 might be very low even suggests that those sources which have luminosities down to only a few times $`10^{30}`$ erg s-1 might also be quiescent neutron star systems. Therefore, we conclude that classifying low-luminosity globular cluster sources based on their luminosity and broad band spectral shape (i.e., hardness ratio’s) might possibly lead to misleading results. The full extent of those errors depends on the full luminosity distribution of the quiescent neutron star transients and how the spectrum correlates with the luminosity. Those properties have to be determined before a complete picture of the nature of the low-luminosity globular cluster sources can be understood666Although we have only discussed quiescent neutron star systems, similar uncertainties in the luminosity distribution of CVs or millisecond radio pulsars exist. Those uncertainties in the properties of those systems have to be resolved before a full understanding of the low-luminosity globular cluster source population can be obtained..

RW was supported by NASA through Chandra Postdoctoral Fellowship grant number PF9-10010 awarded by CXC, which is operated by SAO for NASA under contract NAS8-39073. This research has made use of the quick-look results provided by the RXTE/ASM team, and the data and resources obtained through the HEASARC online service, provided by NASA-GSFC. This publication makes use of data products from the Two Micron All Sky Survey, which is a joint project of the University of Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center/California Institute of Technology, funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Science Foundation.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Two-dimensional (2D) systems of particles under strong magnetic fields exhibiting some beautiful and exciting phenomena like fractional quantum Hall effect (FQHE) . As example of system where FQHE can be appeared, one can mention GaAs/AlGaAs heterostructure  and GaAs-Al0.3Ga0.7 . As consequence, one may can think to consider a mixing system of electrons and holes moving together in the plane. As shown in , such kind of system exists actually in nature and it is just a doped semiconductor either with electrons or holes.

On the other hand, experimentally a combined system of 2D electron gas (2DEG) and 2D hole gas (2DHG) can also be formed by InAs/AlSb/GaSb . In fact, when GaSb and InAs are brought together, negative charge is transferred from GaSb into InAs, creating holes and electrons, respectively, at the interface of those layers and AlSb is used as a barrier. Theoretically, many studies have been carried on a system formed by separate 2DEG and 2DHG . Because it offers the possibility of forming a gas of excitons aligned along the two parallel planes .

Recently with Dayi, we proposed  an approach based on noncommutative geometry tools  to describe FQHE of a system of electrons. In fact, the corresponding filling factor is found to be

$$\nu _{\mathrm{DJ}}=\frac{\pi }{2}\rho (l^2\theta )$$
(1)
and it is identified to the observed fractional values $`f=1/3,2/3,1/5,\mathrm{}`$. Also this approach allowed us to make a link with composite fermion theory  of FQHE by setting an effective magnetic field

$$B_{\mathrm{DJ}}=\frac{B}{1\theta l^2}$$
(2)
similar to that felt by composite fermions.

Motived by the above results, we would like to consider an noninteracting system of electrons and holes living on the plane and in the presence of uniform magnetic field and electric field. Calculating the total Hall conductivity $`\sigma _\mathrm{H}^{\mathrm{tot}}`$, we find that this latter vanishes when the number of electrons $`N_e`$ coincides with the number of holes $`N_h`$. However, another results can be found when we consider the present system on noncommutative plane. Indeed, after deriving the corresponding total Hall conductivity $`\sigma _\mathrm{H}^{(\mathrm{tot},\mathrm{nc})}`$, we show that in the limit $`N_e=N_h`$, this quantity is noncommutativity parameters $`\theta _i`$-dependent and $`B`$-independent. On the contrary, it does not vanish as noticed in the standard case. Moreover, we present other discussions and we show that (1) can be recovered from the present study. Taking into account of the critical points $`\theta _e=l^2`$ and $`\theta _h=l^2`$, we find that $`\sigma _\mathrm{H}^{(\mathrm{tot},\mathrm{nc})}`$ becomes $`B`$-dependent.

In section 2, we give the energy spectrum and the eigenstates of a Hamiltonian describing noninteracting electron-hole living on plane and in the presence of magnetic and electric fields. By using the standard definition we determine the corresponding total current operator leading to a total Hall conductivity. In section 3, we deal with the same problem but in noncommutative plane and we calculate its total Hall conductivity. We discuss and comment the obtained results in section 4 and we consider the critical points of the noncommutative analysis in section 5.

## 2 Hall conductivity on plane

We would like to study a mixing system, which may can be the interface between two layers of 2DEG and 2DHG or a doped semiconductor. In doing on, let us start by considering a system of an electron and a hole living together on the plane $`(x,y)`$ and in the presence of an uniform external $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{E}`$ fields. Without interaction, this system is described by the Hamiltonian

$$H^{\mathrm{tot}}=H_e+H_h$$
(3)
as sum of two independent Hamiltonian’s corresponding to an electron $`H_e`$ and a hole $`H_h`$, respectively

$$\begin{array}{c}H^e=\frac{1}{2m_e}(\stackrel{}{p}_e+\frac{e}{c}\stackrel{}{A}_e)^2+eEx_e\hfill \\ H^h=\frac{1}{2m_h}(\stackrel{}{p}_h\frac{e}{c}\stackrel{}{A}_h)^2eEx_h\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
where $`(\stackrel{}{p}_i,\stackrel{}{x}_i)`$ are electron and hole phase spaces, $`i=e,h`$ denotes electron and hole. In the symmetric gauges

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{}{A}_e=\frac{B}{2}(y_e,x_e)\hfill \\ \stackrel{}{A}_h=\frac{B}{2}(y_h,x_h)\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
(3) takes the form

$$\begin{array}{c}H^{\mathrm{tot}}=\frac{1}{2m_e}\left[\left(p_{x_e}\frac{eB}{2c}y_e\right)^2+\left(p_{y_e}+\frac{eB}{2c}x_e\right)^2\right]+eEx_e\hfill \\ +\frac{1}{2m_h}\left[\left(p_{x_h}+\frac{eB}{2c}y_h\right)^2+\left(p_{y_h}\frac{eB}{2c}x_h\right)^2\right]eEx_h.\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
From the last equation, one may can notice that the sign of charge of the carrier $`(e,h)`$ is important and will play a crucial role in the next. This point will be clear when we will derive the Hall current and then the Hall conductivity.

The Hamiltonian $`H^{\mathrm{tot}}`$ can be diagonalised simply by considering the following operators corresponding to electron

$$\begin{array}{c}b_e^{}=2ip_{\overline{z}_e}+\frac{eB}{2c}z_e+\lambda _e\hfill \\ b_e=2ip_{z_e}+\frac{eB}{2c}\overline{z}_e+\lambda _e\hfill \\ d_e=2ip_{z_e}\frac{eB}{2c}\overline{z}_e\hfill \\ d_e^{}=2ip_{\overline{z}_e}\frac{eB}{2c}z_e\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
and another set related to hole

$$\begin{array}{c}b_h^{}=2ip_{\overline{z}_h}\frac{eB}{2c}z_h+\lambda _h\hfill \\ b_h=2ip_{z_h}+\frac{eB}{2c}\overline{z}_h+\lambda _h\hfill \\ d_h=2ip_{z_h}+\frac{eB}{2c}\overline{z}_h\hfill \\ d_h^{}=2ip_{\overline{z}_h}+\frac{eB}{2c}z_h.\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
The $`\lambda _i`$’s are fixed to be

$$\begin{array}{c}\lambda _e=\frac{m_ecE}{B}\hfill \\ \lambda _h=\frac{m_hcE}{B}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
These sets satisfy the commutation relations

$$\begin{array}{c}[b_i,b_i^{}]=\pm 2m_i\mathrm{}\omega _i\hfill \\ [d_i^{},d_i]=\pm 2m_i\mathrm{}\omega _i\hfill \end{array}$$
(10)
and other commutators vanish, where plus refers to electron and minus to hole. The cyclotron frequencies are given by

$$\omega _i=\frac{eB}{m_ic}.$$
(11)
Actually, $`H^{\mathrm{tot}}`$ can be expressed in terms of the above operators as follows

$$\begin{array}{c}H^{\mathrm{tot}}=\frac{1}{4m_e}(b_e^{}b_e+b_eb_e^{})\frac{\lambda _e}{2m_e}(d_e^{}+d_e)\frac{\lambda _e^2}{2m_e}\hfill \\ +\frac{1}{4m_h}(b_h^{}b_h+b_hb_h^{})\frac{\lambda _h}{2m_h}(d_h^{}+d_h)\frac{\lambda _h^2}{2m_h}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(12)
From the eigenvalue equation

$$H^{\mathrm{tot}}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{\mathrm{tot}}>=E^{\mathrm{tot}}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{\mathrm{tot}}>$$
(13)
we can obtain the energy spectrum and eigenstates

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Psi }_{(n_e,n_h,\alpha _e,\alpha _h)}^{\mathrm{tot}}=\mathrm{\Phi }_{n_e}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n_h}\varphi _{\alpha _e}\varphi _{\alpha _h}|n_e,n_h,\alpha _e,\alpha _h>\hfill \\ E_{(n_e,n_h,\alpha _e,\alpha _h)}^{\mathrm{tot}}=\frac{\mathrm{}\omega _e}{2}(2n_e+1)+\frac{\mathrm{}\omega _h}{2}(2n_h+1)\frac{\mathrm{}\lambda _e}{m_e}\alpha _e\frac{\lambda _e^2}{2m_e}\frac{\mathrm{}\lambda _h}{m_h}\alpha _h\frac{\lambda _h^2}{2m_h}\hfill \end{array}$$
(14)
where

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n_i}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{(2m_i\mathrm{}\omega _i)^{n_i}n_i!}}(b_i^{})^{n_i}|0>\hfill \\ \varphi _{\alpha _i}=e^{i(\alpha _iy_i+\frac{m_i\omega _i}{2\mathrm{}}x_iy_i)}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(15)
$`n_e,n_h=0,1,2\mathrm{}`$ and $`\alpha _e,\alpha _h`$. $``$ denotes the direct product.

At this stage, we would like to determine the corresponding total Hall conductivity $`\sigma _\mathrm{H}^{\mathrm{tot}}`$ in order to have some informations about the behaviour of the mixing system. To derive this physical quantity, one can use directly the definition of the related total current operator $`\stackrel{}{J}^{\mathrm{tot}}`$, such as

$$\stackrel{}{J}^{\mathrm{tot}}=\stackrel{}{J}_e+\stackrel{}{J}_h$$
(16)
where $`\stackrel{}{J}_e`$ and $`\stackrel{}{J}_h`$ are defined to be

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{}{J}_e=\frac{e\rho _e}{m_e}(\stackrel{}{p}_e+\frac{e}{c}\stackrel{}{A}_e)\hfill \\ \stackrel{}{J}_h=\frac{e\rho _h}{m_h}(\stackrel{}{p}_h\frac{e}{c}\stackrel{}{A}_h)\hfill \end{array}$$
(17)
and $`\rho _e`$ and $`\rho _h`$ are, respectively, electron and hole densities. Let us emphasis here that the sign of charge of different particles is taken account. Moreover, the expectation value of $`\stackrel{}{J}^{\mathrm{tot}}`$ can be calculated with respect to the eigenstates $`|n_e,n_h,\alpha _e,\alpha _h>`$ (14). Therefore, we obtain

$$\begin{array}{c}<J_x^{\mathrm{tot}}>=0\hfill \\ <J_y^{\mathrm{tot}}>=\frac{ec}{B}\left(\rho _e\rho _h\right)E.\hfill \end{array}$$
(18)
The second equation determines the so-called Hall conductivity and then leads us to have a total $`\sigma _\mathrm{H}^{\mathrm{tot}}`$ as

$$\sigma _\mathrm{H}^{\mathrm{tot}}=\frac{ec}{B}\left(\rho _e\rho _h\right)$$
(19)
which is actually sum of two contributions coming from electrons and holes, respectively

$$\begin{array}{c}\sigma _\mathrm{H}^\mathrm{e}=\frac{ec\rho _e}{B}\hfill \\ \sigma _\mathrm{H}^\mathrm{h}=\frac{ec\rho _h}{B}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(20)
At this level, let us notice two remarks. First, one may can see that once we have $`\rho _h=\rho _e`$, $`\sigma _\mathrm{H}^{\mathrm{tot}}`$ becomes null. Then in this case the mixing system is behaving like an insulator. Second, if one drops $`\sigma _\mathrm{H}^{\mathrm{tot}}`$ as function of the magnetic field $`B`$, we end up with straight line. However, the experiment observation claimed that at strong $`B`$, we have plateaus. Consequently, when the straight line meets the plateaus, it is equivalent to have

$$\frac{ec}{B}\left(\rho _e\rho _h\right)=\nu ^{\mathrm{tot}}\frac{e^2}{h}$$
(21)
where $`\nu ^{\mathrm{tot}}`$ is the total filling factor, which is characterising quantum Hall effect. This equation leads us to have

$$\nu ^{\mathrm{tot}}=\frac{N_eN_h}{N_{\mathrm{\Phi }_B}}$$
(22)
it is nothing but the definition of $`\nu ^{\mathrm{tot}}`$, i.e. the ratio between number of particles ensuring the conductivity and number of quantum flux $`N_{\mathrm{\Phi }_B}=\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_B}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=hc/e`$ is unit of flux.

## 3 Hall conductivity on noncommutative plane

The results derived in the last section can be generalised in terms of noncommutative geometry  and lead us to have more informations, especially for total Hall conductivity. To clarify these points, let us start by demanding that the coordinates of the plane are noncommuting, which means that the spacial commutator is now broken such that

$$[x^i,x^j]=i\theta ^{ij}$$
(23)
where $`\theta ^{ij}=ϵ^{ij}\theta `$ is the noncommutativity parameter and $`ϵ^{12}=ϵ^{21}=1`$. Basically, we are forced in this case to replace $`fg(x)=f(x)g(x)`$ by the relation

$$f(x)g(x)=\mathrm{exp}[\frac{i}{2}\theta ^{ij}_{x^i}_{y^j}]f(x)g(y)|_{x=y}$$
(24)
where $`f`$ and $`g`$ are two arbitrary functions, supposed to be infinitely differentiable. As consequence, now we are going to deal with quantum mechanics by considering the following algebra

$$\begin{array}{ccc}[x^i,x^j]=i\theta ^{ij}\hfill & & \\ [p^i,x^j]=i\delta ^{ij}\hfill & & \\ [p^i,p^j]=0.\hfill & & \end{array}$$
(25)
At this level, one may can use the above receipt to deform the electron’s and hole’s phase space independently . Thus, instead of using (23), we consider two different relations, namely one with respect to electrons

$$\begin{array}{c}[x_e,y_e]=i\theta _e\hfill \end{array}$$
(26)
and another one related to holes

$$\begin{array}{c}[x_h,y_h]=i\theta _h\hfill \end{array}$$
(27)
where $`\theta _i`$’s are real parameter, and the usual canonical quantization similar to the two last equations given in (25).

Actually, we can write down the noncommutative version of the Hamiltonian (3). In doing on, let us notice $`H^{\mathrm{tot}}`$ acts on an arbitrary function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ as

$$\begin{array}{c}H^{\mathrm{tot}}\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{r},t)=H^{(\mathrm{tot},\mathrm{nc})}\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{r},t)\hfill \end{array}$$
(28)
which implies that $`H^{(\mathrm{tot},\mathrm{nc})}`$ is

$$\begin{array}{c}H^{(\mathrm{tot},\mathrm{nc})}=\frac{1}{2m_e}\left[\left(\gamma _ep_{x_e}\frac{eB}{2c}y_e\right)^2+\left(\gamma _ep_{y_e}+\frac{eB}{2c}x_e\right)^2\right]+eE(x_e\frac{\theta _e}{2\mathrm{}}p_{y_e})\hfill \\ +\frac{1}{2m_h}\left[\left(\gamma _hp_{x_h}+\frac{eB}{2c}y_h\right)^2+\left(\gamma _hp_{y_h}\frac{eB}{2c}x_h\right)^2\right]eE(x_h\frac{\theta _h}{2\mathrm{}}p_{y_h})\hfill \end{array}$$
(29)
where the $`\gamma _i`$’s are defined to be

$$\begin{array}{c}\gamma _e=1\theta _el^2\hfill \\ \gamma _h=1+\theta _hl^2\hfill \end{array}$$
(30)
and $`l=2l_0`$, $`l_0=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{}c}{eB}}`$ is the magnetic length. Note in passing that (29) is also a sum of two noncommutative parts of $`H_e`$ and $`H_h`$:

$$H^{(\mathrm{tot},\mathrm{nc})}=H_e^{\mathrm{nc}}+H_h^{\mathrm{nc}}.$$
(31)
Now, one can process as before to diagonalise the noncommutative Hamiltonian $`H^{(\mathrm{tot},\mathrm{nc})}`$. For that, let us define the following operators for electron

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{b}_e^{}=2i\gamma _ep_{\overline{z}_e}+\frac{eB}{2c}z_e+\lambda _e\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{b}_e=2i\gamma _ep_{z_e}+\frac{eB}{2c}\overline{z}_e+\lambda _e\hfill \end{array}$$
(32)
and

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{d}_e=2i\gamma _ep_{z_e}\frac{eB}{2c}\overline{z}_e\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{d}_e^{}=2i\gamma _ep_{\overline{z}_e}\frac{eB}{2c}z_e.\hfill \end{array}$$
(33)
Also in similar way one can define another set of operators for hole

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{b}_h^{}=2i\gamma _hp_{\overline{z}_h}\frac{eB}{2c}z_h+\lambda _h\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{b}_h=2i\gamma _hp_{z_h}\frac{eB}{2c}\overline{z}_h+\lambda _h\hfill \end{array}$$
(34)
and

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{d}_h=2i\gamma _hp_{z_h}+\frac{eB}{2c}\overline{z}_h\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{d}_h^{}=2i\gamma _hp_{\overline{z}_h}+\frac{eB}{2c}z_h.\hfill \end{array}$$
(35)
The sets of operators $`(\stackrel{~}{b}_i,\stackrel{~}{b}_i^{})`$ and $`(\stackrel{~}{d}_i,\stackrel{~}{d}_i^{})`$ commute with each other. Moreover, they verify the commutation relations

$$\begin{array}{c}[\stackrel{~}{b}_i,\stackrel{~}{b}_i^{}]=\pm 2m_i\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i\hfill \\ [\stackrel{~}{d}_i^{},\stackrel{~}{d}_i]=\pm 2m_i\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i\hfill \end{array}$$
(36)
where the $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i`$’s and the $`\lambda _{\pm i}`$’s are given by

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{\omega }_e=\gamma _e\omega _e\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{\omega }_h=\gamma _h\omega _h\hfill \\ \lambda _{e\pm }=\lambda _e\pm \frac{em_eE\theta _e}{4\gamma _e\mathrm{}}\hfill \\ \lambda _{h\pm }=\lambda _h\frac{em_hE\theta _h}{4\gamma _h\mathrm{}}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(37)
To make these equations holding and for further analysis, we assume that the conditions $`\theta _el^2`$ and $`\theta _hl^2`$ are satisfied. We will come back to this assumption in the last section and discuss its consequence. In terms of the above creation and annihilation operators, the Hamiltonian $`H^{(\mathrm{tot},\mathrm{nc})}`$ takes the form

$$\begin{array}{c}H^{(\mathrm{tot},\mathrm{nc})}=\frac{1}{4m_e}(\stackrel{~}{b}_e^{}\stackrel{~}{b}_e+\stackrel{~}{b}_e\stackrel{~}{b}_e^{})\frac{\lambda _{e+}}{2m_e}(\stackrel{~}{d}_e^{}+\stackrel{~}{d}_e)\frac{\lambda _e^2}{2m_e}\hfill \\ +\frac{1}{4m_h}(\stackrel{~}{b}_h^{}\stackrel{~}{b}_h+\stackrel{~}{b}_h\stackrel{~}{b}_h^{})\frac{\lambda _{h+}}{2m_h}(\stackrel{~}{d}_h^{}+\stackrel{~}{d}_h)\frac{\lambda _h^2}{2m_h}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(38)
As before, we can solve the eigenvalue equation

$$H^{(\mathrm{tot},\mathrm{nc})}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(\mathrm{tot},\mathrm{nc})}>=E^{(\mathrm{tot},\mathrm{nc})}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(\mathrm{tot},\mathrm{nc})}>$$
(39)
to get the eigenstates:

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Psi }_{(n_e,n_h,\alpha _e,\alpha _h,\theta _e,\theta _h)}^{(\mathrm{tot},\mathrm{nc})}=\mathrm{\Psi }_{(n_e,\alpha _e,\theta _e)}^{\mathrm{nc}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{(n_h,\alpha _h,\theta _h)}^{\mathrm{nc}}|n_e,n_h,\alpha _e,\alpha _h,\theta _e,\theta _h>\hfill \end{array}$$
(40)
where

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{(n_i,\alpha _i,\theta _i)}^{\mathrm{nc}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{(2m_i\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i)^{n_i}}}e^{i(\alpha _iy_i+\frac{m_e\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i}{2\mathrm{}}x_iy_i)}(\stackrel{~}{b}_i^{})^{n_i}|0>$$
(41)
and the corresponding eigenvalues:

$$\begin{array}{c}E_{(n_e,n_h,\alpha _e,\alpha _h,\theta _e,\theta _h)}^{(\mathrm{tot},\mathrm{nc})}=E_{(n_e,\alpha _e,\theta _e)}^{\mathrm{nc}}+E_{(n_h,\alpha _h,\theta _h)}^{\mathrm{nc}}\hfill \end{array}$$
(42)
where

$$\begin{array}{c}E_{(n_e,\alpha _e,\theta _e)}^{\mathrm{nc}}=\frac{\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\omega }_e}{2}(2n_e+1)\frac{\mathrm{}\gamma _e\lambda _{e+}}{m_e}\alpha _e\frac{m_e}{2}\lambda _e^2\hfill \\ E_{(n_h,\alpha _h,\theta _h)}^{\mathrm{nc}}=\frac{\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\omega }_h}{2}(2n_h+1)\frac{\mathrm{}\gamma _h\lambda _{h+}}{m_h}\alpha _h\frac{m_h}{2}\lambda _h^2\hfill \end{array}$$
(43)
with $`n_i=0,1,2\mathrm{}`$ and $`\alpha _i`$.

Here one may can ask about the corresponding conductivity to see the difference with the commutative case. Actually this quantity resulting from the Hamiltonian $`H^{(\mathrm{tot},\mathrm{nc})}`$ is determined by defining the total current operator $`\stackrel{}{J}^{(\mathrm{tot},\mathrm{nc})}`$ on noncommutative plane as

$$\stackrel{}{J}^{(\mathrm{tot},\mathrm{nc})}=\frac{e\rho _e\gamma _e}{m_e}(\gamma _e\stackrel{}{p}_e+\frac{e}{c}\stackrel{}{A}_e+\stackrel{}{a}_e)+\frac{e\rho _h\gamma _h}{m_h}(\gamma _h\stackrel{}{p}_h\frac{e}{c}\stackrel{}{A}_h+\stackrel{}{a}_h)$$
(44)
where the $`\stackrel{}{a}_i`$ vectors are

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{}{a}_e=(0,\frac{m_eeE\theta _e}{2\mathrm{}\gamma _e})\hfill \\ \stackrel{}{a}_h=(0,\frac{m_heE\theta _h}{2\mathrm{}\gamma _h}).\hfill \end{array}$$
(45)
Its expectation value are calculated with respect to the eigenstates $`|n_e,n_h,\alpha _e,\alpha _h,\theta _e,\theta _h>`$ (40) and it found to be

$$\begin{array}{c}<J_x^{(\mathrm{tot},\mathrm{nc})}>=0\hfill \\ <J_y^{(\mathrm{tot},\mathrm{nc})}>=\frac{ec}{B}\left(\rho _e\gamma _e\rho _h\gamma _h\right)E.\hfill \end{array}$$
(46)
Therefore, the total Hall conductivity on noncommutative plane of electrons and holes, denoted by $`\sigma _\mathrm{H}^{(\mathrm{tot},\mathrm{nc})}`$, is

$$\sigma _\mathrm{H}^{(\mathrm{tot},\mathrm{nc})}=\frac{ec}{B}\left(\rho _e\gamma _e\rho _h\gamma _h\right).$$
(47)
To close this section, let us notice that the commutative analysis is recovered if the noncommutativity parameters $`\theta _i`$ are switched off.

## 4 Discussions

In this section, we would like to comment the obtained result (47) and then discuss its consequence by considering some special cases either related to different densities or noncommutativity parameters. Indeed, let us distinguish some relevant cases:

First: (47) can be written as follows

$$\sigma _\mathrm{H}^{(\mathrm{tot},\mathrm{nc})}=\sigma _\mathrm{H}^{\mathrm{tot}}+\frac{\pi }{2}\left(\theta _h\rho _h\theta _e\rho _e\right)\frac{e^2}{h}.$$
(48)
Then, the second term can be interpreted as a quantum correction to standard Hall effect, which is noncommutativity parameters dependent. It is obvious to see that

$$\sigma _\mathrm{H}^{(\mathrm{tot},\mathrm{nc})}|_{\theta _e=\theta _h=0}=\sigma _\mathrm{H}^{\mathrm{tot}}$$
(49)
once we have $`\theta _e=\theta _h=0`$.

Second : Let us make contact with quantum Hall effect by defining the corresponding total effective filling factor

$$\nu _{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{tot}}=\frac{\pi }{2}l^2\left(\rho _e\gamma _e\rho _h\gamma _h\right)$$
(50)
which implies that

$$\sigma _\mathrm{H}^{(\mathrm{tot},\mathrm{nc})}=\nu _{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{tot}}\frac{e^2}{h}.$$
(51)
It is similar to the ordinary relation for Hall conductivity $`\sigma _\mathrm{H}^{\mathrm{tot}}=\nu ^{\mathrm{tot}}\frac{e^2}{h}`$. Then, one may can interpret (47) as a result of QHE by setting an effective density and magnetic field, such that their ratio is

$$\frac{\rho _{\mathrm{eff}}}{B_{\mathrm{eff}}}=\rho _e\frac{\gamma _e}{B}\rho _h\frac{\gamma _h}{B}$$
(52)
and leading to

$$\sigma _\mathrm{H}^{(\mathrm{tot},\mathrm{nc})}=\frac{ec\rho _{\mathrm{eff}}}{B_{\mathrm{eff}}}=\nu _{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{tot}}\frac{e^2}{h}$$
(53)
Third : One can see easily that (47) vanishes when the relation is satisfied

$$\frac{\gamma _e}{\gamma _h}=\frac{\rho _h}{\rho _e}$$
(54)
which is independent to the relationship between different densities. It is on the contrary with the standard case where the total Hall conductivity is found to be zero whether $`N_e=N_h`$.

Fourth : If we assume that

$$\rho _e\gamma _e=\beta \rho _h\gamma _h$$
(55)
for any $`\beta `$, then (47) gives us

$$\sigma _\mathrm{H}^{(\mathrm{tot},\mathrm{nc})}=(\beta 1)\frac{ec}{B}\rho _h\gamma _h.$$
(56)
It is $`(\beta 1)`$ times of what we obtained  for one system and coincides with our former results when $`\beta =2`$.

Fifth : If we demand that the numbers of electrons and holes are the same, namely $`\rho _h=\rho _e=\rho `$, then (47) becomes

$$\sigma _\mathrm{H}^{(\mathrm{tot},\mathrm{nc})}|_{\rho _h=\rho _e=\rho }=\frac{\pi \rho }{2}(\theta _e+\theta _h)\frac{e^2}{h}$$
(57)
and therefore

$$\nu _{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{tot}}|_{\rho _h=\rho _e=\rho }=\frac{\pi \rho }{2}(\theta _e+\theta _h).$$
(58)
As consequence, if $`\theta _e=\theta _h=\theta `$, we find

$$\sigma _\mathrm{H}^{(\mathrm{tot},\mathrm{nc})}|_{\rho _h=\rho _e=\rho }^{\theta _e=\theta _h=\theta }=\pi \rho \theta \frac{e^2}{h}$$
(59)
and obviously (57) becomes zero when $`\theta _e=\theta _h`$. These results are completely different from standard case where $`\sigma _\mathrm{H}^{\mathrm{tot}}`$ is found to be null at the present limit $`(\rho _e=\rho _h=\rho )`$. These equations tell us about the possibility to have theoretically Hall effect without magnetic field just by controlling the noncommutativity parameter $`\theta `$ for fixed densities. As consequence, one may can ask about the experiment realisation of such kind of result, otherwise is it possible to prove (57,59) experimentally?

## 5 Critical points

Another result can be obtained by taking into account of critical points. In fact, following the above analysis we have to consider two different critical values of $`\theta _i`$, namely $`\theta _e=l^2`$ and $`\theta _h=l^2`$. Then, let us see what is the consequence of these particular values of $`\theta _i`$ on the above results of the noncommutative study.

(i) $`\theta _e=l^2`$: The relation (26) reads as

$$[x_e^i,x_e^j]=il^2\delta ^{ij}.$$
(60)
In this case the whole Hamiltonian becomes

$$H^{(\mathrm{tot},\mathrm{nc})}|_{\theta _e=l^2}=\frac{m\omega _e^2}{4}\left(x_e^2+y_e^2\right)+\frac{2Ec}{B}\left(\frac{eB}{2c}x_ep_{y_e}\right)+H_h^{\mathrm{nc}}.$$
(61)
Using the same techniques as before, we find that (47) now reads as

$$\sigma _\mathrm{H}^{(\mathrm{tot},\mathrm{nc})}|_{\theta _e=l^2}=\frac{2ec\rho _e}{B}\frac{ec\rho _h}{B}\gamma _h,$$
(62)
which is $`\theta _h`$-dependent. Here also one may can report the above discussion as concerning noncommutativity parameter.

(ii) $`\theta _h=l^2`$: A similar result as before can be found just by switching the indices’s. Indeed, now the deformed hole space is characterised by

$$[x_h^i,x_h^j]=il^2\delta ^{ij}$$
(63)
instead of (27). Then, the corresponding Hall conductivity is

$$\sigma _\mathrm{H}^{(\mathrm{tot},\mathrm{nc})}|_{\theta _h=l^2}=\frac{ec\rho _e}{B}\gamma _e\frac{2ec\rho _h}{B}$$
(64)
which is now $`\theta _e`$-dependent.

(iii) $`\theta _e=l^2=\theta _h`$: (28) reduces to the following one

$$\begin{array}{c}H^{(\mathrm{tot},\mathrm{nc})}|_{\theta _e=l^2=\theta _e}=\frac{m\omega _e^2}{4}\left(x_e^2+y_e^2\right)+\frac{2Ec}{B}\left(\frac{eB}{2c}x_ep_{y_e}\right)\hfill \\ +\frac{m\omega _h^2}{4}\left(x_h^2+y_h^2\right)\frac{2Ec}{B}\left(\frac{eB}{2c}x_hp_{y_h}\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(65)
Therefore, we end up with

$$\sigma _\mathrm{H}^{(\mathrm{tot},\mathrm{nc})}|_{\theta _e=l^2=\theta _h}=2\frac{ec}{B}\left(\rho _e\rho _h\right).$$
(66)
Note that the obtained relation is actually two times the standard result $`\sigma _\mathrm{H}^{\mathrm{tot}}`$ and becomes zero once we have $`N_e=N_h`$.

## 6 Conclusion

By considering a system of the electrons and holes living together on noncommutative plane and in the presence of magnetic and electric fields, we ended up with the corresponding total Hall conductivity. This latter has some particularities in sense that it is noncommutativity parameters dependent and showed some other behaviour than the usual one. In fact, on the contrary to standard case, it does not vanish whether we have $`N_e=N_h`$ and then became magnetic field independent. Therefore, this result suggested the possibility to have Hall effect without magnetic field. Moreover, by taking into account of different critical points, we got the usual Hall conductivity for a mixing system times a factor two.

One may can ask about the possibility to deal with an interacting system of electrons and holes in the framework of noncommutative geometry. This problem and related questions will be considered in the feature.

## Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Ö.F. Dayi for fruitful discussion and suggestion. He is also thankful to P. Cain, M.L. Ndawana and R.A. Römer for discussion. A Special thanks from AJ to E.H. Saidi for his comment.