text:
# PRECISE MEASUREMENT OF Σ BEAM ASYMMETRY FOR POSITIVE PION PHOTOPRODUCTION ON THE PROTON FROM 800 TO 1500 MEV

## Abstract

The $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ beam asymmetry for positive pion photoproduction on the proton has been measured over an angular range of $`40170^{}`$ at photon energies from 0.8 to 1.5 GeV. The resulting data set includes 237 accurate points, 136 of these belonging to an almost unexplored domain above 1.05 GeV. Data of such high precision provide severe constraints for partial wave analyses. The influence of this experiment on the GW multipole analysis is demonstrated. Significant changes are found in multipoles connected to the $`S_{31}(1620)`$ and $`P_{13}(1720)`$ resonances. Comparisons using the MAID analysis are also presented.

PACS: 13.60.Le, 13.88.+e, 14.40.Aq

thanks: Contact person: E-mail Slava@cpc.inr.ac.ru, Slava@gravax2.in2p3.frthanks: Contact person: E-mail Ron@alpha1.phys.gwu.edu

The spectrum of baryon resonances contains important information regarding the internal structure of the nucleon. Precise determinations of resonance properties (masses, widths, and electromagnetic couplings) provide vital benchmarks for the development of quark models. Much of our present knowledge has been obtained through pion-nucleon scattering. The existence of many resonances has been established and some properties have been determined with reasonable precision . However, many features of the baryon spectrum remain a mystery. Among 43 nucleon and delta resonances predicted by QCD-inspired models , only 24 have been well established (“four-star” or “three-star” resonances ). The remaining (existing) resonances are either masked by overlapping states or are weakly excited in reactions coupled to the single-pion$``$nucleon channel.

Meson photoproduction offers a complementary approach to the baryon spectroscopy. The photoproduction of mesons other than pions allows access to states which could be suppressed in the pion-nucleon scattering. Here, and also in the case of pion photoproduction, the beam asymmetry observable $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ has proven to be particularly sensitive to resonance properties .

Properties of resonances are extracted from the photoproduction data by means of partial wave analysis and multipole decomposition in the framework of different approaches . The comparison of calculated observables to experimental data constrains theoretical models  and determines the role and properties of the included resonances. The quality of this procedure is directly related to the quality of the data base. The extraction of resonance parameters clearly requires both the unpolarized cross section and polarization observables . While the cross section is a source of information on dominating components of the scattering amplitude, the polarization observables, in particular the polarized-photon beam-asymmetry $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, are much more sensitive to the non-dominant contributions.

The high yield and kinematic simplicity of single-pion photoproduction offers an opportunity to produce high precision experimental data. Several recent attempts have been made to study the nucleon and Delta resonances using single-pion photoproduction data, from which parameters of the dominant resonances have been extracted . Uncertainties for other resonances remain large, due both to the quality of available data and model-dependence inherent in the extraction process.

The world data base is rather extensive, containing 20,000 data points for a single-pion photoproduction  below 2 GeV. However, this count includes many old unpolarized cross sections measured with bremsstrahlung beams in the first and second resonance regions. There is a clear lack of polarized data above 1 GeV. Only a few tens of beam asymmetry points, of low accuracy and dated before 1980, are available for the $`\pi ^+n`$ final state. In this Letter, we report a new measurement of the beam asymmetry $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ for positive-pion photoproduction on the proton over the energy range of 0.8$``$1.5 GeV. We shall see that, by adding a significant number of precise points to the data base, an important constraint is placed on the existing partial wave analyses.

The present data have been obtained at the GRAAL facility. The polarized and tagged photon beam is produced by backscattering of laser light on 6.04 GeV electrons which circulate in the storage ring of the ESRF (Grenoble, France). Through the use of green 514 nm laser light, the tagged spectrum covers an energy range of 0.55$``$1.1 GeV. Alternately, the UV 351 nm line can be employed, resulting in an energy range of 0.8$``$1.5 GeV. The linear beam polarization varies from $``$0.45 at the lower energy limits to 0.98 at the upper limits. The detection system includes three main parts:
\- At forward angles $`\theta _{lab}25^{}`$ there are two planar wire chambers, a thin time-of-flight (TOF) hodoscope made up of 26 horizontal and 26 vertical plastic scintillator strips, each 3 cm thick, and a TOF shower wall . The latter is an assembly of 16 modules, each being a sandwich of four converter-plus-scintillator layers.
\- At central angles from 25 to 155, the target is surrounded by two cylindrical wire chambers, a 5 mm thick scintillator $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ barrel, and a BGO ball made up of 480 crystals, each of 21 radiation lengths .
\- At backward angles $`\theta _{lab}155^{}`$ there are two plastic scintillator disks separated by a 1 cm lead converter.
The apparatus provides the detection and identification of all types of final state particles in an almost 4$`\pi `$ solid angle and has cylindrical symmetry, making it suitable for measurements of the beam asymmetry $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The detailed description of the GRAAL facility and the procedure used in deriving $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ from experimental data may be found in .

The present measurement is a high energy extension of the previous one, performed at GRAAL in the energy range of 0.6$``$1.1 GeV by using the green laser line . One important advantage of this measurement is the use of the high resolution cylindrical chambers, in coincidence with the scintillator barrel and BGO ball, to detect pions and to reconstruct their trajectories. As a result, the determination of the scattering angle $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{cm}`$ is made possible with an average accuracy of $`2.5^{}`$ (FWHM). This feature allows a reduction in the widths of angular bins and decreases systematic uncertainties related to the granularity of the BGO ball. Furthermore, an improved background rejection is achieved by requesting this triple coincidence between the chambers, the barrel, and the BGO ball.

Neutrons at forward angles, corresponding to backward pions, were detected in the forward shower wall. Their discrimination from other types of particles is made possible by means of the anticoincidence of the wall with the preceding planar chambers and scintillator hodoscope, and by using a $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$TOF relation . Neutrons emitted at central angles above $`25^{}`$ were detected in the BGO ball. The wire chambers and the scintillator barrel surrounding the target allow a discrimination between neutral and charged particles. Further separation between photons and neutrons is possible, considering the number of BGO crystals in the cluster which correspond to a neutral particle hit. As found in GEANT simulations, neutron clusters normally do not contain more than 3 crystals. Photons, however, produce larger clusters of a size depending on the deposited energy, and usually include 4$``$10 crystals. The identification of charged pions and their discrimination from protons is achieved by using $`\mathrm{\Delta }EE`$ relations between the energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ deposited by a charged particle in the thin scintillator barrel and the corresponding energy deposition $`E`$ in the BGO ball.

The TOF resolution for neutrons in the shower wall is 700 ps (FWHM) . For fast neutrons in the forward direction, this results in a poor energy resolution of about 30% depending on the neutron kinetic energy. The response of the BGO ball for both neutrons and pions is not uniquely related to the kinetic energy due to the complicated interaction of these particles in the detector volume . By contrast, the angles of outgoing particles are measured with good resolution: $`3^{}`$ (FWHM) for pions, $`2.53^{}`$ (FWHM) for neutrons in the forward direction and $`68^{}`$ (FWHM) for neutrons at central angles. For this reason, only the angular quantities have been exploited for the identification of the $`\pi ^+n`$ final state. For those events which have generated two hits in the detection system, associated with a pion and a neutron, the correlation between the pion and neutron $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ angles and the coplanarity have been used to select the $`\pi ^+n`$ events. After this selection, the spectrum of the reaction coplanarity $`(\varphi _n\varphi _\pi )`$ exhibited a narrow peak (Fig. 1) lying on the broad background originating mostly from multipion production. The contribution of this background, which never exceeded 3%, was evaluated from the tails in $`(\varphi _n\varphi _\pi )`$ distributions and subtracted separately in each $`\mathrm{\Delta }E\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ bin, in order to account for the possible azimuthal anisotropy of this background.

The beam asymmetry $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ was extracted from the azimuthal distribution of selected events for the linearly polarized beam, normalized to the azimuthal distribution corresponding to an unpolarized beam, as it is described in details in . This procedure reduces significantly systematic errors of the extracted asymmetries. The remaining systematic errors, estimated as not more than 0.02, originate from the unsignificant uncertainties in the background subtraction and from the slight variations of the beam profile on the target. Another source of the systematic uncertainty is the possible deterioration of the laser light polarization on the mirrors, lenses and the window of the laser focusing system. This factor adds the relative error of 1%.

The present set of 237 $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ beam asymmetries, measured over the energy and angular ranges of 800$``$1500 MeV and $`40160^{}`$, is an extension of a previous GRAAL data set consisting of 92 data points from 600 to 1050 MeV. The two sets of points are shown at overlapping energies in Fig. 2. The new data have been measured using the UV laser, producing a different beam spectrum and a different polarization for each beam energy . Some improvements in the apparatus and the analysis procedure have also been implemented. Given these differences, the reproducibility of our results is excellent and supports the quality of both data sets.

The major part of our new results is shown in Fig. 3, along with results from the most accurate older experiments . In general, our values are in agreement with the previous measurements. However, above 950 MeV, we do not confirm four points from  at $`75^{}`$. 136 data points were produced in an almost unexplored domain above 1050 MeV, where only 45 old points of lower accuracy were available. The new results also cover backward angles above 120, where no previous measurements exist. Due to improved angular resolution, these results have been obtained with narrow angular bins of $`610^{}`$, which reveal a complicated angular variation in the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ asymmetry.

We have compared our results with the prediction of a unitary isobar model of Drechsel et al. . This model, known as MAID2000, in addition to Born terms and vector meson exchange, includes all 3$``$ and 4$``$star resonances to a CM energy of 1800 MeV, apart from the $`P_{33}(1600)`$ and $`D_{15}(1675)`$. The latest version of these calculations, which includes resonance parameters obtained from a fit to the restricted benchmark data base, in general reproduces our data up to 1200 MeV, though in some regions discrepancies are still significant.

In order to assess the impact of our new data, we employed the partial wave analysis of the Data Analysis Center of The George Washington University (SAID) . Two solutions of the SAID analysis are shown in Fig. 3: WI00, which was produced prior to this measurement, however using our previous results , and FA01, a solution developed after adding our new polarized data and cross section points  to the data base. At the lower energies between 900 and 1050 MeV, the WI00 solution is found to be in agreement with the new data, although differing slightly at angles less than $`70^{}`$. At the higher energies, differences become more apparent and only a qualitative agreement is available. The FA01 solution fits our data reasonably well, with $`\chi ^2`$/ data of 555/237, compared to an overall $`\chi ^2`$/data $`2`$ for the full data base (in both WI00 and FA01).

In order to illustrate the effect of new data in the SAID analysis, we compare $`{}_{p}{}^{}E_{0+}^{\frac{1}{2}}`$, $`{}_{p}{}^{}E_{0+}^{\frac{3}{2}}`$, and $`{}_{p}{}^{}E_{1+}^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ multipoles of the WI00 and FA01 solutions. Partial cross section contributions from these multipoles are shown in Fig. 4:
$`{}_{p}{}^{}E_{0+}^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ multipole. Two distinct peaks correspond to the $`S_{11}(1535)`$ and $`S_{11}(1650)`$ resonances. The possibility of a third $`S_{11}`$ resonance, near 1750 MeV, has been considered in several recent studies . The effect of this resonance was found to be particularly significant in a study of eta photoproduction data . In Fig. 3, this state would be hidden in the shoulder of the second $`S_{11}`$ peak of the FA01 solution. Another candidate has been suggested at higher energy (the $`S_{11}(2090)`$). The “one-star” $`S_{11}(2090)`$ included in Refs.  has an estimated mass nearer to 1900 MeV. A further indication for this state stems from the analysis of low-statistics $`\eta ^{}`$ photoproduction data .

Differences appearing in the $`{}_{p}{}^{}E_{0+}^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ wave may be indications of such states, which have not been included in either of the displayed fits (WI00 and FA01). However, the signals are weak. New data at higher energies ($`\pi ^0`$ data from GRAAL) are required before any conclusion is possible. These states, if they exist, can only be weakly coupled to $`\pi N`$ (as is evident in the low cross section). Clearer results may come from other channels, such as $`\eta N`$, through studies such as the one reported in Ref. . Forthcoming GRAAL and CLAS $`\eta `$ photoproduction data are clearly of great importance to this issue.
$`{}_{p}{}^{}E_{0+}^{\frac{3}{2}}`$ multipole. The peak existing in the WI00 solution corresponds to the $`S_{31}(1620)`$ resonance. This structure nearly vanishes in the FA01 solutions.
$`{}_{p}{}^{}E_{1+}^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ multipole. An opposite trend is found in this multipole. Here a much more pronounced structure, corresponding to the $`P_{13}(1720)`$, is seen in the revised fit.

At present, the $`P_{13}(1720)`$ and $`S_{31}(1620)`$ resonances have poorly determined photo-decay amplitudes. Neither state can be identified through the “canonical” resonance behavior of its associated multipoles. A similar problem is seen in the analysis of elastic pion-nucleon scattering data . Both states have nearby pole-zero pairs in the complex energy plane. As a result, resonance properties are difficult to determine.

The ambiguous situation surrounding the $`S_{31}(1620)`$ has been pointed out in . The Particle Data Group estimates the photo-decay coupling of the $`S_{31}(1620)`$ to be $`A_{\frac{1}{2}}=(0.027\pm 0.011)`$ GeV$`^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ . This value was obtained as a weighted average of contradicting results from , which range from $`(0.026\pm 0.008)`$ to $`(0.126\pm 0.021)`$ GeV$`^{\frac{1}{2}}`$. In a recent multi-channel fit  this quantity was found to be near zero. Our results also suggest a small value.

We have studied the sensitivity of observables in the WI00 and FA01 solutions to the $`S_{31}(1620)`$ resonance. For W=1620 MeV, we found an essential difference (10-15%) between two solutions for the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, T, and P onservables in $`\pi ^+n`$ photoproduction, and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ observable in $`\pi ^0p`$ photoproduction ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, T, P denote beam, target, and recoil asymmetries respectively). For $`\pi ^0p`$ T and P observables the difference reaches 30-40%. New polarized data from modern photon factories are clearly needed to place more constraints on determination of properties of this and other resonances.

We are grateful to the staff of the contributing Institutes for their assistance in the development and maintenance of the apparatus. We acknowledge the machine operation group of the ESRF for providing stable beam operation. Support from the Russian Ministry of Sciences, INFN Sezione di Roma2, and the Université Joseph Fourier, Grenoble, has been essential for this work. The GW group gratefully acknowledges a contract from Jefferson National Lab under which the work was done. The Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility is operated by the Southeastern Universities Research Association under DOE contract DE-AC05-84ER40150. The GW group also acknowledges separate support from DOE contract DE-FG02-99ER41110.


format: text

text:
# Correlated charge detection for read-out of a solid state quantum computer

## Abstract

The single electron transistor (SET) is a prime candidate for reading out the final state of a qubit in a solid state quantum computer. Such a measurement requires the detection of sub-electron charge motion in the presence of random charging events. We present a detection scheme where the signals from two SETs are cross-correlated to suppress unwanted artifacts due to charge noise. This technique is demonstrated by using the two SETs to detect the charge state of two tunnel junction - coupled metal dots, thereby simulating charge transfer and readout in a two qubit system. These measurements indicate that for comparable buried dopant semiconductor architectures the minimum measurement time required to distinguish between the two charge states is of the order of 10 ns.

Quantum computers (QCs) hold promise to unveil unprecedented computational power by exploiting quantum mechanical principles such as superposition and entanglement Preskill (1998). Of the many proposals to implement such machines, architectures based on the manipulation of quantum two-level systems (qubits) in the solid state are appealing due to their scalability and ease of integration with existing micro-electronics hardware Kane (1998); et al., (1997, 2000a). However, the coupling of solid state qubits to a classical system for the purpose of read-out remains a formidable challenge, amounting to the detection of single charge or spin states in the presence of background artifacts. Several recent proposals for solid state QCs make use of the extreme charge sensitivity of single electron transistors (SET) to infer the state of a qubit either via direct detection Loss and DiVincenzo (1998); Devoret and Schoelkopf (2000) or by sensing a spin-dependent charge transfer event Kane (1998); et al., (2000a). Since in these cases the read-out signal is indeterministic, read-out schemes require good signal to noise without relying on the use of frequency selective (lock-in) or auto-correlation noise reduction methods.

Presently, the dominant decoherence mechanism for charge based qubits is $`1/f`$ background charge noise et al. (2002). In order to overcome this limitation, qubit operations should occur at speeds well above the $`1/f`$ corner (3kHz), where the influence of background charge motion is reduced. The process of read-out however, is stochastic in nature and can potentially be affected by slow time-scale random-charging events close to or within the SETs. Such charging events are indistinguishable from real charge signals connected with read-out and constitute a strong challenge for single-shot projective measurements.

Here we focus on a read-out detection technique where the independent charge signals from two aluminum SETs are cross-correlated both temporally and spatially in order to greatly reduce the effect of spurious background charge noise. Previously Zorin et al., et al. (1996) have made use of two SETs to identify and spatially resolve different sources of intrinsic charge noise associated with $`1/f`$ type trapping processesWeissman (1988). Here we use a similar technique not to discriminate between different noise sources, but as a means to distinguish the real signal from background artifacts with the fidelity required to read-out a quantum computer.

To demonstrate an ability to detect a fraction of an electron charge, as required for qubit read-out, we have designed and fabricated an all-metal twin-SET/double-dot system (Figure 1). In this design two metal dots connected by a tunnel junction et al., (2000b) simulate a solid state charge qubit. When an electron tunnels from dot1 to dot2, SET1 senses the departure of the electron, while SET2 simultaneously senses the arrival of the electron. Cross-correlation of the two signals permits suppression of all charging events except those that originate from the area in between the two SET detectors.

Devices were fabricated using electron beam lithography and a bi-layer resist process Fulton and Dolan (1987) on a phosphorus doped silicon substrate ($`10\mathrm{\Omega }cm`$). The Al/AlOx tunnel junctions were formed by standard shadow evaporation processes with an intermediate oxidation step. A thin native oxide layer was used in conjunction with the P-doped substrate to produce additional charge traps for the purpose of characterising our cross-correlation detection scheme. Note that although our device is engineered to contain additional charge traps, devices fabricated on high quality substrates are also influenced by background charge noise et al. (1997). Measurements were performed in a dilution refrigerator with a base temperature below 30 mK, using standard lock-in techniques with excitation voltages of $`1050\mu V`$. A magnetic field of 0.5 Tesla was applied to suppress superconducting effects in the aluminum nanostructures.

This device simulates read-out in a solid state quantum computer by using SETs to sense the controlled transfer of an electron from one metal dot to the other. Controlled electron transfer is achieved by differentially biasing gates A1 and A2 to create an electric field between the dots. As the field is increased, the potential difference between the dots becomes large enough for one electron to overcome the Coulomb charging energy of the double-dot system. Figure 2 shows the conductance of both SET1 and SET2 as a function of the differential A-gate bias. The bias gates induce conventional Coulomb blockade (CB) oscillations in both SETs as the electrostatic potential of the SET islands is varied. Superimposed on these oscillations are abrupt discontinuities or ‘jumps’ associated with charge transfer between the metal dots (vertical dashed lines in Fig. 2). The magnitude of these jumps depends on the transconductance of the SET. The combination of double-dot electron transfer and CB oscillations produces signals with two distinct periods: A differential gate bias of $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{SET1}68`$ mV for SET1 and $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{SET2}82.5`$ mV for SET2 corresponds to the addition of one electron onto the SET island, while a differential bias of $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{trans}31`$mV is required to transfer an electron between the metal dots.

Having demonstrated the ability to detect controlled single electron transfer in the double-dot system, we now turn to the issue of charge noise. Figure 3 presents data taken on both SETs as a function of time, with all gate biases fixed. The data shown in the inset to Fig. 3 reveals the presence of random telegraph signals (RTSs) associated with the charging - decharging of traps in the vicinity of the SET island Amarasinghe and Celik-Butler (2001). Note that for the data shown in the main body of the figure the conductance of SET2 remains constant and free of switching signals for the duration of the measurement. Taken on its own a single RTS signal from SET1 would be inseparable from a true charge event associated with the transfer of an electron on the double-dot system. However, by correlating the signals from both SETs we are able to distinguish between readout events and background charge noise.

For efficient read-out the SETs should be operated at their maximum sensitivity, half way up a CB peak where the transconductance is largest. In order to achieve this while simultaneously continuing A-gate operations, the SET gate biases (G1 and G2) must be adjusted to compensate for the changing A-gate potential. Figure 4(a) shows data for both SETs where the direct coupling of the A-gate to the SETs has been compensated by adjusting gates G1 and G2. In this case the data for both SETs shows a clear periodic sawtooth, corresponding to the transfer of single electrons between the metal dots. If both SETs are biased on the same side of a Coulomb blockade peak (eg on the rising edge) then their compensated signals move in opposite directions when a transfer event occurs. This is because SET1 senses the departure of an electron and SET2 senses its arrival. In contrast, signals that do not exhibit this behavior can be rejected as background charge noise. Figure 4(a) shows such an event occurring near $`V_{A1}0.11V`$. By correlating the signals from both SETs it is possible to reject all events except those signals arising from electron transfer between the metal dots. Figure 4(b) shows the correlation of signals by multiplying the transconductances ($`G_{SET1}/V\times G_{SET2}/V`$). A clear suppression of random charging events is achieved.

For SETs to be used to infer the state of qubits in QC architectures, the time required to perform a measurement must be less than the mixing time of the two level system (qubit). The ultimate limit to the SET’s sensitivity is due to shot noise Korotkov (1994), which provides a lower bound for the time required to measure a charge $`\mathrm{\Delta }q`$ of $`(t_{min})^{1/2}=1.2\times 10^6e/\mathrm{\Delta }q`$. Therefore the amount of charge $`\mathrm{\Delta }q`$ induced on the SET island is a critical parameter characterising the efficiency of the read-out process, as it determines the time $`t_{min}`$ required to distinguish the desired signal from the shot noise. For the simulation device presented here, the change in induced charge $`\mathrm{\Delta }q`$ due to the transfer of a single electron between the double dots can be determined from Fig. 2. We infer $`\mathrm{\Delta }q`$ by relating the lateral shift of the conductance $`G`$ in A-gate bias due to a charging event, $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{dot}`$8.1mV (SET1) and $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{dot}`$7.1mV (SET2), to the gate bias required to add one extra electron to the SET island, $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{SET1}`$ 68mV and $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{SET2}`$ 82.5mV. For the data from SET1 in Fig. 2, $`\mathrm{\Delta }q`$ is estimated to be $``$8.1mV/68mV $`\mathrm{\Delta }q`$ = 0.12e (for SET2 $`\mathrm{\Delta }q`$ = 0.086e). Therefore a SET with a sensitivity approaching the quantum limit, would require a minimum measurement time $`t_{min}`$ of order 10 ns to distinguish a single charge transfer event in the double-dot system from the shot noise, with a signal to noise ratio of 10 ($`\mathrm{\Delta }q=0.01e`$).

The minimum measurement time places significant practical constraints on solid state QC architectures, since the qubit to be read out with the SET must remain constant during the read-out process. For architectures utilising single dopants in a semiconductor, such as P in SiKane (1998), numerical modelingFred green (2002) indicates that the capacitive coupling $`\kappa `$ between the dopant and the SET is similar to that in our metal nanostructure, suggesting that the readout times will be comparable for the two cases.

In conclusion, we have demonstrated a charge detection scheme that makes use of cross - correlated signals from two SETs to suppress spurious noise associated with random trapping-detrapping events in the substrate and oxide. This scheme was demonstrated using an all metal twin-SET double-dot system to distinguish controlled electron transfer from random telegraph signals originating close to the SETs, and simulates readout in a solid state two-qubit system. Our measurements indicate that for comparative capacitive coupling, readout using a quantum-limited SET requires $``$10 ns to distinguish the readout signal with good signal to noise. Work is presently underway to construct twin radio frequency SET readout devices, so that this correlated measurement technique can be extended to much shorter time-scales than presently demonstrated. We are also developing twin-SET devices in which the two metal dots are replaced with two clusters of localised P dopants buried in the silicon substrate, as a step towards the goal of creating a scalable P in Si quantum computer.

We thank R. P. Starrett and D. Barber for technical support and F. Green for informative discussions. This work was supported by the Australian Research Council, the Australian Government, by the US National Security Agency (NSA), Advanced Research and Development Activity (ARDA) and the Army Research Office (ARO) under contract number DAAD19-01-1-0653. DJR acknowledges a Hewlett-Packard Fellowship.


text:
# Casimir energy for spherical shell in Schwarzschild black hole background

## 1 Introduction

The Casimir effect is one of the most interesting manifestations of nontrivial properties of the vacuum state in quantum field theory . The Casimir effect can be viewed as the polarization of vacuum by the boundary conditions or geometry. Therefore, vacuum polarization induced by a gravitational field is also considered as Casimir effect. Since its first prediction by Casimir in 1948 , this effect has been investigated for different fields in different background geometries \[4-7\]. There is several methods for calculating Casimir energy. For instance, we can mention mode summation, Green’s function method , heat kernel method along with appropriate regularization schemes such as point separation , dimensional regularization , zeta function regularization . Recently a general new methods to compute renormalized one–loop quantum energies and energy densities are given in .
It has been shown  that particle creation by black hole in four dimension is a consequence of the Casimir effect for spherical shell. Also it has been shown that the only existence of the horizon and of the barrier in the effective potential is sufficient to compel the black hole to emit black-body radiation with temperature that exactly coincides with the standard result for Hawking radiation. In , the results for the accelerated-mirror have been used to prove the above statement. To see more about relation between moving mirrors and black holes refer to
Another relation between Casimir effect and Schwarzschild black hole thermodynamic is the thermodynamic instability. Widom et al  showed that the black hole capacity is negative, then an increase in its energy decreases its temperature. They also showed that the electrodynamic Casimir effect can also produce thermodynamic instability.
The renormalized vacuum expectation value of the stress tensor of the scalar field in the Schwarzschild spacetime can be obtained by using different regularization methods.( see Refs. ). $`<T_\nu ^\mu >_{ren}`$ is needed , for instance, when we want to study back-reaction, i.e, the influence that the matter field in a curved background assert on the background geometry itself. This would be done by solving the Einstein equations with the expectation value of the energy-momentum tensor as source.
Regarding the Nugayev papers , we would like to investigate the Casimir energy of massless scalar field which is conformally coupled to the Schwarzschild spacetime and satisfies Dirichlet boundary condition on a spherical shell. Casimir effect for spherical shells in the presence of the electromagnetic fields has been calculated several years ago . The dependence of Casimir energy on the dimensions of the space for electromagnetic and scalar fields with Dirichlet boundary conditions in the presence of a spherical shell is discussed in . The Casimir energy for odd and even space dimensions and different fields, including the spinor field, and all the possible boundary conditions have been considered in . There it is explicitly shown that although the Casimir energy for interior and exterior of a spherical shell are both divergent, irrespective of the number of space dimensions, the total Casimir energy of the shell remains finite for the case of odd space dimensions (see also ). Of some interest are cases where the field is confined to the inside of a spherical shell. This is sometimes called the bag boundary condition. The application of Casimir effect to the bag model is considered for the case of massive scalar field  and the Dirac field . We will utilize the renormalization procedure used in the above cases for our problem.
The curvature effects in Schwarzschild background are well studied through various topics, but the effects of boundaries do not seem to be so generally familiar. The Casimir energy for the massless scalar fields of two parallel plates in a two-dimensional Schwarzschild black hole with Dirichlet boundary conditions has been calculated in Ref..
In this paper we would like to investigated the Casimir energy of massless scalar field for a spherical shell with Dirichlet boundary condition, Outside the shell, the spacetime is described by the Schwarzschild metric, while inside the shell is flat Minkowski space. The heat kernel and zeta function will be utilized to investigate the divergent parts of the vacuum energy . Heat kernel coefficients and zeta function of the Laplace operator on a manifold with different boundary conditions, both of them useful tools to calculate Casimir energies, have been calculated in .
The paper is organized as follows: in the second section we briefly review the Casimir energy inside and outside of spherical shell in terms of zeta function. Then in section 3 we obtain the heat kernel coefficients for massless scalar field inside and outside of spherical shell, then we obtain the divergent part of Casimir energy inside and outside of shell separately. Section 4 is devoted to the conclusions.

## 2 Casimir energy inside and outside of spherical shell

In what follows as a boundary configuration we shall consider a spherical shell, outside the shell we consider the spacetime to be described by the Schwarzschild metric which has the form

$$d^2s=\left(12\frac{m}{r}\right)dt^2+\left(12\frac{m}{r}\right)^1dr^2+r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2d\phi ^2),$$
(1)
while inside the shell the spacetime is the flat Minkowski space. We shall consider the conformally coupled massless real scalar field $`\varphi `$, which satisfies

$$\left(\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{6}R\right)\varphi =0,\mathrm{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}_\mu \left(\sqrt{g}g^{\mu \nu }_\nu \right),$$
(2)
and propagates inside and outside the shell, $`R`$ is scalar curvature which is zero in both the Schwarzschild and Minkowski backgrounds. For the point on spherical shell the scalar field obeys Dirichlet boundary condition

$$\varphi (r=a)=0,$$
(3)
where $`a`$ is the radius of spherical shell.
The quantization of the field described by Eq.(2) on the background of Eq.(1) is standard. Let $`\varphi _\alpha ^{(\pm )}(x)`$ be complete set of orthonormalized positive and negative frequency solutions to the field equation (2), obeying boundary conditions (3). The canonical quantization can be done by expanding the general solution of Eq.(2) in terms of $`\varphi _\alpha ^{(\pm )}`$,

$$\varphi =\underset{\alpha }{}(\varphi _\alpha ^+a_\alpha +\varphi _\alpha a_\alpha ^{(+)})$$
(4)
and declaring the coefficients $`a_\alpha `$, $`a_\alpha ^+`$ as operators satisfying the standard commutation relation for bosonic fields. The vacuum state $`|0>`$ is defined as $`a_\alpha |0>=0`$. This state is different from the vacuum state for black hole geometry without boundaries, $`|\overline{0}>`$. A black hole emits particles like a hot body at a temperature $`\frac{\kappa }{2\pi }`$ where $`\kappa `$ is a surface gravity of the black hole. Therefore, we have to considered the Hartle-Hawking state $`|\overline{0}>=|H>`$, this state is not empty at infinity, even in the absence of boundary conditions on the quantum field, but it corresponds to a thermal distribution of quanta at the Hawking temperature $`T=\frac{1}{8\pi m}`$. In fact, the state $`|H>`$ is related to a black hole in equilibrium with an infinite reservoir of black body radiation.
The quantum field has a ground state energy

$$E_0=\frac{1}{2}\underset{k}{}\lambda _k^{1/2},$$
(5)
where the $`\lambda _k`$’s are the one-particle energies with the quantum number $`k`$. The vacuum energy is divergent and we shall regularize it by

$$E_0=\frac{1}{2}\underset{k}{}\lambda _k^{1/2s}\mu ^{2s},Res>2$$
(6)
where $`\mu `$ is an arbitrary mass parameter. It is similar to the subtraction point in the renormalization of perturbative quantum field theory. After renormalization the ground state energy will become independent of $`\mu `$. The one-particle energies are determined by the eigenvalue equation

$$\mathrm{}\phi _k=\lambda _k\phi _k.$$
(7)
For the calculations we use the corresponding zeta function

$$\zeta _A(s)=\underset{k}{}\lambda _k^s,$$
(8)
where operator $`A`$ is given by

$$A=\mathrm{}.$$
(9)
Therefore the regularized vacuum energy inside and outside the spherical shell are given by

$$E_{reg}^{in}=\frac{1}{2}\zeta _A^{in}(s1/2)\mu ^{2s},E_{reg}^{out}=\frac{1}{2}\zeta _A^{out}(s1/2)\mu ^{2s}.$$
(10)
## 3 Zeta function and Heat-Kernel coefficients

The general structure of the ultraviolet divergencies can be obtained from the heat kernel expansion. For this reason one can represent the zeta function in Eq.(8) by an integral

$$\zeta _A(s)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑tt^{s1}K(t),$$
(11)
where

$$K(t)=(4\pi t)^{3/2}\underset{k}{}\mathrm{exp}(\lambda _kt),$$
(12)
is the heat kernel. Now the ultraviolet divergencies of the vacuum energy are determined from the behaviour of the integrand in Eq.(11) at the lower integration limit and , hence, from the asymptotic expansion of the heat kernel for $`t0`$

$$K(t)\frac{1}{(4\pi t)^{3/2}}\underset{k=0,1/2,1,\mathrm{}}{}B_kt^k.$$
(13)
This expansion is known for a very general manifold, if the underlying manifold is without boundary, only coefficients with integer numbers enter, otherwise half integer powers of $`t`$ are present. The $`B_k`$ are given by

$$B_k=_M𝑑va_k(x)+_{S^2}𝑑sc_k(y),$$
(14)
the Seely-de Witt coefficients $`a_k(x)`$ vanish for half-odd integers, these coefficients are independent of the applied boundary condition, but the coefficients do depend on the spin of the field in question . The coefficients $`c_k`$ are functions of the second fundamental form of the boundary (extrinsic curvature), the induced geometry on the boundary (intrinsic curvature), and the nature of boundary conditions imposed. The simplest first of $`a_k`$ and $`c_k`$ coefficients for a manifold with boundary are given in

$$a_0(x)=1,$$
(15)
$$a_1(x)=(\frac{1}{6}\xi )R,$$
(16)
$$a_2(x)=\frac{1}{180}R_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }R^{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }\frac{1}{180}R^{\alpha \beta }R_{\alpha \beta }\frac{1}{6}(1/5\xi )\mathrm{}R+\frac{1}{2}(1/6\xi )^2R^2,$$
(17)
where $`\xi `$ is the coupling constant between the scalar field and the gravitational field, for conformally coupling $`\xi =1/6`$, $`R_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }`$, $`R_{\alpha \beta }`$ and $`R`$ are respectively, Riemann, Ricci and scalar curvature tensors. The $`c_k`$ coefficients for Dirichlet boundary condition are as follow

$$c_0=0,$$
(18)
$$c_{1/2}=\frac{\sqrt{\pi }}{2},$$
(19)
$$c_1=\frac{1}{3}K\frac{1}{2}f^{(1)},$$
(20)
$$c_{3/2}=\frac{\sqrt{\pi }}{2}((\frac{1}{6}\widehat{R}\frac{1}{4}R_{ik}N^iN^k+\frac{3}{32}(trK)^2\frac{1}{16}trK^2)+\frac{5}{16}trKf^{(1)}\frac{1}{4}f^{(2)}),$$
(21)
$`c_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\xi )R(trK)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}({\displaystyle \frac{3}{20}}\xi )_lN^l{\displaystyle \frac{1}{90}}R_{lk}N^lN^k(trK)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{30}}R_{iljk}N^lN^kK^{ij}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{90}}R_{il}K^{il}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{315}}[{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}(trK)^311(trK)(trK^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{40}{3}}(trK^3)]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{15}}\mathrm{}(trK)`$
where $`f^{(i)}`$ are the $`i`$’th normal derivative of the function $`f`$, $`R_{iljk}`$ $`R_{ik}`$and $`\widehat{R}`$ are respectively Riemann, Ricci and the scalar curvature on the boundary, $`K`$ is extrinsic curvature tensor on the boundary

$$K_{ij}=_iN_j,$$
(23)
where $`N_j`$ is unit normal vector.
Given the expression in Eq.(11), it is easy to isolate the pole in $`\zeta _A(s)`$ since

$$\zeta _A(s)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)}_0^1𝑑tt^{s1}K(t)+\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)}_1^{\mathrm{}}𝑑tt^{s1}K(t)$$
(24)
Due to the exponential fall of $`K(t)`$ for large $`t`$, it is clear that the second term in the above expression is perfectly finite function of complex $`s`$. Observe that asymptotic expansion Eq.(11) implies that $`\zeta _A(s)`$ has a pole structure given by

$$\zeta _A(s)=\frac{1}{(4\pi )^{3/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)}\underset{k=0,1/2,1,\mathrm{}}{}\frac{B_k}{k+s3/2}+finite$$
(25)
Thus $`\zeta _A(s)`$ has a simple pole whenever $`s=3/2k`$, expect at $`s=0`$ where any possible pole is cancelled by that of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)`$. The residue of the pole is given by

$$\frac{B_{3/2s}}{(4\pi )^{3/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)}.$$
(26)
However, $`\zeta _A(s)`$ is analytic at $`s=0`$, and one can calculate simply the values of $`\zeta `$function and its derivative at this point. Now, in order to determine the Casimir energy inside and outside the spherical shell, we must set $`s=1/2`$ and we have a pole with nonzero residue if $`B_20`$. Then for the case of a massless free scalar field, the only remaining contributions are from $`B_2`$. These contribution for inside and outside the shell are divergent. Considering only the inner space, divergence appear and it is necessary to introduce contact term and perform a renormalization of its coupling. Result for massive scalar field contain new ultraviolet divergent terms in addition to that occurring in the massless case as has been discussed in . However, when we consider both region of space, for free massless scalar field in flat space divergent part inside and outside the shell cancel out each other, then we do not need to introduce contact term, but for massless scalar field in curved space, similar to free massive case, when we add the interior and exterior energies to each other, there will be contributions which are divergent . For the case of a massless scalar field in curved space the divergent part of vacuum energy in zeta function regularization is proportional with $`B_2^{tot}`$ which is

$$B_2^{tot}=B_2^{in}+B_2^{out}.$$
(27)
Now using Eqs.(10) and (25) we can write

$$E_{div}^{in}=\frac{\mu ^{2s}}{2(4\pi )^{3/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(s1/2)}B_2^{in},$$
(28)
Similarly for outside region

$$E_{div}^{out}=\frac{\mu ^{2s}}{2(4\pi )^{3/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(s1/2)}B_2^{out}.$$
(29)
Since the inside region is assumed to be flat and since the outside space is considered to be a Schwarzschild background, therefore

$$a_2^{in}(x)=0,$$
(30)
and

$$a_2^{out}(x)=\frac{1}{180}R_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }R^{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }.$$
(31)
The coefficients $`c_2`$ contains only odd powers of the second fundamental form $`K`$, if we consider infinitely thin boundary, which means that boundary consist of two oppositely oriented faces separated by an infinitesimal distance, then the second fundamental forms are equal and opposite on the two face of the boundary, and consequently we have

$$c_2^{in}+c_2^{out}=0.$$
(32)
Therefore

$$B_2^{tot}=B_2^{in}+B_2^{out}=_Ma_2^{out}(x)𝑑v.$$
(33)
Then the total divergent energy is given by

$$E_{div}^{tot}=\frac{\mu ^{2s}}{2(4\pi )^{3/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(s1/2)}(B_2^{in}+B_2^{out})=\frac{\mu ^{2s}}{2(4\pi )^{3/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(s1/2)}_Ma_2^{out}(x)𝑑v,$$
(34)
Therefore the Casimir energy for this general case becomes divergent. At this stage we recall that $`E_0,`$ as given by Eq.(6), is only one part of total energy. There is also a classical part. The total energy of the shell maybe written as

$$E^{tot}=E_0+E_{class}$$
(35)
We can try to absorb $`E_{div}`$ into the classical energy. This technique of absorbing an infinite quantity into a renormalized physical quantity is familiar in quantum field theory and quantum field theory in curved space . Here, we use a procedure similar to that of bag model , there is some history of such notions going back to Milton paper , (to see application of this renormalization procedure in Casimir effect problem in curved space refer to ). The classical energy of spherical shell may be written as,

$$E_{class}=Pa^3+\sigma a^2+Fa+K+\frac{h}{a},$$
(36)
where $`P`$ is pressure, $`\sigma `$ is surface tension and $`F`$, $`K`$,$`h`$ do not have special names. The classical energy is expressed in a general dimensionally suitable form which depends on power of $`a`$, this definition is useful for its renormalization. In order to obtain a well defined result for the total energy, we have to renormalize only pressure of classical energy according to the below:

$$PP\frac{\mu ^{2s}}{2(4\pi )^{3/2}a^3\mathrm{\Gamma }(s1/2)}_Ma_2^{out}(x)𝑑v.$$
(37)
According to the renormalization procedure, we have to subtract from regularized expression for vacuum energy Eq.(10) the above divergent term . After subtracting this contribution from $`E_0`$ we denote it by

$$E_0^{ren}=E_0E_{div}^{tot},$$
(38)
where

$$E_0^{ren}=E_0^{(in)ren}+E_0^{(out)ren}$$
(39)
The renormalized Casimir energy inside of the spherical shell for massless free scalar field with Dirichlet boundary conditions in flat Minkowski space is given by

$$E_0^{(in)ren}=\frac{0.008873}{2a}.$$
(40)
But for outside the shell in our problem we have

$$E_0^{(out)ren}=E_0^{out}E_{div}^{out}=\frac{1}{2}\zeta _A^{out}(s1/2)\mu ^{2s}\frac{\mu ^{2s}}{2(4\pi )^{3/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(s1/2)}_Ma_2^{out}(x)𝑑v$$
(41)
Therefore we can write the renormalized vacuum energy for the considered system as

$$E_0^{ren}=\frac{0.008873}{2a}+\frac{1}{2}\zeta _A^{out}(s1/2)\mu ^{2s}\frac{\mu ^{2s}}{2(4\pi )^{3/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(s1/2)}_Ma_2^{out}(x)𝑑v.$$
(42)
## 4 conclusions

In this paper we have developed a systematic approach to the calculation of the Casimir energy of a massless scalar field in the presence of a spherical shell as a boundary configuration. The spacetime outside the shell is described by the Schwarzschild metric, while inside the shell it is the flat Minkowski space. For the point on the spherical shell, the scalar field obeys Dirichlet boundary condition.
The renormalized vacuum expectation value of the stress tensor of the scalar field in the curved spacetime , is needed for instance, when we want to study back-reaction, i.e, the influence that the matter field in a curved background assert on the background geometry itself. It has been shown  that particle creation by black hole in four dimension is as a consequence of the Casimir effect for spherical shell. It has been shown that the only existence of the horizon and of the barrier in the effective potential is sufficient to compel the black hole to emit black-body radiation with temperature that exactly coincides with the standard result for Hawking radiation. In , the results for the accelerated-mirror have been used to prove above statement. Regarding the Nugayev papers , we have investigated the Casimir energy of massless scalar field which is conformally coupled to the Schwarzschild spacetime and satisfies Dirichlet boundary condition on a spherical shell.
Using zeta function regularization and heat kernel coefficients we obtain the divergent contributions for the Casimir energy inside and outside the shell . When we consider both region of space, for free massless scalar field in flat space, the divergent parts inside and outside cancel out each other, then we do not to introduce a contact term, but for massless scalar field in curved space, similar to free massive case, when we add the interior and exterior energies to each other, there are contributions which are divergent. For a massless scalar field the divergent part of vacuum energy in zeta function regularization is proportional to $`B_2^{tot}`$, then the renormalization procedure become necessary in this situation. For this purpose one must introduce the classical energy and try to absorb the divergent part into it. In this paper we used a procedure similar to that of bag model  for renormalization, according to which we have to subtract from regularized expression for vacuum energy in Eq.(10) the divergent term, consequently we obtained the renormalized vacuum energy for considered system given by Eq.(42).

.


text:
# The effective action.

## The effective action.

The scale-dependent 1PI effective action can be defined in the following way: One introduces the quadratic cut-off functional

$$𝒪_k[\chi \phi ]\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_kS[\chi \phi ]\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}(\chi \phi )R_k(\chi \phi )\right),$$
(1)
inside the functional integral which defines the partition function,

$$e^{W[J]}𝒟\chi e^{S[\chi ]+{\scriptscriptstyle J\chi }}.$$
(2)
We assume that $`lim_{k0}R_k=0`$ and therefore the functional

$$e^{\widehat{W}_k[J,\phi ]}𝒟\chi 𝒪_k[\chi \phi ]e^{S[\chi ]+{\scriptscriptstyle J\chi }},$$
(3)
obtained with this procedure converges to $`W[J]`$ as $`k0`$. We can now perform a Legendre transformation of $`W_k`$ with respect to $`J`$ to obtain

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_k[\varphi ,\phi ]=\widehat{W}_k[J,\phi ]+J\varphi ,\varphi \frac{\delta \widehat{W}_k[J,\phi ]}{\delta J}.$$
(4)
This means that $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_k`$ is given implicitly by

$$\mathrm{exp}\left(\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_k[\varphi ,\phi ]\right)=𝒟\chi 𝒪_k[\chi \phi +\varphi ]\mathrm{exp}\left(S[\chi +\varphi ]+\frac{\delta \widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_k[\varphi ,\phi ]}{\delta \varphi }\chi \right).$$
(5)
Since it is our intention to obtain an effective action which interpolates between the classical action $`S[\varphi ]`$ in the $`UV`$ ($`k\mathrm{}`$), and the full effective action $`\mathrm{\Gamma }[\varphi ]`$ in the IR ($`k=0`$) we first assign $`𝒪_k[\chi \phi ]`$ the following property

$$\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}𝒪_k[\chi ]\delta [\chi ],$$
(6)
where the r.h.s. is a $`\delta `$-functional. This can be obtained if $`lim_k\mathrm{}R_k=\mathrm{}`$. In this case we have

$$\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_k[\varphi ,\phi ]=S[\phi ]+\frac{\delta \widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_k[\varphi ,\phi ]}{\delta \varphi }(\varphi \phi ).$$
(7)
Finally, to obtain the desired property, we set $`\phi =\varphi `$:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_k[\varphi ]\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_k[\varphi ,\varphi ].$$
(8)
One can use now

$$\frac{\delta \widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_k[\varphi ,\phi ]}{\delta \phi }=\frac{\delta \widehat{W}_k[J,\phi ]}{\delta \phi }=R_k(\phi \varphi ),$$
(9)
to write $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k[\varphi ]`$ as (see eq.(5))

$$\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_k[\varphi ]\right)=𝒟\chi 𝒪_k[\chi ]\mathrm{exp}\left(S[\chi +\varphi ]+\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_k[\varphi ]}{\delta \varphi }\chi \right).$$
(10)
From this expression it is not dificult to recognize $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k[\varphi ]`$ as being given (perturbatively) by the sum of the connected 1PI vacuum graphs with $`\varphi `$-dependent vertices and internal lines regulated by the introduced cut-off.

The attentive reader may consider the above formalism reminiscent of the background field method used to ensure the gauge invariance of the 1PI effective action (see  and refences therein). And indeed both ideas can be combined to define a scale-dependent, gauge invariant, 1PI effective action .

## The flow equation.

To calculate the exact renormalization group equation (ERGE) for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k`$ let us note that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill _k\mathrm{\Gamma }_k[\varphi ]& =_k\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_k[\varphi ,\varphi ]=_k\widehat{W}_k[J,\varphi ]=\frac{1}{2}_kR_k(\chi \varphi )(\chi \varphi )\hfill \\ & =\frac{1}{2}_kR_k\frac{\delta ^2\widehat{W}_k[J,\varphi ]}{\delta J\delta J}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(11)
Now, we have

$$\frac{\delta ^2\widehat{W}_k[J,\varphi ]}{\delta J\delta J}=\left(\frac{\delta ^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_k[\varphi ,\phi ]}{\delta \varphi \delta \varphi }|_{\phi =\varphi }\right)^1,$$
(12)
while

$$\frac{\delta ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_k[\varphi ]}{\delta \varphi \delta \varphi }=\frac{\delta ^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_k[\varphi ,\phi ]}{\delta \varphi \delta \varphi }|_{\phi =\varphi }+2\frac{\delta ^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_k[\varphi ,\phi ]}{\delta \varphi \delta \phi }|_{\phi =\varphi }+\frac{\delta ^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_k[\varphi ,\phi ]}{\delta \phi \delta \phi }|_{\phi =\varphi }.$$
(13)
Using eq.(9) one gets

$$\frac{\delta ^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_k[\varphi ,\phi ]}{\delta \varphi \delta \varphi }|_{\phi =\varphi }=\frac{\delta ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_k[\varphi ]}{\delta \varphi \delta \varphi }+R_k,$$
(14)
obtaining in this way the well-known ERGE for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k`$ :

$$_k\mathrm{\Gamma }_k[\varphi ]=\frac{1}{2}(_kR_k)\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^{(2)}[\varphi ]+R_k}.$$
(15)
## Sharp cut-off limit.

By sharp cut-off one means a function $`R_k`$ which diverges for momenta below the scale $`k`$ and vanishes above this scale. Although one could think that in this limiting case $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k`$ is not well defined due to an ill-definition of the Legendre transform of $`W_k[J,\phi ]`$ we will see that this is not the case.

In this limit $`𝒪_k`$ is of the form

$$𝒪_k[\chi ]\underset{p^2<k^2}{}\delta (\chi (p)),$$
(16)
which means that (using the notation of ref.) we can write

$$\mathrm{exp}W_k[J,\phi _0^k]=𝒟\chi _k^\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{exp}\left(S[\phi _0^k+\chi _k^\mathrm{\Lambda }]+J(\phi _0^k+\chi _k^\mathrm{\Lambda })\right),$$
(17)
where $`\phi _0^k`$ contains only Fourier modes with $`p<k`$ and $`\chi _k^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ only modes with $`p>k`$. This differs from the $`W_k`$ ($`𝒲_k`$) defined in  in the following way333 There is also a irrelevant difference in sign.

$$W_k[J,\phi _0^k]=𝒲_k[J_k^\mathrm{\Lambda },\phi _0^k]+J_0^k\phi _0^k,$$
(18)
but, as we will show, the scale dependent effective action $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k`$ coincides with the one defined in that work (we will call this one $`𝒢_k`$). This follows from the fact that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k[\varphi ]=\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_k[\varphi ,\varphi ]`$ in this case is given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_k[\varphi ]=\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_k[\varphi ,\phi _0^k],$$
(19)
since due to the sharp cut-off we have $`\varphi =\phi _0^k`$ for $`p<k`$ and $`W_k`$ is independent of $`\phi _k^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, where $`\phi _k^\mathrm{\Lambda }=\phi `$ for $`p>k`$. Furthermore, we have

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_k[\varphi ]=W_k[J,\phi _0^k]+J(\phi _0^k+\varphi _k^\mathrm{\Lambda })=𝒲_k[J_k^\mathrm{\Lambda },\phi _0^k]+J_k^\mathrm{\Lambda }\varphi _k^\mathrm{\Lambda },$$
(20)
where

$$\varphi _k^\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{\delta 𝒲_k[J_k^\mathrm{\Lambda },\phi _0^k]}{\delta J_k^\mathrm{\Lambda }}.$$
(21)
But this is clearly the definition of $`𝒢_k`$, the Legendre transform of $`𝒲_k`$ with respect to $`J_k^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, as we intended to show.

## The flow equation in the sharp cut-off limit.

Let us now see what happens to the flow equation (15) in the sharp cut-off limit. The flow equation can be rewritten as

$$_k\mathrm{\Gamma }_k[\varphi ]=\frac{1}{2}\text{tr}\stackrel{~}{}_k\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^{(2)}[\varphi ]+R_k)=\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{}_k\mathrm{ln}det(\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^{(2)}[\varphi ]+R_k),$$
(22)
where $`\stackrel{~}{}_k`$ only acts upon $`R_k`$. Since below $`k`$ the cut-off fuction $`R_k`$ diverges we get

$$_k\mathrm{\Gamma }_k[\varphi ]=\underset{\delta k0}{lim}\frac{1}{2\delta k}\left[\mathrm{ln}det\frac{\delta ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_k}{\delta \varphi _k^\mathrm{\Lambda }\delta \varphi _k^\mathrm{\Lambda }}\mathrm{ln}det\frac{\delta ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_k}{\delta \varphi _{k\delta k}^\mathrm{\Lambda }\delta \varphi _{k\delta k}^\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right],$$
(23)
where the $`k`$ in the first term and the $`k\delta k`$ in the second one denote the IR cut-offs in the respective determinants and we neglected a $`\varphi `$-independent piece. It is not dificult to recognize that this is the flow equation which was obtained by the authors of ref. by other means.

Thus in this paper we showed that the scale-dependent 1PI effective action defined in  by a partial Legendre transformation can be considered to be the sharp cut-off limit of the one defined in . As expected, the flow equation of  could also be obtained as the same limit of the ERGE of .

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank T.Baier, M.G.Schmidt and Z.Tavartkiladze for usefull discussions. This work is supported by Fundação de Ciência e Tecnologia (grant SFRH/BD/4973/2001).


text:
# d-wave Quasiparticles in the Tilted Vortex Lattice

## Abstract

We investigate the quasiparticle spectrum of a $`d`$-wave superconductor in the mixed state, focussing on the effects of varying the in-plane angular alignment (or tilting) of the vortex and crystal lattices. Our approach starts with a linearized Bogoliubov-de Gennes equation cast into a simple form by the Franz-Tešanović singular gauge transformation. The zero magnetic field spectrum is characterized by the anisotropy $`\alpha _D`$ near the four Fermi-surface nodes; at large $`\alpha _D`$ the model simplifies into a one-dimensional form that provides asymptotic results. Numerical and analytical results are presented and compared with previous studies. We find that tilting can be understood in terms of the one-dimensional model at large $`\alpha _D`$. We see a striking dependence on the choice of singular gauge, consistent with earlier results, but do not attempt to resolve the issue of which gauge best describes the microscopic physics.

The low-energy quasiparticle spectrum of a $`d`$-wave superconductor in the mixed state has been the focus of recent investigations. As the cuprate materials are believed to have an energy gap with predominately $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ symmetry, such work may prove important for understanding certain probes of low-temperature thermodynamics and transport in a magnetic field. The recent studies have generally restricted their attention to one or two fixed vortex lattice geometries, with or without small distortions to break the Bravais lattice symmetry. However, scanning tunneling microscopy experiments on $`\mathrm{YBa}_2\mathrm{Cu}_3\mathrm{O}_{7\delta }`$ (YBCO) in a magnetic field of $`6`$ Tesla at $`4.2`$ Kelvin show an oblique lattice with an angle between primitive vectors of about $`77^{}`$. This suggests that it may be important to consider a range of vortex lattice geometries if a connection between experiment and the calculated spectra is eventually to be made. In this paper we investigate the low-energy spectrum as the in-plane angular alignment, or tilting, of a square vortex lattice and the underlying crystal is varied (Fig. 1).

In zero magnetic field there are four gapless points on the Fermi surface of a single Cu-oxide plane, and the spectrum linearized in momentum about each of these points takes the form of an anisotropic Dirac cone. Using $`(x^{},y^{})`$ to denote crystal lattice coordinates, throughout this paper we specialize to a $`d_{x^{}y^{}}`$ order parameter and the node at $`(0,k_F)`$, about which the linearized spectrum is:

$$E(𝒌)=\pm \sqrt{v_F^2k_y^{}^2+v_\mathrm{\Delta }^2k_x^{}^2}\text{.}$$
(1)
Here $`v_\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }_0/p_F`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ is the maximum magnitude of the superconducting gap on the Fermi surface, and $`\mathrm{}=1`$. The anisotropy of the spectrum is characterized by the ratio $`\alpha _D=v_F/v_\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Experimentally $`\alpha _D`$ is known to be about 14 for YBCO and 20 for $`\mathrm{Bi}_2\mathrm{Sr}_2\mathrm{CaCu}_2\mathrm{O}_8`$. We study the mixed state spectrum within the framework of the Bogoliubov-de Gennes (BdG) equation, generalized to incorporate a $`d`$-wave order parameter and linearized in momentum operators about the gap nodes. The Franz-Tešanović (FT) singular gauge transformation can then be used to simplify the problem by casting it in the form of an anisotropic two-dimensional (2d) massless Dirac equation with a periodic vector and scalar potential. We will be particularly interested in the spectrum at large values of $`\alpha _D`$, where a one-dimensional (1d) model provides asymptotic analytical results that can be compared with the full 2d model.

We extend the 2D model of Franz and Tešanović to treat tilting at arbitrary angles. Further details of this model can be found in the studies by Marinelli, Halperin and Simon and Vafek et. al.; here we only summarize the main features. The magnetic field satisfies $`H_{c1}HH_{c2}`$, implying $`\xi d\lambda `$, where $`\xi `$ is the Ginzburg-Landau (GL) coherence length, $`d`$ is on the order of the nearest-neighbor vortex separation and $`\lambda `$ is the magnetic penetration depth. We remove the length scales $`\lambda `$ and $`\xi `$ from the problem by taking the magnetic field and the magnitude of the order parameter to be spatially uniform, determining the order parameter phase by a linear GL equation. We do not feed the resulting quasiparticle spectrum back into the BdG equation to find a self-consistent solution, which is a good approximation at low temperatures.

The heart of the FT model is a singular gauge transformation that requires the decomposition of the vortex lattice into $`A`$ and $`B`$ sublattices, so that each unit cell contains equal numbers of $`A`$ and $`B`$ vortices. The spectrum should be independent of the singular gauge used, but several studies indicate this is not the case. This was first pointed out by Vafek et. al. and discussed further in several subsequent works. We believe this issue may be resolved by implementing appropriate boundary conditions (b.c.) at the vortex cores, where the FT gauge transformation is not valid due to the sharp spatial variation of the order parameter magnitude.

An analysis of the physics inside the cores will likely be necessary to fix the b.c. appropriately.

We do not attempt to address this issue here, but rather study the unregularized theory in two different singular gauges, each corresponding to a different choice of sublattices. One will be called $`ABAB`$ (Fig. 2a), the other $`AABB`$ (Fig. 2b). We work in units where $`d`$, the side of the $`ABAB`$ unit cell, is unity. This results in the following linearized Hamiltonian before singular gauge transformation:

$$_{\mathrm{BdG}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}𝓋_{}(𝓅_𝓎^{}\frac{}{𝒸}𝒜_𝓎^{})& \frac{\mathcal{1}}{𝓅_{}}\{𝓅_𝓍^{},\mathcal{\Delta }(𝓻)\}\\ \frac{\mathcal{1}}{𝓅_{}}\{𝓅_𝓍^{},\mathcal{\Delta }^{}(𝓻)\}& 𝓋_{}(𝓅_𝓎^{}+\frac{}{𝒸}𝒜_𝓎^{})\end{array}\right)\text{.}$$
(2)
Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒓)`$ gives the spatial variation of the GL order parameter in the magnetic unit cell unit cell, which is aligned with the $`x`$ and $`y`$ axes (Fig. 2). Upon making the FT transformation and exploiting Bloch’s theorem to write an effective Hamiltonian at every point $`(k_x,k_y)`$ of the first vortex lattice Brillouin zone, one obtains

$`^{eff}(𝒌)=`$ $`(p_y^{}+k_y^{}+𝒜_y^{})\sigma _3`$ (3)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _D}}`$ $`(p_x^{}+k_x^{}+𝒜_x^{})\sigma _1+\mathrm{\Phi }\text{,}`$ (4)
where we have set $`v_F=1`$. $`𝓐=\frac{m}{2}(𝒗_s^A𝒗_s^B)`$ is the effective vector potential and $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{m}{2}(v_{sy^{}}^A+v_{sy^{}}^B)`$ the effective scalar potential. $`𝒗_s^{A,B}`$ is the superfluid velocity associated with the $`A,B`$ sublattice.

Many of the results of Ref. REFERENCES still hold for this tilted Hamiltonian. In particular, the zero energy degenerate doublet at the Brillouin zone center ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ point) is preserved to all orders in perturbation theory, since this result requires only particle-hole symmetry and a Bravais vortex lattice. Also, except for special tilt angles and anisotropies, we expect no zeroes at other points in the zone. This is because tilting spoils the high symmetry status of the $`k_y=0`$ axis where it was found there could be zeroes. However, invariance under $`𝒌𝒌`$ is preserved. We can therefore restrict our attention to the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ point to understand the very-low-energy band structure and density of states (DOS).

As pointed out by Vishwanath, the splitting in the band structure near any degenerate doublet can be shown by first-order perturbation theory to be an anisotropic Dirac cone to linear order in the $`k`$-space displacement. This actually gives the exact result for the slope of the lowest-energy bands as the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ point is approached from a particular direction. Writing $`𝒌=k(\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,\mathrm{sin}\varphi )`$, we have

$$^{eff}(𝒌)=^{eff}(\mathrm{𝟎})+k[\mathrm{sin}(\varphi \theta )\sigma _3+\frac{1}{\alpha _D}\mathrm{cos}(\varphi \theta )\sigma _3]\text{.}$$
(5)
An elementary degenerate perturbation theory calculation gives the perturbed energies near the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ point:

$$ϵ_\pm =\pm k\sqrt{t_1\mathrm{sin}^2(\varphi \theta )+t_2\mathrm{cos}^2(\varphi \theta )+t_3\mathrm{sin}(2(\varphi \theta ))}+𝒪(k^2)\text{,}$$
(6)
where the coefficients can be expressed in terms of matrix elements of $`\sigma _1`$ and $`\sigma _3`$ between the states of the degenerate doublet. Except for the orientation of the new anisotropy axes, the anisotropic Dirac cone described by Eq. 6 is completely characterized by the maximum and minimum values of $`ϵ_+/k`$, which we denote by $`v_+`$ and $`v_{}`$, respectively. We will study these velocities as a function of $`\alpha _D`$ and $`\theta `$.

In order to apply the 1d model to obtain information at large $`\alpha _D`$, we must specialize to rational tilt angles $`\theta =\mathrm{arctan}(p/q)`$ for integer $`p`$ and $`q`$. Details of this model are presented in the papers of Knapp, Kallin and Berlinsky, and Marinelli and Halperin. The essential idea is that as $`\alpha _D\mathrm{}`$ the quasiparticles see vortices that are effectively smeared out in the “hard” $`v_F`$-direction, so that all gauge-invariant quantities become functions only of the coordinate in the $`v_\mathrm{\Delta }`$-direction. Choosing coordinates $`x`$ and $`y`$ for the soft and hard directions, respectively, the 1d Hamiltonian for crystal momentum $`𝒌`$ is:

$$_{1d}(𝒌)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}k_y+U^A(x)& \frac{1}{\alpha _D}(p_x+k_x)\\ \frac{1}{\alpha _D}(p_x+k_x)& k_y+U^B(x)\end{array}\right)\text{.}$$
(7)
Here $`U^{A,B}`$ is the potential encapsulating the residual effects of the $`A,B`$ vortices. For the gauges considered we can always choose a unit cell with only two columns of smeared-out vortices, provided $`\theta `$ is rational. This is true because the perpendicular distance from one column of $`A`$/$`B`$ vortices to the nearest $`A`$/$`B`$ column is always the same.

There are essentially two distinct possibilities when we go to the 1d model, which depend on the gauge choice and on $`\theta `$. These are illustrated in Figure 3. Configurations with distinct columns of $`A`$ and $`B`$ vortices (Fig. 3a) were shown to give rise to band structure features exponentially small in $`\alpha _D`$. In particular, for the $`ABAB`$ gauge with $`\theta =45^{}`$, it was found that $`v_{}\mathrm{exp}(\alpha _D\pi ^2/16)`$. This can easily be generalized when the distance between two adjacent columns (of different types) is always the same, by scaling the 1d unit cell by a factor of $`1/d_v`$ in the $`x`$-direction and $`d_v`$ in the $`y`$-direction, where $`d_v`$ is the distance between adjacent vortices in the same column. Following the calculation of Ref. REFERENCES one finds $`v_{}\mathrm{exp}(\alpha _D\pi ^2/16d_v^2)`$.

When the $`A`$ and $`B`$ columns overlap (Fig. 3b) the asymptotic behavior is very different. It has been argued and verified numerically that there are in this case no exponentially small features in the band structure. We can go further to calculate the exact 1D band structure on the $`k_y=0`$ line, and hence also $`v_{}`$. Since $`U^A=U^B=U(x)`$ in this case, we have

$$_{1d}(k_x,0)=U(x)+\frac{1}{\alpha _D}(p_x+k_x)\sigma _1\text{.}$$
(8)
The matrix structure of this Hamiltonian is trivial, and it separates into two uncoupled components. The resulting differential equations are:

$$U(x)\psi \pm \frac{1}{\alpha _D}(i\frac{d}{dx}+k_x)\psi =E_\pm \psi \text{.}$$
(9)
Upon integration one finds

$$\psi (x)=\psi _0e^{\pm i\alpha _D^x(E_\pm U(x)k_x/\alpha _D)}.$$
(10)
$`\psi `$ is a Bloch function, so we must impose periodic boundary conditions, thus obtaining a quantization condition

for the energies:

$$_{1/2d_v}^{1/2d_v}𝑑x(E_\pm U(x)\frac{k_x}{\alpha _D})=\frac{2\pi n}{\alpha _D}\text{.}$$
(11)
For those solutions with $`|E|`$ greater than the maximum of $`U(x)`$, this is exactly the Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization condition used in Ref. REFERENCES to obtain the spectrum in a WKB approximation, only here it is exact. At the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ point ($`k_x=0`$), there are doubly degenerate solutions $`E_\pm =E_n^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The degeneracy is split for finite $`k_x`$ and $`E_\pm =E_n^\mathrm{\Gamma }\pm k_x/\alpha _D`$ (see Figs. 10 and 11 in Ref. REFERENCES). The lowest bands are simply $`E_\pm =\pm k_x/\alpha _D`$, implying $`v_{}=1/\alpha _D`$ in striking contrast to the case of separated columns. Still more striking is the fact that we can switch between exponential (separated columns) and algebraic (overlapping columns) decrease of $`v_{}`$ simply by choosing a different singular gauge. For example, if the gauge choice did not matter the $`AABB`$ lattice with $`\theta =45^{}`$ would be the same as $`ABAB`$ and $`\theta =0^{}`$. But the spectra are not the same, since the former case has overlapping columns in the 1D model and the latter does not. These conclusions are in excellent agreement with the numerical results.

We have numerically calculated $`v_\pm `$ as a function of $`\alpha _D`$ and $`\theta `$ in the 2d model with a reciprocal space cutoff. Working in momentum space allows tilting to be handled very simply, and avoids the complications associated with discretizing a Dirac equation on a real space lattice. The major disadvantage is that the matrices to be diagonalized are not sparse. For the square unit cell of the $`ABAB`$ gauge we typically used a cutoff of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=10`$, where $`|Q_x|,|Q_y|\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`Q_i`$ are the coefficients of the reciprocal lattice primitive vectors. For the $`AABB`$ gauge the unit cell is non-square, so we took $`2|Q_x|,|Q_y|\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, typically with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=8`$. It was not feasible to push $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ much greater than $`20`$. Also, for any fixed $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, we expect the numerical calculations to become less reliable as $`\alpha _D`$ is increased, since raising the anisotropy introduces more and more low-energy states that do not fall within the cutoff and are improperly thrown out. Although the accessible range of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\alpha _D`$ is not sufficient to provide detailed information on the true asymptotic behavior as $`\alpha _D\mathrm{}`$ or the convergence of the numerics, we believe it should be sufficient to extract certain important qualitative features.

Our results for $`v_{}(\alpha _D)`$ at fixed $`\theta `$ show good qualitative agreement with the predictions of the 1d model. For tilt angles and gauges with distinct $`A`$ and $`B`$ columns we see roughly exponential decrease of $`v_{}`$ similar to that calculated analytically (Fig. 4). We believe we do not see quantitative agreement because we cannot access the asymptotic regime numerically. When there are overlapping columns we see similar agreement with the analytical results; $`v_{}`$ is roughly proportional to $`1/\alpha _D`$ with the constant of proportionality closer to unity when the columns are farther apart (Fig. 5). This is consistent with our understanding of the 1d model; at greater column separation $`d_v`$ is smaller, and the quasiparticle wavefunctions do not have to be smeared out as much for them to be completely delocalized in the $`y`$-direction. Numerical calculations of $`v_+`$ show only small variations, typically by at most a factor of order unity as $`\alpha _D`$ ranges from $`1`$ to $`8`$. Therefore the renormalized anisotropy $`v_+/v_{}`$ behaves similarly to $`1/v_{}`$ as a function of $`\alpha _D`$.

We have seen that, for large $`\alpha _D`$, tilting of the vortex and crystal lattices in the Franz-Tešanović framework can be understood in terms of a one-dimensional model. For tilt angles and singular gauges with distinct columns of $`A`$ and $`B`$ vortices, $`v_{}`$ is exponentially small in $`\alpha _D`$, while when the columns overlap it decreases algebraically. In both these cases $`v_+`$ does not vary significantly with $`\alpha _D`$. These results depend dramatically on the choice of singular gauge, and provide a further indication that the FT transformation must somehow be regularized if it is to provide a consistent account of the physics. While proposals for the kind of regularization necessary have been discussed in the literature, a detailed resolution of these issues remains an important problem for future work.

The authors would like to thank B.I. Halperin for very useful discussions and a careful reading of the manuscript. MH was supported by the Harvard MRSEC NSF/DMR-9809363 through the REU program, by the Department of Defense with an NDSEG fellowship, and by Regents Special and Broida Fellowships from the University of California, Santa Barbara. LM was supported in part by the NSF grant DMR-99-81283.


text:
# Body Motion In a Resistive Medium at Temperature 𝑇.

## 1 Introduction

When an object moves through a viscous medium, such as water or air, it experiences a resistive drag force. For small objects such as dust particles movingh at low speeds, this drag force is proportional to the speed of the object. This is known as Stoke’s law. For larger objects such as airplanes, skidivers and baseballs moving at high speeds the drag force is approximately proportional to the square of the speed. This limit is known as Newton’s law. The general problem of determining the exact dependence of the drag force on the speed of an arbitrarily-shaped object moving at any speed, defies any closed form solution given its complex many-body character. A complete solution would have to take into account the detailed scattering process between the body and the particles composing the medium, the thermal properties of the medium, the presence of possible internal degrees of freedom of the body and local turbulence effects, etc. However, beneath all these complexities is basically the transfer of momentum and energy between the body and the medium particles. Therefore, is instructive to consider simplified “toy” models where one can track in detail the momentum and energy exchange between the body and its surrounding medium. This is realized at the expense of simplifying other factors such as the dimensionality of the system or the specific form of the interactions between the body and the medium. In this spirit, we present here an extension of a previous, simplified zero-temperature one-dimensional model, where we now include finite temperature effects. This immediately brings into the game a natural velocity scale not present in our previous model: the thermal speed. We obtain the resistive drag force as a function of the body’s speed in closed form and find that, when the speed of the body is smaller than the thermal speed, the resistive force is linearly proportional to the speed of the body. On the contrary, when the speed of the body is greater then the thermal speed, the proportionality becomes quadratic.

## 2 The Model

Let us consider a (macroscopic) body of mass $`M`$ propagating in a one-dimensional resistive medium modelled by an ideal gas in thermodynamic equilibrium at temperature $`T`$, characterized by a thermal speed $`V_T\sqrt{kT/m}`$, where $`k`$ is Boltzmann’s constant and $`m`$ is the mass of a medium particle (Fig. 1). We assume the body to be truly macroscopic, like a baseball moving through air, or a falling rock. In other words, $`Mm`$ which allows us to make the following simplification: During a medium particle-body collision event, we will take the mass of the body to be essentially infinite. In this approximation the body is pictured as a massive, partially absorbing, moving “wall” colliding constantly with the medium particles. A reasonable assumption, if one considers that the mass ratio $`m/M`$ is of the order of $`10^{24}`$ for a baseball moving through air. After each collision, the speed of the body is essentially unchanged, so the magnitude of the momentum transferred to the body is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }p(1+ϵ)m|Vv|$$

where $`V`$ is the speed of the body, $`v`$ the speed of the medium particle and $`ϵ`$ is the restitution coefficient for the body-particle collision. Thus, when $`ϵ=1`$ we have a completely elastic collision, where the magnitude of the relative body-particle velocity is conserved, while at $`ϵ=0`$, we have the case of a completely inelastic collision, where the particle is “absorbed” by the body after colliding. We also work in a quasi-continuum approximation where an element of length $`dx`$ while “small”, will contain a large number of medium particles.

Initially the body is given a speed $`V_0`$ (say, to the right), and we observe the system at a later time $`t`$, when the speed of the body is $`V`$. During the next time interval $`dt`$, the body will collide with particles coming from its left and right side. On the left side, only those particles that have speeds $`v>V`$ and are located closer than $`(vV)dt`$ will collide with the body. The number of such particles is $`dn_L=\rho dn(v)\mathrm{\Theta }(vV)(vV)dt`$. In a similar manner, the number of particles to the right of the body that will collide with the body during the interval $`dt`$ is $`dn_R=\rho dn(v)\mathrm{\Theta }(Vv)(Vv)dt`$. Here $`\rho `$ is the particle number density, $`\mathrm{\Theta }(x)`$ is the step function ($`\mathrm{\Theta }(x)=1`$, for $`x>0`$, zero otherwise) and $`dn(v)`$ is the number of particles that have speeds in the interval $`[v,v+dv]`$: $`dn(v)=g(v)dv`$ where $`g(v)`$ is the thermal speed distribution, given by

$$g(v)=(1/\sqrt{2\pi })\frac{1}{V_T}\mathrm{exp}[\frac{1}{2}\left(v/V_T\right)^2].$$
(1)
The transfer of momentum per unit time coming from the medium to the left of the body, due to particles with speed in the interval $`[v,v+dv]`$ would then be:

$$\frac{dP}{dt}=(1+ϵ)m(vV)g(v)\mathrm{\Theta }(vV)(vV)dv$$
(2)
By integrating over all speeds, we obtain the average effective force on the body from the left side:

$$F_{\text{ left}}=_V^{\mathrm{}}\rho m(1+ϵ)(vV)^2g(v)𝑑v.$$
(3)
In a similar manner, the transfer of momentum per unit time coming from the medium to the right of the body, due to particles with speed in the interval $`[v,v+dv]`$ is:

$$\frac{dP}{dt}=(1+ϵ)m(Vv)g(v)\mathrm{\Theta }(Vv)(Vv)dv$$
(4)
which implies that the average force on the body from the right side is

$$F_{\text{ right}}=_{\mathrm{}}^V\rho (1+ϵ)(Vv)^2g(v)𝑑v$$
(5)
The net average force $`F`$ on the body, along the direction of its initial velocity, is given by the difference between Eq.(3) and (5):

$$F=m\rho (1+ϵ)\left[_{\mathrm{}}^V\rho (1+ϵ)(Vv)^2g(v)𝑑v_V^{\mathrm{}}\rho m(1+ϵ)(vV)^2g(v)𝑑v\right]$$

By inserting expression (1) for $`g(v)`$ and carrying out the integrations, we obtain:

$$F=m\rho (1+ϵ)V_T^2\left\{\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi }}\left(\frac{V}{V_T}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{V}{V_T}\right)^2\right]+\left(1+\left(\frac{V}{V_T}\right)^2\right)\text{Erf}\left(\frac{V}{\sqrt{2}V_T}\right)\right\}$$
(6)
This rather complex-looking expression is a bit deceiving since it depends on negative exponentials of $`(V/V_T)^2`$ which makes it very sensitive to whether $`V/V_T<1`$ or $`V/V_T>1`$. In other words, we expect two, well-defined behavior regimes, with a small crossover region near $`V/V_T1`$.

## 3 Results and discussion

As can be clearly seen from (6), the degree of inelasticity plays only a minor role, renormalizing the number density of the medium. Figure 2 is a log-log plot of the effective average force on the body as a function of the speed of the body, Eq.(6). As anticipated above, we note that except for a small vicinity around $`V=V_T`$, it consists of basically two straight lines with slopes of one and two, respectively. That is, at speeds smaller than the thermal speed $`V_T`$, the resistive force is proportional to the body’s speed (Stoke’s law); while for body’s speeds greater than $`V_T`$, the resistive force becomes quadratic on the body’s speed (Newton’s law). These limits are easy to derive from Eq.(6): For $`VV_T`$, $`\text{Erf}(V/\sqrt{2}V_T)\sqrt{2/\pi }(V/\sqrt{2}V_T)`$ and $`\mathrm{exp}[(1/2)(V/V_T)^2]1`$, which implies:

$$F\sqrt{8/\pi }m\rho (1+ϵ)V_TV=\rho (1+ϵ)\sqrt{8mkT/\pi }VVV_T.$$
(7)
On the other hand, when $`VV_T`$, $`\text{Erf}(V/\sqrt{2}V_T)1`$ and $`\mathrm{exp}[(1/2)(V/V_T)^2]0`$. Thus, in this case one has:

$$Fm\rho (1+ϵ)V^2VV_T.$$
(8)
Let us now consider the issue of the stopping distance. For a medium at a finite temperature, the speed of the body decreases (on a macroscopic scale) as it moves through the medium and will eventually become smaller than the thermal speed. At that point, the resistive force becomes proportional to the speed, $`F=\beta V`$. A simple integration then leads to an exponential decrease on $`V`$ and therefore, a finite stopping distance. If the medium is at zero temperature however, the resistive force is always quadratic with speed $`F=\gamma V^2`$ and, in that case, it can be easily proved that the stopping distance diverges logarithmically with time.

In summary, we have examined a simplified model of a macroscopic object propagating in a resistive one-dimensional medium modelled as an ideal gas at temperature $`T`$. For general inelastic collisions between the body and the medium particles, characterized by a restitution coefficient $`ϵ`$, $`0ϵ1`$, we have arrived at a closed-form solution for the resistive force in terms of the speed of the body. Below the thermal speed, this force is essentially linear in the body’d speed, while above thermal speed, the dependence becomes quadratic.

Figure Captions

FIG 1: A macroscopic body of mass $`M`$ propagating inside a one-dimensional resistive medium composed of an ideal gas of particles of mass $`m`$, with $`mM`$, in thermal equilibrium at temperature $`T`$. The body undergoes partially elastic collisions with the medium particles with restitution coefficient $`ϵ`$.

Fig. 2: Effective average force on the macroscopic body, as a function of the body’s speed. For speeds smaller (higher) than the thermal speed, the dependence is essentially linear (quadratic). The crossover region is confined to a small vicinity around $`V_T`$. ( $`F_0m\rho (1+ϵ)V_T^2`$ ).