text:
# Single photons on demand from 3D photonic band-gap structures

## Abstract

We describe a practical implementation of a (semi-deterministic) photon gun based on stimulated Raman adiabatic passage pumping and the strong enhancement of the photonic density of states in a photonic band-gap material. We show that this device allows deterministic and unidirectional production of single photons with a high repetition rate of the order of 100kHz. We also discuss specific 3D photonic microstructure architectures in which our model can be realized and the feasibility of implementing such a device using $`\text{Er}^{3+}`$ ions that produce single photons at the telecommunication wavelength of $`1.55\mu `$m.

preprint: FLO/4-QO

In recent years, quantum optical information processing has attracted much attention, mostly for its applications to secure communication protocols crypto  and the possibility of solving efficiently computational tasks that are impossible to solve on a classical computer computing . Exploiting true single-photon sources — rather than coherent pulses is a goal of eavesdropper-proof quantum cryptography gilbert . High-fidelity single-photon sources are also a requirement for scalable linear optical quantum computing KLM .

Present-day research considers photon emission from single atoms or molecules (either in cavity QED Kuhn ; varcoe00  or emission from color centers colourcentre ) quantum dot structures QD , mesoscopic p-n diode structures kim99 , chemical compounds lounis00 , or micro-pillars pillars . Spontaneous parametric down-conversion, on the other hand, may be used as a pseudo–single-photon source, conditioned upon detection of one photon out of the pair pittman02 . In the present proposal, we focus on the possibility of modifying spontaneous emission by placing the radiation source inside a 3D dielectric microstructure. It is known that the rate of spontaneous decay of an excited atom or ion can be tailored by the Purcell effect, whereby a cavity alters the density of modes of the vacuum radiation field, which in turn can lead to enhancement or inhibition of spontaneous decay of an atom inside the cavity Purcell46 .

Photonic crystals are periodically ordered dielectric materials that allow a very precise control of the flow of light and of the light-matter interaction. In this paper, we make use of a photonic crystal structures exhibiting a photonic band gap (PBG) pbgs . In particular, we focus on a simplified 1D model danieldos  of a complex 3D hetero-structure introduced in alpaper . In the context of single photon devices, PBG materials provide the possibility of unidirectional enhancement of the atomic emission. As shown in Fig. 1, a 1D photonic crystal model can be physically realized in a waveguide channel in a 2D photonic crystal that is embedded in a 3D PBG material. The electromagnetic field is confined vertically by the PBG of the 3D structure (here, for example, we consider a woodpile crystal woodpile ) and in-plane by the stop gap of the 2D photonic crystal (a square lattice in this case) alpaper . By tuning the characteristics of the microstructure (geometry and index of refraction contrast) danieldos , the linear defect in the 3D PBG can support a single waveguide mode, which experiences a sharp cutoff in the gap of 3D photonic crystal as shown in Fig. 2. In this case, the sub-gap generated by the waveguide channel has a true one-dimensional character, since there is only one direction available for wave propagation. The sharp cutoff of the guided mode at the Brillouin zone boundary gives rise to a low-group velocity ($`d\omega /dk0`$), which combined with the one-dimensional character of the system generates a divergent density of states (DOS) ($`\rho (\omega )dk/d\omega \mathrm{}`$). For an infinite structure, there is a physical square-root singularity in the photonic density of states (DOS) near the cutoff of the waveguide modes quang95 .

For a finite structure, the divergence is removed by the finite-size effects Bendickson96 . However, the strong variation with frequency of the photonic DOS remains danieldos . Therefore, while we limit the present analysis to an idealized 1D photonic crystal in which the single-mode waveguide channel is modeled as an effective 1D photonic crystal consisting of alternating double-layer of quarter wave plates, we emphasize that this model can be implemented in carefully designed 3D dielectric hetero-structures (the electromagnetic field in the guided mode encounters a periodic 1D effective variation of the dielectric constant as it propagates along the waveguide channel). The most relevant features of the photonic crystals for realization of single photon “gun” devices (the rapid variation with frequency of the DOS and the unidirectional operation) are easily recaptured in the simplified 1D model. Essentially, for an $`N=29`$ period stack with an index of refraction contrast of 2:1, the spontaneous decay rate at the band edge frequency is enhanced by a factor of 115 compared to inside the bulk dielectric. As the number of periods $`N`$, becomes larger, the asymptotic behavior of the density of mode is given by $`\rho _N^{\mathrm{BER}}N^2\rho ^{\mathrm{bulk}}`$, where $`\rho _N^{\mathrm{BER}}`$ and $`\rho ^{\mathrm{bulk}}`$ represent the density of modes at band-edge resonance and in bulk Bendickson96 .

We emphasize that only in one-dimensional systems the low-group velocity modes give rise to variations with the frequency of the optical DOS strong enough to drive a “on-demand” emission of photons. In conventional 3D photonic crystals, the contribution of the low-group velocity modes to the DOS is of an integrable form and the DOS, while presenting discontinuities of the slope, $`d\rho /d\omega `$, remains finite and continuous as function of frequency florescu1 . There are physical systems in which these one-dimensional models can be practically implemented.

We now consider an $`\text{Er}^{3+}`$ ion embedded in the dielectric backbone of the PBG. The ion could be placed with an atomic-force microscope or by sparse ion implantation midway during the structure’s growth clarks . The wavelength of $`1.55\mu `$m of its $`{}_{}{}^{4}\text{I}_{13/2}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}\text{I}_{15/2}^{}`$ transition ($`|2|1`$, for short) is most convenient for quantum communication with optical fibers desurvire94 . Excitation can be performed by pumping at $`980`$ nm, corresponding to the $`{}_{}{}^{4}\text{I}_{11/2}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}\text{I}_{15/2}^{}`$ transition ($`|3|1`$), see Fig. 3. However, even a 100% efficient population transfer to the upper state $`|3`$ does not guarantee that it will decay down to the state $`|2`$. For example, the level $`{}_{}{}^{4}\text{I}_{11/2}^{}`$ decays to $`{}_{}{}^{4}\text{I}_{15/2}^{}`$ about six times faster than to the level $`{}_{}{}^{4}\text{I}_{13/2}^{}`$ dierolf99 . Instead, in-band pumping at 1480 nm may be used baumann96 . Nevertheless, due to the relatively small radiative decay rate of the $`|2|1`$ transition, in-band pumping is not very efficient and, more importantly, does not have a deterministic character.

A more efficient and deterministic preparation of the emission-ready state $`|2`$ of the $`\text{Er}^{3+}`$ ion can be carried out by using stimulated Raman adiabatic passage (STIRAP) from the ground state bergmann98 . This method allows, in principle, for a 100% population transfer even for a strongly decaying intermediate state $`|3`$. A deterministic population transfer is achieved by first turning on the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{23}`$, and then turning on the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{13}`$ while $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{23}`$ is turned off, all done adiabatically. Here $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij}`$ denotes the Rabi frequencies of the STIRAP fields coupling the levels $`|i`$ and $`|j`$. If both pulses have the same Gaussian shape, the most efficient transfer is achieved when their peaks are separated by about $`\tau `$, and the adiabaticity condition $`\tau \sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{13}^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_{23}^2}>10`$ is fulfilled bergmann98 . For atoms with dipole transitions in the IR optical range, the adiabaticity and optimization requirements are easily satisfied for relatively low-power, nanosecond pulses with nearly transform-limited spectral width.

The STIRAP process provides both the pump and the trigger mechanisms of the single-photon-gun device. After the deterministic excitation process, the ion is left in its $`|2`$ state for a time that is inversely proportional the spontaneous decay rate of the metastable state. Assume now we could arrange the properties of the dielectric microstructure in such a way that the transition $`|2|1`$ frequency is placed in the spectral region surrounding the cutoff frequency of the waveguide mode. After the excitation process, the ion will feel a large density of modes and will decay very rapidly. This type of process we call “on demand” since the onset of spontaneous decay can be controlled externally. The process becomes more deterministic the higher the local density of modes gets, that is, the sharper the band edge becomes. This increase in mode density can be achieved by increasing the longitudinal size (number of periods) of the photonic crystal.

We also note that photonic crystal heterostructure architecture in Fig. 1 has an additional advantage for practical implementations of a single-photon-gun device. By increasing the transverse size of the waveguide channel, the linear defect may support additional guided modes.

These additional modes can be used to convey the external laser fields that drive the pumping process.

For concreteness, consider the model where-bye the radiating ion is placed in the middle of an effective 29-layer dielectric structure with $`n_1=1`$ and $`n_2=2`$. The value of $`n_2=2`$ is somewhat arbitrary. The woodpile structure can be made out of very high index of refraction materials in an air matrix, such as Si or III-IV semiconductors, GaAs or InP etc. This means that we could use in our simulations a larger $`n_2`$ \[$`n_2(3.14,3,5)`$\] index of refraction contrast. However, we employ an effective 1D model, and we expect the effective index of refraction to be somewhat lower than the actual index of refraction of the dielectric backbone. Suppose the ion is in the excited state $`|2`$ and the transition frequency $`\omega _A`$ corresponds to $`0.781\omega _0`$ (here $`\omega _0`$ is the mid-gap frequency). Figure 4 shows the normalized spontaneous emission rate (with respect to the low frequency emission rate) that is proportional to the local DOS at the ion position (in this example, the ion is placed in the middle dielectric slab of the effective one dimensional photonic crystal). Note that due to the effective one-dimensional character of the device, the enhancement of the mode density preferentially occurs at a single mode of propagation. Correspondingly, the emission is highly directional along the waveguide channel and may be easily mode-matched to, say, a telecom fiber or other waveguide.

We now consider the issues related to the speed of such a photon gun. The maximum repetition rate of that device is limited by the following factors: (1) the repetition rate of the ion excitation, and (2) the spontaneous decay rate (inverse lifetime) of the metastable ion state. For mode-locked laser diodes the repetition rate can be as high as 1 GHz, but is certainly in the 100 MHz range. That means that the limiting factor is the enhanced spontaneous decay rate of the erbium ion. Taking the lifetime of the excited ion to be 1 ms in the bulk desurvire94 , the enhanced spontaneous decay rate of the erbium ion can be of the order of 100 kHz, using the model above. But as mentioned earlier, this rate can be increased by sharpening the band edge with the addition of more periods or by increasing the index contrast. The increase of the mode density scales as $`N^2`$, where $`N`$ is the number of the periods. The total repetition rate of the device then can be as high as several MHz for realistic $`N`$.

We also note that our single-photon device proposal eliminates the inverse relationship between the magnitude of the defect-mode DOS and the repetition rate of the device that would be present in a 3D PBG single defect-mode based proposal for a single photon gun (along the lines of Ref. others ). In such a defect-mode device, the repetition rate is unfavorably limited by the cavity build-up time, which is inversely proportional to the quality factor of the defect mode, whereas the enhancement of the DOS is proportional to the the quality factor of the defect mode. Moreover, while the Purcell enhancement and emission narrowing effects in a 1D PBG structure rely crucially on preparing the emitting Er3+ dipole oriented parallel to the stack interfaces dowling93 , this is not the case for 3D PBG structures, where mode suppression and enhancement are omni-directional, independent of dipole orientation.

An alternative option for triggering the single photon emission process would be to make use of an intensity-dependent Kerr nonlinearity embedded in the dielectric backbone of the photonic crystal. If initially the ion frequency $`\omega _A`$ falls inside the photonic band gap, the ion can not decay due to the lack of photonic modes. By applying an external optical or electric field (that induces a prescribed change of the refraction index of the nonlinear material and shifts the band gap to a different frequency interval), the ion transition frequency will now be located within the continuum of modes near the photonic band edge, and will suddenly feel a strong DOS and will spontaneously decay very rapidly. Our calculations show that for a dielectric structure consisting of 39 unit cells the required nonlinear relative change of the refraction index necessary to achieve single photon generation processes is $`\mathrm{\Delta }n/n6\times 10^3`$. Moreover, using the photonic crystal architecture presented in Fig. 1, we argue that the external laser field power required to achieve the necessary change in the index of refraction may be strongly reduced. By engineering the symmetry of the field distribution in the photonic crystal, one may achieve very strong field local enhancement at the nonlinear medium location, and, implicitly, a strong variation of the nonlinear index of refraction with only a fraction of the power that would have been required to obtain the same variation in the case of a homogeneous medium.

In summary, we have proposed a source of single photons switched by a STIRAP pumping process of a mono-atomic source placed in a light confining dielectric structure. The atomic source can be rapidly switched, at will, with a high repetition rate. The virtue of the mode confinement effect in the architecture presented in Fig. 1 is that the single photon gun device can be made small and compact. The unidirectional operation of the single photon device is achieved by tailoring the PBG geometry, while the repetition rate of the device is dramatically increased due to the strong enhancement of the optical DOS near a photonic band edge.

This work was partially supported by the Feodor-Lynen program of the A. v. Humboldt foundation (SS) and the QUEST program of the European Union (HPRN-CT-2000-00121). Part of this work was carried out at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under a contract with NASA. We would like to acknowledge support from NSA, ARDA, DARPA, NRO, ONR, respectively. MF and HL would like to acknowledge the NRC, as well as NASA Codes S and Y, for additional support.


format: text

text:
# Diffraction theory and focusing of light by left-handed materials

## Abstract

A diffraction theory in a system consisting of left-handed and right-handed materials is proposed. The theory is based upon the Huygens’s principle and the Kirchhoff’s integral and it is valid if the wavelength is smaller than any relevant length of the system. The theory is applied to the calculation of the smearing of the foci of the Veselago lens due to the finite wavelength. We show that the Veselago lens is a unique optical instrument for the 3D imaging, but it is not a “superlens” as it has been claimed recently.

, ,

thanks: This work supported by the NSF grant DMR-0102964.

In his seminal work Veselago  has introduced the concept of left-handed materials (LHM’s). In a simplest case the LHM’s are materials with simultaneously negative electric permittivity $`ϵ`$ and magnetic permeability $`\mu `$ in some frequency range. In the LHM the vectors $`𝐤,𝐄,𝐇`$ form a left-handed set, while in the usual materials ($`ϵ>0`$, $`\mu >0`$) they form a right-handed set. If imaginary parts of $`ϵ`$ and $`\mu `$ are small, the electromagnetic waves (EMW’s) propagate in the LHM but they have some unusual properties. All these properties originate from the fact that in the isotropic LHM the Poynting vector $`𝐒=𝐄\times 𝐇`$ is anti-parallel to the wave vector $`𝐤`$.

Consider a propagation of the EMW from a point source located at the point $`z=a`$ through an infinite slab of the LHM with the thickness $`d`$ and a usual right-handed material (RHM) at $`z<0`$ and $`z>d`$ (Fig.1). It is obvious that $`S_z>0`$ everywhere at $`z>a`$ because the energy propagates from its source. The directions of vector $`𝐤`$ for different rays are shown by arrows. They should be chosen in such a way that at both interfaces tangential components of vector $`𝐤`$ for incident, reflected and refracted waves are the same. Another condition is that the component $`k_z`$ should be parallel to $`S_z`$ in the RHM and anti-parallel in the LHM. Then in the LHM $`k_z`$ is negative. It follows that the Snell’s law for the RHM-LHM interfaces has an anomalous form: $`\mathrm{sin}i/\mathrm{sin}r=n^{}/n`$, where $`i`$ and $`r`$ are the angles of incidence and refraction respectively, $`n^{}=\sqrt{|ϵ^{}||\mu ^{}|/ϵ_0\mu _0}`$ and $`n=\sqrt{ϵ\mu /ϵ_0\mu _0}`$ are positive refractive indexes for LHM and RHM respectively. The angles of reflection are equal to the angles of incidence.

The device shown at Fig.1(b) is a unique optical lens proposed by Veselago. In this lens $`ϵ=ϵ^{}`$ and $`\mu =\mu ^{}`$, then $`n^{}=n`$ and $`i=r`$. It is easy to show that in this case the reflected wave is completely absent. Since all the rays going right from the source have $`i=r`$, all of them have foci at points $`z=a`$ and $`z=2da`$ as shown in Fig.1(b).

All the ideas above have been put forward by Veselago about $`35`$ years ago. Recently the method of fabricating of the LHM’s on the basis of metallic photonic crystals has been found and the San Diego group has reported the first observation of the anomalous transmission  and even the anomalous Snell’s law . Both observations have been interpreted as a result of negative $`ϵ`$ and $`\mu `$.

One can see that the Veselago lens, shown at Fig.1(b), is an absolute instrument because it images stigmatically a three-dimensional domain $`dz0`$ and the optical length of any curve in the object space is equal to the optical length of its image. Note, that the definition of the absolute instrument assumes geometrical optics only. Since the LHM’s have been already obtained we think that the Veselago lens can be extremely important device for the 3D imaging.

Pendry  claims that the Veselago lens has another unique property. Due to Pendry the resolution of this lens does not have a traditional diffraction limitation which follows from the uncertainty principle. Pendry has introduced a new term “superlenses” with the Veselago lens as a first representative of this class. Several works have recently appeared where the concept of superlenses was criticized . On the other hand, Ziolkowski and Heyman  proposed a refined version of Pendry’s analysis which confirms his result. Haldane  interpreted results of Pendry in terms of surface waves described by Ruppin . Haldane also proposed a way how to overcome some mathematical inconsistencies of papers , shown before in . Haldane claims that even though the perfect focusing is impossible the diffraction limit can be defeated.

In this paper we propose a general scalar theory of diffraction in the LHM which is based upon the Huygens’s principle and the Kirchhoff’s integral. As any diffraction approach our theory works under condition that the wavelength is much smaller than any relevant geometrical length in the problem. We apply this theory to the Veselago lens and calculate the smearing of the foci due to the finite wavelength. Thus, our result does not support the idea of “superlens”.

The Green function for the Helmholtz equation for the LHM, which describes propagation of a spherical wave from a point source, has a form $`\mathrm{exp}(ikR)/R`$, where $`k=\omega n/c`$ and $`R`$ is a distance from the source. At a small element of the sphere $`R=const`$ the spherical wave can be considered as a plane wave which is characterized by the Poynting vector $`𝐒`$ and wave vector $`𝐤`$ both with the radial component only. Since $`𝐒`$ is directed along the external normal to the surface element, the wave vector $`𝐤`$ in the LHM is directed along the internal normal. It is easy to see that our Green function obeys these properties.

Following the principles of the scalar theory of diffraction the field $`u`$ at the observation point $`P`$ can be written in a form of a surface integral

$$u_P=b_lu\frac{e^{ikR}}{R}𝑑f_n,$$
(1)
where $`R`$ is the length of the vector from the point $`P`$ to the surface element, $`df_n`$ is the projection of the surface element $`df`$ on the plane perpendicular to the direction of the ray coming from the source to $`df`$, $`b_l`$ is a constant for any LHM. To find $`b_l`$ one can consider a plane wave with the wave vector normal to the infinite plane of integration. Since this plane is fictional, the constant can be found from the condition that the Huygens’s principle in the form Eq.(1) reproduces the same plane wave. Doing the calculations similar to Ref. one gets $`b_l=k/2\pi i`$, so that for the LHM the constant $`b_l`$ has a different sign than the similar constant $`b_r`$ for the RHM.

The Huygens’s principle can be applied to any interface which has a curvature larger than the wavelength. It gives the correct direction of refracted waves but it does not give the amplitudes of both refracted and reflected waves. However, it can be successfully applied to the Veselago lens where reflected waves are absent.

Note, that there are other methods to describe the diffraction which may be also used if the source of the rays is unknown. They are described and compared in details in Jackson’s textbook . One can show that all the methods give the same result at $`r=i`$.

Moreover, the Kirchhoff integral Eq. (1) may be considered as a hint to get a solution, valid at large $`k`$. The function $`u`$ as given by Eq. (1) is meaningful only at the distances from the interface larger than the wavelength. Nevertheless, if we consider solution obtained for these distances exactly at the interface, we find that it satisfies proper boundary conditions. Namely, $`u`$ is continuous and $`u/z`$ changes sign at the interface (See).

Now we apply Eq.(1) to the Veselago lens. To find the field $`u`$ inside the slab we shall integrate in Eq.(1) over the plane $`z=0`$. The field $`u`$ in this plane is produced by a point source and has a form

$$u(x,y,0)=\frac{e^{ik\sqrt{a^2+x^2+y^2}}}{\sqrt{a^2+x^2+y^2}}.$$
(2)
The field inside the slab can be found using Eq.(1) with a constant $`b_{rl}`$ instead of $`b_l`$ because now we are integrating over the RHM-LHM interface rather than over the fictional surface in the LHM. In a similar way at the LHM-RHM interface one should use a constant $`b_{lr}`$. Using the method described in Ref. it is easy to show that $`b_{rl}=b_l`$ and $`b_{lr}=b_r`$. Thus one gets

$$u(x,y,z)=b_la\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{e^{ik\sqrt{a^2+x_1^2+y_1^2}}}{a^2+x_1^2+y_1^2}\frac{e^{ik\sqrt{z^2+(x_1x)^2+(y_1y)^2}}}{\sqrt{z^2+(x_1x)^2+(y_1y)^2}}𝑑x_1𝑑y_1,$$
(3)
where the additional factor $`a/\sqrt{a^2+x_1^2+y_1^2}`$ is the cosine of the angle between the ray, coming from the source to the point $`\{x_1,y_1,0\}`$ and the unit vector in $`z`$ direction. One can see that the optical lengths for all rays (the sum of exponents in the integrand of Eq.(3)) from the point source to the focus, located at $`z=a`$, $`x=y=0`$, are zero and the value of the field at the focal point $`u(0,0,a)=ik`$, while the geometrical optics gives an infinite field in this point. To find $`u`$ in the vicinity of the focus one should expand the integrand in Eq.(3) near the point $`(0,0,a)`$ assuming $`xa`$, $`ya`$ and $`|\zeta |a`$, where $`\zeta =za`$. Then one gets

$$u(\rho ,\zeta )=\frac{ka}{2\pi i}\underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mathrm{exp}\left[ik\frac{\rho r\mathrm{cos}\left(\phi \right)a\zeta }{\sqrt{a^2+r^2}}\right]}{(a^2+r^2)^{3/2}}r𝑑\phi 𝑑r,$$
(4)
where $`\rho ^2=x^2+y^2`$. Equation (4) gives

$$u(\rho ,\zeta )=k\left[\frac{i\mathrm{sin}(k\sqrt{\rho ^2+\zeta ^2})}{k\sqrt{\rho ^2+\zeta ^2}}\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}J_0(k\rho \sqrt{1s^2})\mathrm{sin}(k\zeta s)𝑑s\right].$$
(5)
At $`\rho =0`$ one gets an analytical expression

$$u(0,\zeta )=\frac{1\mathrm{cos}(k\zeta )+i\mathrm{sin}(k\zeta )}{\zeta }.$$
(6)
Another analytical expression can be obtained at $`\zeta =0`$: $`u(\rho ,0)=i\mathrm{sin}(k\rho )/\rho `$. The same result has been obtained in Ref. . Figure 2 shows dimensionless function $`|u(\rho ,\zeta )|^2/k^2`$ as given by Eq.(5). One can see that the smearing of the focus is anisotropic. The half-width in $`z`$ direction is approximately one wavelength while in $`\rho `$ direction it is approximately twice as less.

Now we find the field $`u`$ in the close vicinity of the second focus located at $`x=y=0`$, $`z=2da`$. The general expression for $`u`$ at $`z>d`$ differs from Eq.(3). One should apply the Huygens’s principle to both interfaces located at $`z=0`$ and $`z=d`$. Then the expression for the field has a form

$$\begin{array}{c}u(x,y,z)=b_lb_rad\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑x_1𝑑y_1\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑x_2𝑑y_2\frac{e^{ik\sqrt{a^2+x_1^2+y_1^2}}}{a^2+x_1^2+y_1^2}\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{e^{ik\sqrt{d^2+(x_1x_2)^2+(y_1y_2)^2}}}{d^2+(x_1x_2)^2+(y_1y_2)^2}\frac{e^{ik\sqrt{(zd)^2+(x_2x)^2+(y_2y)^2}}}{\sqrt{(zd)^2+(x_2x)^2+(y_2y)^2}}.\end{array}$$
(7)
To calculate these integrals in the vicinity of the second focus using inequalities $`kd1`$, $`ka1`$ one should introduce new variables $`\{s,t\}`$ instead of variables $`\{x_2,y_2\}`$ by relations

$$x_2=(\frac{d}{a}1)x_1+s,y_2=(\frac{d}{a}1)y_1+t.$$
(8)
One can see from Eq.(7) that at $`s=t=0`$ optical lengths of all rays exiting from the point source at $`z=a`$ and coming to the second focus at $`z=2da`$ are equal to zero. Thus the new variables $`\{s,t\}`$ describe deviation from the geometrical optics and they should be small. Introducing the new variables and expanding the exponents in Eq.(7) one can get an expression for the field $`u`$ in the vicinity of the second focus. For $`\eta =z2d+a`$, $`|\eta |a`$ one gets

$$u(x,y,\eta )=u(x,y,\zeta )^{}|_{\zeta =\eta },$$
(9)
where the function $`u(x,y,\zeta )`$ is given by Eq.(3). In other words, the smearing of the $`|u(x,y,\eta )|^2`$ in the second focus is the same as the smearing in the first one.

Our result has a simple interpretation in terms of uncertainty principle. One can see that the main contributions to the integrals in Eqs.(3,7) come from a circle of a radius $`a`$ in the $`x`$-$`y`$ plane around $`z`$ axis. Thus, the effective aperture of the Veselago lens is of the order of $`a`$. The uncertainty of the lateral momentum is of the order of $`1/a`$, which gives the smearing of the foci of the order of $`1/k`$.

Now we compare our results with the analytical calculations of Pendry  and Ziolkowski and Heyman . Our paper is valid for large $`k`$ only while in  the near field region is also considered. The main difference between our works is that in Ref. the incident spherical wave is expanded into series of the plane waves in the $`xy`$ plane. This series contains the evanescent waves (EW’s) which are claimed to provide the “superlensing”. The matching of these plane waves at the interfaces is done independently. Note that each EW has the Poynting vector in the plane of the lens, which does not correspond to the problem under study. Moreover, the superposition of the EW’s diverges within three-dimensional domain $`a<z<2da`$  at large values of $`k`$. This happen because their amplitudes increase as $`\mathrm{exp}(kz)`$ with positive $`k`$. Haldane argues that the “ultra violet cutoff” for this problem exists, but it is outside macroscopic electrodynamics, so that upper value of $`k`$ is very large. However, even with the cutoff the solution looks strange. The field is exponentially large within the domain $`a<z<2da`$ which occupies all the space between the two foci. The field in each focus has a different limit from the left and from the right side. Therefore, we do not think that such a solution means a perfect focusing.

Finally, we have proposed the theory of diffraction in a system, consisting of the LHM and the RHM and have applied this theory to the calculation of the smearing of the foci of the Veselago lens. This smearing is of the order of the wavelength.


text:
# Delayed Flashes from Counter Jets of Gamma Ray Bursts

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Several observations suggest that gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are caused by relativistic jets (e.g., Frail et al. 2001). However, in order to establish that GRBs are collimated, other observations are indispensable, such as polarization observations (Ghisellini & Lazzati 1999; Sari 1999) and microlensing observations (Ioka & Nakamura 2001b). Some theoretical models of jet emissions have been discussed (Totani & Panaitescu 2002; Huang, Dai & Lu 2002; Dado, Dar & De Rújula 2001). If GRBs are due to forward jet emissions, there should most likely be counter jet emissions, as in the AGN (Begelman, Blandford & Rees 1984) and the microquasar (Mirabel & Rodríguez 1999). Therefore the detection of counter jet emissions will give us direct evidence for the jet model of GRBs.

The confirmation of a counter jet has been by far the most important factor in the jet model of astrophysical objects. A mysterious spot was found in SN1987A using the speckle technique (Meikle et al. 1987; Nisenson et al. 1987). Many models including the jet model were proposed (Rees 1987; Piran & Nakamura 1987). At that time, it was difficult to distinguish each model from observations since only one spot was found. In the jet model, the counter jet should be observed although it is dim due to redshifting (Piran & Nakamura 1987). However, later in 1999, two spots were confirmed using new software to analyze the speckle data (Nisenson & Papaliolios 1999). Very recently the jet feature of the ejecta of SN1987A whose position angle is the same as the mysterious spot was confirmed by the HST (Wang et al. 2002). As a result the jet model by Piran & Nakamura (1987) took the advantage. Furthermore the observation of a counter jet may enable us to estimate the Lorentz factor of the jet, as for the AGN and microquasar. Therefore it is important to argue the observational properties of the emission from the counter jet of a GRB.

Let us consider the emission from a counter jet with a Lorentz factor $`\gamma `$. The observed typical frequency of the counter jet emission is about $`\gamma ^2`$ times smaller than that of the forward jet (i.e., the GRB). Since the typical frequency of the GRB is $`100`$ keV, the typical observed frequency of the counter jet emission is $`10(\gamma /100)^2`$ eV, which is in the UV or optical band. This transient phenomenon should be observed about several tens of hours after the forward jet emission, since it is at a radius of order $`10^{14}`$$`10^{15}`$ cm that photons are emitted from each jet leaving, almost simultaneously, the central engine. We call this event the delayed flash (DF).

Any attempt to detect the DF might be difficult since the afterglow of the forward jet might be brighter than the DF. The afterglow of the GRB, i.e., the afterglow of the on-axis forward jet, is much brighter than the DF. However if the forward jet is observed with a large viewing angle, there is a chance to observe the DF since the forward jet emission is also dim at the time of the DF.

Recently, we studied the emission from the off-axis jet (Yamazaki, Ioka, & Nakamura 2002a, b; see also Nakamura 2000; Ioka & Nakamura 2001a). We proposed that if we observe a GRB with a large viewing angle, it looks like an X-ray flash (XRF), a new class of X-ray transients which has been recently recognized as a phenomenon related to the GRB (e.g., Heise et al. 2001; Kippen et al. 2002; Barraud et al. 2002). The off-axis jet model can explain the typical observed frequency and other observational characteristics of the XRF, such as the peak flux ratio and the fluence ratio between the $`\gamma `$-ray and the X-ray band, the X-ray photon index, the typical duration, and the event rate (Yamazaki, Ioka, & Nakamura 2002a, b). Although the origin of XRFs is uncertain, we assume that XRFs arise from prompt off-axis jet emissions hereafter.

In this paper, we will show that the DF can be observed after the XRF in principle. We will calculate the light curves of the XRF, DF, and the afterglow of the XRF, and discuss whether the DF can be detected by the Swift satellite. We will find that we need more sensitive detectors to detect the DF. In § 2, we describe a simple forward-/counter-jet model for the XRF and DF. In § 3 and § 4, we show the light curves of the XRF, the DF, and the XRF afterglow. § 5 is devoted to a discussion.

## 2 INSTANTANEOUS EMISSION FROM AN EXPANDING JET

We extend the simple jet model by Ioka & Nakamura (2001) and Yamazaki, Ioka, & Nakamura (2002a). In these works we assume that the shell width $`l`$ is much smaller than the separation of the shells $`L`$ in the internal shock, since the separation $`L`$ mainly determines the emission timescale of the forward jet. However in this paper we consider a finite shell width, since the shell width $`l`$ determines the emission timescale of the counter jet. The cooling timescale is much shorter than other timescales (Sari, Narayan & Piran 1996), so we assume an instantaneous emission at the shock front as before. We use a spherical coordinate system $`(t,r,\theta ,\varphi )`$ in the Lab frame, where the $`\theta =0`$ axis points toward the detector, and the central engine is located at $`r=0`$. The forward jet has a viewing angle, $`\theta _v>0`$, which the axis of the emission cone makes with the $`\theta =0`$ axis, while the counter jet has a viewing angle $`\theta _v+\pi `$. When the emitting shock front moves radially from $`t=t_0`$ and $`r=r_0`$ with the Lorentz factor $`\gamma =1/\sqrt{1\beta ^2}`$, the emissivity for the XRF has a functional form of

$`j_\nu ^{}^{}(\mathrm{\Omega }_d^{},𝒓,t)`$ $`=`$ $`A(t)f(\nu ^{})\delta [rr_0\beta c(tt_0)]`$ (1)
$`\times `$ $`H(\mathrm{\Delta }\theta |\theta \theta _v|)H\left[\mathrm{cos}\varphi \left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta _v\mathrm{cos}\theta }{\mathrm{sin}\theta _v\mathrm{sin}\theta }}\right)\right],`$
where $`f(\nu ^{})`$ represents the spectral shape. The Heaviside step function $`H(x)`$ describes that the emission is inside a cone of an opening half-angle $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$. Then the observed flux per unit frequency of a single pulse at the observed time $`T`$ is given by

$`F_\nu (T)={\displaystyle \frac{2r_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\gamma ^2}{\beta D^2(r_0/c\beta )}}{\displaystyle 𝑑tA(t)\frac{[\gamma ^2(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta (T))]}{[\gamma ^2(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta (t))]}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi (t)f[\nu \gamma (1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta (t))]}{[\gamma ^2(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta (t))]^2}},`$ (2)
where $`1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta (T)=(c\beta /r_0)(TT_0)`$, $`1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta (t)=[1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta (T)]/[(c\beta /r_0)(tT_0)]`$ and $`T_0=t_0r_0/c\beta `$ (see Ioka & Nakamura 2001a). For the XRF, $`\theta (t)`$ varies from $`\mathrm{max}\{0,\theta _v\mathrm{\Delta }\theta \}`$ to $`\theta _v+\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$. The function $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi (t)`$ is given as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi (t)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\pi & (\theta _v<\mathrm{\Delta }\theta \mathrm{and}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}\hspace{0.25em}0}<\theta (t)\mathrm{\Delta }\theta \theta _v)\hfill \\ \mathrm{cos}^1\left[\frac{\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta (t)\mathrm{cos}\theta _v}{\mathrm{sin}\theta _v\mathrm{sin}\theta (t)}\right]& (\mathrm{otherwise})\hfill \end{array}.$$
(3)
Also for the DF we can use equation (2). For the DF, $`\theta (t)`$ varies from $`\pi +\mathrm{max}\{0,\theta _v\mathrm{\Delta }\theta \}`$ to $`\pi +\theta _v+\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$, and the function $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi (t)`$ is given as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi (t)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\pi & (\theta _v<\mathrm{\Delta }\theta \mathrm{and}\pi <\theta (t)\pi +\mathrm{\Delta }\theta \theta _v)\hfill \\ \mathrm{cos}^1\left[\frac{\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }\theta +\mathrm{cos}\theta (t)\mathrm{cos}\theta _v}{\mathrm{sin}\theta _v\mathrm{sin}\theta (t)}\right]& (\mathrm{otherwise})\hfill \end{array}.$$
(4)
The normalization of emissivity $`A(t)`$ is determined by the hydrodynamics. Here for simplicity we adopt the following functional form,

$`A(t)=A_0\left({\displaystyle \frac{tT_0}{r_0/c\beta }}\right)^2H(tt_0)H(t_et),`$ (5)
where the emission ends at $`t=t_e`$ and the released energy at each distance $`r`$ is constant. Our conclusion does not depend on $`t_e`$ or the functional form so much. A pulse-starting time and ending time are given as

$`T_{start}^{(XRF)}`$ $`=`$ $`T_0+(r_0/c\beta )(1\beta \mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{max}[0,\theta _v\mathrm{\Delta }\theta ])),`$ (6)
$`T_{end}^{(XRF)}`$ $`=`$ $`T_0+[(r_0/c\beta )+t_et_0](1\beta \mathrm{cos}(\theta _v+\mathrm{\Delta }\theta )),`$ (7)
for the XRF, and

$`T_{start}^{(DF)}`$ $`=`$ $`T_0+(r_0/c\beta )(1+\beta \mathrm{cos}(\theta _v+\mathrm{\Delta }\theta )),`$ (8)
$`T_{end}^{(DF)}`$ $`=`$ $`T_0+[(r_0/c\beta )+t_et_0](1+\beta \mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{max}[0,\theta _v\mathrm{\Delta }\theta ])),`$ (9)
for the DF.

The spectrum of the GRB is well approximated by the Band spectrum (Band et al. 1993). In order to have a spectral shape similar to the Band spectrum, we adopt the following form of the spectrum in the comoving frame,

$`f(\nu ^{})=(\nu ^{}/\nu _0^{})^{1+\alpha _B}(1+\nu ^{}/\nu _0^{})^{\beta _B\alpha _B},`$ (10)
where $`\alpha _B`$ ($`\beta _B`$) is the low (high) energy power law index. In the GRB, $`\alpha _B1`$ and $`\beta _B3`$ are typical values (Preece et al. 2000). Equations (2), (5) and (10) are the basic equations to calculate the flux of a single pulse, which depends on following parameters: $`\gamma 1`$, $`\theta _v1`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta 1`$, $`\gamma \nu _0^{}`$, $`r_0/c\beta \gamma ^2`$, $`\alpha _B`$, $`\beta _B`$, $`D`$, $`A_0`$, $`t_0`$ and $`t_e`$.

Hereafter we consider mainly the following canonical set of parameters; $`\gamma =100`$, $`\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }\theta =5`$, $`r_0/\beta c\gamma ^2=1\mathrm{s}`$, $`\alpha _B=1`$, $`\beta _B=3`$, $`h\gamma \nu _0^{}=200\mathrm{keV}`$ and $`t_0=r_0/c\beta `$. We adopt $`t_e=1.3r_0/c\beta `$ since most pulses rise more quickly than they decay (Norris et al. 1996). The value $`\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }\theta =5`$ has been obtained from the fitting of the afterglow light curve (Frail et al. 2001; see also Panaitescu & Kumar 2002). We fix the amplitude $`A_0`$ so that the isotropic $`\gamma `$-ray energy $`E_{iso}=4\pi D^2S(202000\mathrm{keV})`$ satisfies $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\theta )^2E_{iso}=1\times 10^{51}\mathrm{ergs}`$ when $`\gamma \theta _v=0`$ (Frail et al. 2001). Here $`S(\nu _1\nu _2)=_{T_{start}}^{T_{end}}F(T;\nu _1\nu _2)𝑑T`$ is the observed fluence in the energy range $`\nu _1\nu _2`$ and $`F(T;\nu _1\nu _2)=_{\nu _1}^{\nu _2}F_\nu (T)𝑑\nu `$ is the observed flux in the same energy range. Then, we obtain $`A_0=0.24\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{Hz}^1`$ for the fiducial parameters. Note that the observed flux is proportional to $`D^2`$.111 When we consider the effect of cosmology ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$, and $`h=0.7`$), $`D1\mathrm{Gpc}`$ corresponds to $`z0.2`$. Since we consider the case $`D<1\mathrm{Gpc}`$ in the following sections, this does not affect our argument qualitatively but alters the quantitative results up to a factor of $`2`$.

## 3 LIGHT CURVES OF X-RAY FLASH AND DELAYED FLASH

In this section, we plot the light curves of the XRF and the DF using Eq.(2), and discuss whether these events can be observed by Swift satellite.

First, we show the light curves of the XRF $`F(T;\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}15}150\mathrm{keV})`$ in Figure 1 with varying $`\gamma \theta _v`$. The observation band corresponds to that of the Burst Alert Telescope (BAT) on Swift. As $`\gamma \theta _v`$ increases, the peak flux of the XRF $`F_{peak}^{(XRF)}`$ decreases due to the relativistic beaming effect.

The light curves of the DF $`F(T;\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.9}7.3\mathrm{eV})`$ are shown in Figure 2 with varying $`\gamma \theta _v`$. The observation band corresponds that of the Ultraviolet and Optical Telescope (UVOT) on Swift. We find that the flux remains almost constant in each pulse, and that the peak flux $`F_{peak}^{(DF)}`$ does not depend on the viewing angle $`\gamma \theta _v`$ so much. This is because the value of $`\theta (t)`$ ranges between $`\pi +\mathrm{max}\{0,\theta _v\mathrm{\Delta }\theta \}`$ and $`\pi +\theta _v+\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$ and $`(c\beta /r_0)(tT_0)1`$ so that $`\theta (t)\theta (T)\pi `$ in equation (2). From equation (2) the peak flux of the DF can be estimated as $`F_{peak}^{(DF)}\mathrm{\Delta }\nu F_\nu \mathrm{\Delta }\nu (2r_0^2\gamma ^2/\beta D^2)A_0\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi f/(2\gamma ^2)^210^{19}`$ ergs s-1 cm-2, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu 10^{14}`$ Hz, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi \mathrm{\Delta }\theta /\theta _v0.1`$ and $`f0.2`$.

The limiting sensitivity of the UVOT (BAT) can be estimated as $`1\times 10^{15}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{cm}^2`$ ($`5\times 10^{10}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{cm}^2`$) for a duration of $`5\times 10^3`$ ($`10^2`$) seconds. The BAT localizes the XRF and the following observation by the UVOT may identify the associated DF. One can see that the DF with $`D13`$ Mpc is observable. Then the BAT can detect the preceding XRF if $`\gamma \theta _v30`$.

## 4 AFTERGLOW OF X-RAY FLASH

The start and end time of the DF is about $`T_{start}^{(DF)}2t_02\times 10^4`$ s and $`T_{end}^{(DF)}2t_e2.6\times 10^4`$ s for $`\gamma =10^2`$, $`t_0=r_0/c\beta =10^4`$ s and $`t_e=1.3t_0`$. Therefore, one should compare the flux of the DF with that of the XRF afterglow. In this section, we plot the light curves of the XRF afterglow and see whether or not the DF can be detected. We use model 1 of Granot et al. (2002) as a simple model of the off-axis afterglow emission from the collimated jet (see also Dalal, Griest, & Pruet 2002).

For $`\theta _v=0`$, the standard afterglow model, i.e., the synchrotron-shock model, can explain observational properties of the GRB afterglow very well (Piran, 1999), and gives the observed flux per unit frequency as $`F_\nu (T;\theta _v=0)=F_\nu ^{(\mathrm{R}\mathrm{SPH})}G(\nu ,T)`$, where $`F_\nu ^{(\mathrm{R}\mathrm{SPH})}`$ is the observed flux given by Rhoads (1999) and Sari, Piran & Halpern (1999). For $`\theta _v>\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$, the emission is assumed to be from a point source moving along the jet axis. Then the flux is given by $`F_\nu (T;\theta _v)=a^3G(a^1\nu ,aT)`$, where $`a(1\beta )/(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta })(1+(\gamma \stackrel{~}{\theta })^2)^1`$. We choose $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }=\mathrm{max}(0,\theta _v\mathrm{\Delta }\theta )`$ to make this simple model more realistic (Granot et al. 2002). The Lorentz factor of the shell $`\gamma `$ can be determined by

$$\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }\theta =\{\begin{array}{cc}(aT/t_{jet})^{3/8}& \mathrm{if}aT<t_{jet}\hfill \\ (aT/t_{jet})^{1/2}& \mathrm{if}aT>t_{jet},\hfill \end{array}$$
(11)
where $`t_{jet}=1.9\times 10^4\mathrm{sec}n^{1/3}(\mathrm{\Delta }\theta /0.05)^{8/3}(E/2\times 10^{54}\mathrm{ergs})^{1/3}`$ is the jet-break time observed from an on-axis observer 222For simplicity, we assume the relation $`t^{}=R/(4\gamma ^2c)`$, where $`t^{}`$ and $`R`$ are the time measured by an on-axis observer and the radius of the shock., where $`E`$ is the isotropic equivalent value of the total energy in the shock. We assume $`E=\eta _\gamma ^1E_{iso}`$ with a constant factor $`\eta _\gamma =0.2`$, which is adopted in Frail et al. (2001). Then, we obtain $`E=2\times 10^{54}\mathrm{ergs}`$ and the geometry corrected total energy in the shock $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\theta )^2E/2=2.5\times 10^{51}`$ ergs.

Using above equations, we calculate the light curves of the afterglow. In order to study the dependence on the viewing angle $`\theta _v`$, we fix the rest of the parameters: the power-law index of accelerated electrons $`p=2.25`$, the number density of the ambient matter $`n=1\mathrm{cm}^3`$, $`\epsilon _e=0.1`$ and $`\epsilon _B=0.01`$, and the distance $`D=1\mathrm{Gpc}`$. Figure 3 (Figure 4) shows the result in the case of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta =0.05`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta =0.1`$). The observation band is 1.9–7.3 eV, which corresponds to that of UVOT.

We also plot the UV flux of the DF in the same figures. We can see that for the canonical set of parameters ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta =0.05`$, $`\gamma =100`$, and $`r_0/c\beta \gamma ^2=1`$ sec), the UV flux of the DF dominates the afterglow when $`\theta _v0.21`$. For comparison, we show the light curves of the DF with one of parameters changed from the fiducial value. For large $`\gamma `$, it is difficult to detect the DF since the starting and ending time of the DF is late and the flux of the DF is low due to the strong beaming effect. When we alter $`r_0/c\beta \gamma ^2`$, the starting (and ending) time and the flux of the DF have a dependence $`(r_0/c\beta \gamma ^2)`$ and $`(r_0/c\beta \gamma ^2)^1`$, respectively. So the large $`r_0/c\beta \gamma ^2`$ case has qualitatively the same behavior as the large $`\gamma `$ case. One can easily find that when $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$ becomes large, the flux of the afterglow of the XRF becomes large while the light curves of the DF remains almost unchanged. Therefore, we can conclude that the DF from a jet with smaller $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$, $`\gamma `$ and $`r_0/c\beta \gamma ^2`$ have larger chance to be seen. In consequence, according to the off-axis jet model, it is preferable for the detection of the DF that the preceding XRF has a low peak energy of a few keV, a small variability owing to large $`\theta _v`$ (Yamazaki, Ioka, & Nakamura 2002a,b) and a short duration due to small $`r_0/c\beta \gamma ^2`$.

We have used in this section model 1 of Granot et al. (2002). A more realistic model for the off-axis emission from the forward jet, model 3 of Granot et al. (2002), may have a more moderate rise before the peak of the observed light curve than the model we have adopted. However, we consider the case in which the viewing angle is as large as $`\theta _v5\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$, so that the differences between these models may be small.

## 5 DISCUSSION

We have calculated the light curves of the DF, XRF, and the afterglow of the XRF. We have shown that in principle, the DF emission can be seen in the UV band about $`10^4`$$`10^5`$ seconds after the XRF if the viewing angle is large enough (about 0.2–0.3 rad) for the afterglow of the XRF to be dimmer than the DF. Since the UV flux of the GRB afterglow is much larger than that of the DF, only the DF associated with an off-axis jet, i.e., an XRF has any chance to be observed. The preceding XRF should have a low peak energy of a few keV, a small variability, and a short duration for the DF to be detected. Due to the relativistic beaming effect, the flux of the DF is so small that only nearby events ($`13`$ Mpc for the canonical parameters) can be observed by UVOT on Swift. Following Yamazaki, Ioka, & Nakamura (2002a), we can roughly estimate the event rate of the DF for the instruments on Swift as $`R_{DF}6\times 10^5\mathrm{events}\mathrm{yr}^1`$, where we adopt the event rate of the GRBs $`r_{GRB}=5\times 10^8\mathrm{events}\mathrm{yr}^1\mathrm{galaxy}^1`$ and the number density of galaxies $`n_g=10^2\mathrm{galaxies}\mathrm{Mpc}^3`$. Therefore, we need next-generation detectors, which are more sensitive than the instruments on Swift, to detect the DF associated with very dim XRF more frequently.

The DF may be obscured by dust extinction. In fact, about half of accurately localized GRBs do not produce a detectable optical afterglow (Fynbo et al. 2001; Lazzati, Covino, & Ghisellini 2002). One explanation for these “dark GRBs” is that most GRBs occur in giant molecular clouds (e.g., Reichart & Price 2002). In this picture, a GRB has a detectable optical afterglow only if the burst and the afterglow destroy the dust along the line of sight to the observer (Waxman & Draine 2000; Fruchter, Krolik, & Rhoads 2001), as suggested by the comparison between X-ray and optical extinction (Galama & Wijers 2001). In this case the DF is obscured since the flux of the XRF is too dim to carve out a path for the DF. However this picture may have some problems, such as no evidence of an ionized absorber (Piro et al. 2002) and variable column density in the X-ray afterglow (Djorgovski et al. 2001c). There are other explanations for dark GRBs, such as high redshift effects, dust extinction in the interstellar medium of the host galaxy (Ramirez-Ruiz, Trentham, & Blain 2002; Piro et al. 2002) and so on. Therefore at present we cannot conclude that the DF is obscured.

If we assume that the absolute magnitude of the host galaxy is about $`20`$ mag (Djorgovski et al. 2001a, b), the apparent magnitude is about $`20+5\mathrm{log}D_{\mathrm{Gpc}}`$. Since a host galaxy with a size $`10`$ kpc has an angular size of $`10D_{\mathrm{Gpc}}^1`$ arcsec, we can observe a point source which is dimmer than the host galaxy by $`10^4D_{\mathrm{Gpc}}^2`$ if the angular resolution is $`0.1`$ arcsec. Therefore the DF has to be brighter than $`30`$ mag, and we can observe the DF if $`D13`$ Mpc.

If the GRB is associated with a supernova (SN), the emission from the SN may hide the DF. The UV flux of SN1998bw was about $`17`$ mag at the distance $`D40`$ Mpc (Galama et al. 1998), i.e., $`6\times 10^{15}D_{\mathrm{Gpc}}^2`$ erg s-1 cm-2, so that a SN like SN1998bw is brighter than the DF. However at present it is not clear whether all GRBs are associated with the SNe or not (e.g., Price et al. 2002). In any cases, deep searches following the XRF will give us valuable information.

If the DF associated with an XRF is observed, we will be able to estimate the Lorentz factor and the viewing angle of the jets. Let the typical frequency or the break energy of the DF (XRF) be $`\nu _{DF}=\delta _{DF}\nu _0^{}`$ ($`\nu _{XRF}=\delta _{XRF}\nu _0^{}`$), where $`\delta 1/\gamma (1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta _v)`$ is the Doppler factor. When $`\theta _v1`$, $`\gamma 1`$ and $`(\gamma \theta _v)^21`$, we can derive $`\delta _{DF}1/(2\gamma )`$ and $`\delta _{XRF}2\gamma /(\gamma \theta _v)^2`$. Since we assume that the XRF is the GRB observed from the off-axis viewing angle, we may use the observational consequence for the break energy $`\delta _{GRB}h\nu _0^{}200\xi `$ keV, where $`\xi `$ 0.5–2 (Preece et al. 2000). In our model, $`\delta _{GRB}`$ becomes $`2\gamma `$. Then, we obtain $`\gamma 100\xi ^{1/2}(h\nu _{DF}/5\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})^{1/2}`$. On the other hand, we can derive $`\nu _{DF}/\nu _{XRF}(\theta _v/2)^2`$, which implies that we can also estimate the viewing angle.

We would like to thank the referee for useful comments and suggestions. We are grateful to A. Yoshida and T. Murakami for helpful comments, and W. Naylor for a careful reading of the manuscript. This work was supported in part by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research of the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, No.00660 (KI), No.14047212 (TN), and No.14204024 (TN).


text:
# Carbon Nanotubes as Schottky Barrier Transistors

## Abstract

We show that carbon nanotube transistors operate as unconventional “Schottky barrier transistors”, in which transistor action occurs primarily by varying the contact resistance rather than the channel conductance. Transistor characteristics are calculated for both idealized and realistic geometries, and scaling behavior is demonstrated. Our results explain a variety of experimental observations, including the quite different effects of doping and adsorbed gases. The electrode geometry is shown to be crucial for good device performance.

Carbon nanotubes show great promise for nanoscale field-effect transistors (FETs) . However, despite considerable progress in device fabrication , the theoretical understanding remains incomplete. Initially, it was naturally assumed that the gate voltage modified the nanotube (NT) conductance, in analogy with the channel of an ordinary FET. However, there has been increasing evidence that Schottky barriers at the contacts may play a central role . In fact, ordinary FETs require ohmic contacts for effective switching, while reasonable workfunction estimates suggest significant Schottky barriers at NT-metal contacts .

Here we show that, whenever there is a substantial Schottky barrier (SB) at the contact, NT-FETs operate as unconventional Schottky barrier transistors, in which switching occurs primarily by modulation of the contact resistance rather than the channel conductance. SB-FETs have already been considered as a possible future silicon technology , because of their potential to operate at extremely small dimensions. We calculate the characteristics of such NT devices, and show that they explain a number of key experimental observations, including the effect of dopants, and the non-ideal switching behavior. In particular, we find that the effect of adsorbed gases can be explained simply by their effect on workfunctions, without any doping as has been generally assumed. The geometry of the contact electrode plays a central role, primarily by scaling the required gate voltage. We predict that the device characteristics can be radically improved by tailoring the contact geometry.

We begin by calculating the characteristics of the device shown in Fig. 1a, consisting of a NT embedded in a dielectric between a top gate and a ground plane, with two metal electrodes as source and drain. Such devices have recently been reported . We solve numerically for the self-consistent electrostatic potential as in Ref. , with the source, drain, and gate voltages as boundary conditions. For simplicity, the calculations in Fig. 1 use a local approximation to the electrostatic kernel for charge on the NT . This is justified below by comparisons with a more complete calculation.

The current is then given by the Landauer formula,

$$I(V)=\frac{4e}{h}\left[F(E)F(E+eV_D)\right]P(E)𝑑E.$$
(1)
Here $`V_D`$ is the drain voltage (with the source taken as ground), and $`F`$ is the Fermi function. We calculate the energy dependent transmission probability $`P(E)`$ within the WKB approximation for a semiconducting NT of bandgap 0.6 eV. (WKB is relatively accurate when the tunneling resistance is high, so it describes the overall “turn-on” well. However, it neglects the reflection that would occur even in the absence of a barrier, so the conductance of the actual device may be somewhat lower than the WKB estimate.)

Figure 1b shows the conductance for different SB heights. When the metal Fermi level falls in the middle of the NT bandgap (as determined by the respective workfunctions ), the conductance at zero drain voltage shows a symmetric dependence on the gate voltage. There is significant conductance at gate voltages of 5-10 V, but the “turn-on” is very far from ideal, with a conductance well below its maximum value of $`4e^2/h1.5\times 10^4`$ S even at 20 V.

The underlying mechanism for the transistor action is illustrated in Fig. 1c. Already at 4 V there is substantial carrier density in the channel, but current is blocked by the SB. Increasing the voltage difference between source and gate electrodes leads to a large electric field at the contact, reducing the width of the Schottky barrier and allowing thermally-assisted tunneling.

If the metal Fermi level does not fall in the center of the NT bandgap, the SB height is different for electrons and holes, resulting in an asymmetric conductance curve (dashed and dotted curve in Fig. 1b). Whenever the SB is large enough to effectively block current, the device operates as a SB-FET. For very small SBs, however, the device operates as a normal (channel-limited) FET.

We now consider the crucial role of the device geometry. We focus on the case of mid-gap barrier, where the conductance is symmetric with respect to the gate voltage, so it is sufficient to consider positive gate voltages. (Our general conclusions apply equally to any case where the Fermi level at the interface falls deep in the gap, so the barriers for both electrons and holes are substantial.) Figure 2 displays the conductance as a function of gate voltage for a variety of device geometries. As expected, the turn-on is better for thinner oxides. However, even for the thinnest oxide (60 nm), the device requires a rather large gate voltage for full turn-on.

In standard FETs, the conductance is controlled by the electrostatic potential (and resulting carrier density) in the channel; so the key to improved performance is increased capacitance between channel and gate by reduction of the oxide thickness. In contrast to this, for a SB-FET the performance is largely controlled by the electric field at the contact, as illustrated in Fig. 1c. A sharper contact leads to field focusing, and hence a larger field at the contact. Thus, the device performance can be dramatically improved by varying the geometry of the contacts, in addition to the familiar dependence on gate distance. For example, if the thickness of the metal electrode is reduced from 50 nm to 5 nm, there is a striking improvement of the device performance, as shown in Fig. 2. The threshold voltage is lower, and the conductance approaches the maximum value at a lower gate voltages. This improvement would not occur for channel-limited conduction.

The relative position of contact and gate is also important. Most experiments reported to date have actually used a bottom gate underneath a thick oxide (100 to 1000 nm). From the field lines of Fig. 1a, it is clear that the electric field at the metal-NT contact is larger when the gate is on the same side of the electrode as the NT. This suggests why, with a bottom gate, substantial modulation of the conductance was obtained even with thick oxides.

For good switching at a modest gate voltage, one wishes to maximize the electric field at the contact for a given gate voltage. Thus the ideal geometry would be a sharp needle-like contact, with a wrap-around cylindrical gate. The electrode could be either a metal wire, or a metallic NT . The conductance for such a device (with gate radius 50 nm and a SiO2 dielectric) is included in Fig. 2. The huge gain in performance is quite striking.

This simple geometry also provides an opportunity to test our local approximation for the electrostatics of the charge on the NT. A solid line in Fig. 2 shows the results using the exact kernel for this geometry . The difference is barely visible. This justifies the approximation used for the other geometries in Figs. 1 and 2.

The various device geometries lead to very different conductance curves in Fig. 2. However, the difference is primarily in the scale of gate voltage needed to modulate the conductance. In fact, we can scale the five realistic devices to a single “universal” conductance characteristic, as demonstrated in the inset of Fig. 2. Even the idealized needle-contact geometry is well approximated by the same scaling function. (The scaling is less closely obeyed at low temperature, where the detailed shape of the barrier becomes more important.) The scaling basically reflects the ratio of gate voltage to electric field at the contact. This scaling behavior is of great value in providing a broad perspective on the performance of NT SB-FETs.

One puzzling aspect of NT devices has been the dramatic effect of adsorbed gases on the behavior. It has been naturally assumed that this effect arises from doping of the NT . However, recent work showed that the effect of adorbed oxygen was qualitatively different than that of alkali metals like potassium , which are also assumed to act as dopants.

For NTs, the Schottky barrier is sensitive to the metal workfunction ; and workfunctions are well known to be sensitive to adsorbed gases . In most experiments, the metal contacts and NT have been directly exposed to O2. Thus, one inevitable effect of gases will be to change the metal workfunction. (The NT workfunction may also be changed; but because of the weaker binding to these chemically inert structures, we focus on changes in the workfunction of the metal electrode.)

Figure 3a shows the calculated conductance vs. gate voltage, for varying workfunctions of the metal source electrode. (The gate workfunction is assumed to be unaffected, since the bottom gate used in experiments is protected by the oxide. A different gate workfunction would simply shift the zero of gate voltage.) Figure 3b shows the same for varying doping of the NT. For doping, the charge on the tube plays a central role, so we use the idealized cylindrical geometry and exact electrostatic kernel for these calculations. We have already seen that the behavior for this model is almost identical to that for realistic geometries, aside from a scaling of the gate voltage; so the results apply rather generally.

The characteristics show a qualitatively different behavior for doping vs. workfunction changes. The workfunction difference leads to a lowering of the conductance for one sign of gate voltage and an increase for the opposite sign. There is little change in the range of gate voltage at which the FET is “off”, with conductance nearly zero. For doping, in contrast, the curves shift — to negative gate voltages for n-type doping, and to positive gate voltages for p-type doping. At a sufficiently high level of doping, a finite conductance is observed even at zero gate voltage.

This general behavior of the conductance is in striking qualitative agreement with the experimental measurements shown in Fig. 4. (Details of the experiment are given elsewhere .) We therefore conclude that the principle effect of oxygen exposure in the experiment is not to dope the NT, but rather to change the workfunction of the exposed portion of the metal electrode.

The distinctive dependence on gate voltage for the two cases can be understood from the respective band diagrams. Figure 5 shows the band diagrams, for the case where the Fermi level originally falls at midgap. In Figure 5a, the workfunction of the electrode has been increased (e.g. by adsorbates) relative to the NT and gate. For zero gate voltage there is no channel conductance, and this is unaffected by the workfunction change. For one sign of gate voltage, shown in Fig. 5a, when the channel turns on, the Schottky barrier is already reduced by the workfunction change; so the effect of the workfunction change is to enhance the turn-on. For the opposite gate voltage, when the channel turns on, the Schottky barrier at the contact is increased by the workfunction change, suppressing turn-on. This gives the characteristic asymmetric turn-on, without a shift in the voltage range where the channel conductance is suppressed.

Doping, in contrast, shifts the bands in the channel, and hence shifts the voltage range in which the channel is nonconducting. This accounts for the most dramatic difference between the two cases. Figure 5b shows the behavior for n-type doping. The width of the depletion barrier can be reduced by applying a positive gate voltage, allowing electron tunneling through the thin barrier. For negative gate voltage, however, it is extremely difficult to turn on the FET conductance — the gate voltage must be large enough both to achieve inversion in the doped channel and to narrow the Schottky barrier enough to permit tunneling. Thus in the experiment of Fig. 4b, turn-on at negative gate voltages is seen only for the lowest doping levels studied.

In conclusion, the transistor action observed in carbon nanotube FETs can be understood on the basis of transport across a Schottky Barrier at the metal-NT contact. The gate induces an electric field at the contact, which controls the width of the barrier and hence the current. A sharper contact leads to focusing of the electrical field, allowing operation at lower gate voltages. Changes in workfunction, e.g. by adsorbed gases, affect the Schottky barrier and hence the device characteristics. By comparing calculations with experimental data for FETs exposed to oxygen or doped with potassium, we suggest that the main effect of oxygen exposure is to change the workfunction of the metal contact rather than to dope the NT.

S. H. thanks the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft for financial support under the Grant number HE3292/2-1.


text:
# Antideuterons as a probe of primordial black holes

## 1 Introduction

Very small black holes could have formed in the early Universe from initial density inhomogeneities (Hawking Hawking2 (1971)), from phase transition (Hawking Hawking3 (1982)), from collapse of cosmic strings (Hawking Hawking4 (1989)) or as a result of a softening of the equation of state (Canuto Canuto (1978)). It was also shown by Choptuik (Choptuik Choptuik (1993)) and, more recently, studied in the framework of double inflation (Kim Kim (2000)), that pbhs could even have formed by near-critical collapse in the expanding Universe.

The interest in primordial black holes has been revived in the last years for several reasons. On the one hand, new experimental data on gamma-rays (Connaughton Connaughton (1998)) and cosmic rays (Barrauet al. barrau4 (2002)) together with the construction of neutrino detectors (Bugaev & Konishchev Bugaev (2001)), of extremely high-energy particle observatories (Barrau Barrau3 (2000)) and of gravitational waves interferometers (Nakamura et al. Nakamura (1997)) give interesting investigational means to look for indirect signatures of pbhs. On the other hand, primordial black holes have been used to derive interesting limits on the scalar fluctuation spectrum on very small scales, extremely far from the range accessible to CMB studies (Kim et al. Kim2 (1999), Blais et al. Po (2003)). It was also found that pbhs are a useful probe of the early Universe with a varying gravitational constant (Carr Carr2 (2000)). Finally, significant progress has been made in the understanding of the evaporation mechanism itself, both at usual energies (Parikh & Wilczek Parikh (2000)) and in the near-Planckian tail of the spectrum (Barrau & Alexeyev Barrau2 (2001), Alexeyev et al. Stas (2001), Alexeyev et al. Stas2 (2002)).

For the time being there is no evidence in experimental data in favour of the existence of pbhs in our Universe. Only upper limits on their number density or on their explosion rate have been obtained (Barrau et al. barrau4 (2002), MacGibbon & Carr MacGibbon2 (1991)). As the spectra of gamma-rays, antiprotons and positrons can be well explained without any new physics input (e.g. pbhs or annihilating supersymmetric particles) there is no real hope for any detection in the forthcoming years using those cosmic-rays. The situation is very different with antideuterons which could be a powerful probe used to search for exotic objects, as the background is extremely low below a few GeV (Chardonnet et al. chardonnet (1997), Donato et al. fiorenza (2000)). Such light antinuclei could be the only way to find pbhs or to improve the current limits. This paper is organized along the same guidelines as our previous study on pbh antiprotons (Barrau et al. barrau4 (2002)), to which the reader is referred for a full description of the source and propagation model used. The main difference is the necessity to consider a coalescence scheme for the antideuteron production. We compute the expected flux of antideuterons for a given distribution of pbhs in our Galaxy, propagate the resulting spectra in a refined astrophysical model whose parameters are strongly constrained and, finally, give the possible experimental detection opportunities with the next generation of experiments as a function of the uncertainties on the model.

## 2 Antideuterons emission

### 2.1 Hawking process and subsequent fragmentation

The Hawking black hole evaporation process can be intuitively understood as a quantum creation of particles from the vacuum by an external field. The basic characteristics can be easily seen through a simplified model (see Frolov & Novikov (Frolov (1998)) for more details) which allowed Schwinger to derive, in 1951, the rate of particle production by a uniform electric field and remains correct, at the intuitive level, for black hole evaporation. If we focus on a static gravitational field, it should be taken into account that the energy of a particle can be written as $`E=p_\mu \xi ^\mu `$, where $`p^\mu `$ is the four-momentum and $`\xi ^\mu `$ is the Killing vector. The momentum being a future-directed timelike vector, the energy $`E`$ is always positive in the regions where the Killing vector is also future-directed and timelike. If both particles were created in such a region, their total energy would not vanish and the process would, therefore, be forbidden by conservation of energy. As a result, a static gravitational field can create particles only in a region where the Killing vector is spacelike. Such a region lies inside the Killing horizon, i.e. the $`\xi ^2=0`$ surface, which is the event horizon in a static spacetime. This basic argument shows that particle creation by a gravitational field in a static spacetime (this is also true in a stationary case) is possible only if it contains a black hole. Although very similar to the effect of particle creation by an electric field, the Hawking process has a fundamental difference: since the states of negative energy are confined inside the hole, only one of the created particles can appear outside and reach infinity.

The accurate emission process, which mimics a Planck law, was derived by Hawking, using the usual quantum mechanical wave equation for a collapsing object with a postcollapse classical curved metric instead of a precollapse Minkowski one (Hawking Hawking5 (1975)). He found that the emission spectrum for particles of energy $`Q`$ per unit of time $`t`$ is, for each degree of freedom:

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}Q\mathrm{d}t}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_s}{h\left(\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{Q}{h\kappa /4\pi ^2c}\right)(1)^{2s}\right)}$$
(1)
where contributions of angular velocity and electric potential have been neglected since the black hole discharges and finishes its rotation much faster than it evaporates (MacGibbon & Webber Gibbons (1975), Page Page1 (1977)). $`\kappa `$ is the surface gravity, $`s`$ is the spin of the emitted species and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_s`$ is the absorption probability. If we introduce the Hawking temperature (one of the rare physical formulæ using all the fundamental constants) defined by

$$T=\frac{hc^3}{16\pi kGM}\frac{10^{13}\mathrm{g}}{M}\mathrm{GeV}$$
(2)
the argument of the exponent becomes simply a function of $`Q/kT`$. Although the absorption probability is often approximated by its relativistic limit

$$\underset{Q\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{\Gamma }_s=\frac{108\pi ^2G^2M^2Q^2}{h^2c^6}$$
(3)
we took into account in this work its real expression for non-relativistic particles:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_s=\frac{4\pi \sigma _s(Q,M,\mu )}{h^2c^2}(Q^2\mu ^2)$$
(4)
where $`\sigma _s`$ is the absorption cross-section computed numerically (Page Page2 (1976)) and $`\mu `$ the rest mass of the emitted particle. Even if this mass effect is partially compensated by the pseudo-oscillating behaviour of the cross-section and remains at the level of a correction, we found some substantial discrepancies between the geometric limit and the numerical calculation which justifies this technical complication.

As was shown by MacGibbon and Webber (MacGibbon & Webber MacGibbon1 (1990)), when the black hole temperature is greater than the quantum chromodynamics confinement scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$, quark and gluon jets are emitted instead of composite hadrons. To evaluate the number of emitted antinucleons $`\overline{N}`$ , one therefore needs to perform the following convolution:

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N_{\overline{N}}}{\mathrm{d}E\mathrm{d}t}=\underset{j}{}_{Q=E}^{\mathrm{}}\alpha _j\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{s_j}(Q,T)}{h}\left(e^{\frac{Q}{kT}}(1)^{2s_j}\right)^1\times \frac{\mathrm{d}g_{j\overline{N}}(Q,E)}{\mathrm{d}E}dQ$$
(5)
where $`\alpha _j`$ is the number of degrees of freedom, $`E`$ is the antinucleon energy and $`\mathrm{d}g_{j\overline{N}}(Q,E)/\mathrm{d}E`$ is the normalized differential fragmentation function, i.e. the number of antinucleons between $`E`$ and $`E+\mathrm{d}E`$ created by a parton jet of type $`j`$ and energy $`Q`$. The fragmentation functions have been evaluated with the high-energy physics frequently-used event generator PYTHIA/JETSET (Tjöstrand Tj (1994)). This program is based on the so-called string fragmentation model (developed by the Lund group) which is an explicit and detailed framework where the long-range confinement forces are allowed to distribute the energies and flavours of a parton configuration among a collection of primary hadrons. It has received many improvements related, e.g., to parton showers, hard processes, Higgs mechanisms and it is now in excellent agreement with experimental data.

### 2.2 Coalescence scheme

In the context of proton-nucleus collisions it was suggested that, independently of the details of the deuteron formation mechanism, the momentum distribution of deuterons should be proportional to the product of the proton and neutron momentum distributions (see Csernai & Kapusta (csernai (1986)) for a review). This was based on phase space considerations alone: the deuteron density in momentum space is proportional to the product of the proton density and the probability of finding a neutron within a small sphere of radius $`p_0`$ around the proton momentum. Thus:

$$\gamma \frac{d^3N_d}{dk_d^3}=\frac{4\pi }{3}p_0^3\left(\gamma \frac{d^3N_p}{dk_p^3}\right)\left(\gamma \frac{d^3N_n}{dk_n^3}\right)$$
(6)
where $`p_0`$ is the coalescence momentum which must be determined from experiments. The very same arguments can be used for antideuterons resulting from an antiproton and antineutron momentum distribution. In our case, the coalescence scheme has to be implemented directly within the pbh jets as no nuclear collision is involved. We defined the following procedure:
\- for each hadronic jet resulting from a parton emitted by a pbh, we search for antiprotons
\- if an antiproton is found within the jet, we search for antineutrons
\- if an antineutron is also found within the same jet, we compare their momenta
\- if the difference of the antiproton and antineutron momenta is smaller than the coalescence momentum $`p_0`$, we consider that an antideuteron should be formed.
As the coalescence momentum $`p_0`$ is not Lorentz invariant, the condition must be implemented in the correct frame, namely in the antiproton-antineutron center of mass frame instead of the laboratory one. Fig. 1 gives the differential spectrum of antiprotons resulting from $`1.9\times 10^8\overline{u}`$ quark jets generated at 100, 75, 50, 25 GeV and the subsequent distribution of antideuterons with $`p_0=160`$ MeV. The ratio between the antideuteron and antiproton spectra is of the order of a few times $`10^5`$, which reflects the mean amplitude of the cosmic antideuteron flux from pbhs, given in Section 4 of this article, with respect to the one given for antiprotons in Barrau et al. (barrau4 (2002)). This value is not surprising at it is in reasonable agreement with:
\- the Serpukhov experimental ratio of the $`\overline{p}`$ to $`\overline{D}`$ production cross-sections for proton-proton interactions measured at $`\sqrt{s}=11.5`$ GeV (between $`1.9\times 10^5`$ and $`3.5\times 10^5`$ depending on the transverse momentum) as given in Abranov et al. (abranov (1987)) and for proton-aluminium interactions measured at the same energy ($`7\times 10^5`$ for a center of mass transverse momentum around 270 MeV) as given in Binon et al. (binon (1969))
\- the CERN-ISR experimental ratio of the $`\overline{p}`$ to $`\overline{D}`$ production cross-sections for proton-proton interactions measured at $`\sqrt{s}=53`$ GeV (between $`10^4`$ and $`3.4\times 10^4`$) as given in Alper et al. (alper (1973)) and Gibson et al. (gibson (1978))
\- the theoretical cosmic secondary $`\overline{p}`$ to $`\overline{D}`$ ratio (around $`10^5`$) as given in Chardonnet et al. (chardonnet (1997))
\- the theoretical cosmic primary $`\overline{p}`$ to $`\overline{D}`$ ratio from neutralinos (around a few times $`10^4`$) as given in Donato et al. ( fiorenza (2000))
\- the simulated ratio of $`\overline{p}`$ to $`\overline{D}`$ fluxes created within the Earth’s atmosphere (around $`10^5`$) as evaluated with the program (Derome et al. (derome (2000))) that was used to explain AMS experimental data (Derome, private communication).

Although the orders of magnitude are correct, large discrepancies between these theoretical and experimental results can be noticed. This is taken into account in this work by allowing the coalescence momentum to vary between 60 MeV and 285 MeV, numbers than can be considered as ”extreme” possible values.

The flux of emitted antideuterons should now be written as:

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N_{\overline{D}}}{\mathrm{d}E\mathrm{d}t}=\underset{j}{}_{Q=E}^{\mathrm{}}\alpha _j\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{s_j}(Q,T)}{h}\left(e^{\frac{Q}{kT}}(1)^{2s_j}\right)^1\times \frac{\mathrm{d}g_{j\overline{D}}(Q,E,p_0)}{\mathrm{d}E}dQ$$
(7)
where $`\mathrm{d}g_{j\overline{D}}(Q,E,p_0)/\mathrm{d}E`$ is the fragmentation function into antideuterons evaluated with this coalescence model for a given momentum $`p_0`$. As the mean number of produced antideuterons per jet is extremely low, millions of events were generated for each energy and each partonic degree of freedom. Some interpolations are also required to avoid a diverging computing time: the associated uncertainties have been found to be negligible.

### 2.3 Convolution with the mass spectrum

The above expression gives the antideuteron flux due to a single black hole of temperature $`T`$. As pbhs of different temperatures (or masses) should be present, this flux must be integrated over the full mass spectrum of pbhs:

$$q^{prim}(r,z,E)=\frac{d^2N_{\overline{D}}(M,E)}{dEdt}\frac{d^2n(r,z)}{dMdV}𝑑M$$

with

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}n}{\mathrm{d}M}M^2\mathrm{for}\mathrm{M}<M_{}$$

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}n}{\mathrm{d}M}M^{5/2}\mathrm{for}\mathrm{M}>M_{}$$

where $`M_{}5\times 10^{14}\mathrm{g}`$ is the initial mass of a pbh expiring nowadays. As explained in (Barrau et al. barrau4 (2002)), the shape below $`M_{}`$ does not depend on any assumption about the initial mass spectrum whereas the shape above $`M_{}`$ relies on the assumption of a scale-invariant power spectrum. The resulting distribution is, then, normalized to the local pbh density $`\rho _{}`$. The spatial dependence of this source term is given in eq. (11).

## 3 Propagation and source distribution

The propagation of the antideuterons produced by pbhs in the Galaxy has been studied in the two zone diffusion model described in Donato et al. (fio (2001)).
In this model, the geometry of the Milky Way is a cylindrical box whose radial extension is $`R=20`$ kpc from the galactic center, with a disk whose thickness is $`2h=200`$ pc and a diffusion halo whose extent is still subject to large uncertainties.
The five parameters used in this model are: $`K_0`$, $`\delta `$ (describing the diffusion coefficient $`K(E)=K_0\beta R^\delta `$), the halo half height L, the convective velocity $`V_c`$ and the Alfvén velocity $`V_a`$. They are varied within a given range determined by an exhaustive and systematic study of cosmic ray nuclei data (Maurin et al. david (2001), david2 (2002)). The same parameters as employed to study the antiproton flux (Barrau et al. barrau4 (2002)) are used again in this analysis.
The antideuterons density produced by evaporating pbhs per energy bin $`\psi _{\overline{D}}`$ obeys the following diffusion equation:

$$\left\{V_c\frac{}{z}K\left(\frac{^2}{z^2}\left(r\frac{}{z}\right)\right)\right\}\psi _{\overline{D}}(r,z,E)+2h\delta (z)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{D}}\psi _{\overline{D}}(r,0,E)=q^{prim}(r,z,E)$$
(8)
where $`q^{prim}(r,z,E)`$ corresponds to the source term discussed at the end of this section.
The total collision rate is given by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{D}}=n_H\sigma _{\overline{D}H}v_{\overline{D}}`$ where $`\sigma _{\overline{D}H}`$ is the total antideuteron cross-section with protons (Hagiwara et al. secteff (2002)). The hydrogen density, assumed to be constant all over the disk, has been fixed to $`n_H=1`$ cm-3.

Performing Bessel transforms, all the quantities can be expanded over the orthogonal set of Bessel functions of zeroth order:

$$\psi _{\overline{D}}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}N_i^{\overline{D},prim}J_0(\zeta _i(x))$$
(9)
and the solution of the equation (8) for antideuterons can be written as:

$$N_i^{\overline{D},prim}(0)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{V_cL}{2K}\right)\frac{y_i(L)}{A_i\mathrm{sinh}\left(S_iL/2\right)}$$
(10)
where

$$\{\begin{array}{c}y_i(L)=2_0^L\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{V_c}{2K}(Lz^{})\right)\mathrm{sinh}\left(\frac{S_i}{2}(Lz^{})\right)q_i^{prim}(z^{})𝑑z^{}\hfill \\ S_i\left\{\frac{V_c^2}{K^2}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\frac{\zeta _i^2}{R^2}\right\}^{1/2}\hfill \\ A_i2h\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{D}}^{ine}+V_c+KS_i\mathrm{coth}\left\{\frac{S_iL}{2}\right\}\hfill \end{array}$$

Energy changes (predominantly ionization losses, adiabatic losses and diffusive reacceleration) are taken into account via a second order differential equation for $`N_i^{\overline{D},prim}`$ (see, e.g. Eq. (9) in Barrau et al. (barrau4 (2002)), or Secs.3.6.1, 3.6.2 and 3.6.3 in Maurin et al. (david (2001)) for further details). At variance with antiproton studies, in a first approximation, we discarded the so-called tertiary term (corresponding to nonannihilating inelastic reaction, as given in Sec. 4 from Donato et al. (fiorenza (2000)) which should be unimportant at the considered energies since the binding energy of this nucleus is of about 2 MeV.

The spatial distribution of pbh is a priori unknown. However, as these objects should have formed in the very early stages of the history of the Universe, it seems reasonable to assume that their distribution should be rather homogeneous. When the cosmic structures have formed, they should have followed the cold dark matter particles and we assume that they currently have the same distribution. As a consequence, the following profile for the pbhs distribution has been used (normalized to the local density):

$$f(r,z)=\frac{R_c^2+R_{}^2}{R_c^2+r^2+z^2}$$
(11)
where the core radius $`R_c`$ has been fixed to 3.5 kpc and $`R_{}`$=8 kpc. This profile corresponds to the isothermal case with a spherical symmetry, the uncertainties on $`R_c`$ and the consequences of a possible flatness have been shown to be irrelevant in (Barrau et al. barrau4 (2002)).

## 4 Top of the atmosphere spectrum and experimental detection

The flux is then solar modulated in the force field approximation with $`\mathrm{\Phi }=500`$ MV - corresponding to the solar minimum - and shown on Fig. 2 for a reasonable ($`p_0`$=160 MeV/c, $`L`$=3 kpc) set of parameters at the top of atmosphere (TOA). The lower curve is the antideuteron background due to interactions of cosmic rays on the interstellar medium as given in (Donato et al. fiorenza (2000)) whereas the upper curve is due to evaporating pbhs with a local density of $`10^{33}`$g.cm-3 (allowed by the currently available upper limits (Barrau et al. barrau4 (2002))). Secondaries have been obtained in a two-zone diffusion model, with some simplifications: no convection and no energy losses have been included. However, as in the case of antiprotons, their effect should be marginal, while they are very important for primary fluxes, and the conclusions of the present analysis should not be substantially modified. To see all the computation steps, we refer the interested reader to Donato et al. (fiorenza (2000)): the procedure is basically the same as in this work, except for the production cross-sections that are simply deduced from the antiproton production cross-sections within a coalescence model with a fixed momentum (taken as 58 MeV, which corresponds to 116 MeV in our notation) instead of being computed by a Monte-Carlo method. The fundamental point is that this background becomes extremely small below a few GeV/n for kinematical reasons: the threshold for an antideuteron production is $`E=17m_p`$ (total energy) in the laboratory, 2.4 times higher than for antiproton production. The center of mass is, therefore, moving fast and it is very unlikely to produce an antideuteron at rest in the laboratory. It should be noted that the secondary antideuteron background is only presented here to give a crude estimate of the expected ”physical” background. In a forthcoming paper, we expect to study this secondary flux in much more detail, taking special care in the treatment of diffusion and the cross-sections.

The number of events expected in the AMS experiment (Barrau Barrau5 (2001)) onboard the International Space Station can be estimated, following Donato et al. (fiorenza (2000)). Taking into account the geomagnetic rigidity cut-off below which the cosmic-ray flux is suppressed (as a function of the orbit parameters ), the acceptance of the detector and convoluting with the TOA spectrum, we obtain 7 events in three years between 500 MeV/n and 2.7 GeV/n for the previously-given pbh density and the previously-given typical astrophysical and nuclear parameters. This is a quite low value which would be difficult to measure due to the possible mis-reconstruction of $`\overline{p}`$ or $`D`$ events. Nevertheless, it should be emphasized that the situation is very different to that of antiprotons, as the limit here is not due to the unavoidable physical background but just to the instrument capability. Many uncertainties are still unremoved and can affect the primary flux more significantly than the secondary one.

In order to be more quantitative, we performed a multi-variable analysis. Our model has a large set of free parameters: the astrophysical quantities used for propagation ($`K_0,\delta ,L,V_c,V_a`$), the local density $`\rho _{}`$ of pbhs and the nuclear coalescence momentum $`p_0`$ for the formation of antideuterons. To evaluate the possible detection of a signal we chose the following strategy: as the main uncertainty from astrophysical processes comes from the halo thickness $`L`$, the other parameters were fixed to the value giving the smallest flux. This sub-set of parameters depends slightly on $`L`$ and was varied as a function of $`L`$ to ensure that whatever the thickness chosen the real minimum is reached. All the results are therefore conservative. The remaining variables $`\rho _{}`$, $`L`$ and $`p_0`$ are then varied within their allowed physical ranges: $`L`$ between 1 and 15 kpc (see Barrau et al. (barrau4 (2002)) for the details), $`p_0`$ between 60 and 280 MeV/c (depending on the experiments) and $`\rho _{}`$ on the largest scale matching the related experimental sensitivity. Two experiments were investigated: the large spectrometer AMS (Barrau Barrau5 (2001)) which will take data over 3 years from 2005 and the GAPS project (Mori et al. GAPS (2002)), based on a clever design using X-ray desexcitation of exotic atoms. The allowed parameter space is given in Fig.3 and Fig.4: the values of $`L`$, $`p_0`$ and $`\rho _{}`$ that can be explored by the considered experiment, without taking into account possible mis-reconstructions, are located below the surface. The sensitivity of AMS was taken to be $`5.7\times 10^8`$ m-2sr-1GeV/n-1sec-1 between 500 MeV/n and 2.7 GeV/n for three years of observations whereas the one of GAPS was chosen as $`2.6\times 10^9`$ m-2sr-1GeV/n-1sec-1 between 0.1 GeV/n and 0.4 GeV/n for the same duration (Mori et al. GAPS (2002)). To make the results easier to read, Fig.5 and Fig.6 give the accessible densities of pbhs for AMS and GAPS with a fixed $`L`$ (at the more reasonable value around 3 kpc) or a fixed $`p_0`$ (at the more favoured value around 160 MeV/c). As expected, the primary flux is increasing linearly with the PBH density (at variance with the search for supersymmetric particles related to the square of $`\rho _{}`$, as a collision is involved), linearly with the magnetic halo thickness (as the core radius $`R_c`$ is of the same order as $`L`$) and with the third power of the coalescence momentum (as the probability to create an antideuteron is related to a volume element in this space). The smallest detectable density of pbhs for the employed astrophysical and nuclear parameters is $`\rho _{}10^{33.60}2.6\times 10^{34}`$ g.cm-3 for AMS and $`\rho _{}10^{34.86}1.4\times 10^{35}`$ g.cm-3 for GAPS. It is much less than the best upper limit available nowadays $`\rho _{}<1.7\times 10^{33}`$ g.cm-3 and it should open an interesting window for discovery in the forthcoming years. If no antideuteron is found, the upper limits will be significantly decreased, allowing stringent constraints on the spectrum of fluctuations in the Universe on very small scales. It should also be mentioned that, in spite of its much smaller acceptance, the PAMELA experiment (Adriani et al. pam (2002)) could supply interesting additional information thanks to its very low energy threshold, around 50 MeV/n.

## 5 Discussion

As recently pointed out in Donato et al. (fiorenza (2000)), antideuterons seem to be a more promising probe to look for exotic sources than antiprotons. In this preliminary study, we show that this should also be the case for pbhs, so that antideuterons may be the only probe to look for such objects. They should allow a great improvement in sensitivity during the forthcoming years: a factor 6 better than the current upper limit for AMS and a factor of 40 for GAPS.

Among the possible uncertainties mentioned in Barrau et al. (barrau4 (2002)), the most important one was, by far, the possible existence of a QCD halo around pbhs (Heckler heckler (1997)). The latest studies seem to show that this effect should be much weaker (Mac Gibbon et al., in preparation) than expected in Cline et al. (cline (1999)). The results given in this work should, therefore, be reliable from this point of view.

Nevertheless, two points could make this picture a bit less exciting and deserve detailed studies. The first one is related to secondary antideuterons: the cross-sections used in this work could be slightly underestimated and some other processes could have to be taken into account (Protassov et al., in preparation). This could increase the background which should be considered with the same propagation model. The second one is that the signal is extremely close to the one obtained with the annihilation of supersymmetric particles as the shape of the spectrum is mostly due to fragmentation processes. In the case of detection, it would be very difficult to distinguish between the two possible phenomena, unless collider data or indirect or direct neutralino dark matter searches have given enough information to fix the supersymmetric parameters.

Acknowledgments. We would like to thank K. Protassov and R. Duperray for very interesting discussions about antideuteron cross-sections and C. Renault for her great help.