text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The search for observational evidence of variations in the ‘fundamental’ constants that can be measured in our four-dimensional world is an extremely exciting area of current research, with several independent claims of detections in different contexts emerging in the past year or so, together with other improved constraints. See  for a non-technical introduction, and  for an extensive compilation of existing constraints.

The importance of this search can not be over-emphasized. Varying non-gravitational constants are forbidden by General Relativity and all metric theories of gravity. A varying $`\alpha `$ violates the Equivalence Principle, signaling the breakdown of gravity as a purely geometric phenomenon and proving the existence of additional gravitational fields (apart from the metric) in the universe. Indeed, many models proposed as explanations for varying $`\alpha `$ are already ruled out by the standard gravitational tests alone, regardless of any predictions and experimental results on $`\alpha `$ itself.

## 2 The Recent Universe

The recent explosion of interest in the study of varying constants is mostly due to the results of Webb and collaborators  of a $`4\sigma `$ detection of a fine-structure constant that was smaller in the past, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha /\alpha =(0.72\pm 0.18)\times 10^5`$ for $`z0.53.5`$; indeed, more recent work  provides an even stronger detection. An independent technique was used to measure the ratio of the proton and electron masses, $`\mu =m_p/m_e`$ . Using two systems at redshifts $`z2.3`$ and $`z3.0`$ are $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu /\mu =(5.7\pm 3.8)\times 10^5`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu /\mu =(12.5\pm 4.5)\times 10^5`$ depending on which of the (two) available tables of ‘standard’ laboratory wavelengths is used. This is an obvious clue that systematic effects, possibly as large as $`10^4`$, may still be unaccounted for.

A recent re-analysis  of the Oklo bound using new Samarium samples collected deeper underground (aiming to minimize contamination) also finds two possible results, $`\dot{\alpha }/\alpha =(0.4\pm 0.5)\times 10^{17}yr^1`$ or $`\dot{\alpha }/\alpha =(4.4\pm 0.4)\times 10^{17}yr^1`$. Note that these are given as rates of variation, and effectively probe time scales corresponding to a cosmological redshift of about $`z0.1`$. Unlike the case above, these two values correspond to two possible physical branches of the solution. The first of branch provides a null result, while the second is a strong detection of an $`\alpha `$ that was larger at $`z0.1`$, that is a relative variation that is opposite to the Webb et al. result. Even though there are some hints (coming from the analysis of Gadolinium samples) that the first branch is preferred, this is by no means settled and further analysis is required to verify it. While in itself this second branch wouldn’t contradict Webb et al. (since Oklo probes much smaller redshift and the suggested magnitude of the variation is smaller than that suggested by the quasar data), it would have striking effects on the theoretical modeling of such variations. Proof that $`\alpha `$ was once larger would sound the death knell for any theory which models the varying $`\alpha `$ through a scalar field whose behavior is akin to that of a dilaton. Examples include Bekenstein’s theory  or simple variations thereof . Indeed, one can quite easily see  that in any such model having sensible cosmological parameters and obeying other standard constraints $`\alpha `$ must be a monotonically increasing function of time. Since these dilatonic-type models are arguably the simplest and best-motivated models for varying alpha from a particle physics point of view, any evidence against them would be extremely exciting, since it would point towards the presence of significantly different, yet undiscovered physical mechanisms.

However, given that there are both theoretical and experimental reasons to expect that any recent variations will be small, it is crucial to develop tools allowing us to measure $`\alpha `$ in the early universe, as variations with respect to the present value could be much larger then. In our previous work , we have carried out a joint analysis using CMB and big-bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) data, finding evidence at the one sigma level for a smaller alpha in the past (at the level of $`10^2`$ or $`10^3`$), though at the two sigma level the results were consistent with no variation. This also established the existence of various important degeneracies in the problem.

## 3 The Early Universe: CMB, LSS and FMA

We have recently performed  an up-to-date analysis of the Cosmic Microwave Background constraints on varying $`\alpha `$ as well as, for the first time, an analysis of its effects on the large-scale structure (LSS) power spectrum. See  for a discussion of why both of these are affected by variations in $`\alpha `$.

Although these CMB and LSS constraints are complementary, and can help break degeneracies by determining other cosmological parameters, they certainly can not be blindly combined together. We are not combining direct constraints on the parameter $`\alpha `$ itself, obtained through both methods, to obtain a tighter constraint. This can not be done, since the CMB and LSS analyses are sensitive to the values of $`\alpha `$ at different redshift ranges, so there is no reason why these values should be the same. Additionally, there is no well-motivated theory that could relate such variations at different cosmological epochs. All that one could do at this stage would be to assume some toy model where a certain behavior would occur, but this would mean introducing various additional parameters, thus weakening the analysis. We chose not to pursue this path and leave the analysis as model-independent as possible. What we are doing is using additional information (which is also sensitive to $`\alpha `$) to better constrain other parameters in the underlying cosmological model, such as $`n_s`$, $`h`$ and the densities of various matter components, which we can reliably assume are unchanged throughout the cosmological epochs in question. In other words, we are simply self-consistently selecting more stringent priors for our analysis. The constraints obtained by combined analysis are reported in . As one would expect, when constraints from other and independent cosmological datasets are included in the CMB analysis, the constraints on variations on $`\alpha `$ become significantly stronger.

The precision with which the forthcoming satellite experiments MAP and Planck will be able to determine variations in $`\alpha `$ can be readily estimated with a Fisher Matrix Analysis (FMA). Some authors have already performed such an analysis in the past, but their analysis was based on a different set of cosmological parameters and assumed cosmic variance limited measurements. In our FMA  we also take into account the expected performance of the MAP and Planck satellites and we make use of a cosmological parameters set which is well adapted for limiting numerical inaccuracies. Furthermore, the FMA can provide useful insight into the degeneracies among different parameters, with minimal computational effort. MAP will be able to constrain variations in $`\alpha `$ at the time of last scattering to within $`2\%`$ ($`1\sigma `$, all others marginalised). This corresponds to an improvement of a factor of 3 relative to current limits, Planck will narrow it down to about half a percent. If all other parameters are supposed to be known and fixed to their ML value, then a factor of 10 is to be gained in the accuracy of $`\alpha `$. However, if all parameters are being estimated jointly, the accuracy on variations in $`\alpha `$ will not go beyond $`1\%`$, even for Planck. The parameters $`\omega _b,`$ and $`n_s`$ suffer from partial degeneracies with $`\alpha `$, which are discussed in more detail in . Planck’s errors, as measured by the inverse square root of the eigenvalues, are smaller by a factor of about 4 on average. For all but one eigenvector Planck also obtains a better alignment of the principal directions with the axis of the physical parameters. This is of course in a slightly different form the statement that Planck will measure the cosmological parameters with less correlations among them.

## 4 Conclusions

We have shown that the currently available data is consistent with no variation of $`\alpha `$ from the epoch of recombination to the present day, though interestingly enough the CMB and LSS datasets seem to prefer, on their own, variations of $`\alpha `$ with opposite signs. Whether or not this statement has any physical relevance (beyond the results of the statistical analysis) is something that remains to be investigated in more detail. In any case, any such (relative) variation is constrained to be less than about $`4\%`$.

The prospects for the future are definitely bright. The forthcoming satellite experiments (including data on polarization and temperature-polarization cross-correlation) will provide a dramatic improvement on these results. These tools, together with other measurements coming from BBN  and quasar and related data  offer the exciting prospect of being able to map the value of $`\alpha `$ at very many different cosmological epochs, including early-universe constraints with an accuracy comparable to the currently existing recent-universe ones . This should allow us to impose very tight constraints on higher-dimensional models where these variations are ubiquitous.

Acknowledgements.  It is a pleasure to thank Pedro Avelino, Rachel Bean, Alessandro Melchiorri, Graça Rocha, Roberto Trotta and Pedro Viana for a very enjoyable collaboration. This work is partially supported by the European Network CMBNET, and was performed on COSMOS, the Origin3800 owned by the UK Computational Cosmology Consortium, supported by Silicon Graphics/Cray Research, HEFCE and PPARC. C.M. is funded by FCT (Portugal), under grant no. FMRH/BPD/1600/2000.


format: text

text:
# Study of Percolative Transitions with First-Order Characteristics in the Context of CMR Manganites

## I Introduction

The understanding of the self-organized behavior of transition-metal oxides, such as manganites and cuprates, has developed into one of the dominant scientific themes of condensed matter physics. Phase coexistence and competition between different kinds of orders involving charge, orbital, lattice, and spin degrees of freedom leads to physical “complexity” as a characteristic of their behavior. The balance between competing phases is subtle, and small changes in composition, magnetic fields, or temperatures lead to large changes in the material properties. In the context of colossal magnetoresistance (CMR), these phenomena motivated the nanoscale phase separation theory of manganites moreo , and its concomitant percolative transition from the metal to the insulator. Many experiments have reported results compatible with phase separation and percolation in Mn oxides uehara ; faeth ; review . Recently, CMR has been observed in simulations of simple models of competing phases, between $`T_\mathrm{C}`$, the ordering temperature, and $`T^{}`$$`>`$$`T_\mathrm{C}`$, the temperature where coexisting clusters start developing upon cooling burgy . In the presence of magnetic fields the preformed ferromagnetic (FM) clusters align their magnetic moments, and they percolate. This encouraging agreement between theory and experiments suggests that the basic concept behind the CMR phenomenon –phase competition– has been unveiled.

However, several experimental facts still await for a rationalization within the phase separation scenario. Notorious among them is the abrupt character of the metal-insulator transition (MIT) in some manganites, result incompatible with standard percolative phenomena where the transition is smooth. The results in Fig.1 illustrate this paradox: (a) In $`\mathrm{La}_{5/8y}\mathrm{Pr}_y\mathrm{Ca}_{3/8}\mathrm{MnO}_3`$, the residual resistivity $`\rho _{dc}`$ at zero temperature $`T`$ changes fast with $`y`$, with a conductivity exponent $`t`$ much larger than predicted by standard percolation uehara . (b) Far more challenging, $`\rho _{dc}`$ of $`\mathrm{Sm}_{0.55}\mathrm{Sr}_{0.45}\mathrm{MnO}_3`$ changes from insulator to metal, in a first-order transition saitoh . Although most Mn oxides have continuous MITs, their $`\rho _{dc}`$ vs. $`T`$ curves often show rapid changes and hysteresis loops, in the same regime where cluster percolation seems to occur. (c) Varying magnetic fields, $`\mathrm{Pr}_{0.7}\mathrm{Ca}_{0.3}\mathrm{MnO}_3`$ also presents a first-order-like MIT baca . These abrupt transitions cannot be rationalized within standard percolation theory book , but they are found in regimes that exhibit some aspects of percolation review .

The theory recently presented by Burgy et al. burgy  relies on a CMR state above $`T_\mathrm{C}`$ made out of preformed FM clusters, with random magnetic moment orientation (a similar picture was also qualitatively discussed by Uehara et al. uehara ). This inhomogeneous state is stable due to the presence of quenched disorder. The random orientation of the cluster magnetic moments can be achieved by having “walls” between them made out of the competing insulating phase. Otherwise, when two FM clusters with different orientations become in contact they will align their moments. An insulating wall can prevent this process, by drastically reducing the interaction between domains. However, when a relatively small magnetic field is switched on, these preformed large FM moments can easily rotate into the direction of that field. When this occurs the insulating walls are no longer needed to prevent moment alignment, and they melt. This last process leads to a percolation, namely, as the FM clusters rotate their moments they also slightly increase their size to occupy the space left by the insulating walls, allowing for charge conduction to occurburgy . Although this last step appears percolative it is likely non-standard and abrupt, since it involves large rounded clusters that are not very ramified (contrary to standard percolation), due to surface tension effects which are of relevance in a regime of phase competition.

It is the main purpose of the present paper to describe, phenomenologically, this percolation of smooth objects, believed to describe CMR manganites. It will be argued that first-order characteristics can be found in percolative processes where surface tension effects are relevant. It is important to clarify that the full description of the CMR process is far more involved, with the random distribution and subsequent field-induced alignment of FM moments playing a key role. The first steps in that direction were already described burgy . Here our goal is the following: if the FM clusters are assumed already aligned (and in that case the spin degree of freedom can be dropped), how does the subsequent percolation occurs? It will be argued that this transition can be fairly abrupt, even discontinuous. The paper is organized as follows. In Section II a variety of non-standard forms of percolation are described, searching for situations where first-order transitions are induced. The main conclusion of this section will be that achieving a discontinuous behavior is highly nontrivial and difficult. In Section III, a novel solution is proposed involving deterministic rules within a cellular automaton system. A discussion of results is presented in Section IV, while Section V contains the main conclusions.

## II Forms of Percolation

Standard percolation (SP) is a successful statistical model for a variety of heterogeneous systems book . It has been used to describe diffusion through porous media, conduction through random networks, and forest fires, among others. In spite of its successes, however, SP has several shortcomings, including the failure to account for correlation effects. Indeed, in SP each site (or bond) is occupied *independently* of its neighbors. This feature is responsible for the ramified structure of the usual percolation clusters. In Mn oxides the coexistence of large clusters has been reported uehara ; faeth , but the cluster distribution –while complex and involving many lengths scales– is not of the very ramified form characteristic of SP. A possible explanation lies in the long-range character of the elastic distortions induced by holes in Mn oxides khomskii , as well as surface tension effects as described in the next section. These factors provide a natural tendency toward smooth surfaces of coexisting metal-insulator clusters. In addition, in physical systems with phase separation, there is a local tendency to homogenize the landscape, minimizing the interface tension.

While simulations of models considering the elastic effects through cooperative Jahn-Teller phonons are CPU time expensive, the cluster rounding effects appear even in simpler Hamiltonians, such as the one-orbital model review  (the actual form of this Hamiltonian has been extensively discussed in previous literature, and it will not be reproduced here). Monte Carlo (MC) results in Fig.2(a,b) illustrate this phenomenon. In the simulations, the Heisenberg coupling $`J_{\mathrm{AF}}`$ between localized $`t_{2g}`$ spins is selected such that some regions of the studied lattice are in a FM state if they were isolated, while others present some competing spin arrangement (antiferromagnetic (AF) or flux review ). However, when the FM and non-FM regions are in contact, there is a considerable influence from one another, and the system tends to homogenize its transport properties. For example, the ladder in Fig.2(a) would prefer to be in a perfectly AF spin state if isolated. However, by immersing the ladder into a ferromagnet, the spins cant appreciably, allowing for substantial charge hopping across the ladder. A thin AF region cannot survive the “pressure” of a FM environment, and it transforms into a fairly good conductor. Fig.2(b) shows similar evidence, now using competing FM and flux states. A finger-like region emerging from the lower-half, with coupling favoring the flux phase, also does not survive in its original form but spins rotate to allow for conduction comment . Modeling percolative manganites with the metal/insulating character of a link independent of its neighbors can only be a crude approximation, and it may cause the present discrepancy between theory and experiment. If the clusters could be made more ‘rounded’ the transition would be more abrupt, and hopefully in better agreement with real manganites. The exponent $`t`$ may depend on the short-scale real-space metal-insulator arrangement, and changing the typical cluster shapes may alter $`t`$ as well.

The physics of manganese oxides, in particular the abrupt change in resistivity as a function of both field and temperature, is supposed to emerge from the realistic one- and two-orbital models that are widely studied review  (supplemented by the addition of quenched disorder). However, simulations using realistic Hamiltonians for manganites –containing the rounding effect spontaneously– are simply prohibitive in the percolative regime if critical exponents are needed, and one must rely on semi-phenomenological approaches, as in the present paper. Even if we accept this simplification, there is, a priori, no obvious way to introduce the proposed local cluster compactification in percolative scenarios. In alternatives to standard percolation such as “bootstrap” percolation bootstrap , one simply removes metallic sites or links if they do not have enough metallic neighbors. This is repeated until no more sites can be removed. However, numerical evaluation of the cluster number exponent $`\tau `$ suggests no new universal behavior chaves . To generate compact configurations, long-range “correlated disorder” was also investigated here stanley . The disorder is selected to follow the real-space correlation function $`C(\mathrm{})`$=$`(1+\mathrm{}^2)^{\gamma /2}`$, which falls off like $`\mathrm{}^\gamma `$ for large distances $`\mathrm{}`$ but is well-behaved at $`\mathrm{}`$=$`0`$. Typical configurations confirm the presence of large clusters (Fig.2(e)). In addition, our conductivity studies for $`\gamma `$=0.2 (Fig.3) are compatible with a new universality class and $`t`$$`>`$1.31=$`t_{\mathrm{SP}}`$, as predicted before comment3 . However, to reproduce the large exponent $`t`$$``$7 found in experiments uehara  anomalously small values of $`\gamma `$ are needed. The reason is that even with correlated disorder the weakest links still govern the critical behavior (Fig.2(e) shows weak links separating large clusters). Correlated disorder, with its statistical nature that allows for those links, is not sufficient to induce the smooth clusters needed to describe manganites. Naively, these already known results appear to rule out the possibility of finding an abrupt percolative transition to mimic the behavior of manganites.

Another alternative is the Swiss-cheese model cheese . Halperin et al. cheese  have shown that this model is equivalent to a random resistor network with a broad distribution of conductances $`g`$ given by

$$P(g)=(1p)\delta (g)+p(1\alpha )g^\alpha .$$
(1)
Here $`P`$ denotes the probability that a conductance has values between $`g`$ and $`g+\delta g`$, $`p`$ is the metallic fraction as before, and $`P(g)`$ is characterized by an additional parameter $`\alpha `$. The weakest bond dominates in the effective resistance of the backbone. Extensive numerical tests octavio  support the conjecture that $`t`$=$`1/(1\alpha )`$, for 0.25$``$$`\alpha `$$`<`$1. The previous equation becomes an equality for $`\alpha `$ large enough. Hence, since the data in Fig.1(b) follows a straight line with slope $`7`$, it can be fitted with results of a simulation at $`\alpha 0.857`$. Although this numerical success is encouraging, it is still intuitively unsatisfactory and does not address the first-order percolative transitions of Figs.1(b,c). In fact, the rapid change in $`\rho _{dc}`$ in Fig.1(a) may also be indicative of a first-order transition hidden by imperfections in the samples used.

## III First-Order Percolation

The above examples clearly show that it is highly nontrivial to generalize percolation to yield a first-order transition, although it is possible to change the critical exponents. The existence of experiments (Figs.1(b,c)) with discontinuous transitions indicate that there must exist yet another class of percolative transitions escaping our attention. We believe that the key issue missing in standard percolation and the related variations described above is a mimic of the effect of surface tension, which naturally arises when two phases compete. This naturally penalizes the roughness of a surface and avoids the weak links ubiquitous in continuous percolation.

The simplest way to model the gregarious tendency of the two competing phases of manganites is to consider the nature of the cells in the neighborhood of the cell under inspection. If there are enough “friendly faces” around, the cell will not change, otherwise it will flip to the competing phase. In a magnetic system, the neighborhood induces a local field that influences the center spin. In addition, including oxygen movement, it is impossible to have an undistorted octahedron in the middle of a distorted JT region. The phenomenological approach followed here is based on Vichniac’s majority voting cellular automata vichniac . Loosely speaking, cellular automata are discrete dynamical systems whose evolution is described by a local deterministic rule: the fate of every cell at time $`t`$+1 is determined by a function of the configuration of a few of its neighbors at time $`t`$. Cellular automata describe an approach to equilibrium in a system dominated by strong, short-range interactions.

Vichniac vichniac  defines four different neighborhoods: Q contains only the nearest neighbors, V consists of Q plus the center cell, H consists of Q plus the second-nearest neighbors, and M consists of H plus the center cell (see Fig.2(c)). Unlike in bootstrap percolation bootstrap , the center cell is treated on the same footing as its neighbors in V and M. This turns out to be a *key* property of the percolative process discussed here, making clusters compact and avoiding weak links. This is quite different from bootstrap percolation where the center cell is singled out. After the neighborhoods are defined, the update rules are as follows. Given a site $`i`$ at a time $`t`$, let $`S`$ be the number of occupied sites in the neighborhood $`N`$ of $`i`$. $`S`$ can be any number between $`0`$ and the number of sites in the neighborhood. If $`S`$ is greater than or equal to some threshold $`T`$, site $`i`$ will be occupied at time $`t+1`$. Otherwise it will be empty. The procedure stops when no more changes occur comment2 . A rule is specified by a unique $`N`$ and $`T`$. This is referred to as NGET vichniac . For the four neighborhoods defined above, only $`8`$ rules (with $`T`$ close to half of the number of sites in $`N`$) are nontrivial, as explained below.

The starting point for the calculations are always standard percolation configurations, characterized by an occupation probability $`p`$. At time $`t`$=0, $`p`$ is a good measure of the occupied fraction, within statistical fluctuations. Under the “time evolution” provided by the cellular automaton, the occupied fraction needs no longer be equal to $`p`$. Rules with large (small) $`T`$ tend to (increase) decrease it. For initial states with $`p<p_c`$, the final state does not percolate. Two examples, to be discussed in more detail in the next paragraph, are showed in Figs.2(f,g). Note the clear visual difference from the more canonical cases Figs.2(d,e). The clusters are now more rounded, and our intuitive goal of phenomenologically mimicking the effect of surface tension has been reached. After the time evolution stops, the resistivity is measured using a numerically exact algorithm franklobb .

The increase in conductivity $`\sigma `$ immediately after $`p_c`$ ($`=0.5`$) is clearly faster in the annealed (MGE5, i.e. each site remains or becomes metallic if five or more of its nine neighbors –including itself– are metallic) case than in standard percolation, as Fig. 3 indicates. This is in agreement with our intuition that rounding effects would speed up percolation, mimicking better the experimental situation after the randomly oriented FM clusters align in a magnetic field. However, it is surprising that this does not affect the value of $`t`$, as the inset shows. Nevertheless, this rapid increase could be experimentally relevant. On the other hand, the *nucleating rule* (MGE4, i.e. each site remains or becomes metallic if four or more of its nine neighbors –including itself– are metallic) leads to different results. Its resistivity jumps from $`0`$ below $`p_c`$, where there is no connection across the system (see Fig.2(g)), to the fully saturated value above $`p_c`$. To understand this, note that the clusters in Fig.2(g) have very clean boundaries. Adding a single metallic site immediately outside one of the clusters will flip all the sites touched by the boundary. At $`p`$ close to $`p_c`$, it is likely that this apparently small perturbation will cause the cluster to coalesce with a neighboring cluster. In practice, this starts a chain reaction (avalanche) that only stops when the entire lattice turns metallic. The nucleating procedure indeed provides a percolative transition that is first-order.

How common are the first-order characteristics expected to be in the cellular automata models described here? Using the four (Q, V, H, M) neighborhoods defined above on the square lattice, there are eight non-trivial rules (QGE2, QGE3, VGE3, HGE4, HGE5, MGE4, MGE5, MGE6). By non-trivial we mean rules whose transition occur at a finite value of $`p`$ (i.e. neither at $`0`$ nor at $`1`$) in the infinite system limit. In all cases a careful size extrapolation was carried out numerically to determine the critical concentration. They are respectively ($`0.16`$, $`0.83`$, $`0.5`$, $`0.33`$, $`0.66`$, $`0.25`$, $`0.5`$, $`0.75`$). Although these values are close to the fractions ($`1/6`$, $`5/6`$, $`1/2`$, $`1/3`$, $`2/3`$, $`1/4`$, $`1/2`$, $`3/4`$), we know of no rigorous result that they are equal to them. In two cases not listed above (VGE2 and VGE4) the numerical uncertainty prevented us from determining for sure whether the rule is trivial or not. To be specific, the critical $`p`$ for VGE2 is very small, and it becomes smaller still as we increase the size of the system used in the simulation. We could not rule out the fact that $`p`$ may extrapolate to zero in this case. As a consequence, we chose to leave those two cases out of the present discussion. Of the eight rules, the conductivity of three of them (QGE2, HGE4 and MGE4) was found to vary discontinuously at the transition. The conductivity of MGE4 is shown in Fig. 3 where the reader can convince oneself that the transition is discontinuous. QGE2 and HGE4 look identical apart for a shift in the location of $`p_c`$. Phenomenologically, the three cases behave similarly in the sense that states very close to the transition are unstable against flipping even just one site. Hence, we conclude that first-order tendencies are certainly not a fragile feature among the set of possible voting cellular automata. However, far more work is needed to fully understand the behavior of these novel systems, with the present paper hopefully providing the first steps in that direction. The detailed analysis of the models introduced here may be as rewarding as the many previous studies of standard percolation.

## IV Discussion

The novel discontinuous percolative transition described here can be applied phenomenologically to the Mn oxides. In a previous related effort, Mayr et al. mayr  constructed random resistor networks using standard percolation and provided a tentative phenomenological description of manganites. The curves $`\rho _{dc}`$ vs. $`T`$ mimicked properly the results corresponding to some manganites, but were too smooth to accommodate the materials of Fig.1 as special cases. The nucleating-rule procedure to generate metal and insulator clusters described here may solve this problem. The left panel of Fig. 4 contains the effective resistivity (obtained solving the Kirchoff equations) vs. $`T`$ for configurations generated by the nucleating-rule, where the light (dark) regions in Fig.2(g) are insulating (metallic). The individual resistivity of those regions is taken from experiments, and they carry a $`T`$ dependence, similarly as in Mayr et al. mayr . The new curves are in excellent agreement with experiments (see, e.g., Fig.1(b)), including the discontinuity, and the fact that there is a common value of $`\rho _{dc}`$ at both low- and high-$`T`$.

Note that the new family of percolative processes presented here naively seems triggered only by the occupation fraction $`p`$, not by temperature, as opposed to some of the results of Fig. 1. However, the ferromagnetic fraction in real manganites is a function of temperature: clusters are expected to be formed at $`T^{}`$ (although they are not sufficiently large in size to create a global FM state), their number grows with decreasing temperature (i.e. $`p`$ increases in the language of this paper), until the Curie temperature is reached. It would be incorrect to believe that our results are only valid for cases where the temperature is held fixed while concentrations are changed.

Another clarification is important. Why do all manganites not have either a first- or second-order transition? Current experimental evidence suggests that both cases can be found, although the latter tends to be fairly abrupt review . Several aspects may be influencing these results. First, it may occur that available single crystals are affected by extrinsic effects in their preparation. From this perspective, the current experimental results may vary in the future as cleaner samples are prepared. But there are other issues to consider. Clearly, different manganites have different degrees of intrinsic disorder, such as the chemical disorder emerging from having different ionic sizes at the A-site of the perovskite. This disorder will likely influence the clusters shape, and both configurations Fig.2(f) and 2(g) may emerge at different compositions, leading to either rapid but continuous or first-order percolative processes, respectively. It is clear that the issue of universality of the first-order transition in manganites is far from clear both experimentally and theoretically and more work should be devoted to its analysis. Here, we have simply provided a plausible rationalization of some steps involved in the CMR transition of the materials mentioned in Fig. 1. Whether all CMR materials have the same kind of first-order transitions or not will hopefully be clarified by future experiments.

Finally, although the discussion here is based on a cellular automaton, we found it reassuring that first-order percolative processes can also arise from well-defined Hamiltonians. In particular, consider the $`Q`$-states Potts model known to have a a first-order transition for $`Q`$$`>`$4 baxter . Simulating the model ($`Q`$=20) with MC techniques and using the Fortuin-Kasteleyn mapping fortuin  to construct clusters for the various $`Q`$’s, their percolative properties were analyzed fortunato . Clusters for each $`Q`$ are individually assumed metallic, and the network resistance is calculated. Results (Fig.4 (right)) indeed have a $`\rho _{dc}`$ discontinuity (above $`\rho _{dc}`$$``$7) at the critical temperature $`T_c`$. At $`T`$$`>`$$`T_c`$, no cluster percolates leading to infinite $`\rho _{dc}`$, but this can be easily fixed assuming a finite conductivity among the many $`Q`$ clusters. Of course, it is not at all claimed here that real manganites have Potts symmetry, this is just an illustration of concrete model Hamiltonians that presents the first-order transition described in the previous section by cellular automata rules (rather than emerging from a Hamiltonian approach).

## V Conclusions

In summary, a phenomenological approach is proposed to include correlation and surface tension effects in percolation. The rounding of clusters induces an abrupt first-order transition in the model, consistent with results of some experiments Fig.1(b). The present calculation suggests that many manganites do not belong to the standard percolation class, as believed by many before, but correlation effects change the universality class inducing a faster percolative process that may present hysteretic features schiffer . Note that the fairly “random looking” configuration Fig.2(g) is *self-generated* selfgenerated  by our approach, its phenomenological origin lies in phase competition, and is *not* pinned by explicit disorder. Thus, the first-order percolative transition is predicted to appear particularly in nominally “clean samples” and for low intrinsic chemical disorder. If explicit disorder is added to the system Fig.2(g), then the transition is expected to become continuous. More work is needed to fully clarify the fascinating physics of CMR manganites.

This work was supported in part by NSF grant DMR-0122523, and also by MARTECH (FSU).


text:
# Explicitly covariant light-front dynamics and some its applications

## 1 Introduction

The recent experimental data on deuteron structure and heavier nuclei concern the relativistic domain of the nucleon momenta. Their successful theoretical description was achieved  in the framework of light-front dynamics (LFD). This approach deals with the wave function defined on the four-dimensional space-time plane given by equation $`t+z=0`$.

In general, the relativistic state vector is defined on a space-like surface. The plane $`t=\mathrm{const}`$, associated with the non-relativistic quantum mechanics, is a particular case of this surface. The Schrödinger equation describes the dynamical time-evolution of the wave function $`\psi (\stackrel{}{r},t)`$, or, in other words, from one space-like plane $`t=\mathrm{const}`$ to other one. This dynamics was called by Dirac the ”instant form” . Light-front dynamics, also called ”front form”, is associated with the plane $`t+z=0`$. The latter is considered as a limiting case of a space-like plane. For completeness we mention the third form proposed by Dirac: the ”point form”, associated with the hyperboloid $`x^2=t^2\stackrel{}{r}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}=\mathrm{const}`$.

This paper is a brief review of the explicitly covariant version of light-front dynamics. We explain its relation to the Bethe-Salpeter approach and illustrate it by few examples. Namely, we give the wave function of two relativistic scalar particles interacting by scalar exchange, discuss the relativistic deuteron wave function and its electromagnetic form factors in comparison to CEBAF/TJNAF data and present our new results concerning the system of three relativistic bosons with zero-range interaction.

### 1.1 Why light-front dynamics?

The theoretically self consistent description of the relativistic composite system is based on the quantum field theory. The state vector of a composite system and even of the vacuum has a very complicated structure. It is usually described as a superposition of bare quanta, corresponding to non-interacting fields. If we ”switch off” the interaction between fields, the number of particles is conserved. As soon as we take into account the interaction, the state vector, is in general a superposition of states with different numbers of particles.

When the interaction is weak, like in the case of quantum electrodynamics, it does not change the state vector too much and the ”dressed” electron differs from the bare one mainly by small admixture of photon.

The situation is drastically different, when the interaction is strong. For example, the proton is usually treated as being a three quark system, but these quarks are not the same than those appearing in the initial Lagrangian of Quantum Chromodynamics. They are constituent quarks, which, in their turn, consist of bare quarks and gluons. The proton state vector is a huge superposition of bare fields and has not yet been calculated from the QCD first principles.

One should emphasize that not only the proton state, but also the state without physical particles – the vacuum state – is a complicated superposition of the bare particles, or, in other words, of vacuum fluctuations. This description of emptiness in terms of the very complicated conglomerates of particles seems unnatural. It would be much better to use an approach, in which the vacuum is indeed nothing but emptiness. Simplifying the vacuum wave function, we simplify the wave function of the dressed states as well, eliminating from them, like in the vacuum wave function, the field fluctuations. After doing that one can study the real, physical structure of particles and nuclei in a more higienic way.

In the light-front dynamics the vacuum is nothing but emptiness and here is the main advantage of this approach.

Qualitatively it can be understood, by noticing that the front form corresponds to the instant form, studied from a reference system moving with velocity close to the speed of light. Indeed, an observer moving with a velocity $`v`$ along $`z`$-axis describes a physical process in his coordinates $`(t^{},x^{},y^{},z^{})`$, which are related to the laboratory ones by the Lorentz transformation:

$$z^{}=\frac{zvt}{\sqrt{1v^2/c^2}},t^{}=\frac{t+zv/c^2}{\sqrt{1v^2/c^2}},x^{}=x,y^{}=y.$$

The plane $`t^{}=0`$ in the moving system corresponds to $`t+zv/c^2=0`$ in the laboratory coordinates. In the limiting case, when $`vc`$, we get the light-front plane $`t^{}z_+=t+z/c=0`$. So, the front form corresponds to the normal form $`t^{}=0`$, but studied from the system of reference moving with the limiting speed $`c`$ called since Weinberg  the ”infinite momentum frame”.

Consider now the fluctuation creating three particles from vacuum (e.g., in the $`\phi ^3`$-theory). The fluctuation with energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=\epsilon _{\stackrel{}{k}_1}+\epsilon _{\stackrel{}{k}_2}+\epsilon _{\stackrel{}{k}_3}`$ may occur during the time $`\mathrm{\Delta }t\mathrm{}/\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ (here $`\epsilon _\stackrel{}{k}=\sqrt{\stackrel{}{k}^2+m^2}`$). In the infinite momentum frame the momenta $`\stackrel{}{k}_i`$ and energies $`\epsilon _{\stackrel{}{k}_i}`$ of any particle increase and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ tends to infinity. Therefore, the fluctuation time $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ tends to zero. The contribution of this fluctuation to the vacuum wave function disappears. Due to the time dilation, all physical processes are delayed, and fluctuations have no time to occur. This means that in a thought experiment in the infinite momentum frame we study the particles prepared ”far in advance”, not spoiled by the vacuum fluctuations. From practical point of view, it is enough to work in a usual reference frame, but with the state vector defined on the light-front plane.

A disadvantage of this approach is the distinguished role of $`z`$-axis relative to the $`x,y`$-axes. Because of that, the theory is not explicitly covariant. To overcome it, in the paper  (see for review ) the explicitly covariant version of light-front dynamics (CLFD) was proposed, which deals with the state vector defined on the light-front plane $`\omega x=0`$, where $`\omega =(\omega _0,\stackrel{}{\omega })`$, $`\omega ^2=\omega _0^2\stackrel{}{\omega }^2=0`$. The theory becomes explicitly covariant, whereas the dependence of the wave function on the light-front plane is parametrized by means of the four-vector $`\omega `$. This is very convenient from the point of view of applications. In particular the standard approach is recovered when $`\omega =(1,0,0,1)`$.

## 2 Wave function

The wave functions studied in LFD are the Fock components of the state vector, that is, the coefficients in an expansion of the state vector $`|p>`$ with respect to the basis of free fields:

$`|p`$ $``$ $`(2\pi )^{3/2}{\displaystyle \psi _2(k_1,k_2,p,\omega \tau )a^{}(\stackrel{}{k}_1)a^{}(\stackrel{}{k}_2)|0}`$ (1)
$`\times `$ $`\delta ^{(4)}(k_1+k_2p\omega \tau )2(\omega p)d\tau {\displaystyle \frac{d^3k_1}{(2\pi )^{3/2}\sqrt{2\epsilon _{k_1}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k_2}{(2\pi )^{3/2}\sqrt{2\epsilon _{k_2}}}}+\mathrm{}.`$
The dots include the higher Fock states. For simplicity, we omit the spin indices. By construction, all the four-momenta are on the corresponding mass shells: $`k_i^2=m_i^2`$, $`p^2=M^2`$, $`(\omega \tau )^2=0`$.

We emphasize the presence in (1) of the delta-function. It provides the conservation law:

$$k_1+k_2=p+\omega \tau ,$$
(2)
where $`\tau `$ is a scalar variable responsible for the off-energy shell continuation. The four-momentum $`\omega \tau `$ is associated, for convenience, with a fictive particle called ”spurion”. We would like to emphasize at this point that the use of ”spurion” does not imply the use of any unphysical degres of freedom in the theory but only a confortable way of parametirsing the off-shell effects. As mentioned above, the standard LFD corresponds to $`\omega =(1,0,0,1)`$, or, in the light-front coordinates, $`\omega _+=\omega _0+\omega _z=0`$, $`\omega _{}\omega _{x,y}=0`$, $`\omega _{}=\omega _0\omega _z=2`$. In this case, equation (2) gives the standard conservation laws for the $`(,+)`$-components of the momenta (which does not include any $`\tau `$), but does not constrain the minus-components. Their difference $`k_1+k_2p_{}=2\tau `$ determines the value of $`\tau `$. Because of non-conservation of the minus-components, the wave function is ”off-energy shell”.

The term ”off-energy shell” is borrowed from the old fashioned perturbation theory, where it means that for an amplitude which is an internal part of a bigger diagram, there is no conservation law for the energies of the incoming and outgoing particles. Note that any bound system is always off-energy shell, since the sum of the constitutent energies $`2\epsilon _k`$ (in the c.m.-frame of two-body system) is not equal to mass $`M`$ of the bound system but larger: $`2\epsilon _k2m>M`$. We emphasize the difference between the off-energy shell and off-mass shell amplitudes: in the latters the four-momenta squared are not equal to the masses squared, but satisfy the conservation law for all the four components. An example of off-mass shell amplitude is the Bethe-Salpeter function (see below sect. 5).

As mentioned, the wave function, defined on the light-front plane, depends on orientation of this plane. From (1) we see that this dependence is given by the four-vector $`\omega `$. It is an important property of any Fock component. At the same time, the observables, like form factors, don’t depend on $`\omega `$. In principle, the form facors, being scalars, could depend on the scalar products $`F=F(q^2,\omega p,\omega p^{})`$, where $`q^2=(pp^{})^2`$. Since $`\omega `$ determines a direction only, the theory is invariant relative to the replacement $`\omega a\omega `$, where $`a`$ is a number. Therefore, the extra scalar products should enter in the form of ratio: $`\omega p/\omega p^{}`$. To factorize the e.m.-amplitude, one should impose the condition $`\omega q=0`$ (equivalent to $`q_+=0`$ in the standard approach, see  for details). With this condition we get $`\omega p/\omega p^{}=1`$, so the form factor does not depend on $`\omega `$.

For the states with spins 1/2 and 1, decomposing the e.m. vertex in the form factors, one can construct not only scalar products and not only usual spin structures (two for spin 1/2 and three for spin 1), but also $`\omega `$-dependent spin structures. The scalar coefficients at the front of them are extra, non-physical form factors. One should separate the physical form factors from non-physical ones. Corresponding formulas extracting the physical form factors from full e.m. vertex were found in .

Parametrized in terms of the relative momentum $`\stackrel{}{k}`$, the two-body wave function reads:

$$\psi =\psi (\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{n}),$$
(3)
where $`\stackrel{}{k}=\stackrel{}{k}_1`$ in the system where $`\stackrel{}{k}_1+\stackrel{}{k}_2=0`$ and $`\stackrel{}{n}`$ is the direction of $`\stackrel{}{\omega }`$ in this system. We see that the relativistic light-front wave function depends not only on the relative momentum $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ but on another variable – the unit vector $`\stackrel{}{n}`$.

It is also useful to introduce another set of variables

$$x=\omega k_1/\omega p,R=k_1xp$$
(4)
and represent the spatial part of the four-vector $`R`$ as $`\stackrel{}{R}=\stackrel{}{R}_{}+\stackrel{}{R_{}}`$, where $`\stackrel{}{R}_{}`$ is parallel to $`\stackrel{}{\omega }`$ and $`\stackrel{}{R}_{}`$ is orthogonal to $`\stackrel{}{\omega }`$. Since $`R\omega =R_0\omega _0\stackrel{}{R}_{}\stackrel{}{\omega }=0`$ by definition of $`R`$, it follows that $`R_0=|\stackrel{}{R}_{}|`$, and, hence, $`\stackrel{}{R}_{}^2=R^2`$ is invariant. Therefore, $`\stackrel{}{R}_{}^2`$ and $`x`$ can be chosen as two scalar arguments of the wave function:

$$\psi =\psi (\stackrel{}{R}_{}^2,x).$$
(5)
Using the definitions of the variables $`\stackrel{}{R}_{}^2`$ and $`x`$, we can readily relate them to $`\stackrel{}{k}^2`$ and $`\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{k}`$:

$$\stackrel{}{R}_{}^2=\stackrel{}{k}^2(\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{k})^2,x=\frac{1}{2}\left(1\frac{\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{k}}{\epsilon _k}\right).$$
(6)
The variables introduced above can be easily generalized to the case of different masses and an arbitrary number of particles .

## 3 Equation

The equation for the wave function is shown graphically in fig. 1. The dashed line corresponds to ”spurion”. In the case of a scalar particle, in terms of the variables $`\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{n}`$, this equation has the following form:

$$\left(4(\stackrel{}{k}^2+m^2)M^2\right)\psi (\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{n})=\frac{m^2}{2\pi ^3}\psi (\stackrel{}{k}^{},\stackrel{}{n})V(\stackrel{}{k}^{},\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{n},M^2)\frac{d^3k^{}}{\epsilon _k^{}}.$$
(7)
The kernel of eq. (7) depends on the vector variable $`\stackrel{}{n}`$ and on the bound state mass $`M^2`$. This dependence is associated with the retardation of the interaction.

In the non-relativistic limit the light front wave function turns into the ordinary equal-time wave function. This limit can be formally obtained at $`c\mathrm{}`$. Then the light-front plane $`t+z/c=0`$ turns into the plane $`t=0`$. Therefore the equation (7) turns into the Schrödinger equation in momentum space, the kernel $`V`$ being the Fourier-transform of non-relativistic potential and the wave function no longer depends on $`\stackrel{}{n}`$.

## 4 Simple example

For a given Lagrangian, the amplitudes are calculated by rules of special graph technique, developed in  and adjusted to the light-front dynamics in . The diagrams correspond to the time-ordered graphs. The amplitudes on energy-shell coincide with usual Feynman amplitudes on-mass shell. Off the energy and mass shells, these amplitudes differ from each other.

Consider exchange in the $`t`$ channel by a scalar particle of mass $`\mu `$ between two scalar particles. The amplitude is given by two time-ordered diagrams shown in fig. 2. They determine, in the ladder approximation, the kernel of the equation (7). The external spurion lines indicate that the amplitude is off-energy shell.

According to the light-front graph technique, the amplitude has the form:

$$𝒦=\frac{g^2\theta \left(\omega (k_1k_1^{})\right)}{\mu ^2(k_1k_1^{})^2+2\tau \omega (k_1k_1^{})iϵ}+\frac{g^2\theta \left(\omega (k_1^{}k_1)\right)}{\mu ^2(k_1^{}k_1)^2+2\tau ^{}\omega (k_1^{}k_1)iϵ}.$$
(8)
The two items in (8) correspond to the two diagrams of fig. 2. They cannot be non-zero simultaneously. The off-energy shell terms, depending on $`\omega `$, appear automatically and they are explicitly given in (8). On the energy shell, i.e. for both $`\tau =\tau ^{}=0`$, the expression for the kernel becomes identical to the Feynman amplitude:

$$𝒦(\tau =\tau ^{}=0)=\frac{g^2}{\mu ^2(k_1k_1^{})^2iϵ}.$$
(9)
In the case of $`\mu =0`$ we obtain the Wick-Cutkosky model , but treated in the framework of CLFD . Going over from the kernel $`𝒦`$ to $`V=𝒦/(4m^2)`$, introducing the constant $`\alpha =g^2/(16\pi m^2)`$, and expressing (8) by means of the initial and final relative momenta $`\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k}^{}`$, we obtain :

$$V=\frac{4\pi \alpha }{(\stackrel{}{k}^{}\stackrel{}{k})^2(\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{k}^{})(\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{k}){\displaystyle \frac{(\epsilon _k^{}\epsilon _k)^2}{\epsilon _k^{}\epsilon _k}}+(\epsilon _k^{}^2+\epsilon _k^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M^2)\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{k}^{}}{\epsilon _k^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{k}}{\epsilon _k}}\right|}.$$
(10)
The dependence on the light-front orientation manifests itself in (10) through the vector parameter $`\stackrel{}{n}`$.

The solution of the equation (7) with the kernel (10), in the limit of small binding energy, has the form:

$$\psi (\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{n})=\frac{8\sqrt{\pi m}\kappa ^{5/2}}{(\stackrel{}{k}^2+\kappa ^2)^2\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{|\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{k}|}{\epsilon _k}}\right)}.$$
(11)
In non-relativistic limit $`k,k^{}m`$ the kernel (10) turn into the Coulombien one: $`V4\pi \alpha /(\stackrel{}{k}^{}\stackrel{}{k})^2`$ (that in the coordinate space corresponds to $`V(r)=\alpha /r`$). The $`\stackrel{}{n}`$-dependent factor in the wave function (11) disappears and the latter turns into the Coulombien wave function too.

We emphasize that the dependence of the wave function (11) on $`\stackrel{}{n}`$ does not mean any violation of the rotational invariance, since this function is a scalar, as should be for the zero angular momentum. However, for non-zero angular momentum, because of Fock space truncation, one can find dependence of energy on the projection of the angular momentum on the $`\stackrel{}{n}`$-direction. This fact indeed means a violation of rotational invariance. A solution of this problem is given in .

The solutions of equation (7) with the kernel (10) for $`0\mu m`$ were studied in . It was found that for the exchange mass $`\mu `$ comparable with the constituent mass $`m`$ the relativistic effects in the binding energy are very important even for vanishingly small (”nonrelativistic”) binding energy.

## 5 Relation with the Bethe-Salpeter function

It is instructive to compare the solution (11) with one found using the Bethe-Salpeter function . The latter is defined as (see for review ):

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(x_1,x_2,p)=0\left|T(\phi (x_1)\phi (x_2))\right|p.$$
(12)
Here $`\phi (x)`$ denotes the field operator in Heisenberg representation. The function (12) depends on two four-vectors $`x_1,x_2`$, they include two times $`t_1,t_2`$. Though the Bethe-Salpeter function satisfies the normalization condition, allowing to find the normalization coefficient, it has no any probabilistic interpretation.

In the momentum space the Bethe-Salpeter function looks as: $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }(q_1,q_2,p)`$ and is defined through the Fourier transform:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(x_1,x_2,p)`$ $`=`$ $`(2\pi )^{3/2}\mathrm{exp}\left[ip(x_1+x_2)/2\right]\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x,p),x=x_1x_2,`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }(q_1,q_2,p)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }(q,p)={\displaystyle \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x,p)\mathrm{exp}(iqx)d^4x},`$ (13)
where $`q=(q_1q_2)/2`$, $`p=q_1+q_2`$, $`q_1`$ and $`q_2`$ are off-mass shell four-vectors: $`q_1^2m^2`$, $`q_2^2m^2`$.

In LFD the Heisenberg operators coincide with the Schrödinger ones on the light-front plane (like in the ordinary formulation of field theory the Heisenberg and Schrödinger operators are identical for $`t=0`$). Therefore, projecting the Bethe-Salpeter function on the light-front, we can relate it to the light-front wave function. In the momentum space this relation reads :

$$\psi (k_1,k_2,p,\omega \tau )=\frac{(\omega k_1)(\omega k_2)}{\pi (\omega p)}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }(q_1=k_1\omega \tau /2+\omega \beta ,q_2=k_2\omega \tau /2\omega \beta ,p)𝑑\beta $$
(14)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }(q_1,q_2)`$ is the Bethe-Salpeter function (5). The argument $`p`$ in (14) is related to the on-shell momenta $`k_1,k_2`$ as $`p=k_1+k_2\omega \tau `$, that follows from the off-mass shell relation $`p=q_1+q_2`$.

The equation (14) makes the link between the Bethe-Salpeter function $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and the light-front wave function $`\psi `$. It should be noticed however that the wave function (14) is not necessarily an exact solution of eq. (7), since, as a rule, different approximations are made for the Bethe-Salpeter kernel and for the light-front one. In the ladder approximation, for example, the second iteration of the Bethe-Salpeter amplitude contains the box diagram, including the time-ordered diagram with two exchanged particles in the intermediate state. This contribution is absent in the light-front ladder kernel and in its higer order iterations.

We can check now that in the Wick-Cutkosky model the relation (14) reproduces the wave function (11). In this model, the exact expression for the Bethe-Salpeter function has the form :

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(q,p)=ic\left[\left(m^2\frac{1}{2}M^2q^2\right)\left(m^2(\frac{1}{2}p+q)^2i0\right)\left(m^2(\frac{1}{2}pq)^2i0\right)\right]^1,$$
(15)
where $`c=2^5\sqrt{\pi m\kappa ^5}`$ with $`\kappa =\sqrt{m|ϵ_b|}=m\alpha /2`$. Substituting (15) in (14), we indeed reproduce the expression (11) for the light-front wave function.

The e.m. form factors calculated through the light-front wave function and through the Bethe-Salpeter one were compared in . They coincide with each other with high accuracy. This means that when both approaches take into account the same relativistic dynamics, they give close results.

However, an important difference between them is in the following. Bethe-Salpeter function (12) is a formally defined object. Whereas, the light-front wave function, being the coefficient in the decomposition (1), according to general principles of quantum theory, is the probability amplitude. It is the same object as nonrelativistic wave function and it has the same physical meaning. Comparing light-front wave function of a relativistic system with its non-relativistic counterpart, we describe the relativistic effects in a language of physical phenomena. This important point is an advantage of LFD. Smooth matching of non-relativistic and relativistic wave functions is also very convenient in practical calculations.

## 6 Deuteron wave function and form factors

The deuteron wave function is determined by six invariant functions, depending on two scalar variables. This number is the dimension of the matrix depending on the spin projections of the deuteron and two nucleons, divided by the factor 2 due to the parity conservation: $`N=3\times 2\times 2/2=6`$. This wave function reads:

$`\stackrel{}{\psi }(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{n})`$ $`=`$ $`f_1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\stackrel{}{\sigma }+f_2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{3\stackrel{}{k}(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{\sigma })}{\stackrel{}{k}^2}}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\right)+f_3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(3\stackrel{}{n}(\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{\sigma })\stackrel{}{\sigma }\right)`$
$`+`$ $`f_4{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2k}}\left(3\stackrel{}{k}(\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{\sigma })+3\stackrel{}{n}(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{\sigma })2(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{n})\stackrel{}{\sigma }\right)+f_5\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{k}}\left[\stackrel{}{k}\times \stackrel{}{n}\right]+f_6{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2k}}\left[[\stackrel{}{k}\times \stackrel{}{n}]\times \stackrel{}{\sigma }\right].`$
In the relativistic one boson exchange model it was calculated in . The results are displayed in fig. 3.

One can see that the function $`f_5`$, of relativistic origin, is very important: it dominates at $`k>500`$ MeV/c. In  it was shown that this component dominates since it automatically takes into account the isovector exchange currents (so called pair terms). They should not be added separately. In nonrelativistic limit the functions $`f_{36}`$ become negligible and only two first functions $`f_{1,2}`$, corresponding to usual S- and D-waves, survive.

This wave function was used in  to calculate the deuteron electromagnetic form factors. No any parameters were fitted. It turned out that the calculated polarization observable $`t_{20}`$, fig. 5, as well as the charge and quadrupole form factors, fig. 5, coincide with rather precise experimental data obtained recently at CEBAF/TJNAF .

## 7 Three-boson bound states with zero-range interaction

The most recent application of CLFD is the relativistic system of three-bosons with zero range interaction. We will describe it in more detail.

Zero-range two-body interaction provides an important limiting case which qualitatively reflects characteristic properties of nuclear and atomic few-body systems. In the nonrelativistic three-body system it generates the Thomas collapse . The latter means that the three-body binding energy tends to $`\mathrm{}`$, when the interaction radius tends to zero.

When the binding energy or the exchanged particle mass is not negligible in comparison to the constituent masses, the nonrelativistic treatment becomes invalid and must be replaced by a relativistic one. Two-body calculations show that in the scalar case, relativistic effects are repulsive (see e.g. ). Relativistic three-body calculations with zero-range interaction have been performed in a minimal relativistic model  and in the framework of the Light-Front Dynamics . In these works it was concluded that, due to relativistic repulsion, the three-body binding energy remains finite and the Thomas collapse is consequently avoided. However, in the papers  a cutoff has been introduced implicitly. Being interested in studing the zero-range interaction as an important limiting case, we eliminate this cutoff.

The three-body equation is represented graphically in figure 6. It concerns the vertex function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, related to the wave function $`\psi `$ in the standard way:

$$\psi (k_1,k_2,k_3,p,\omega \tau )=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(k_1,k_2,k_3,p,\omega \tau )}{^2M_3^2},^2=(k_1+k_2+k_3)^2=(p+\omega \tau )^2.$$

Like for the two-body system, all four-momenta are on the corresponding mass shells: $`k_i^2=m^2,p^2=M_3^2,(\omega \tau )^2=0`$ and satisfy the conservation law $`k_1+k_2+k_3=p+\omega \tau `$ involving $`\omega \tau `$.

Applying to figure 6 the covariant light-front graph techniques , we find:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(k_1,k_2,k_3,p,\omega \tau )={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \mathrm{\Gamma }(k_1^{},k_2^{},k_3,p,\omega \tau ^{})}`$
$`\times \delta ^{(4)}(k_1^{}+k_2^{}\omega \tau ^{}k_1k_2+\omega \tau ){\displaystyle \frac{d\tau ^{}}{\tau ^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k_1^{}}{2\epsilon _{k_1^{}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k_2^{}}{2\epsilon _{k_2^{}}}}+(23)1+(31)2,`$ (17)
where $`\epsilon _k=\sqrt{m^2+\stackrel{}{k}^2}`$. For zero-range forces, the interaction kernel is replaced in (7) by a constant $`\lambda `$. The contribution of interacting pair 12 is explicitly written while the contributions of the remaining pairs are denoted by $`(23)1+(31)2`$.

The Faddeev amplitudes $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}`$ are introduced in the standard way:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(1,2,3)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}(1,2,3)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{23}(1,2,3)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{31}(1,2,3),$$

and equation (7) is equivalent to a system of three coupled equations. With the symmetry relations $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{23}(1,2,3)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}(2,3,1)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{31}(1,2,3)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}(3,1,2)`$, the system is reduced to a single equation for one of the amplitudes, say $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}`$.

We use the tree-body version of the variables defined in eq. (4). In general, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}`$ depends on all variables ($`\stackrel{}{R}_i,x_i`$), constrained by the relations $`\stackrel{}{R}_1+\stackrel{}{R}_2+\stackrel{}{R}_3=0`$, $`x_1+x_2+x_3=1`$, but for contact kernel it depends only on $`(\stackrel{}{R}_3,x_3)`$ .

The value of $`\lambda `$ is found analytically by solving the two-body problem with the same zero-range interaction under the condition that the two-body bound state mass has a fixed value $`M_2`$. In this way, the constant $`\lambda `$ disappears from the kernel, but the two-body scattering amplitudes appears, as in any Faddeev equations. For the zero-range interaction, this amplitude does not depend on the relative momentum, but depends on the off-energy shell variables. Therefore it is extracted from the integral. Finally, the equation for the Faddeev amplitude reads:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}(R_{},x)=F(M_{12})\frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}_0^1𝑑x^{}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}(R_{}^{},x^{}(1x))d^2R_{}^{}}{(\stackrel{}{R^{}}_{}x^{}\stackrel{}{R}_{})^2+m^2x^{}(1x^{})M_{12}^2},$$
(18)
where $`F(M_{12})`$ is the two-body off-shell scattering amplitude:

$$\frac{F(M_{12})}{8\pi ^2}=\{\begin{array}{c}\left[\frac{1}{2y_{M_{12}}^{}}\mathrm{log}\frac{1+y_{M_{12}}^{}}{1y_{M_{12}}^{}}\frac{\mathrm{arctan}y_{M_2}}{y_{M_2}}\right]^1,M_{12}^2<0,y_{M_{12}}^{}=\frac{\sqrt{M_{12}^2}}{\sqrt{4m^2M_{12}^2}}\hfill \\ \\ \left[\frac{\mathrm{arctan}y_{M_{12}}}{y_{M_{12}}}\frac{\mathrm{arctan}y_{M_2}}{y_{M_2}}\right]^1,0M_{12}^2<4m^2,y_{M_{12}}=\frac{M_{12}}{\sqrt{4m^2M_{12}^2}}\hfill \end{array}$$

and similarly for $`y_{M_2}=\frac{M_2}{\sqrt{4m^2M_2^2}}`$. The variable $`M_{12}^2=(k_1^{}+k_2^{}\omega \tau ^{})^2=(pk_3)^2`$ is the off-shell mass of the two-body subsystem. It is expressed through $`M_3^2,R_{}^2,x`$ as

$$M_{12}^2=(1x)M_3^2\frac{R_{}^2+(1x)m^2}{x}.$$
(19)
The three-body mass $`M_3`$ enters in the equation (18) through variable $`M_{12}^2`$.

By replacing $`x^{}(1x)x^{}`$, equation (18) can be transformed to

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}(R_{},x)=F(M_{12})\frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}_0^{1x}\frac{dx^{}}{x^{}(1xx^{})}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d^2R_{}^{}}{_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}M_3^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}(R_{}^{},x^{}),$$
(20)
where

$$_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=\frac{\stackrel{}{R^{}}_{}^2+m^2}{x^{}}+\frac{\stackrel{}{R}_{}^2+m^2}{x}+\frac{(\stackrel{}{R^{}}_{}+\stackrel{}{R}_{})^2+m^2}{1xx^{}}.$$

This equation is the same than equation (11) from  except for the integration limits of ($`\stackrel{}{R^{}}_{},x^{}`$) variables. In  the integration limits follow from the condition $`M_{12}^2>0`$. They read

$$_{\frac{m^2}{M_3^2}}^{1x}\left[\mathrm{}\right]𝑑x^{}_0^{k_{}^{max}}\left[\mathrm{}\right]d^2R_{}^{}$$
(21)
with $`k_{}^{max}=\sqrt{(1x^{})(M_3^2x^{}m^2)}`$ and introduce a lower bound on the three-body mass $`M_3>\sqrt{2}m`$. The same condition, though in a different relativistic approach, was used in . The integration limits in (21) restrict the arguments of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}`$ to the domain

$$\frac{m^2}{M_3^2}x1\frac{m^2}{M_3^2},0R_{}k_{}^{max}$$

and can be considered as a method of regularization. In this case, one no longer deals with the zero-range forces.

The results of solving equation (18) are presented in what follows. Calculations were carried out with constituent mass $`m=1`$ and correspond to the ground state. We represent in fig. 7a the three-body bound state mass $`M_3`$ as a function of the two-body one $`M_2`$ (solid line) together with the dissociation limit $`M_3=M_2+m`$. The zero two-body binding limit $`B_2=2mM_20`$ is magnified in fig. 7b. In this limit the three-boson system has a binding energy $`B_30.012`$.

When $`M_2`$ decreases, the three-body mass $`M_3`$ decreases very quickly and vanishes at the two-body mass value $`M_2=M_c1.43`$. Whereas the meaning of collapse as used in the Thomas paper implies unbounded nonrelativistic binding energies and cannot be used here, the zero bound state mass $`M_3=0`$ constitutes its relativistic counterpart. Indeed, for two-body masses below the critical value $`M_c`$, the three-body system no longer exists.

The results corresponding to integration limits (21) are included in fig. 7a (dash line) for comparison. Values given in  were not fully converged . They have been corrected in  and are indicated by dots. In both cases the repulsive relativistic effects produce a natural cutoff in equation (18), leading to a finite spectrum and – in the Thomas sense – an absence of collapse, like it was already found in . However, except in the zero binding limit, solid and dash curves strongly differ from each other.

We would like to remark that for $`M_2M_c`$, equation (18) posses square integrable solutions with negative values of $`M_3^2`$. They have no physical meaning but $`M_3^2`$ remains finite in all the two-body mass range $`M_2[0,2]`$. The results of $`M_3^2`$ are given in figure 8. When $`M_20`$, $`M_3^2`$ tends to $`11.6`$.

From the above results we conclude that the three-body bound state exists for two-body mass values in the range $`M_c1.43mM_22m`$. At the zero two-body binding limit, the three-body binding energy is $`B_30.012m`$. The Thomas collapse is avoided in the sense that three-body mass $`M_3`$ is finite, in agreement with . However, another kind of catastrophe happens. Removing infinite binding energies, the relativistic dynamics generates zero three-body mass $`M_3`$ at a critical value $`M_2=M_c`$. For stronger interaction, i.e. when $`0M_2<M_c`$, there are no physical solutions with real value of $`M_3`$. In this domain, $`M_3^2`$ becomes negative and the three-boson system cannot be described by zero range forces, as it happens in nonrelativistic dynamics. This fact can be interpreted as a relativistic collapse.

## 8 Conclusion

We have seen that the explicitly covariant light-front dynamics provides a very satisfactory framework, both from a theoretical and practical points of view, for describing relativistic nucleons in deuteron and other nuclei. The predicted deuteron electromagnetic form factors, calculated without any fitting parameters, are in good agreement with experimental data.

This approach is also successfully when applied to many other problems and a consequent effort covering several directions of research is actually being performed. Here is a list of current applications.

* Deuteron wave function  and form factors .
* Nucleon momentum distributions in nuclei .
* Leptonic decay of heavy quarkonia .
* Fock-space expansion .
* Nucleon wave function  and neutron charge radius  in quark model.
* Two-fermion relativistic bound states .
* Perturbative  and non perturbative  renormalization.
* Three-boson relativistic bound states .

We conclude that the explicitly covariant light-front dynamics is a rather efficient approach to relativistic few-body systems and to field theory.

This work is supported by the French-Russian PICS and RFBR grants Nos. 1172 and 01-02-22002.


text:
# The dangerous misconceptions of Sir Karl Raimund Popper

## Acknowledgements

The author is grateful to Garry Tee for bringing to his attention reference Allen et al. (1945).


text:
# Deeply Virtual Compton Scattering at H1 and ZEUS11footnote 1Contribution to the proceedings of QCD-N’02 Workshop - Ferrara (I), 3-6 april 2002

## 1 INTRODUCTION

At the high energy of $`\sqrt{s}300`$ GeV delivered by HERA using colliding electron (27.5 GeV) and proton beams (820 GeV), the Deeply Virtual Compton Scattering process (DVCS) $`epe\gamma p`$ is of diffractive nature. Comparing to the lower energy experiments CLAS and HERMES, additionally to the direct quark contribution (LO contribution shown in Fig. 1a), the color singlet two gluon exchange is also expected to have a sizable contribution (NLO - Fig. 1b).

A considerable interest of the DVCS comes from the particular access it gives to Generalised Parton Distributions (GPD) through the interference term with the Bethe-Heitler process. The high energy situation of H1 and ZEUS experiments give them the unique opportunity to constrain the gluon contribution to GPDs and to study the evolution in $`Q^2`$ of the quark and gluon distributions.

Here we report the first cross section measurement of the Deeply Virtual Compton Scattering, performed by the H1 and ZEUS experiments. The cross section measurement are compared to the theoretical predictions and future plans for the DVCS measurement at HERA are briefly presented.

## 2 ANALYSIS STRATEGY

Both H1 and ZEUS adopted the same analysis strategy. Around the interaction region, H1 and ZEUS are equipped with tracking devices surrounded by calorimeters. Since the proton escapes the main detector through the beam pipe only the scattered electron and photon are measured. Therefore the event selection is based on demanding two electromagnetic clusters, one in the backward (i.e. the direction of the incoming electron, $`\theta =0`$) and one in the central or the forward part of the detector ($`\theta \stackrel{<}{}140^o`$). If a track can be reconstructed it has to be associated to one of the clusters and determines the electron candidate. These events are then subdivided into two mutually exclusive samples. The control sample (Fig. 2.a) contains events with the electron candidate detected in the central or the forward part of the detector. This sample is largely dominated by Bethe–Heitler events, although some additional backgrounds due to dilepton production by photon-photon interaction and due to diffractive $`\rho `$ electroproduction have to be considered . The DVCS contribution is kinematically suppressed by the large $`Q^2`$ value. The enriched DVCS sample (Fig. 2.b), complementary to the control sample, contains both DVCS and Bethe–Heitler events, and a small background contribution due to $`\omega `$ and $`\varphi `$ diffractive electroproduction.

To enhance the DVCS contribution in comparison to the Bethe-Heitler process the phase space has to be restricted by demanding the photon candidate in the forward part of the detector.

The H1 analysis selects more specifically the elastic component by using, in addition, forward detectors, placed close to the beam pipe, are used to identify particles originating from proton dissociation processes.

Both experiments compare their results to the prediction of L. L. Frankfurt, A. Freund and M. Strikman (FFS)  calculated in QCD at LO and leading twist. It is important to notice that, into this approximation, the interference term cancels out when integrating over the azimuth angle of the final state photon (as in the analysis here below). Therefore the pure DVCS cross section can be measured subtracting the Bethe-Heitler contribution to the enriched DVCS sample.

## 3 ZEUS RESULTS

This analysis  is based on a sample corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 37 $`\mathrm{pb}^1`$. The backward electromagnetic cluster is required with an energy above 10 GeV, and the central or forward cluster ($`0.6<\eta <1.0`$) with more than 3 GeV. The photon virtuality $`Q^2>5\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ is demanded, the $`\gamma ^{}p`$ energy, $`W`$, is such that $`40<W<140\mathrm{GeV}`$. The $`ep`$ DVCS (preliminary) cross section is shown as a function of $`Q^2`$ and of $`W`$ in Fig. 3 and is compared to the FFS prediction. The measurement is well described by the FFS prediction assuming a value of $`b=4.5`$ GeV-2 for the exponential $`t`$ slope. It has to be noted that the background from the proton dissociation (around 20%) has not been subtracted.

## 4 H1 RESULTS

In the H1 analysis , corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 8 $`\mathrm{pb}^1`$, the DVCS cross section is measured in the kinematic region: $`2<Q^2<20\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, $`|t|<1\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ and $`30<W<120\mathrm{GeV}`$. The proton dissociation background has been estimated to of 16% $`\pm 8`$% and is subtracted statistically assuming the same $`W`$ and $`Q^2`$ dependence as for the elastic component.

It may be worth to comment on possible $`\pi ^o`$ contamination as suffer the DVCS measurements of HERMES and CLAS. Due to the high energy regime, the direct $`\pi ^o`$ production (via Regge pole exchange) is suppressed, and the possible $`\pi ^o`$ contamination from tails of low multiplicity DIS events is suppressed by the large rapidity gap requirement (see detailed study in ).

In Fig. 4 the total cross sections of the reaction $`epe\gamma p`$ is shown differentialy in $`Q^2`$ and in $`W`$. The data are compared with the Bethe-Heitler prediction alone (normalised on the integrated luminosity).

The $`\gamma ^{}p\gamma p`$ DVCS cross section, derived subtracting the Bethe-Heitler contribution and dividing by the virtual photon flux, is shown as a function of $`Q^2`$ and of $`W`$ in Fig. 5 and compared to FFS and Donnachie and Dosh (DD)  predictions. The description of the data by the calculations is good, in shape and in absolute normalisation when a $`t`$ slope is chosen between 5 and 9 GeV-2 covering the measured range for light vector meson production. Although the shapes in $`Q^2`$ and $`W`$ are similar for the ZEUS (still preliminary) and H1 measurements, the absolute cross section measurements are not fully compatible (different $`b`$ values have to be assumed in the FFS prediction to get an agreement). This underlines the importance of the $`t`$ slope measurement in the future.

## 5 RESULTS DISCUSSION

In addition to the FFS and DD predictions shown in Fig. 5, soon after publication, the H1 results have been compared to different predictions by several authors as presented in Fig. 6 (see caption for the details). From those confrontations one can conclude several things. From the dipole model prediction confrontations, a good agreement is found when one adopts an approach similar to the one of vector meson electroproduction calculations. It confirms the diffractive nature of the DVCS process and the validity of the color dipole models. The QCD calculation confrontation  is an important success as it consists in the first diffractive process fully calculated and in good agreement with the measurement of H1 but also with the helicity asymmetry measurements of HERMES and CLASS (see ). Furthermore the H1 measurement provides the first constraints on the GPDs (see  and  for details).

## 6 FUTURE MEASUREMENTS

HERA is presently entering in a high luminosity regime that will accumulate up to 1 $`\mathrm{fb}^1`$ until 2006, including longitudinal polarisation of the lepton beam. Additionally, the H1 detector will be completed by a high acceptance (above 80 %) proton spectrometer (VFPS)  for $`5.10^3<x_{IP}<3.10^2`$ and $`|t|\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.5}`$ GeV2, where $`x_{IP}`$ is the proton energy loss.

Within these conditions, charge and helicity asymmetry measurements will be possible giving access to the Real and the Imaginary parts of the amplitude separately. About 4000 DVCS events are expected with $`Q^2>8`$ GeV  amoung which about half of them will have a scattered proton measured in the VFPS. Results of a first study of the beam charge asymmetry is shown in Fig. 7 for a fraction of the full integrated luminosity (see caption for the details).

Figure 7. Beam charge asymmetry simulation for the H1 detector acceptance for different $`Q^2`$ values and $`10<W<120`$ GeV, assuming an integrated luminosity of 150 $`\mathrm{pb}^1`$ for each $`e^+`$ and $`e^{}`$ sample. Resolution effects are not included.

## CONCLUSION

The DVCS process has been observed by the H1 and ZEUS Collaborations. The first DVCS Cross section measurements derived by H1 and ZEUS have been presented. The experimental results are well described by the pure QCD calculation at NLO and by several color dipole model predictions. In the future, HERA will benefit of much larger statistics, and will yield an access to both the real and the imaginary parts of the amplitude through beam charge and helicity asymmetry measurements.

The author is supported by the Fonds National
de la Recherche Scientifique of Belgium.


text:
# Landauer-type transport theory for interacting quantum wires: Application to carbon nanotube Y junctions

## Abstract

We propose a Landauer-like theory for nonlinear transport in networks of one-dimensional interacting quantum wires (Luttinger liquids). A concrete example of current experimental focus is given by carbon nanotube Y junctions. Our theory has three basic ingredients that allow to explicitly solve this transport problem: (i) radiative boundary conditions to describe the coupling to external leads, (ii) the Kirchhoff node rule describing charge conservation, and (iii) density matching conditions at every node.

The Landauer-Büttiker approach to transport in mesoscopic systems has been very successful in describing non-interacting electrons by using a scattering matrix formulation . It is an important challenge to generalize this approach to the case of strongly correlated electrons. Here we propose such a theory for $`N`$-terminal star-like networks of interacting 1D quantum wires (QWs) described by Luttinger liquid (LL) theory. The two-terminal setup ($`N=2`$) has been formulated and solved previously . However, the step from $`N=2`$ to $`N=3`$, where three individually contacted QWs meet at a single node (“Y junction”), see Fig.1, is non-trivial yet essential for the development of a practically useful transport theory for interacting electrons. Recently, several works appeared where precisely this problem has been under study. While in Ref.  a weakly coupled “Kondo” node was considered, other authors used perturbation theory in the hopping  and/or the interaction . At the same time, it has become clear that a more general approach is necessary to go beyond those special situations. Below we formulate boundary conditions that allow for the explicit solution of this transport problem. Progress along these lines is also likely to sharpen our understanding of conformal field theory with boundary conditions .

This problem is not only of intellectual interest but also of relevance to transport experiments for carbon nanotubes . As has been predicted  and observed in a series of beautiful experiments , single-wall nanotubes provide a realization of LL physics. Electron-electron interactions cause remarkably pronounced non-Fermi liquid behaviors characterized by the standard LL parameter $`g0.25`$ (where $`g=1`$ is the non-interacting value). Template-based chemical vapor deposition  and electron beam welding methods  allow to fabricate and contact nanotube Y junctions, and the intrinsic nonlinear $`IV`$ characteristics of such a device has been observed recently . In addition, the case $`N=4`$ has been realized by several groups using two crossed nanotubes , providing another interesting application. Furthermore, semiconductor heterostructures  or ultracold trapped atomic gases  may allow for the systematic study of T- or Y-junctions as well. Eventually it could even be possible to access the fractional statistics of LL quasiparticles through the noise properties of such a device, thereby realizing a Hanbury-Brown-Twiss setup for fractionalized quasiparticles .

We study $`N`$ single-channel spinless QWs at $`L<x<0`$ described by LL theory merging at a common node at $`x=0`$. For simplicity, we assume the same interaction constant $`g`$ and Fermi velocity $`v_F`$ in each QW, with straightforward generalization also to include spin and flavor degrees of freedom . Theory then has to address (i) the inclusion of applied voltage sources and (ii) how a consistent treatment of the node can be achieved. Let us start with the first issue. Like in the two-terminal case, adiabatically coupled external reservoirs held at electro-chemical potentials $`\mu _i`$ lead to radiative boundary conditions  (we put $`\mathrm{}=1`$)

$$\frac{g^2+1}{2}\rho _{i,R}(L)+\frac{g^21}{2}\rho _{i,L}(L)=\frac{\mu _i}{2\pi v_F},$$
(1)
where $`\rho _{i,R/L}(x)`$ is the right/left-moving part of the density in QW $`i`$. These boundary conditions only depend on the current injected into each QW from the respective reservoir, which in turn does not depend on the backscattering happening later on at the node or within the QW. Here we discuss the computation of the nonlinear conductance matrix normalized to $`e^2/h`$,

$$G_{ij}=\frac{h}{e}\frac{I_i}{\mu _j},$$
(2)
where the current $`I_i`$ flowing through QW $`i`$ is oriented towards the node, leaving noise properties to a future publication. Below applied voltages $`U_i`$ are defined as

$$eU_i=\mu _i\overline{\mu },\overline{\mu }=\frac{1}{N}\underset{i}{}\mu _i.$$
(3)
Under this definition, gauge invariance (conductance matrix is invariant under a uniform change of all $`\mu _i`$) is automatically fulfilled if the $`G_{ij}`$ depend only on the $`U_i`$.

Next we address the physics arising at the node $`x=0`$. Conservation of charge enforces the Kirchhoff node rule

$$\underset{i}{}I_i=0.$$
(4)
A second requirement at the node is the wavefunction matching via the $`S`$ matrix

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_L(0)=S\mathrm{\Psi }_R(0),$$
(5)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)=(\psi _1,\mathrm{},\psi _N)`$ contains the wavefunctions for the $`N`$ QWs, and the outgoing (left-moving) components $`\mathrm{\Psi }_L`$ are connected to the incoming (right-moving) states $`\mathrm{\Psi }_R`$ via an appropriate $`N\times N`$ matrix $`S`$, see, e.g. Ref. , for specific choices at $`N=3`$. Note that the scattering matrix in Eq. (5) provides a “bare” (microscopic) description of the node properties, while interactions could dynamically generate some different boundary condition at low energy scales.

Unfortunately, a boundary condition like Eq. (5) is very difficult to handle for correlated electronic systems and typically does not allow for progress. Here we proceed differently by constructing a wide class of practically important $`S`$ matrices (albeit not all possible ones ) in the following way. We first consider an ideal system composed of impurity-free QWs symmetrically connected at the node. Microscopically, the corresponding non-interacting problem could be modelled as $`N`$ tight-binding chains with equal hopping matrix element $`t_0`$, where the “last” site of each chain is connected to the common node site via the same $`t_0`$ and all on-site energies are equal. Such a node corresponds to the special highly symmetric $`S`$ matrix

$$S=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}(2N)/N& 2/N& \mathrm{}& 2/N\\ 2/N& (2N)/N& \mathrm{}& 2/N\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 2/N& 2/N& \mathrm{}& (2N)/N\end{array}\right).$$
(6)
For this $`S`$ matrix, Eq. (5) directly implies $`\psi _1(0)=\mathrm{}=\psi _N(0)`$ for the components of $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }_L+\mathrm{\Psi }_R`$. Since phases in $`\psi _i(0)`$ can be gauged away, a density matching condition upon approaching the node results,

$$\rho _1(0)=\mathrm{}=\rho _N(0),$$
(7)
where $`\rho _i(0)`$ denotes the total electronic density in QW $`i`$ close to the node. Remarkably, the conditions (1), (4) and (7) then allow to explicitly solve this transport problem for arbitrary interactions because the condition (7) does not involve wavefunction phases but only amplitudes. To arrive at more general $`S`$ matrices, in a second step we then consider additional impurities in the different QWs displaced slightly away from the node. Inclusion of impurities does not cause conceptual difficulties, and such a modelling allows to construct all $`S`$ matrices of practical interest.

Let us first discuss the ideal node defined by the bare scattering matrix (6). For $`g=1`$, the conditions (1), (4) and (7) are in fact equivalent to the standard Landauer-Büttiker approach. This is easily seen by using the usual scattering states, e.g. the state injected into QW $`i=1`$:

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _1\\ \psi _2\\ \mathrm{}\\ \psi _N\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}e^{ikx}+re^{ikx}\\ te^{ikx}\\ \mathrm{}\\ te^{ikx}\end{array}\right),$$
(8)
with reflection (transmission) amplitude $`r`$ ($`t`$). For $`g=1`$, the boundary conditions (1) are equivalent to a Fermi distribution for occupying the states (8), while Eq. (4) gives $`1=r+(N1)t`$. Furthermore, the density matching condition (7) yields $`|1+r|^2=|t|^2`$. Combining both equations immediately gives $`r=(2N)/N`$ and $`t=2/N`$, and hence reproduce Eq. (6). The conductance matrix is then

$$G_{ii}=1(12/N)^2,G_{ij}=(2/N)^2.$$
(9)
Will the conductance matrix for this ideal case be affected by interactions ($`g<1`$)? Based on the two-terminal case , one might suspect that there is no renormalization because of the Fermi-liquid character of the leads, and hence Eq. (9) would stay valid for arbitrary $`g`$. However, it turns out that for small applied voltages and low temperatures, the system always flows to the disconnected-node fixed point,

$$G_{ij}=0.$$
(10)
Thus the only stable generic fixed point of this system for any $`g<1`$ represents an isolated node weakly connected to $`N`$ broken-up QWs, even for an arbitrary $`S`$ matrix of the node. The corrections to Eq. (10) due to finite $`U_i`$ or $`T`$ are then sensitive to interactions. This phenomenon is a consequence of the strong correlations in the LL, which here induce asymptotically vanishing currents even in a perfectly clean (impurity-free) system. Equation (10) also implies that open boundary bosonization  allows to access the asymptotic low-energy transport properties of a QW network.

For arbitrary $`g`$ and sufficiently far away from the node such that Friedel oscillations  have decayed and the boundary conditions (1) hold, the left- and right-moving densities must combine to give

$`I_i`$ $`=`$ $`ev_F(\rho _{i,R}\rho _{i,L})={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{2\pi }}\left(U_i{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}T_{ij}U_j\right),`$ (11)
$`\rho _i`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _{i,R}+\rho _{i,L}={\displaystyle \frac{eg^2}{2\pi v_F}}\left(U_i+{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}T_{ij}U_j\right).`$ (12)
Here the matrix $`T_{ij}`$ has been defined whose entries depend on $`g`$ and all $`U_i`$. The $`T_{ij}`$ reduce to standard Landauer-Büttiker transmission probabilities for $`g=1`$, but in general cannot be interpreted as single-particle quantities. It is important to stress that Eqs. (11) and (12) are consistent with both the LL equation of motion and the boundary conditions (1) for arbitrary $`T_{ij}`$. The Kirchhoff node rule can then be satisfied by requiring

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}T_{ij}=1,$$
(13)
and we now use the density matching conditions (7) to obtain the $`T_{ij}`$ and hence the conductance matrix. We mention in passing that the usual relation $`_jT_{ij}=1`$ should not be enforced since gauge invariance under uniform potential shifts in all reservoirs has been encoded in Eq. (3) already.

At this point it is crucial to realize that close to the node, the density $`\rho _i(x)`$ will deviate from the spatially homogeneous value $`\rho _i`$ in Eq. (12) due to Friedel oscillations. This happens already for $`g=1`$, as can be easily checked from Eq. (8) and the subsequent solution. The total density very close to the node is $`\rho _i(0)=\rho _i+\delta \rho _i(0)`$, where $`\delta \rho _i(0)`$ is the Friedel oscillation amplitude at the node location. The $`2k_F`$ oscillatory Friedel contribution $`\delta \rho _i(x)`$ in QW $`i`$ arises due to interference of the incoming right-movers and the left-movers that are backscattered at the node. Importantly, left-movers that are transmitted from the other $`N1`$ QWs into QW $`i`$ cannot interfere with the incoming right-mover and will therefore not contribute to $`\delta \rho _i(x)`$. This implies that $`\delta \rho _i(x)`$ is identical to the corresponding Friedel oscillation in a two-terminal setup with the same (bare) reflection coefficient as the one induced by the clean node, $`R=(12/N)^2`$. Fortunately, this allows us to obtain $`\delta \rho _i(0)`$ in an exact manner using the relation

$$\delta \rho _i(0)=\frac{g^2eV_i}{\pi v_F},$$
(14)
where the “four-terminal voltage” parameter $`V_i`$ is found from a self-consistency equation. This equation is explicitly given and solved for arbitrary $`g`$ in Ref. , and using this solution, we also have the pinning amplitude (14) of the Friedel oscillation for any value of $`g`$. The relation to the two-terminal problem is not a necessary ingredient for our calculation, but quite convenient in allowing to compute $`\delta \rho _i(0)`$ from known results.

For concreteness, in what follows we consider $`g=1/2`$ where this self-consistency equation is quite simple ($`k_B=1`$),

$$\frac{eV_i}{2T_B}=\mathrm{Im}\psi \left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{T_B+ie(U_iV_i/2)}{2\pi T}\right),$$
(15)
where $`\psi `$ is the digamma function and $`T_B=\pi \lambda ^2/\omega _c`$ for bandwidth $`\omega _c`$ and impurity strength $`\lambda `$ of the corresponding two-terminal problem. (Specifically, for $`N=3`$, to match the reflection coefficient of the ideal Y junction, $`(\pi \lambda /\omega _c)^2=1/(1+N/(N2))`$. The solution to Eq. (15) then yields $`V_i`$ as a function of $`U_i`$ alone, which, however, itself depends on all the chemical potentials, see Eq. (3). The density matching conditions (7) are then solved by enforcing

$`(1+T_{jj})U_j2V_j=T_{kj}U_j`$

for all pairs $`kj=1,\mathrm{}N`$, and with the Kirchhoff rule we find

$`T_{ii}(\{\mu _j\})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2N}{N}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2(N1)V_i}{NU_i}},`$ (16)
$`T_{ki}(\{\mu _j\})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{2V_i}{NU_i}}.`$ (17)
Note that the $`T_{ij}`$ depend only on the applied voltages $`U_i`$ but not on the $`\mu _i`$. As a result, gauge invariance is ensured. The relations (16) and (17) represent the complete solution for the special $`S`$ matrix (6).

Before proceeding to more general $`S`$ matrices, let us discuss these results for the ideal Y junction $`(N=3)`$ at $`g=1/2`$. From Eq. (2), we get

$`G_{ii}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{9}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{V_i}{U_i}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{V_j}{U_j}}\right)`$
$`G_{ji}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_i}{U_i}}1\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_j}{U_j}}1\right){\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_k}{U_k}}1\right)`$
where $`ijk`$ in the second equation. Note that the conductance matrix is symmetric. For $`eU_iT`$, the linear conductances follow:

$`G_{ij}=(2\delta _{ij}2/3){\displaystyle \frac{1c\psi ^{}(c+1/2)}{1+c\psi ^{}(c+1/2)}},`$

where $`c=T_B/2\pi T`$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ is the trigamma function. As $`T0`$, the conductance matrix approaches the stable fixed point (10), $`G_{ij}(T/T_B)^2`$. In general, for $`g<1`$, we find $`G_{ij}(T/T_B)^{2/g2}`$ as $`T0`$. Since this power law coincides with the prediction of open boundary bosonization around (10), this also provides a consistency check for our calculation. Corresponding power laws also govern the nonlinear conductances. This is shown in Fig. 2 for $`g=1/2`$, depicting $`G_{11}(U)`$ at different temperatures. In the $`T=0`$ limit, $`G_{11}U^2`$. Clearly, interactions have a rather spectacular effect on the transport properties of this system.

Next we briefly outline how to construct more general node $`S`$ matrices based on this solution of the ideal junction for arbitrary $`g`$. The idea is to add impurities of strength $`\lambda _i`$ in each QW close to the node, $`x_i1/k_F`$, which will modify the bare $`S`$ matrix; for explicit calculations, see Ref. . One can then compute the $`G_{ij}`$ for this more general case, but still allowing for arbitrary $`g<1`$, e.g. by using perturbation theory around the above solution of the ideal junction. Focusing on $`N=3`$ and just one impurity, $`\lambda _2=\lambda _3=0`$, to lowest order in $`\lambda _1`$, a straightforward calculation gives $`I_i=I_i^0+\delta I_i`$, where $`I_i^0`$ is the current through QW $`i`$ for $`\lambda _i=0`$ discussed above, and

$`\delta I_1`$ $`=`$ $`2eg_+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _1^2}{\omega _c}}\mathrm{sin}(\pi g_+)\mathrm{cos}(\pi g_+)`$ (18)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(12g_+)(2\pi I_1^0/e\omega _c)^{2g_+1},`$ (19)
where $`g_+=4g/3`$ and $`\delta I_{k1}=\delta I_1/2`$. Obviously, this perturbative estimate breaks down at very small energy scales for $`g_+<1`$ but is valid for all energies at $`g_+>1`$. It is straightforward to perform similar calculations for more than one impurity, other $`N`$, and/or higher orders in the $`\lambda _i`$. From Eq. (18) and generalizations, we infer that $`G_{ij}=0`$ is indeed the only stable fixed point. It is also clear that for at least one very strong impurity $`\lambda _i`$, the system will reduce to one of the special cases considered previously . For $`g`$ close to 1, we can also make explicit contact to Ref. . For $`S`$ matrices close to Eq. (6) and weak interactions, our solution indeed reproduces the results of Ref.. Note that the restriction to weak interactions allows to easily treat more general $`S`$ matrices .

To conclude, we have proposed a Landauer-type theory for strongly interacting electrons in branched quantum wires such as carbon nanotube Y junctions. A broad class of $`S`$ matrices can be covered by formulating a suitable boundary condition (“density matching”) to describe an ideal symmetric junction, and on top adding effective impurities in the individual wires. The only stable fixed point corresponds to disconnected quantum wires, with corrections revealing the Luttinger liquid physics via various power laws.

We thank H. Grabert and A. Komnik for useful discussions. Support by the DFG under the Gerhard-Hess program and under Grant No. GR 638/19 is acknowledged.