text:
# MEASUREMENTS OF CKM ELEMENTS AND THE UNITARITY TRIANGLE

## 1 CKM, UTs, and Theoretical Tools

In the Standard Model (SM) , the charged-current electro-weak interactions amongst three generations of quarks involve a complex, unitary $`3\times 3`$ matrix, $`V`$, known as the CKM matrix . Its elements, $`V_{ij}`$, determine the relative (weak) couplings of up-type (i.e., $`i=u,c,t`$) and down-type (i.e., $`j=d,s,b`$) quarks to the $`W`$ boson. The matrix $`V`$ is determined by four independent parameters, one of which can be used to describe CP violation (CPV). A parameterization developed by Wolfenstein emphasizes the hierarchy of elements by expanding them in powers of the sine of the Cabibbo angle: $`\lambda =|V_{us}|=\mathrm{sin}\theta _C0.22`$. The other three parameters are labelled $`A`$, $`\rho `$, and $`\eta `$, with $`\eta `$ describing the level of CPV. In the improved Wolfenstein parameterization , using $`\overline{\rho }=\rho (1\frac{\lambda ^2}{2})`$ and $`\overline{\eta }=\eta (1\frac{\lambda ^2}{2})`$, the matrix reads:

$$V=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1\frac{\lambda ^2}{2}& \lambda & A\lambda ^3(\rho i\eta )\\ \lambda iA^2\lambda ^5\eta & 1\frac{\lambda ^2}{2}& A\lambda ^2\\ A\lambda ^3(1\overline{\rho }i\overline{\eta })& A\lambda ^2+A\lambda ^4(\frac{1}{2}\rho )iA\lambda ^4\eta & 1\frac{1}{2}A^2\lambda ^4\end{array}\right)+𝒪(\lambda ^6).$$
(1)
The unitarity constraint results in six orthogonality equations which can be expressed geometrically by six UTs in the complex plane. All triangles have the same area, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, which determines the level of CPV: $`2\mathrm{\Delta }=J_{\mathrm{CP}}A^2\lambda ^6\eta `$. Most triangles are squashed, i.e., one side is very much smaller than the others. However, there is one “golden triangle” with all sides of approximately equal size (i.e., $`𝒪(\lambda ^3)`$), determined by products of CKM elements that are experimentally most accessible:

$$V_{ud}V_{ub}^{}+V_{cd}V_{cb}^{}+V_{td}V_{tb}^{}=0$$
(2)
It is customary to re-scale its sides by $`|V_{cd}V_{cb}^{}|=A\lambda ^3`$, resulting in a triangle in the complex plane with a unit-length baseline on the real axis. The UT in the $`\overline{\rho }`$, $`\overline{\eta }`$ plane has sides of length:

$`R_u`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\overline{\rho }^2+\overline{\eta }^2}=(1{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{2}}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{|V_{ub}|}{|V_{cb}|}}={\displaystyle \frac{|V_{ud}V_{ub}^{}|}{|V_{cd}V_{cb}^{}|}},`$
$`R_t`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{(1\overline{\rho })^2+\overline{\eta }^2}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{|V_{td}|}{|V_{cb}|}}={\displaystyle \frac{|V_{td}V_{tb}^{}|}{|V_{cd}V_{cb}^{}|}}.`$ (3)
In order to over-constrain the UT as a test of the SM, it is thus imperative to measure as many of the angles as possible, and improve the measurements of the relatively poorly known elements $`V_{ub}`$, $`V_{cb}`$, and $`V_{td}`$ which determine the sides. (Note that $`V_{ud}`$ and $`V_{us}`$ are know to about 0.1% and 1%, respectively.)

Six CKM elements, $`V_{uq}`$ and $`V_{cq}`$, $`q=d,s,b`$, can currently be determined directly from tree-level processes. The remaining three elements, $`V_{tq}`$, involve the top quark and are currently accessible only via loop processes in the $`K`$ and $`B`$ system (i.e., rare $`K`$ and $`B`$ decay, and $`K^0/B_d^0/B_s^0`$ mixing). In the LHC/LC future, $`V_{tq}`$ and $`V_{cq}`$ will be measured at tree level from top and $`W`$ decay, respectively, possibly with very high precision .

A general problem in determining CKM matrix elements arises from the fact that they enter into the charged currents between quarks, whereas experiments observe initial and final states containing hadrons and/or leptons. The “dressing” of quarks makes for strong-interaction effects that are difficult to deal with, in particular since one is often in the non-perturbative regime of Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD). The problem is somewhat simplified for semi-leptonic decays, because the (leptonic) $`W`$ decay is well-understood and can be factored out.

The formalism to evaluate (weak) decay amplitudes of hadrons is that of the Operator Product Expansion (OPE) and Renormalization Group Evolution. Using a scale, $`\mu `$, long- and short-distance contributions are separated into perturbative (and thus calculable) Wilson coefficients, $`C_i(\mu )`$, and non-perturbative hadronic matrix elements, $`F|Q_i(\mu )|M`$, written in terms of local operators generated by QCD and electroweak interactions:

$$A(MF)=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\underset{i}{}V_{CKM}^iC_i(\mu )F|Q_i(\mu )|M.$$
(4)
The tool of choice to get at hadronic matrix elements, in particular for exclusive final states, is Lattice QCD (LQCD), which has recently made great strides towards unquenched calculations, which could eventually yield quantifiable errors at the $`𝒪`$(1%) level. Until then, other methods (e.g., $`1/n_f`$ expansion, QCD sum rules, chiral perturbation theory, etc.) have to be used, the results of which are usually formulated in terms of (meson) decay constants and form factors (FFs).

In case of the heavy-to-heavy $`bc`$ transition, Heavy Quark Effective Theory (HQET) can provide an absolute normalization for FFs at $`q^2=(p_{\mathrm{}}+p_\nu )^2=q_{max}^2`$ and in the infinite quark mass limit, with corrections of the order of only 10%. Unfortunately, no such luck for the heavy-to-light $`bu`$ transition: the FF absolute normalization (and possibly the $`q^2`$ dependence) must be calculated from the ground up.

Inclusive (semi-leptonic) decays of $`B`$ mesons turn out to be particularly favorable, for their treatment in the framework of Heavy Quark Expansion (HQE) allows a well-defined expansion of the decay rate in powers of $`\alpha _s`$ (perturbative part) and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_b`$ (non-perturbative part):

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(BX\mathrm{}\nu )=\mathrm{\Gamma }(bq\mathrm{}\nu )+𝒪[\alpha _s,(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_b)^2],$$
(5)
where the first (and dominant) term represents the well-known quark spectator model rate (containing $`|V_{qb}|^2`$). Non-perturbative corrections are suppressed by at least two powers of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_b`$ and can be expressed in terms of a small number of measurable parameters. This approach is valid only under the ab initio assumption of quark-hadron duality, which needs experimental verification. As has been advocated in Ref. , the semi-leptonic data itself can be used to test for duality violations by checking consistency among a variety of OPE-calculated variables.

## 2 $`V_{cb}`$

$`|V_{cb}|`$ normalizes the baseline of the UT and determines the Wolfenstein parameter $`A`$ (together with $`\lambda =|V_{us}|`$, which is very precisely known).

### 2.1 From Exclusive Semi-leptonic $`B`$ Decays

$`|V_{cb}|`$ can be determined from the decay $`BD^{}\mathrm{}\nu `$ by measuring the differential decay rate:

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dw}(F(w)|V_{cb}|)^2,\mathrm{with}w=\frac{m_B^2+m_D^{}^2(p_{\mathrm{}}+p_\nu )^2}{2m_Bm_D^{}},$$
(6)
and extrapolating the FF $`F(w)`$ to the kinematic limit $`w=1`$, where HQET provides an absolute normalization in the form of the Isgur-Wise function: $`F(w)=\eta _A\xi (w)`$. In the limit of infinite quark masses, $`\xi (1)1`$. Finite-mass and perturbative QED/QCD corrections are subsumed into the $`\eta _A`$ factor, yielding $`F(1)=\eta _A=0.91\pm 0.04`$. This value for $`F(1)`$ results from a combination of quark model, OPE sum rule, and (quenched) LQCD calculations. It is promising to note that the LQCD calculation can provide a rather detailed breakdown of the errors, with the single largest one being statistical in nature.

Issues affecting this type of measurement are the assumed shape of the FF, parameterized in terms of its slope, $`\rho ^2`$, at $`w=1`$, the relative vector and axial vector contributions to the FF, and the treatment of feed down background from hadronic systems heavier than the $`D^{}`$. A particular problem for experiments running on the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4\mathrm{S})`$ resonance lies in understanding the detection efficiency for the slow charged pion in the $`D^\pm \pi ^\pm D^0`$ decay. An important cross check is a simultaneous measurement of the $`D^0\pi ^0D^0`$ decay, so far performed only by CLEO.

All these issues need to be tackled in order to improve the measurement beyond the current 5.2% error (which is, however, dominated by the theoretical error on $`F(1)`$). Moreover, the $`BD^{}\mathrm{}\nu `$ and $`BD\mathrm{}\nu `$ data should be fit together to reduce the error on the FF slope, since the slopes in both channels are related to each other in a calculable way.

The LEP $`V_{cb}`$ Working Group (WG)  has combined the Belle, CLEO, and LEP measurements of $`F(1)|V_{cb}|`$ vs $`\rho ^2`$ – note that those two quantities are highly correlated – after adjusting for common inputs. Most measurements and their errors are changed only slightly by this procedure, except for the ALEPH result for which $`F(1)|V_{cb}|`$ and $`\rho ^2`$ increase by 1.5 $`\sigma _{syst}^{old}`$, and $`\sigma _{syst}^{new}`$ is four times as large as the old one. Unfortunately, the cited Ref.  does not provide quite enough information to reconstruct these calculations. Despite these changes, the ALEPH and CLEO measurements remain rather far apart, resulting in a somewhat low confidence level (CL) of only 5% for the new WA. One should also point out that the $`|V_{cb}|`$ value extracted from the exclusive CLEO measurement by dividing out the above $`F(1)`$ comes out rather high compared with the (presumably correlated) inclusive CLEO measurement in Ref. .

### 2.2 From Inclusive Semi-leptonic $`B`$ Decays

$`|V_{cb}|`$ can also be extracted from the inclusive semi-leptonic branching fraction (BF) $`(BX_c\mathrm{}\nu )`$. In order to distinguish prompt leptons (in $`BX_c\mathrm{}\nu `$) from cascade leptons (in $`BX_cX_{s/d}\mathrm{}\nu `$), $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4\mathrm{S})`$ experiments use a double-lepton technique: a high-momentum lepton tags the opposite $`B`$, allowing to measure a signal-lepton down to center-of-mass (COM) momenta of $`p^{}0.6\mathrm{GeV}`$ by exploiting charge and angular correlations. Table 1 shows the most current set of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4\mathrm{S})`$ measurements, which are consistent with the LEP average.

After subtracting the (small) $`BX_u\mathrm{}\nu `$ contribution, these BFs can be used to determine $`|V_{cb}|`$, albeit with a 5.9% theoretical error111Note that the CL of this error is not particularly well defined: (not) following a suggestion in Ref.  to combine theoretical errors linearly, the LEP $`V_{cb}`$ WG decided to first scale them by a factor two before combining them quadratically .. As indicated in connection with Equation 5, the theoretical error can be reduced by expressing the non-perturbative contributions to the semi-leptonic width in terms of three parameters (at order $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_b)^2`$): $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=m_Bm_b+\mathrm{}`$, $`\lambda _1`$, and $`\lambda _2`$, all of which are measurable up to uncertainties of order $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_b)^3`$. The parameter $`\lambda _2`$ is readily determined from the $`B^{}B`$ mass splitting; the other two require more elaborate measurements.

Several experiments have embarked on a program to measure $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ (and thus $`m_b`$) and $`\lambda _1`$ from a variety of moments in semi-leptonic and radiative $`B`$ decay data. For example, CLEO has measured the first moment of the photon energy in $`BX_s\gamma `$ to determine $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$, and the first moment of the hadronic mass-squared, $`M_X^2`$, recoiling against the di-leptons in $`BX_c\mathrm{}\nu `$ to determine $`\lambda _1`$. With these parameters as input, the above-mentioned (inclusive) semi-leptonic BFs have been used to determine $`|V_{cb}|`$ with a 2.6% total error (and consistent with the exclusive result).

This all looks very promising and should improve even further, with preliminary CLEO  and DELPHI  measurements of lepton energy moments in $`BX_c\mathrm{}\nu `$ on their way. One trouble spot has emerged, though, highlighted by the preliminary BABAR measurement of $`M_X^2`$ vs minimum lepton COM momentum, $`p_{\mathrm{},min}^{}`$ : while they obtain a result consistent with CLEO for the same $`p_{\mathrm{},min}^{}`$cut of 1.5$`\mathrm{GeV}`$, they find a $`p_{\mathrm{},min}^{}`$ dependence of $`M_X^2`$ that cannot be described by the CLEO values for $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ and $`\lambda _1`$ (but can be described by OPE using a different set of parameter values). This inconsistency suggests that some of the underlying assumptions HQE is based on require further scrutiny.

## 3 $`V_{ub}`$

The second side of the UT, $`R_u`$, is determined by $`|V_{ub}|`$; see Equation 3.

### 3.1 From Inclusive Semi-leptonic $`B`$ Decays

Using the OPE, the inclusive semi-leptonic BF $`(BX_u\mathrm{}\nu )`$ can be related to $`|V_{ub}|^2`$ with an accuracy of $`510`$%. Unfortunately, experiments can only observe a small portion of this decay: the overwhelming $`BX_c\mathrm{}\nu `$ background forces them to impose stringent analysis cuts, selecting a very restricted region of phase space near kinematic boundaries (i.e., high lepton momentum, and/or low hadronic mass). Under those circumstances, OPE cannot reliably predict the (partial) decay rate due to non-convergence. The theorists way out of that is a “twist expansion” with the complete series of terms re-summed into an incalculable structure function (light-cone distribution function), describing the Fermi motion of the $`b`$ quark inside the the $`B`$ meson. This structure/distribution function determines the decay rate at leading order, with sub-leading twist corrections suppressed by (higher) powers of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_b`$. Historically, it has been modeled in a somewhat ad hoc way, with the theoretical uncertainty in the fraction of events passing the analysis cuts estimated by varying the shape parameters. This uncertainty can be removed in principle, though, because the structure/distribution function is a property of the $`B`$ meson itself and can thus be determined (to leading order) in other processes, for example, $`BX_s\gamma `$. It has been argued in Ref.  that there is an uncontrollable uncertainty for $`|V_{ub}|`$, estimated at $`15`$%, from transferring the $`BX_s\gamma `$ structure/distribution function to $`BX_u\mathrm{}\nu `$ due to the sub-leading $`𝒪`$($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_b`$) corrections. In contrast, Ref.  presents an actual calculation of the dominant source of power corrections, verifying the size of the effect, with a residual uncertainty for $`|V_{ub}|`$ of only a few percent.

The issue of sub-leading corrections needs to be resolved among the theorists, because it affects the recent lepton-endpoint $`|V_{ub}|`$ measurements from CLEO  and BABAR  in one of two ways: either the theoretical error associated with this needs to more than double (dominating then any other single error), or the value of $`|V_{ub}|`$ needs to change by $`1015`$% (corresponding to $`23\sigma `$ of the theoretical error associated with this previously). On top of all of this, one has to worry about the restrictive analyses introducing quark-hadron duality violations, for which no estimate whatsoever exists currently.

One can nevertheless hold out hope for the future of (inclusive) $`|V_{ub}|`$ measurements because of the enormous data samples becoming available at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4\mathrm{S})`$ $`B`$ factories. The most promising analysis technique with hundreds of millions of $`B`$s is that of fully reconstructing one of the two $`B`$s in the event, thus gaining complete control over the kinematics of the semi-leptonically decaying signal $`B`$. This allows rather precise neutrino reconstruction, and charm suppression without kinematic cuts using particle identification (i.e., no Kaon on the signal side). Furthermore, one can hope to use lepton momentum, hadronic mass, and di-lepton mass simultaneously to isolate $`BX_u\mathrm{}\nu `$ while retaining sufficient inclusiveness for OPE convergence and quark-hadron duality.

### 3.2 From Exclusive Semi-leptonic $`B`$ Decays

The very same $`B`$ reconstruction (Breco) technique will work beautifully for exclusive decays, i.e., $`B\pi /\eta /\rho /\omega \mathrm{}\nu `$, providing very clean signals, with signal-to-background (S/B) ratios $`>>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$. Already with the data samples Belle and BABAR have in hand, the Breco technique is favored over the conventional analysis pioneered by CLEO.

The main problem for extracting $`|V_{ub}|`$ from these $`B`$ decay channels is again theoretical in nature: a transition FF is needed, which can currently be calculated only with uncertainties in the $`1520`$% range. All hopes rest, again, on LQCD to eventually provide unquenched calculations with much improved precision for channels with stable particles (i.e., $`B\pi \mathrm{}\nu `$) or narrow resonances (i.e., $`B\eta /\omega \mathrm{}\nu `$).

### 3.3 From Exclusive Fully-leptonic $`B`$ Decays

Fully-leptonic $`B`$ decay provide the theoretically cleanest way to determine $`|V_{ub}|`$:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^{}\mathrm{}^{}\nu )=\frac{G_F^2}{8\pi }m_B^3f_B^2|V_{ub}|^2x_{\mathrm{}}(1x_{\mathrm{}})^2,\mathrm{with}x_{\mathrm{}}=m_{\mathrm{}}/m_B.$$
(7)
Unfortunately, the current best LQCD determination of the $`B`$ decay constant comes with a 15% error: $`f_B=(200\pm 30)\mathrm{MeV}`$. With a SM expectation of $`B(B^{}\tau ^{}\nu )1.1\times 10^4`$, observation of this decay is just around the corner, exploiting again the Breco technique. Hopefully, LQCD will manage to push down their error as fast as the $`B`$ factories accumulate data.

## 4 $`V_{td}`$, $`V_{ts}`$

The third side of the UT, $`R_t`$, is determined by $`|V_{td}|`$. It can be extracted from $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$, the $`B_d^0\overline{B}_d^0`$ mass difference measured in mixing:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_d(\sqrt{B_{B_d}}f_{B_d})^2|V_{td}|^2R_t^2=\frac{1}{\lambda ^2}\frac{|V_{td}|^2}{|V_{cb}|^2}=(1\overline{\rho })^2+\overline{\eta }^2,$$
(8)
where LQCD provides  $`(\sqrt{B_{B_d}}f_{B_d})=(230\pm 40)\mathrm{MeV}`$ with a 17% uncertainty.

It has been customary to use the ratio $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d/\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$ is the corresponding mass difference from $`B_s^0\overline{B}_s^0`$ mixing, because the ratio $`\xi =(\sqrt{B_{B_d}}f_{B_d})/(\sqrt{B_{B_s}}f_{B_s})`$ was believed to be better known (and most other factors cancel). Using $`\xi =1.16\pm 0.05`$ together with the LEP/SLD/CDF mixing amplitude analysis, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s>14.9\mathrm{ps}^1`$ at 95% CL, one can get a significant constraint on $`R_t`$:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_d}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_s}=\frac{m_{B_d}}{m_{B_s}}\xi \frac{|V_{td}|^2}{|V_{ts}|^2}\frac{1}{\xi ^2}\lambda ^2\left[(1\overline{\rho })^2+\overline{\eta }^2\right]=\frac{1}{\xi ^2}\lambda ^2R_t^2$$
(9)
However, it was recently discovered  that $`\xi `$ might have to change by 4$`\sigma ^{old}`$ and assume an error twice as large as currently, resulting in a much relaxed constraint on $`R_t`$.

## 5 Conclusions

(Inclusive) $`|V_{cb}|`$ is becoming a precision quantity with an uncertainty of less than 3%; it could become even more precise with better measurements of HQE non-perturbative parameters – barring quark-hadron duality violations.

$`|V_{ub}|`$ is far from that, with an uncertainty of about 15%. There are good prospects, though, for significant improvements over the next few years: new analysis approaches can significantly reduce both the experimental and theoretical errors of the inclusive measurements. The exclusive measurements will equally benefit, contingent upon sufficient progress in LQCD.

$`|V_{td}|`$ and $`|V_{ts}|`$ are awaiting a more precise $`\xi `$ ratio from LQCD and, more importantly, a measurement of (not a limit on) $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$.

$`|V_{ud}|`$ will benefit from consistent neutron $`\beta `$-decay data on $`\lambda =g_A/g_V`$ and from better pion $`\beta `$-decay data.

$`|V_{us}|`$ is awaiting a (theoretical) conclusion on the right value and error for the $`K\pi `$ transition FF.

## 6 Acknowledgements

Work supported by Department of Energy contract DE-AC03-76SF00515.


format: text

text:
# Fingering of Electron Droplets in Nonuniform Magnetic Fields

## Abstract

A semiclassical analysis of a two-dimensional electron droplet in a high, nonuniform magnetic field predicts that the droplet will form “fingered” patterns upon increasing the number of electrons. We construct explicit examples of these patterns using methods first developed for the flow of two-dimensional viscous fluids. We complement our analytical results with Monte Carlo simulations of the droplet wavefunction, and find that at the point where the semiclassical analysis predicts a cusp on the interface, the droplet fissions—a type of “quantum breakup” phenomenon.

The growth of many physical systems is limited by diffusion—e.g., the diffusion of heat for solids growing into supercooled liquids langer80 , the diffusion-limited aggregation (DLA) of colloids witten83 , or the diffusion of magnetic flux in a superconductor frahm91 . The unstable growth of all of these systems langer80  produces beautiful patterns. An important paradigm for this class of pattern-forming systems is Laplacian growth (LG)—diffusion-limited growth in the limit of long diffusion lengths bensimon86 . Agam et al. agam02 ; wiegmann02  recently discovered an intriguing connection between LG and the growth of a two-dimensional (2D) electron droplet in a high, nonuniform, magnetic field. Their semiclassical analysis of the droplet wavefunction reveals that as the number of electrons in the droplet is increased the droplet maintains a uniform density while its boundary evolves according to the LG equations. The unstable growth leads to a “fingered” pattern!

We expand upon the work of Agam et al. in several important ways. First, we show that a simple magnetic field inhomogeneity outside the growing droplet yields tractable analytical results for the droplet growth which allow us to predict the onset and structure of interfacial singularities. Second, using an analogy between the probability density for the electrons and the Boltzmann weight for a fictitious 2D plasma in a background potential provided by the magnetic field inhomogeneity, we perform Monte Carlo (MC) simulations laughlin87  of the droplet growth. The droplet breaks apart beyond the point where the semiclassical analysis predicts a singularity, providing a quantum counterpart for droplet breakup in classical fluids shi94 . Finally, using the MC method we follow the evolution of the droplet interface in a random magnetic field and find an intricately fingered pattern.

Hele-Shaw flow provides a simple example of LG. Two glass plates confine air and water, with the air injected into the center at a constant rate and the displaced water extracted at the edge, see Fig. (1).

The air domain is at a constant pressure $`p=0`$ and the velocity of the water is determined by Darcy’s law, $`𝐯=\mathbf{}p`$; since $`\mathbf{}𝐯=0`$, the pressure in the water is a harmonic function of $`z=x+iy`$ with a sink at infinity. On the interface $`v_n=_np`$, and in the idealized version of LG the surface tension is neglected and $`p=0`$ on the interface. Conformal mapping methods shraiman84 ; howison86  may be used to map the exterior of the unit circle in an auxiliary $`w`$-plane onto the water domain in the $`z`$-plane at each instant of time $`t`$ using $`z=z(w,t)`$ (see Fig. 1), with $`\mathrm{Re}(w_wz_t\overline{z})=1/2`$ on the interface.

Next, consider a flat interface and produce a sharp outward bump of the air into the water which locally compresses the water isobars and produces a large pressure gradient near the tip. Then $`v_n=_np`$ implies that outward bumps grow more rapidly saffman58  than the flat interface, and absent a stabilizing effect such as surface tension this bump develops into a singularity in finite time shraiman84 ; howison86  for most initial conditions.

We next turn to the many-body wavefunction for 2D electrons in a perpendicular, nonuniform, magnetic field. If we ignore Coulomb interactions and scale magnetic fields by the average field $`B_0`$, lengths by $`l_b\sqrt{\mathrm{}c/eB_0}`$, and energies by $`\mathrm{}eB_0/2mc`$, then the Hamiltonian is

$$H=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left[(i\mathbf{}_j+𝐀_j)^2+\frac{g}{2}\sigma _zB(𝐫_j)\right].$$
(1)
If $`g=2`$ then the many-body ground state wavefunction for Eq. (1) can be found exactly even for a nonuniform magnetic field aharonov79 ; bander90 ; girvin90 ; for a spin-polarized, filled Landau level ($`\nu =1`$) bander90 ; girvin90 ; agam02  we have

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(z_1,\mathrm{},z_N)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N!\tau _N}}\underset{i<j}{}(z_iz_j)e^{_jW(z_j)},$$
(2)
where $`W(z)=|z|^2/4+V(z)`$, with $`V(z)`$ a “potential” which solves $`^2V=\delta B[B(z)B_0]/B_0`$, and $`\tau _N`$ is a normalization integral. Following Ref. agam02  we assume that $`\delta B=0`$ in the region of the droplet; $`V(z)`$, however, is nonzero in this region and the electrons are influenced by distant field inhomogeneities—a manifestation of the Aharonov-Bohm effect wiegmann02 . In the region of the droplet $`V(z)`$ is an analytic function and has the expansion in terms of the harmonic moments $`t_k`$ dimensions

$$V(z)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Re}\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}t_kz^k,t_k=\frac{1}{\pi k}\delta B(z)z^kd^2z.$$
(3)
Although the wavefunction (2) is exact for the noninteracting system, extracting physical observables such as the density is a formidable task. Agam et al. agam02  perform a semiclassical analysis of $`\tau _N`$ for $`N1`$ and find that the integral is dominated by configurations in which the electrons are uniformly distributed in a domain of area $`A=2\pi N`$ with moments $`t_k`$ given by Eq. (3). Further analysis establishes the connection with the LG problem and provides us with powerful techniques howison86  for determining the density distribution.

The derivation of the wavefunction (2) requires two important assumptions—noninteracting electrons and $`g=2`$—which deserve a brief comment. First, for a uniform magnetic field Laughlin’s incompressible liquid state does an excellent job of capturing correlation effects due to the Coulomb interaction laughlin87 . However, this may not be correct when the magnetic field is nonuniform as the Coulomb interaction smoothes density fluctuations and will reduce the fingering of the droplet, tending to make it circular. In fact, one can think of the Coulomb interaction as introducing an effective surface tension into the problem giovanazzi94 . In this case one can speculate that the fingering only occurs as a driven, nonequilibrium phenomenon—the droplet must be constantly “pumped” by adding electrons to cause the droplet to finger and evolve wiegmann03 . The dynamical effects of Coulomb interactions for a classical 2D electron droplet were studied in Ref. wexler99 ; perhaps this approach could be merged with the work of Agam et al. in the semiclassical limit. The Coulomb interaction could also cause the droplet edges to reconstruct chklovskii92 , which may also alter the fingering. Second, $`g2`$ in semiconductor devices, and one might worry about the spin polarization of the droplet. In uniform fields the Coulomb exchange interaction stabilizes the polarized $`\nu =1`$ state even for $`g=0`$ girvin98 , and it is likely that the same stability occurs in nonuniform fields, which would allow for a perturbative analysis in $`g2`$ bander90 . It is unlikely that $`g2`$ will produce any qualitative changes of the wavefunction (2) and its analysis.

As a concrete example we will consider field inhomogeneities which produce a monomial potential of the form

$$V(z)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Re}(t_{M+1}z^{M+1}),$$
(4)
with $`M`$ a positive integer. This is the leading term of an interior multipole expansion of $`\delta B`$. The beauty of this choice for $`V(z)`$ is that the corresponding conformal map which describes the evolution of the interface in the semiclassical limit has the simple form

$$z(w)=rw+u_Mw^M,$$
(5)
where $`r`$ and $`u_M`$ are real functions of $`N`$. Using either the moment method described above richardson72  or the Schwarz function method discussed in Refs. howison86 ; mineev-weinstein00 , the parameters in Eqs. (4) and (5) can be related as

$$t_{M+1}=\frac{u_M}{(M+1)r^M},t2N=r^2Mu_M^2.$$
(6)
Maps of the form (5) have been studied howison86  for the Hele-Shaw problem, and many of the results can be directly applied to the electron droplet. For $`M=1`$, the interface is an ellipse which evolves smoothly, with constant eccentricity, for increasing $`N`$ difrancesco94 . The behavior for $`M2`$ is more interesting; the harmonic measure $`w^{}(z)`$ may have poles which coincide with the interface at some critical value of the electron number $`N^{}`$, resulting in singularities. A detailed analysis yields the following: (i) The interface develops $`M+1`$ simultaneous cusps at

$$N^{}=\frac{1}{2}(M1)M^{(M+1)/(M1)}[(M+1)t_{M+1}]^{2/(M1)}.$$
(7)
(ii) If $`x^{}=x(N^{})`$ is the position of the cusp and $`x(N)`$ is the position of the finger for $`NN^{}`$, then

$$x^{}x(N)=\frac{2}{\sqrt{M1}}\sqrt{N^{}N}+O(N^{}N),$$
(8)
so that the approach to the critical value is universal, with a “velocity” $`v_ndx/dN`$ which diverges as $`(N^{}N)^{1/2}`$. (iii) If we define the scaled variables $`X(x^{}x)/x^{}`$ and $`Yy/x^{}`$, then the shape of the cusp is universal and has the “3/2” form shraiman84 ; howison86

$$Y(X)=\sqrt{\frac{2}{M}}\frac{M1}{3}X^{3/2}+O(X^2).$$
(9)
These interfacial cusps arise from the neglect of surface tension in the idealized LG problem. For the Hele-Shaw problem the surface tension smoothes the cusp, while for the electron droplet one expects that fluctuations beyond the semiclassical approximation will smooth the droplet agam02 . However, the mere existence of the singularity suggests that something dramatic will happen to the droplet, and to investigate this we need to go beyond the semiclassical level and obtain an essentially exact evaluation of the particle density using the Monte Carlo method.

The probability density for the electron droplet can be written as $`|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2=\mathrm{exp}(\beta U_{\mathrm{cl}})/N!\tau _N`$, with

$$U_{\mathrm{cl}}=\underset{i<j}{}\mathrm{ln}|z_iz_j|+\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left[\frac{1}{4}|z_i|^2V(z_i)\right],$$
(10)
which is the Boltzmann weight for a classical 2D plasma in a background potential $`V(z)`$, with a partition function $`\tau _N`$ and $`\beta =2`$. The dominant contributions to $`\tau _N`$ can be determined using the Metropolis algorithm, analogous to Laughlin’s studies laughlin87  of the quantum Hall effect in a uniform field \[i.e., $`V(z)=0`$\]. An initially random distribution of $`N`$ particles is equilibrated by moving each particle a distance of $`2.0`$ in a random direction, with moves accepted or rejected according to the detailed balance condition; the average acceptance rate for the moves is close to $`0.5`$. After an equilibration period of about $`10^3`$ moves per particle we compile a histogram of particle positions in bins of size $`0.3\times 0.3`$ for about $`4\times 10^4`$ moves per particle, and then calculate the average density in each bin. The electrons were confined by the walls of an impenetrable “simulation box” whose dimensions were chosen to be large compared to the linear dimension of the droplet. We accurately reproduce known results laughlin87  for the droplet size, density, and energy for a uniform field. For a nonuniform field the density forms a complicated pattern, but it still has a uniform value $`\rho _{\mathrm{ave}}`$ well away from the interface. We determine the interface by finding the locus of points whose density is between, say, $`0.3\rho _{\mathrm{ave}}`$ and $`0.4\rho _{\mathrm{ave}}`$ (other definitions give similar results).

We have performed numerous MC simulations for ordered and random magnetic field configurations, with the results shown in Figs. (2)–(4). Let’s start with the potential $`V(z)=(t_3/2)z^3`$ for $`M=2`$, which may be thought of as the leading term in a multipole expansion for an arrangement of six thin solenoids with alternating flux $`\pm \mathrm{\Phi }`$ placed on the vertices of a hexagon a large distance $`R`$ from the center of the droplet, so that $`t_3=4\mathrm{\Phi }/R^3`$. The semiclassical analysis predicts that three cusps will appear at the critical electron number $`N^{}=1/(144t_3^2)`$, and we have chosen $`N^{}=500`$ for these simulations. The excellent agreement between the semiclassical and MC results can be seen in Fig. (2);

for $`N=494`$ the nascent MC cusp is slightly rounded compared to the semiclassical prediction due to the discrete nature of the particles. We find equally impressive agreement with the position of one of the tips, Eq. (8), and the shape of the cusp, Eq. (9). When $`N>N^{}`$ the electrons in excess of $`N^{}`$ move toward the edges of the simulation box as shown in Fig. (3),

so that the central droplet fissions. In the 2D plasma language, the incompressible fluid of particles saturates the potential minimum and additional particles which are “poured” into the potential “spill out” and accumulate at the edge of the simulation box. Finally, Fig. (4) shows a simulation for a random distribution of thin solenoids, with a highly ramified pattern for the averaged electron density. Determining whether such a pattern is fractal requires a study of the scaling law $`NR^{D_f}`$, with $`R`$ the radius of gyration and $`D_f`$ the fractal dimension (with $`D_f=2`$ for compact and $`D_f<2`$ for fractal patterns). An unambiguous determination of $`D_f`$ requires simulations over many decades in $`N`$; this is currently beyond our computational resources and we leave its resolution as an interesting open problem.

In summary, we have constructed several explicit examples of magnetic field inhomogeneities which cause a noninteracting 2D electron droplet to finger. The semiclassical results (idealized LG) are in excellent agreement with our Monte Carlo simulations of the droplet wavefunction. An important implication of this result is that if there is an effective “surface tension” in the noninteracting electron droplet problem it must be extremely small, and the regularization of the cusps appears to be controlled by the discreteness of the particles. Beyond the semiclassical singularity we find that the droplet fissions. Recent advances in imaging techniques for the 2D electron gas finkelstein00  may make it possible to observe these fingered structures; an easily tuned field inhomogeneity could be provided by placing the electron gas in close proximity to a type-II superconductor in the vortex state bander90 . Our results also raise the interesting question of whether equilibrium Monte Carlo methods using a random $`V(z)`$ can be used to efficiently simulate nonequilibrium growth processes such as DLA witten83 ; in other words, what can the quantum Hall effect tell us about DLA?

We would like to thank S. Girvin, R. Goldstein, F. Klironomos, and L. Radzihovsky for their helpful comments, and P. Wiegmann for inspirational correspondence. TLH was supported by NSF REU grant DMR-0139579, and ADK and ATD were supported by NSF DMR-9978547.


text:
# 0. Introduction

## 0. Introduction

Throughout this note $`(R,𝔪)`$ is a commutative Noetherian local ring with non-zero identity and the maximal ideal $`𝔪`$. By $`M`$ and $`N`$ we always mean non-zero finitely generated $`R`$–modules. The projective dimension of module $`M`$ is denoted by $`\text{proj.dim}M`$.

The well known notion “grade of $`M`$”, grade $`M`$, has been introduced by Rees, see , as the least integer $`t0`$ such that $`\text{Ext}_R^t(M,R)0`$. In  we have defined the “grade of $`M`$ and $`N`$”, grade $`(M,N)`$, as the least integer $`t0`$ such that $`\text{Ext}_R^t(M,N)0`$. One of the main results of this note is:

Let $`N`$ be a Cohen–Macaulay $`R`$–module and let $`M`$ be an $`R`$–module with finite projective dimension. If $`\text{Tor}_i^R(M,N)=0`$ for all $`i>0`$ then $`M_RN`$ is Cohen–Macaulay if and only if $`\text{grade}(M,N)=\text{proj.dim}M`$.

This theorem can be considered as a generalization of the well–known statement:

(T1) Let $`R`$ be a Cohen–Macaulay local ring and let $`M`$ be a finite $`R`$–module with finite projective dimension. Then $`M`$ is Cohen–Macaulay if and only if $`\text{grade}M=\text{proj.dim}M`$.

On the other hand the following statement from Yoshida can be concluded from our result:

Yoshida \[10; Prop (2.4)\] “Suppose that $`\text{grade}M=\text{proj.dim}M(<\mathrm{})`$ and that $`N`$ is a maximal Cohen–Macaulay $`R`$–module (that is depth $`N=\text{dim}N=\text{dim}R`$). Then $`M_RN`$ is Cohen–Macaulay and $`\text{dim}M_RN=\text{dim}M`$.”

In another theorem of the first section we improve a theorem from Kawasaki:

Kawasaki \[5; Theorem 3.3(i)\] “Let $`R`$ be a Cohen–Macaulay local ring and let $`K`$ be a canonical module of $`R`$. Let $`M`$ be a finite $`R`$–module of finite projective dimension. Then $`M_RK`$ is Cohen–Macaulay if and only if $`M`$ is Cohen–Macaulay.”

The following statement generalizes Kawasaki’s theorem:

Let $`R`$ be a Cohen–Macaulay local ring and let $`K`$ be a canonical module of $`R`$. If $`M`$ is an $`R`$–module with finite Gorenstein dimension, then $`M_RK`$ is Cohen–Macaulay if and only if $`M`$ is Cohen–Macaulay.

In the above statement the Gorenstein dimension is an invariant for finite modules which was introduced by Auslander, in . It is a finer invariant than projective dimension in the sense that $`\text{G–dim}M\text{proj.dim}M`$ for every finite non-zero $`R`$–module $`M`$ and equality holds when $`\text{proj.dim}M<\mathrm{}`$. There exist modules with finite Gorenstein dimension which have infinite projective dimension.

In the second section we consider Serre’s condition. We say $`M`$ satisfies Serre’s condition $`(S_n)`$, for a non–negative integer $`n`$, when for every $`𝔭\text{Supp}M`$ the following inequality holds:

$$0ptM_𝔭\mathrm{min}(n,\text{dim}M_𝔭).$$

Obviously every Cohen–Macaulay module satisfies $`(S_n)`$ for all non-negative integers $`n`$.

The main result of section 2 is:

Let $`M`$ and $`N`$ be $`R`$–modules such that $`\text{Tor}_i^R(M,N)=0`$ for all $`i>0`$. If projective dimension of $`M`$ is finite and $`M_RN`$ satisfies $`(S_n)`$, then so does $`N`$. This result generalizes \[10; Prop.(4.1)\].

## 1. Cohen–Macaulayness.

Definition 1.1 We define

$$\text{grade}(M,N)=inf\{i|\text{Ext}_R^i(M,N)0\}$$

Since $`M`$ is finite, using \[3; 1.2.10\] we have that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \text{grade}(M,N)& =inf\{0ptN_𝔭|𝔭\text{Supp}M\}\hfill \\ & =inf\{0ptN_𝔭|𝔭\text{Supp}M\text{Supp}N\}.\hfill \end{array}$$

The second equality holds because the depth of the zero module is defined to be infinite.

Proposition 1.2 \[9; Theorem 2.1\] the following inequalities hold:

> (a) $`0ptN\text{dim}M\text{grade}(M,N)`$
>
> (b) If $`\text{Supp}M\text{Supp}N`$ then $`\text{grade}(M,N)\text{dim}N\text{dim}M`$

For a finite $`R`$–module $`M`$ of finite projective dimension, the invariant $`\text{imp}M`$, imperfection of $`M`$, is defined to be $`\text{proj.dim}M\text{grade}M`$. This is, using Auslander–Buchsbaum equality, equal to $`0ptR0ptM\text{grade}M`$.

Definition 1.3 For finite $`R`$–modules $`M`$ and $`N`$ (which may have infinite projective dimensions) we define $`\text{imp}(M,N)=0ptN0ptM\text{grade}(M,N)`$ (This may be negative).

It is clear that if $`\text{proj.dim}M<\mathrm{}`$, then $`\text{imp}M=\text{imp}(M,R)`$.
By $`\text{cmd}M`$ we mean the difference $`\text{dim}M0ptM`$.

Proposition 1.4 The following inequalities hold:

> (a) $`\text{imp}(M,N)\text{cmd}M`$
>
> (b) If $`\text{Supp}M\text{Supp}N`$, then $`\text{cmd}M\text{imp}(M,N)+\text{cmd}N`$.

Proof. This is clear from Proposition 1.2 and the definition.

### Corollary 1.5

Let $`N`$ be a Cohen–Macaulay $`R`$–module and $`\text{Supp}M\text{Supp}N`$. Then $`\text{cmd}M=\text{imp}(M,N)`$; in particular the module $`M`$ is a Cohen–Macaulay module if and only if $`\text{imp}(M,N)=0`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

(T1) says that over a Cohen–Macaulay local ring $`R`$, the $`R`$–module $`M`$ with finite projective dimension is Cohen–Macaulay if $`\text{Ext}_R^i(M,R)=0`$ for $`i\text{proj.dim}M`$. The following corollary is a generalization of (T1).

Corollary 1.6 Let $`N`$ be a Cohen–Macaulay $`R`$–module with $`0ptN=0ptR`$. Let $`M`$ have finite projective dimension and $`\text{Supp}M\text{Supp}N`$. Then $`M`$ is Cohen–Macaulay if and only if $`\text{Ext}_R^i(M,N)=0`$ for $`i\text{proj.dim}M`$.

Proof. Note that $`\text{proj.dim}M=sup\{i|\text{Ext}_R^i(M,N)0\text{for any}N\}`$, cf.  and so it is always greater than or equal to $`\text{grade}(M,N)`$.

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \text{imp}(M,N)& =0ptN0ptM\text{grade}(M,N)\hfill \\ & =0ptR0ptM\text{grade}(M,N)\hfill \\ & =\text{proj.dim}M\text{grade}(M,N)\hfill \end{array}$$

Now the claim is clear from Corollary 1.5 . $`\mathrm{}`$

Recall that a finite $`R`$–module $`M`$ with finite projective dimension is called perfect if $`\text{proj.dim}M=\text{grade}M`$.

Definition 1.7 Let $`M`$ and $`N`$ be $`R`$–modules with $`\text{proj.dim}M<\mathrm{}`$. We say that $`M`$ is $`N`$-perfect if $`\text{proj.dim}M=\text{grade}(M,N)`$.

In the proof of the following statements we use the well–known result:

(T2) Let $`M`$ and $`N`$ be finite $`R`$–modules with $`\text{proj.dim}M<\mathrm{}`$. If $`\text{Tor}_i^R(M,N)=0`$ for all $`i>0`$, then we have the equality $`0ptM_RN=0ptN\text{proj.dim}M`$.

Theorem 1.8 Let $`N`$ be a Cohen–Macaulay $`R`$–module and let $`M`$ be an $`R`$–module with finite projective dimension. If $`\text{Tor}_i^R(M,N)=0`$ for all $`i>0`$, then $`M_RN`$ is Cohen–Macaulay if and only if $`M`$ is $`N`$–perfect.

Proof. We claim that $`M`$ is $`N`$–perfect if and only if $`\text{imp}(M_RN,N)=0`$, and then the assertion will be clear from Corollary 1.5 . We know that $`0ptM_RN=0ptN\text{proj.dim}M`$. On the other hand

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \text{grade}(M_RN,N)& =inf\{0ptN_𝔭|𝔭\text{Supp}M_RN\}\hfill \\ & =inf\{0ptN_𝔭|p\text{Supp}M\text{Supp}N\}\hfill \\ & =\text{grade}(M,N).\hfill \end{array}$$

Then we have the equality $`\text{imp}(M_RN,N)=\text{proj.dim}M\text{grade}(M,N)`$, which proves our claim. $`\mathrm{}`$

Now \[10; 2.4\] can be deduced from the above theorem, for when $`N`$ is maximal Cohen–Macaulay and $`\text{proj.dim}M<\mathrm{}`$ by \[10; 2.2\] we have that $`\text{Tor}_i^R(M,N)=0`$ for all $`i>0`$. For every $`𝔭\text{Supp}N`$, the $`R_𝔭`$–module $`N_𝔭`$ is maximal Cohen–Macaulay module and, then $`0ptN_𝔭=\text{dim}R_𝔭0ptR_𝔭`$ and hence we have inequalities

$$\text{grade}M\text{grade}(M,N)\text{proj.dim}M.$$

This means that every perfect module is $`N`$–perfect.

Definition 1.9 A finite $`R`$–module $`N`$ is said to be of Gorenstein dimension zero, $`\text{G–dim}N=0`$, if and only if

> (a) $`\text{Ext}_R^i(N,R)=0`$ for $`i>0`$.
>
> (b) $`\text{Ext}_R^i(\text{Hom}_R(N,R),R)=0`$ for $`i>0`$.
>
> (c) The canonical map $`N\text{Hom}_R(\text{Hom}_R(N,R),R)`$ is an isomorphism.

For a non–negative integer $`n`$, the $`R`$–module $`N`$ is said to be of Gorenstein dimension at most $`n`$, if and only if there exists an exact sequence

$$0G_nG_{n1}\mathrm{}G_0N0$$

where $`\text{G–dim}G_i=0`$ for $`0in`$. If such a sequence does not exist then $`\text{G–dim}N=\mathrm{}`$.

Lemma 1.10 \[2; 3.7, 3.14, and 4.12\] If $`\text{G–dim}M<\mathrm{}`$ then the following hold:

> (a) $`\text{G–dim}M+0ptM=0ptR`$.
>
> (b) $`\text{G–dim}M=sup\{t|\text{Ext}_R^t(M,R)0\}.`$
>
> (c) $`\text{Tor}_i^R(M,P)=0`$ for all $`i>\text{G–dim}M`$ and all modules $`P`$ with finite projective dimension.

The following theorem improves Kawasaki’s result \[5; 3.3(i)\].

Theorem 1.11 Let $`R`$ be a Cohen–Macaulay local ring and let $`K`$ be a canonical module of $`R`$. If $`M`$ is an $`R`$–module with finite Gorenstein dimension, then $`M_RN`$ is Cohen–Macaulay if and only if $`M`$ is Cohen–Macaulay.

Proof. Proposition \[4; 2.5\] says that $`\text{Tor}_i^R(M,K)=0`$ for $`i>0`$, and then since injective dimension of $`K`$ is finite we have that $`0ptM_RK=0ptK\text{G–dim}M`$, cf. \[8; 2.13\]. Then $`\text{imp}(M_RK,K)=\text{G–dim}K\text{grade}(M_RK,K)`$. Since $`\text{Supp}K=\text{Spec}R`$ we have that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \text{grade}(M_RK,K)& =inf\{0ptK_𝔭|𝔭\text{Supp}MK\}\hfill \\ & =inf\{0ptK_𝔭|𝔭\text{Supp}M\}\hfill \end{array}$$

But since $`0ptK_𝔭=0ptR_𝔭`$ for all $`𝔭\text{Supp}K=\text{Spec}R`$ we have that $`\text{grade}(M_RK,K)=\text{grade}M`$. The claim of the theorem is now clear from Corollary 1.5 and the fact that over a Cohen–Macaulay local ring $`R`$, the $`R`$–module $`M`$ with $`\text{G–dim}M<\mathrm{}`$ is Cohen–Macaulay if and only if $`\text{grade}M=\text{G–dim}M`$, cf. . $`\mathrm{}`$

## 2. Serre Conditions.

First recall that for a non–negative integer $`n`$, we say that a finite $`R`$–module $`M`$ satisfies Serre’s condition $`(S_n)`$ if $`0ptM_𝔭\mathrm{min}(n,\text{dim}M_𝔭)`$ for every $`𝔭\text{Supp}M`$ or equivalently if $`M_𝔭`$ is a Cohen–Macaulay $`R_𝔭`$-module for every $`𝔭\text{Supp}M`$ such that $`0ptM_𝔭<n`$.

We also recall the intersection theorem:

(T3) Let $`M`$ and $`N`$ be finite $`R`$–modules with $`\text{proj.dim}M<\mathrm{}`$. We have the inequality $`\text{dim}N\text{proj.dim}M+\text{dim}(M_RN)`$.

Theorem 2.1 Let $`N`$ be a finite $`R`$–module which satisfies $`(S_n)`$. Let $`M`$ be an $`N`$-perfect $`R`$–module with $`t=\text{proj.dim}Mn`$, such that $`\text{Tor}_i^R(M,N)=0`$ for $`i>0`$. Then $`M_RN`$ satisfies $`(S_{nt})`$.

Proof. For every $`𝔭\text{Supp}(M_RN)`$ it is clear that

$$\text{grade}(M,N)\text{grade}(M_𝔭,N_𝔭)\text{proj.dim}M_𝔭\text{proj.dim}M=t.$$

Since $`M`$ is $`N`$–perfect, $`M_𝔭`$ is $`N_𝔭`$–perfect with $`\text{proj.dim}M_𝔭=t`$. From Proposition 1.2 we have that $`t=\text{grade}(M_𝔭,N_𝔭)=\text{grade}((M_RN)_𝔭,N_𝔭)\text{dim}N_𝔭\text{dim}(M_RN)_𝔭`$.

On the other hand from the fact that $`N`$ satisfies $`(S_n)`$ we have the following inequality:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0pt(M_RN)_𝔭& =0pt(M_𝔭_{R_𝔭}N_𝔭)\hfill \\ & =0ptN_𝔭\text{proj.dim}M_𝔭\hfill \\ & =0ptN_𝔭t\hfill \\ & =\mathrm{min}(n,\text{dim}N_𝔭)t\hfill \\ & =\mathrm{min}(nt,\text{dim}N_𝔭t)\hfill \end{array}$$

Now the assertion holds. $`\mathrm{}`$

Corollary 2.2 If $`R`$ satisfies $`(S_n)`$, then every perfect $`R`$–module with projective dimension $`t`$ (less than or equal to $`n`$) satisfies $`(S_{nt})`$.

It is well known that if a local ring admits a finite Cohen–Macaulay module with finite projective dimension, then the ring itself is Cohen–Macaulay.

In \[10; 4.1\] Yoshida has proved a more general statement, by replacing “being Cohen–Macaulay” with “satisfying Serre’s condition $`(S_n)`$”.

Our next two theorems improve those results by similar proofs. The Theorem 2.3 is a special case of the Theorem 2.4 , and the proof of it is only included because it is so simple.

Theorem 2.3 Let $`M`$ and $`N`$ be $`R`$–modules such that $`\text{Tor}_i^R(M,N)=0`$ for all $`i>0`$. If $`\text{proj.dim}M<\mathrm{}`$ and $`M_RN`$ is Cohen–Macaulay then so is $`N`$.

Proof. The intersection theorem (T3) gives the inequality:

$$\text{dim}N\text{dim}M_RN+\text{proj.dim}M$$

On the other hand (T2) gives the equality

$$0ptN=0ptM_RN+\text{proj.dim}M.$$

Since $`\text{dim}N0ptN`$, the assertion is clear. $`\mathrm{}`$

Theorem 2.4 Let $`M`$ and $`N`$ be $`R`$–modules such that $`\text{Tor}_i^R(M,N)=0`$ for all $`i>0`$. If $`\text{proj.dim}M<\mathrm{}`$ and $`M_RN`$ satisfies $`(S_n)`$, then so does $`N`$.

Proof. Choose $`𝔭\text{Supp}N`$. There are two cases:
The first case is when $`𝔭\text{Supp}M`$ and then $`𝔭\text{Supp}M_RN`$.

If $`0pt(M_RN)_𝔭<n`$ then $`(M_RN)_𝔭`$ is Cohen–Macaulay and by the Theorem 2.3 so is $`N_𝔭`$.

If $`0pt(M_RN)_𝔭n`$, then $`0ptN_𝔭n`$ because by (T2) $`0ptN_𝔭=0pt(M_RN)_𝔭+\text{proj.dim}M_𝔭`$. The second case is when $`𝔭\text{Supp}M`$. Let $`𝔮`$ be a minimal prime over the ideal $`(\text{Ann}M+𝔭)`$. From (T3) we have the inequality

$$\text{dim}R_𝔮/𝔭R_𝔮\text{proj.dim}M_𝔮+\text{dim}M_𝔮/𝔭M_𝔮=\text{proj.dim}M_𝔮.$$

Since $`𝔭R_𝔮\text{Supp}R_𝔮/𝔭R_𝔮`$ we have that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0ptN_𝔭& \text{grade}(R_𝔮/𝔭R_𝔮,N_𝔮)\hfill \\ & 0ptN_𝔮\text{dim}R_𝔮/𝔭R_𝔮(\mathrm{proposition1}.2)\hfill \\ & 0ptN_𝔮\text{proj.dim}M_𝔮\hfill \\ & =0ptM_𝔮_{R_𝔮}N_𝔮\hfill \end{array}$$

If $`0ptM_𝔮_{R_𝔮}N_𝔮<n`$, then $`M_𝔮_{R_𝔮}N_𝔮`$ is Cohen–Macaulay and from Theorem 2.3 we will have that $`N_𝔮`$ is Cohen–Macaulay, then so is $`N_𝔭(N_𝔮)_{𝔭R_𝔮}`$.

If $`0ptM_𝔮_{R_𝔮}N_𝔮n`$ then the above inequality guarantees that $`0ptN_𝔭n`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank the University of Tehran and the University of Copenhagen for the facilities offered during the preparation of this paper. Our thanks also to Professor Enochs, University of Kentucky and Professor Foxby, University of Copenhagen for their valuable comments on this paper.

References

* M. Auslander, Anneaux de Gorenstein et torsion en algèbre commutative, Séminaire d’algèbre commutative 1966/67, notes by M. Mangeney, C. Peskine and L. Szpiro, École Normale Supérieure de Jeunes Filles, Paris, 1967.
* M. Auslander and M. Bridger, Stable Module Theory, Memoris. Amer. Math. Soc., 94 (1969).
* W. Bruns and J. Herzog, Cohen-Macaulay rings, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1993).
* H.-B. Foxby, Gorenstein modules and related modules, Math. Scand. 31 (1972), 267-285.
* T. Kawasaki, Surjective-Buchsbaum modules over Cohen-Macaulay local rings, Math. Z., 218 (1995), 191-205.
* H. Matsumura, Commutative Ring Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1986).
* D. Rees, The grade of an ideal or module, Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc., 53 (1957), 28-42.
* S. Yassemi, G–dimension, Math. Scand., 77 (1995), 161–174.
* S. Yassemi, L. Khatami, and T. Sharif, Grade and Gorenstein dimension, to appear in Comm. Algebra.
* K. Yoshida, Tensor Products of perfect modules and maximal surjective Buchsbaum modules, J. Pure. appl. Algebra, 123 (1998), 313-326.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Many features of modern superstring theories can be deduced directly from considerations of their supersymmetry algebras . Most general among them is the M-theory $`N=1,d=11`$ superalgebra

$`\{Q,\overline{Q}\}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma ^\mu P_\mu +\gamma ^{\mu \nu }Z_{\mu \nu }+\gamma ^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho \sigma }Z_{\mu \nu \lambda \rho \sigma },`$ (1)
$`\mu ,\nu ,\mathrm{}`$ $`=`$ $`0,1,2,\mathrm{..10}.`$
(plus relations, including Lorentz generators) where Q is a Majorana spinor. We shall consider also the simpler analog in $`d=4`$, the $`N=1`$ supersymmetry algebra

$`\{Q,\overline{Q}\}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma ^\mu P_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\gamma ^{\mu \nu }Z_{\mu \nu },`$ (2)
$`\mu ,\nu ,\mathrm{}`$ $`=`$ $`0,1,2,3.`$
with Majorana $`Q`$.

Let’s construct one of the simplest (”particle”) representation of (2), i.e. the representation for which the vector $`P_\mu `$ is non-zero, and all tensorial charges are zero. At first steps of construction of (unitary) irreps for such an algebras one have to fix the values of all Casimirs, constructed from $`P_\mu ,Z_{\mu \nu },\mathrm{}`$, and take the particular point on that orbit. Let’s take the point $`P_\mu =(m,0,0,\mathrm{}),Z=0`$. The stabilizer (i.e. little group) of this point on the orbit is SO(3). The algebra (2) becomes, in a two-component notations (of e.g. :

$`\begin{array}{c}\{Q_A,\overline{Q}_{\dot{B}}\}=m\delta _{A\dot{B}}\\ \{Q_A,Q_B\}=0\\ \{\overline{Q}_{\dot{A}},\overline{Q}_{\dot{B}}\}=0\end{array}`$ (7)
where $`\overline{Q}_{\dot{A}}`$ is a Hermitian conjugate to $`Q_{\dot{A}}`$, so one of them can be considered as creation, and second one as annihilation operators. The representation of an algebra (7) can be constructed by taking a ”vacuum” $`|s>`$ in any unitary representation of SO(3) with spin $`s`$, which is annihilated by operators $`Q`$, then applying the creation operators $`\overline{Q}`$ as many times as possible, and finally inducing the representation to the whole super-Poincare group. So the whole supermultiplet before induction will be a collection of few irreducible representations of SO(3), transforming one into another under an action of $`Q,\overline{Q}`$. More exactly, $`Q,\overline{Q}`$ will transform states with integer spins into those with half-integer and vice-versa, because $`Q,\overline{Q}`$ itself have spin one-half. This is in agreement with spin-statistics connection at $`d=4`$, because $`Q,\overline{Q}`$ are fermionic and flip the statistics.

Algebra (7) is an algebra of $`2`$ pairs of fermionic creation-annihilation operators, so the number of states in the supermultiplet described is maximal: $`2^2`$, composed of $`2`$ fermions plus $`2`$ bosons.

The number of states becomes less in the so called shortened (BPS) supermultiplets, playing an important role in these theories. Their existence is based on a specific features of (1), (2) and similar superalgebras. For our model example (2) such a multiplet appears e.g. for $`P_\mu =(1,0,0,1),Z_{\mu \nu }=0`$, which corresponds to massless particle. Then (2) becomes

$`\begin{array}{c}\{Q_1,\overline{Q}_{\dot{1}}\}=2\\ \{Q_2,\overline{Q}_{\dot{2}}\}=0\\ \{Q_A,Q_B\}=0\\ \{\overline{Q}_{\dot{A}},\overline{Q}_{\dot{B}}\}=0\end{array}`$ (13)
The little group for this massless particle case is a semidirect product of $`SO(2)`$ on a group of two-dimensional translation, i.e. it is a two-dimensional Euclidean Poincare. Supercharge $`Q_1`$ has spin (helicity) 1/2 w.r.t. the SO(2) (which acts as multiplication by a phase factor on $`Q_1`$), so it is transforming half-integer helicity states into integer ones and vise-versa. Due to relations (13) the half of components of operator $`\overline{Q}`$ are represented by zero, so there is only one creation operator, the number of states is $`1+1`$, half of them fermionic, with half-integer helicity and another half bosonic, with integer helicity.

Another BPS multiplet appears for BPS membrane, i.e. the charges configuration $`P_\mu =(m,0,0,0)`$, $`Z_{12}=Z_{21}=m`$, other components of $`Z_{\mu \nu }`$ zero. Situation is similar to that of massless particle. The little group evidently is an $`SO(2)`$ group of rotations around $`z`$ axis. Non-zero $`Q`$ have a spin (helicity) $`\pm \frac{1}{2}`$ w.r.t. this little group, so states connected by $`Q`$ have helicities, differing by 1/2. These facts can be deduced from the main relation (2), which in this case acquire a form (in two-component notations, only non-zero relations are written):

$`\begin{array}{c}\{Q_A,\overline{Q}_{\dot{B}}\}=m\delta _{A\dot{B}}\\ \{Q_1,Q_2\}=mi\\ \{\overline{Q}_{\dot{1}},\overline{Q}_{\dot{2}}\}=mi\end{array}`$ (18)
The little group of rotation around $`z`$ axis, with generator $`\sigma ^{12}`$ (in notations of ), acts on a $`Q`$ spinors as multiplication on a phase factor for $`Q_1`$ and opposite phase factor multiplication for $`Q_2`$. Let’s introduce a combinations

$`\begin{array}{c}a=Q_2+i\overline{Q}_{\dot{1}}\\ \overline{a}=\overline{Q}_{\dot{2}}iQ_1\\ b=Q_2i\overline{Q}_{\dot{1}}\\ \overline{b}=\overline{Q}_{\dot{2}}+iQ_1\end{array}`$ (23)
It is easy to check using (18) that operators $`b,\overline{b}`$ anticommute with all $`Q`$ operators, and hence will be represented by zero matrixes. Operators $`a,\overline{a}`$ are usual fermionic creation-annihilation operators. Dimensionality of representation is 1+1. According to abovementioned properties of $`Q`$ under little group rotations, we see that operators $`a,\overline{a}`$ have a helicity $`\pm 1/2`$.

Taking different ”vacuums” $`|s>`$ with spin $`s`$ we shall obtain an irreps of susy algebra (23), which can be called ”BPS membranes with spins”. (One may ask for a Lagrangians for that branes. Recall that in similar situation for particles with spins one has to introduce an internal degrees of freedom, e.g. internal sphere $`S^2`$. One can expect something similar here, although we are not aware of any such considerations. Particularly, we don’t know classical solutions for supergravities, which can be identified with ”branes with spin”.)

The problem can be formulated at this stage. The usual spin-statistics theorem is derived for usual $`d=4`$ Poincare algebra, and claims that states with integer spins have a Bose statistics, and states with half-integer spins - Fermi one. In higher dimensions spin (or helicity)is substituted by some representation of little groups, which are of $`SO`$ type (more exactly, $`SO`$ groups are their compact part), and spin-statistics statement is that spin-tensor representations are fermionic and purely tensorial representations - of bosonic type. This can be deduced, particularly, by dimensional reduction, assuming that statistics is not being changed by that process. This is enough to describe spin-statistics connection for usual Poincare (super)algebras. The problem is that in the presence of brane charges the little groups, and representations of $`Q`$ with respect to these little groups can be different. In that case one have to generalize the statement of spin-statistics connection. So, the problem is: for all brane superalgebras (1), (2), etc., find out, for all (physical) orbits, the corresponding little groups and representations of $`Q`$ with respect to this little groups. Then one has to assign Fermi or Bose or both statistics to each of these representations. Actually situation certainly will be different in comparison with standard at $`d=4`$, in that it is possible, that the same representation of Poincare algebra can have both types of statistics, as we shall see below. This resembles the $`d=2`$ situation, when there is no spin, and the same Poincare algebra’s representations can have both statistics. The assignment of Fermi-Bose statistics has to be in agreement with the fermionic nature of $`Q`$, i.e. the fact that it is changing statistics. It is not clear now what kinds of little groups are possible in different dimensions.

## 2 N=1, d=4, 3/4 BPS Supermultiplet

Now we shall present a promised example at $`d=4`$, in which usual spin-statistics connection is not applicable. That is the BPS representation, maintaining maximal $`(n1)/n`$ supersymmetry, first described at $`d=4`$ in , and called preons in . Let’s take $`P_\mu `$ and $`Z_{\mu \nu }`$ such that $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }^iP_i+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ij}Z_{ij})_{\alpha \beta }=\lambda _\alpha \lambda _\beta `$. Then (2) becomes

$`\{Q_\alpha ,Q_\beta \}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _\alpha \lambda _\beta `$ (24)
$`\alpha ,\beta ,\mathrm{}`$ $`=`$ $`1,2,3,4.`$
This configuration satisfies positivity restriction, i.e. the eigenvalues of r.h.s. matrix are non-negative. For this orbit the algebra of little group is $`T^2`$, i.e. two-dimensional Abelian subalgebra of Lorentz algebra. We are interested what are the representations of non-zero $`Q`$-s w.r.t this algebra. Assuming that only first component of $`\lambda _\alpha `$ is non-zero we can construct the minimal representation of (24), by representing all component of $`Q`$ except first one by zero, and first one by two by two matrix. Then it is evident that Lorentz generators which leave $`\lambda _\alpha `$ invariant, will leave invariant $`Q_\alpha `$, also. Explicitly, in two-component notations, these statements look as follows. Anticommutators are

$`\begin{array}{c}\{Q_A,\overline{Q}_{\dot{B}}\}=\lambda _A\lambda _{\dot{B}}\\ \{Q_A,Q_B\}=\lambda _A\lambda _B\\ \{\overline{Q}_{\dot{A}},\overline{Q}_{\dot{B}}\}=\overline{\lambda }_{\dot{A}}\overline{\lambda }_{\dot{B}}\end{array}`$ (29)
Take for definiteness $`\lambda _A=(1,0)`$, then little algebra has two non-zero elements. Let $`\omega _{\mu \nu }M_{\mu \nu }`$ be the general element of Lorentz algebra, where $`M_{\mu \nu }`$ are generators. Then one element of little group has non-zero parameters $`\omega _{01}=\omega _{13}=\omega _{10}=\omega _{31}`$ only, another one $`\omega _{02}=\omega _{23}=\omega _{20}=\omega _{312}`$ only. These two elements are commuting with each other. So, little algebra is a two-dimensional Abelian algebra, which acts trivially on $`\lambda _A=(1,0)`$. Algebra (34) becomes (non-zero anticommutators only):

$`\begin{array}{c}\{Q_1,\overline{Q}_{\dot{1}}\}=1\\ \{Q_1,Q_1\}=1\\ \{\overline{Q}_{\dot{1}},\overline{Q}_{\dot{1}}\}=1\end{array}`$ (34)
Introducing combinations $`b=(Q_1+\overline{Q}_{\dot{1}})/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`b_1=(Q_1\overline{Q}_{\dot{1}})/\sqrt{2}`$, we see that $`b_1`$ commute with all $`Q`$-s and should be represented by zero matrix. Hermitian operator $`b`$ satisfies a relation

$`\begin{array}{c}\{b,b\}=2\end{array}`$ (37)
This algebra can be represented in two-dimensional space by taking $`b`$ as two by two antidiagonal matrix with non-zero elements equal to $`1`$. The dimensionality of representation is $`2=1+1`$. The difference with above representations for e.g. massless particle, is in that in this case we can choose representation real, with real dimensionality $`1+1`$. This is possible because operator $`b`$ is Hermitian and doesn’t change phase under little group transformation, as is the case for operators $`a,\overline{a}`$ for massless particle. So, as expected, in this case with $`3`$ supersymmetries surviving , the supermultiplet becomes even shorter than for massless particle or membrane.

Thus, for the orbit considered, the non-zero components of supercharge are neutral w.r.t. the corresponding little algebras. In other words, for any representation $`|s>`$ the $`b|s>`$ is the same representation of the little algebra. So, $`b`$ is not changing any ”spin”, but is changing the statistics, due to its fermionic nature. Evidently, this situation is similar to two dimensional one for usual Poincare algebra: both fermions and bosons are realizing the same representation.

## 3 Conclusion: Higher Dimensions, Geometric Quantization

These considerations evidently are applicable for all dimensions, provided r.h.s. of anticommutator of supercharges is of rank one, i.e. equal to $`\lambda _\alpha \lambda _\beta `$, which means that the maximum number of supersymmetries is maintained. In all that cases non-zero supercharges are neutral w.r.t. the algebra of little group, and hence members of these supermultiplets are in the same representation of generalized Poincare algebra. For other configurations of branes situation can be more complicated, as discussed above. Particularly, the list of possible little groups has to be derived. The rules for defining the statistics of different states (unitary irreps of these little groups) can be the following. First, one can try to define them directly. The most relevant seems to be the derivation  of spin-statistic relation in the framework of geometric quantization method, which doesn’t require features, absent in our case, such as brane’s quantum field theory. Instead, a consideration of Hamiltonian actions  of bosonic subalgebra of super Poincare groups (1), (2), etc, is required. Second, one can use reasonable assumption that statistics is not changing under dimensional reduction. Of course, for the cases with usual little groups, i.e. those for non-zero $`P_\mu `$ only, we can use usual spin-statistics relation. Combination of these approaches should permit one to find all possible spin-statistics relations for unitary irreps of generalized Poincare algebras.

## 4 Acknowledgements

This work is supported partially by INTAS grant #99-1-590. I’m indebted to R.Manvelyan for discussions.


text:
# Bipolar single-wall carbon nanotube field-effect transistor

## Abstract

We use a simultaneous flow of ethylene and hydrogen gases to grow single wall carbon nanotubes by chemical vapor deposition. Strong coupling to the gate is inferred from transport measurements for both metallic and semiconducting tubes. At low-temperatures, our samples act as single-electron transistors where the transport mechanism is mainly governed by Coulomb blockade. The measurements reveal very rich quantized energy level spectra spanning from valence to conduction band. The Coulomb diamonds have similar addition energies on both sides of the semiconducting gap. Signatures of subbands population has been observed.

carbon nanotubes,electric transport,quantum dots

Single wall carbon nanotubes (SWNTs) are chemically derived self-assembled solid molecules with fascinating electronic properties Dresselhaus . Their rich variety of band structure (metallic, semiconductor) might revolutionize nano-electronics. Recently, not only an extensive spectrum of quantum phenomena have been demonstrated with SWNTs Dekker1 ; Dai2 ; mcuene1 ; Liang , but they have also been used as functional electronic devices in the form of field effect transistors (FETs) Tans1 ; Martel1 . The as-grown SWNT FETs were found to be unipolar p-type, i.e. no electrical current flows even at large positive gate voltages. The p-type nature of nanotubes (NTs) has been attributed to charge transfer caused by either oxidizing molecules adsorbed to the NTs Dai1 , or the difference in workfunctions between NTs and metallic contacts (mostly Au) Tans1 . The unipolarity, on the other hand, has been attributed to the presence of Schottky barriers at the metal-nanotube contacts Park . Though as-grown SWNTs are p-type, n-type unipolar conductance has been demonstrated by either chemical doping Bockrath  or an annealing treatment in an inert environment Radosavljevic . It remains, however, challenging to realize bipolar SWNT FETs which operate without any additional treatment and use conventional back-gating. Bipolar SWNT FETs has been demonstrated on large-diameter SWNTs Javey , and recently also on small-diameter SWNTs by using strong-coupling gates Bachtold . Here we report on electronic transport measurements on as grown SWNTs which show bipolar FETs action.

SWNTs are synthesized by chemical vapor deposition (CVD) following the method of Hafner et al. Hafner1 . In all our studies we used SWNTs having diameters of $`2`$ nm or less, as inferred from AFM height measurements. Our devices are prepared on highly doped ($`<`$ 0.02 $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$cm) and thermally oxidized ($`400`$ nm) Si wafers. The substrate is used as back gate in electrical measurements of the final devices which are obtained as follows: The substrate is covered with a layer of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) in which windows are patterned by electron beam lithography. Then, a catalyst suspension consisting of $`1`$ mg iron nitrate seeds (Fe(NO3)3) dissolved in 10 ml of isopropanol is poured into the predefined trenches. The PMMA is then removed in acetone, leaving isolated catalyst islands ($`5\times 10`$$`\mu m^2`$) on the surface. The CVD growth is performed in a quartz-tube furnace at $`800`$C and atmospheric pressure using a gas mixture of ethylene, hydrogen and argon with respective flow rates of $`2`$, $`400`$, and $`600`$ cm3/min. During heating and cooling of the furnace, the quartz tube is continually flashed with argon to avoid contamination of the tubes. The as-grown SWNTs are then contacted in a conventional lift-off process with two metal electrodes per SWNT, spaced $`1`$$`\mu `$m apart. As electrode material Ti/Au bilayer is used, leading to contact resistances of $`40`$ k$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ at room temperature. Figure 1a illustrates schematically a SWNT device. An atomic force microscopy (AFM) picture is displayed in figure 1b. The diameter of the nanotubes is determined from the measured height using AFM in tapping mode.

Once the samples are made, semiconducting and metallic tubes are distinguished by the dependence of their electrical conductance $`G`$ on the gate voltage $`V_g`$, measured in a wide temperature range of $`0.3\mathrm{}300`$ K. Figure 2 shows $`G(V_g)`$ for a semiconducting SWNT at moderate temperatures of $`T=40`$ and $`60`$ K. Starting from $`V_g=10`$ V, $`G`$ decreases with increasing $`V_g`$ indicating p-type behavior, while above $`V_g4`$ V $`G`$ increases indicating n-type behavior. In between these two regions the conductance is low, which suggests carrier depletion. This low conductance region corresponds therefore to the gap. The charge-neutrality point for this sample lies at $`V_g=2.5`$ V. Taking the respective capacitances into account (see below), this corresponds to a Fermi energy of $`E_F=0.5`$ eV. In general, charge-neutrality points vary between $`E_F=0.5`$ eV and $`0.5`$ eV.

Our finding demonstrates that the SWNT devices are bipolar transistors. Taking a linear approximation for $`G(V_g)`$ (dashed lines in figure 2), we obtain a relatively high average carrier mobility of $`\mu 800`$ cm2/Vs.

$`G(V_g)`$ is not strictly linear, but shows several pronounced humps (see arrows in figure 2) which we attribute to van Hove singularities (VHS) in the $`1`$-dimensional (1D) density-of-states (DOS). Conductance peaks are expected, if the contacts couple weakly to the NTs (tunnelling contacts) and if the band structure of the NT can rigidly move while sweeping $`V_g`$. The measured low conductance $`10^3\times 2e^2/h`$ of this device is in favor of tunnelling contacts. The observed humps in $`G(V_g)`$ are separated by $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_g2`$ V. This relates to an energy interval of $`0.4`$ eV. The VHS are smeared and do not appear symmetrically with respect to the semiconducting gap. We attribute this to defects which modify the band structure, resulting in a broadening of the VHS.

We now turn to low-temperature measurements $`T4`$ K. Figure 3 shows $`G(V_g)`$ and a greyscale representation (inset) of the differential conductance $`dI/dV`$ as a function of $`V_g`$ and applied transport voltage $`V_{sd}`$ of a SWNT device at $`T=2`$ K. The large white zone in the middle of the greyscale plot corresponds to a non conducting region related to the semiconducting gap (SG). The drawn thick lines at the edges are guides to the eye. Their vertical extensions intersect around $`V_{sd}0.6`$ eV, which is a direct estimate of the gap energy. On both sides of the SG Coulomb blockade diamonds (CBD) of varying size are observed (we refer to the term ‘diamond’, although the blockade region is not composed of a series of neat diamonds). Though the addition energy $`E_{add}`$ is seen to fluctuate in between $`2.5`$ and $`20`$ meV, there is a general trend, indicated by the thin curved lines. Close to the gap $`E_{add}`$ is large and decays to smaller value for lower (higher) $`V_g`$ on the p (n) side. As a reference we expect $`E_{add}4`$ meV for an undisturbed $`1`$$`\mu `$m long SWNT. Because $`E_{add}`$ is determined by the sum of the single-electron charging energy $`U_c`$ and the $`0`$D level spacing $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, $`U_c`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ must depend on $`V_g`$, at least in the vicinity of the SG. This is not expected for an ideal (defect-free) semiconducting NT for the following reason: At the onset of the conduction or valence band, the $`1`$D DOS is expected to be very large (VHS), since the band dispersion is parabolic to first approximation. If the nanotube can be considered a single quantum dot extending from one contact to the other, the $`0`$D level spacing should be very small, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=0`$ to first approximation. Provided the added charge can spread homogeneously along the whole tube, a constant charging energy $`U_c`$ is expected. Hence, we would expect a constant addition energy in case of an ideal defect-free tube. The observed discrepancy can be resolved if (weak) disorder is taken into account. Disorder will distribute the states over some energy interval leading to the observed broadening of the VHS. Moreover, this results in a smooth onset of the DOS and consequently in a relatively large $`0`$D level-spacing. Disorder also (partially) localizes the wavefunctions, leading to both increased $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ and $`U_c`$.

Next we focus on the region far away from the SG where ideally the $`0`$D wavefunctions are extended, i.e. one quantum dot (QD), and where the constant interaction model should yield a good approximation to single-electron charging effects. The charging energy is then given by the capacitances determined by the geometry of the device. Figure 4 presents three greyscale plots of the differential conductance $`dI/dV`$, 4a and b for one semiconducting NT and 4c for another metallic NT with identical contact spacing. The latter is shown as reference. Figure 4a and b correspond to conduction in the p and n region, respectively. Both have been measured around $`|V_g|10`$ V corresponding to $`1000`$ added carriers.us1  If we compare with our metallic reference, the Coulomb blockade (CB) diamonds are less regular in the semiconducting case. Importantly, however, they are similar in all respects on the n and p side. The irregularity of the CB and the fact that the gap most often does not close implies that the NT does not act as a single QD. The low maximum conductance of $`0.025`$$`e^2/h`$ observed in the linear conductance in figure 3 supports this finding. Based on the maximum $`E_{add}`$, three QD’s is an upper limit. Hence, even at large gate voltage, defects are still effective in dividing the tube into smaller segments. The CB-pattern on the n-side seems to show a beating pattern repeating after $`67`$ added charges. A strong beating pattern on the n-side has been observed before Park  and has been attributed to the formation of a small quantum dot in the vicinity of one of the contacts. Since the metal contact has a larger workfunction than the NT, p-doping is expected at the contacts. If this charge transfer is large enough a p-type metal-insulator-semiconductor contact arises. As the p-type puddle is well buried below the contacts it possibly cannot be depleted by the gate whose field is screened by the contacts. Then, the p-type puddle remains even if the bulk NT is n-type.

The analysis of CB diamonds permits to extract the factor $`\alpha `$ Beenakker  which measures the effectiveness of the coupling capacitance between the tube and the gate, i.e., $`\alpha =C_g/C_\mathrm{\Sigma }=U_c/\mathrm{\Delta }V_g`$. Here, $`C_g`$ is the gate capacitance, $`C_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ the total capacitance (gate plus contacts), $`U_c=e^2/C_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ the charging energy, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_g`$ the single-electron period in gate voltage. We estimate the charging energy from the averaged value of the addition energy of a set of Coulomb diamonds. This results in $`U_c`$ 2.5 meV within a gate-voltage period of $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_g=12`$ meV, from which we deduce $`\alpha 0.2`$. Note, that this is a very high coupling effectiveness for a nanotube whose gate-electrode is as much as $`400`$ nm away! We take this coupling effectiveness to estimate the size of the semiconducting gap $`E_g`$ using the measurement of figure 2 or figure 3. The SG corresponds to a gate-voltage window of $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{ggap}45`$ V leading to $`E_{gap}=e\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }V_{ggap}=0.81.0`$ eV. This value is comparable to the one given above and is in fair agreement with the reported $`0.8`$ eV for a $`1`$ nm diameter SWNT Dekker2 . From $`\alpha `$ and $`U_c`$ we obtain for the capacitances $`C_g12.8`$ aF and $`C_\mathrm{\Sigma }60`$ aF. $`C_g`$ is in reasonable agreement with the estimated geometrical capacitance $`C_{geometry}=2\pi Lϵ_rϵ_0/ln[2L/d]`$ ($`L`$ and $`d`$ are the length and the radius of the nanotube, respectively), yielding $`29`$ aF. The factor of $`2`$ difference may originate from the partial screening by the contacts.

The value of $`\alpha `$ found here is one of the largest values reported so far Radosavljevic . As a reference to our study on semiconducting SWNTs, we have investigated metallic tubes of similar length too. Contrary to semiconducting NTs we observe regular Coulomb blockade diamonds in metallic SWNTs (see figure 4c). At the edges of each diamond, parallel and sharp lines are visible reflecting excited states of the nanotube quantum dots. The charging energy and the single electron level spacing are found to be $`3`$ meV and $`1`$ meV, respectively. The latter is in good agreement with the contact separation of $`L1`$$`\mu `$m. This strongly suggests, that metallic SWNTs behave like single quantum dots, unlike semiconducting SWNTs. In addition, the coupling to the gate shows the same large value of $`\alpha 0.20.3`$ and corroborate the universal aspect of the high gate effectiveness independent of the nature of the tubes. We think that the use of hydrogen during the CVD growth is of crucial importance. It passivates SiO2 dangling bonds and helps to reduce the number of charge traps in the substrate. Consequently, it leads to a better coupling of SWNT to the back-gate and therefore to bipolar action of the devices.

In conclusion, these experiments demonstrate that CVD-grown SWNTs can display a very high coupling efficiencies to a back gate without using any additional post-treatment. Due to the large coupling efficiency semiconducting SWNTs can be continuously gated from p to n-side and therefore act as bipolar FETs. At low-temperature, semiconducting SWNTs are strongly affected by disorder, which (partially) splits the tube in a couple of quantum dots. As the maximum number of dots is smaller than $`3`$ for our SWNTs with $`1`$$`\mu `$m contact separation, it appears that single quantum dots should be feasible for smaller contact separation.

###### Acknowledgements.

We acknowledge M.R. Buitelaar for fruitful discussions and T. Nussbaumer for technical assistance. This work is supported by COST (BBW), the NCCR on Nanoscience and the Swiss NFS.


text:
# High energy astrophysical neutrinos

## 1. Introduction

During111Talk given at IAU 8th Asian Pacific Regional Meeting, 2$``$5 July, 2002, Tokyo, Japan. nearly past 50 years, the empirical search for neutrinos has spanned roughly six orders of magnitude in energy, from approximately $`10^3`$ GeV up to approximately $`10^3`$ GeV. The lower energy edge corresponds to solar neutrinos, whereas the upper energy edge corresponds to atmospheric neutrinos. The intermediate energy range include the terrestrial and supernova neutrinos. This search has already given us remarkable insight into neutrino interaction properties as well as its intrinsic properties such as mixing and mass. Here, I briefly review the possibility of having neutrinos with energy greater than $`10^3`$ GeV. The upper energy edge for high energy astrophysical neutrinos is limited only by the concerned experiments. A main motivation to search for such high energy astrophysical neutrinos is to get more accurate information about the origin of observed high energy photons (and ultra high energy cosmic rays) that is presently not possible through conventional gamma ray astronomy. For instance, the observation of high energy gamma ray flux alone from active centers of nearby galaxies (AGNs) such as M 87 and distant sites of gamma ray bursts (GRBs) does not allow us to identify its origin in purely electromagnetic or purely hadronic interactions unambiguously. Sizable high energy astrophysical neutrino flux is expected if latter interactions are to play a dominant role. Search for high energy astrophysical neutrinos will thus provide us a complementary and yet unexplored view about some of the highest energy phenomenons occurring in the known universe. For a general introduction of the subject of high energy astrophysical neutrinos, see Bahcall & Halzen (1996), Protheroe (1999), Bahcall (2001). See, also Battiston (2002).

## 2. High energy astrophysical neutrinos

### 2.1. Production

The purely hadronic (such as $`pp`$ or $`pn`$) and photo hadronic (such as $`\gamma p`$ or $`\gamma n`$) interactions taking place in cosmos currently represent the main source interactions for the production of high energy astrophysical neutrinos. Examples of the astrophysical sites where these interactions (may) take place include our galaxy, the AGNs and the GRBs. In some model calculations for high energy astrophysical neutrino flux, the proton acceleration mechanism is considered to be the same as for electron acceleration at the astrophysical sites.

The accelerated protons in the above interactions in these sites produce unstable hadrons such as $`\pi ^\pm `$ and $`D_s^\pm `$ that decay into neutrinos of all three flavors. The same interactions also produce $`\pi ^0`$ that can contribute dominantly towards the observed high energy photons, whereas the escaping accelerated protons may (or may not) dominantly constitute the observed ultra high energy cosmic rays depending upon the finer details of the relevant astrophysical site. The absolute normalization of the high energy astrophysical neutrino flux is obtained by assuming that a certain fraction of the observed high energy photon flux has (purely) hadronic origin and (or) that the observed ultra high energy cosmic ray flux can dominantly originate from that class of astrophysical sites. Typically, the muon neutrino flux is twice the electron neutrino flux with essentially negligible tau neutrino flux at the production site. For a recent review article, see Halzen & Hooper (2002). High energy astrophysical neutrino production is in principle also conceivable in purely electromagnetic (such as $`\gamma \gamma `$) interactions taking place in cosmos, see Athar & Lin (2002).

The dedicated high energy neutrino detectors provide us a clue as well as a check for the absolute normalization of the high energy neutrino flux. For instance, the present upper bound from Antarctic Muon and Neutrino Detector Array (AMANDA) give value of $`9.810^6`$ cm-2 s-1 sr-1 GeV for absolute flux of diffuse high energy neutrinos for the energy range between $`510^3`$ GeV to $`310^5`$ GeV, see Ahrens et al. (2002). The AMANDA (B10) is at the south pole and its current upper bound is based on non observation. Its present cylindrical configuration searches for upward going high energy (muon) neutrinos covering the northern hemisphere with an effective area of $`0.01`$ km2 for (muon) neutrino energy $`10^4`$ GeV.

### 2.2. Propagation

With three light stable neutrinos, as suggested by standard model of particle physics, neutrino flavor mixing is a dominant effect during high energy astrophysical neutrino propagation, once they are produced, see Athar, Jeżabek, & Yasuda (2000). Since the average interstellar matter density is rather low, therefore the neutrino nucleon deep inelastic scattering (DIS) effects are usually negligible. These neutrinos thus restore the arrival direction and energy information starting from the production site. On the other hand, because of rather large unobstructed distances traversed by these neutrinos, typically greater than 1 pc, where 1 pc $`310^{18}`$ cm, the neutrino flavor mixing equally distribute the three neutrino flavors in the mixed high energy astrophysical neutrino flux. The present neutrino oscillation data implies that the deviations from these symmetric distributions are not more than a few percent. The absolute level of (downward going) high energy astrophysical electron neutrino flux, arriving at the detector, is essentially independent of the relative ratio at the production, as it is least effected by neutrino oscillations, see Athar & Lin (2001).

### 2.3. Prospects for observations

Typical high energy astrophysical neutrino observation can be achieved by attempting to observe the Cherenkov radiation from the associated charged leptons and/or showers produced in DIS occurring near or inside the detector. For simplicity, here I ignore a possible observational difference between neutrinos and anti neutrinos.

The mixed high energy astrophysical neutrino flux arrives at an earth based detector in three general directions. The downward going neutrinos do not cross any significant earth cord while reaching the detector. In Fig. 1, the downward going event rate for the three neutrino flavors is displayed under the

assumption of neutrino flavor mixing in units of yr-1 sr-1 as a function of minimum energy of the corresponding charged lepton produced in charged current DIS occurring near or inside the detector. The different levels and energy dependencies of the rates reflect the differences in the associated charged lepton ranges, in a large (under construction) km3 volume ice or water detector such as the proposed extension of AMANDA (B10), although as mentioned in the last subsection, the three neutrino flavors arrive at the detector in almost equal proportion. The contained $`e`$like event rate is obtained by rescaling the $`\mu `$like event rate for illustration. A diffuse AGN neutrino flux model is used here as an example where $`pp`$ interactions are considered to play an important role, see Szabo & Protheroe (1994). The event topology for each flavor can possibly be identified separately in km3 volume water or ice detector within the energy range shown in Fig. 1. For details, see Athar, Parente, & Zas (2000).

The near horizontal neutrino flux crosses a small earth cord before reaching the detector. Several proposals are under study to construct a specific detector for such type of neutrinos, see Hou & Huang (2002). The upward going neutrino flux crosses a significant earth cord before reaching the detector, and is therefore absorbed by the earth to a large extent for energy typically greater than 5$`10^4`$ GeV, see, for instance, Hettlage & Mannheim (2001). Above this energy, the earth diameter exceeds the charged current DIS length. In addition to attempting to measure the Cherenkov radiation, several other alternatives are also presently being explored. See, for instance, Chiba et al. (2001).

## 3. Conclusion

Several astrophysical sources such as center(s) of our as well as other nearby galaxies may produce high energy astrophysical neutrino flux with energy around or above $`10^4`$ GeV, compatible with the observed high energy gamma ray and ultra high energy cosmic ray flux above the atmospheric neutrino flux. This implies need for a more meaningful search.

The author thanks Physics Division of National Center for Theoretical Sciences for financial support.

## References

Ahrens et al. \[The AMANDA Collaboration\] 2002, arXiv:astro-ph/0206487

Athar, H., Jeżabek, M., & Yasuda, O. 2000, Phys. Rev. D, 62, 103007

Athar, H., Lin, G.-L. 2001, arXiv:hep-ph/0108204

Athar, H., Lin, G.-L. 2002, arXiv:hep-ph/0203265

Athar, H., Parente, G., & Zas, E. 2000, Phys. Rev. D, 62, 093010

Bahcall, J. N. 2001, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A, 16, 4955

Bahcall, J. N., Halzen, F. 1996, Phys. World, 9, 41

Battiston, R. 2002, arXiv:astro-ph/0208108

Chiba, M. et al. 2001 in AIP Conf. Proc. 579, Radio Detection of High Energy Particles, ed. D. Saltzberg & P. Gorham (New York: AIP), 204

Halzen, F., Hooper, D. 2002, Rept. Prog. Phys., 65, 1025

Hettlage, C., Mannheim, K. 2001, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl., 95, 165

Hou, G. W., Huang, M. A. 2002, arXiv:astro-ph/0204145

Protheroe, R. J. 1999, arXiv:astro-ph/9907374

Szabo, A. P., Protheroe, R. J. 1994, Astropart. Phys., 2, 375


text:
# Chiral extrapolation of light-light and heavy-light decay constants in unquenched QCD Talk presented by S. Hashimoto

## 1 Introduction

In the unquenched QCD simulations using the Hybrid Monte Carlo algorithm, the computational cost rapidly grows as the chiral limit of sea quark is approached. In practical simulations with Wilson-type fermions the sea quark mass is limited to be heavier than $`m_s/2`$. To obtain the physical results for $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks, therefore, the chiral extrapolation is indispensable.

In the chiral extrapolation the chiral perturbation theory (ChPT) may be used to decide the functional form, as it is an effective theory valid for low energy QCD. Once the available lattice data are confirmed to be consistent with ChPT, the extrapolation to the $`u`$ and $`d`$ quark masses using the ChPT formula is justified. The practical question is, then, whether the lattice results could reproduce the sea quark mass dependence, especially the chiral logarithm, predicted by ChPT.

In this talk, we present the sea quark mass dependence of the pseudoscalar meson decay constant obtained in unquenched QCD, and compare them with the one-loop ChPT prediction. The unquenched simulations are done using the standard gauge and nonperturbatively $`O(a)`$-improved fermion action at $`\beta `$ = 5.2 with sea quark masses corresponding to the pion mass in the range 550–1000 MeV. Further details of the simulation are discussed in a separate talk .

We also discuss the uncertainty associated with the chiral extrapolation taking light-light and heavy-light decay constants as examples.

## 2 Test of the ChPT formula

In full QCD the ChPT predicts a specific functional dependence of physical quantities on the quark mass, i.e. the chiral logarithm, at the one-loop order. For $`N_f`$ flavors of degenerate quarks with a mass $`m_S`$, the pseudoscalar meson decay constant $`f_{\mathrm{SS}}`$ is given by

$$\frac{f_{SS}}{f}=1\frac{N_f}{2}y_{\mathrm{SS}}\mathrm{ln}y_{\mathrm{SS}}+\frac{y_{\mathrm{SS}}}{2}[\alpha _5+N_f\alpha _4],$$
(1)
with $`y_{\mathrm{SS}}=2B_0m_S/(4\pi f)^2`$. While the low energy constants $`\alpha _i`$ are unknown parameters, the chiral log term $`y_{\mathrm{SS}}\mathrm{ln}y_{\mathrm{SS}}`$ appears with a definite coefficient depending only on the number of flavors.

Figure 1 shows the lattice results together with fitting curves. If we leave the coefficient of the chiral log term as a free parameter, the fit result is consistent with zero (solid line), while the fit with the fixed coefficient $`N_f/2`$ gives a bad $`\chi ^2/\mathrm{dof}`$ (dashed line). A similar observation is obtained for the PCAC relation $`M_{SS}^2/2m_S`$ .

Partially quenched ChPT  may be used to explicitly test the presence of the chiral logarithm. For non-degenerate pions composed of quarks with mass $`m_S`$ and $`m_V`$ ($`V`$ denotes a valence quark), the low energy constants cancel out in the double ratios

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\frac{M_{VS}^2}{m_V+m_S}\right)^2}{\frac{M_{SS}^2}{2m_S}\frac{M_{VV}^2}{2m_V}}}=1+{\displaystyle \frac{y_{SS}}{N_f}}t,`$ (2)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{f_{VS}}{\sqrt{f_{SS}f_{VV}}}}=1{\displaystyle \frac{y_{SS}}{4N_f}}t,`$ (3)
with $`t\mathrm{ln}(y_{VV}/y_{SS})+1(y_{VV}/y_{SS})`$, and only the chiral log terms remain. A parameter $`y_{SS}/N_f`$ obtained as a coefficient of $`t`$ in (2) and in (3) are plotted as a function of $`M_{SS}^2`$ in Figure 2. We find that the results are much smaller than the prediction of the partially quenched ChPT shown by a steep dashed line.

## 3 Uncertainty in the chiral extrapolation

Since the lattice data do not support the presence of the chiral logarithm for the sea quark masses used in the simulation, the chiral extrapolation using the one-loop ChPT formula is not fully justified. Instead, we consider several possible functional forms to approach the chiral limit and discuss their associated uncertainty.

Our observation suggests that the mass region where the chiral logarithm becomes important is around or below 500 MeV, and the ChPT ceases to converge above that scale. Then, a possible way to extrapolate the data including the effect of the chiral logarithm is to use a polynomial fit (quadratic fit, for example) above some energy scale $`\mu `$, and then switch to the one-loop ChPT formula below $`\mu `$. An example is shown in Figure 3 for $`\mu `$ = 300 and 500 MeV. The limit of $`\mu `$ = 0 MeV corresponds to the usual polynomial fit. Since the scale $`\mu `$ is unknown, the variation of several fit curves, about $`\pm `$ 10% in the chiral limit, should be taken as systematic uncertainty.

Another possible functional form suggested by the Adelaide-MIT group  is the one-loop ChPT with a hard momentum cutoff $`\mu `$. It amounts to replace the chiral log term $`m_\pi ^2\mathrm{ln}(m_\pi ^2/\mu ^2)`$ by $`m_\pi ^2\mathrm{ln}(m_\pi ^2/(m_\pi ^2+\mu ^2))`$. Changing the unknown “cutoff” scale $`\mu `$ from 0 to 1 GeV, we obtain the similar size of uncertainty in the chiral limit.

The SU(3) breaking ratio in the decay constant $`f_K/f_\pi `$ may be obtained with a fit to partially quenched lattice data. Our result from the above fit functions changes from 1.167(3) (quadratic fit, corresponding to $`\mu `$ = 0 MeV) or 1.190(3) (Adelaide-MIT fit, $`\mu `$ = 500 MeV) to 1.276(7) (chiral log plus quadratic, corresponding to $`\mu =\mathrm{}`$ MeV). Although it is clear that our two-flavor QCD result is significantly higher than the quenched result 1.081(5)(17)  and closer to the physical value 1.22, the uncertainty is still sizable.

For the heavy-light decay constant the prediction of ChPT is available in the heavy quark limit for quenched, partially quenched and full QCD . The chiral logarithm appears with a definite coefficient but including an additional coupling constant $`g`$ describing the $`B^{}B\pi `$ interaction. The chiral extrapolation of $`f_B`$ and $`f_{B_s}`$ including the chiral logarithm is shown in Figure 4 with two representative values of $`g`$. As in the pion decay constant, the uncertainty in the chiral limit is enhanced by the chiral logarithm.

The ratio $`f_{B_s}/f_B`$ is needed in the extraction of the CKM matrix element $`|V_{td}/V_{ts}|`$. Since the bulk of systematic errors cancels in the ratio, one may expect better accuracy than the determination of $`|V_{td}|`$ solely from $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_d`$. Our preliminary result varies from 1.24 (quadratic fit) to 1.38 (chiral log, $`g`$ = 0.59). It suggests that the ratio and its error can be significanly larger than the previous world average 1.16(4). Similar discussion, but using quenched data, has been made in .

## 4 Conclusions

The chiral logarithm expected from ChPT is not observed in the unquenched lattice data with $`m_{PS}`$ greater than about 500 MeV, which suggests that ChPT may only be applied in smaller mass regions. The estimate using model functions for the chiral extrapolation leads to the uncertainty as large as $`\pm `$10% for the decay constants.

This work is supported by the KEK Supercomputer project No. 79 (FY 2002), and also in part by the Grant-in-Aid of the Ministry of Education (Nos. 11640294, 12640253, 12740133, 13135204, 13640259, 13640260, 14046202, 14740173). N.Y. is supported by the JSPS Research Fellowship.


text:
# Surface Brightness Fluctuations: a theoretical point of view

## 1. Introduction

The SBF method is commonly used to derive accurate extragalactic distances (Tonry et al. 2001). The basic idea arises from the evidence that the spatial distribution of the light of nearby galaxies is “bumpy”, while in more distant ones it appears quite smooth. On CCD images of galaxies the level of bumpiness was quantified by Tonry & Schneider (1988) by defining the apparent SBF magnitudes $`\overline{m}=2.5log\overline{f}`$, where $`\overline{f}`$ is the ratio of the pixel to pixel flux variance to the average pixel flux. This value depends on the *number* and *kind* of unresolved stars actually “located” inside the pixels. Thus, if the absolute SBF magnitudes are evaluated by using a stellar population synthesis code (as we do), two major information on distant galaxies can be inferred: *i) the distance* and *ii) the stellar population properties*.

## 2. SBF magnitudes as distance indicator

On the basis of the stellar population synthesis code developed at the Teramo Observatory (Brocato et al. 2000), we computed new absolute SBF magnitudes (UBVRIJHK + HST bands). These predictions are compared to SBF measurements of objects with SBF-independent distance estimations. For a metal poor ($`Z0.01`$), old ($`t=15`$ Gyr) population, our models agree with available data of galactic globular clusters (Cantiello et al. 2002). To test models of metal rich populations, we select a sample of galaxies from the Tonry et al. (2001) database of $`\overline{I}`$ measurements. Fig. 1 shows the very good agreement between present models and some observed galaxies with distances derived by Cepheids or other distance indicators. This supports the reliability of our models and suggests the use of theoretical SBF magnitudes as *primary* indicators.

## 3. SBF magnitudes as stellar population tracers

The SBF signal is very sensitive to the most luminous stars in a stellar population. As a consequence all the evolutionary phases have to be properly considered in modeling SBF. The adopted population synthesis code is optimized to reproduce the details of the Color-Magnitude Diagram of star clusters. Thus, it is particularly reliable in providing theoretical SBF magnitudes and colors which can be used to infer the properties (like age and metallicity) of the stellar population dominating the integrated light of distant galaxies.

In particular, the $`\overline{I}\overline{K}`$ SBF color discloses a sizeable separation (i.e. larger than typical uncertainties) between populations with different chemical compositions and ages. This allows the evaluation of metallicity and age of the studied stellar population. When used together with the integrated color $`(VI)`$, the resulting two color diagram become a remarkable tool to investigate unresolved galaxies because it does not depend on their distances and appears to be very efficient in removing the problem of the age-metallicity degeneration (Cantiello et al. 2002).

## References

Brocato, E., Castellani, V., Poli & F., Raimondo, G. 2000, A&AS, 146, 91

Cantiello, M., Raimondo, G., Brocato, E. & Capaccioli, M. 2002, AJ submitted

Tonry, J.L., et al. 2001, ApJ, 546, 681

Tonry, J.L., & Schneider, D.P. 1988, AJ, 96, 807