text:
# The segregation of sheared binary fluids in the Bray-Humayun model

## I Introduction

The process of phase-separation occurring in binary systems quenched below the coexistence line has been matter of intensive investigations since many years. The overall phenomenology is nowadays reasonably well understood. In an early stage, whose properties depend on the system specific details, domains of the two phases form; the relative concentration of the two species well inside the domains quickly saturates to a value very similar to the equilibrium composition. Then a crossover leads to the late stage dynamics which is characterized by the growth of ordered regions of typical size $`L(t)`$ and by a statistically invariant morphology. This phenomenology is at the basis of the well known scaling property according to which a single length $`L(t)`$ is asymptotically relevant: system configurations at different times are simply related by a scale transformation with a scale factor $`L(t)`$. In particular, for the equal time density-density correlation function one has

$$G(\stackrel{}{r},t)=g\left[\frac{r}{L(t)}\right],$$
(1)
meaning precisely that $`G`$ is invariant as a function of scaled lengths $`r/L(t)`$. The growth of $`L(t)`$ is of the power law type $`L(t)t^{1/z}`$. The dynamic exponent $`z`$ depends on the specific microscopic mechanisms responsible for the segregation process; in general different dynamical regimes can be observed, characterized by different values of $`z`$, by changing the experimental time window . When the system enters the late stage the memory of the initial state is lost and, due to the presence of one single growing length, its properties become universal. Then the dynamical exponents, the scaling function $`g`$ and other observables become independent on the system specific details and are only determined by a few relevant parameters. Besides the spatial dimensionality, the presence of conservation laws is a relevant feature. For binary fluids, to which we restrict our attention, the concentration of the species is conserved as the phase-separation proceeds. The initial stage of the scaling regime, before hydrodynamic effects become relevant, is the subject of this paper. For viscous fluid this time window can be sufficiently wide to be detected experimentally. In this condition the phase-separation process is ruled by the evaporation, diffusion and subsequent recondensation of monomers  and the exponent $`z`$ is known to be $`3`$, independent on the space dimension $`d`$.

The spatial properties are encoded into the scaling function $`g(x)`$ or, equivalently, into its Fourier transform $`f(q)`$. For large $`q`$, $`f`$ has a power-law tail of the form $`q^{(d+1)}`$: This is the famous Porod’s law , long recognized as arising from sharp domains walls.

Another relevant parameter affecting the scaling properties is the number of components $`N`$ of the order parameter $`\varphi `$. For binary fluids $`\varphi `$ is a scalar field. Most of the analytical techniques developed to study the kinetics, among which the Bray-Humayun scheme that is considered throughout this article, are however suited for vectorial systems with large-$`N`$. Let us briefly discuss the main features of vectorial systems that will be recalled in this paper. For systems with a continuous symmetry, rotations of the order parameter on the $`𝒪(N)`$ symmetric manifold of the local ground state of the Hamiltonian, instead of evaporation and condensation, is the important growth mechanism. This changes $`z`$ to $`4`$, regardless both of $`d`$ and $`N`$ (apart from exceptional cases ). Concerning the large-$`q`$ behavior of $`f`$ a generalization of the Porod’s law, $`f(q)q^{(d+N)}`$ is obeyed  for $`Nd`$. This form relies on the existence of stable localized topological defects. Much less is known about the tails of $`f`$ when these defects are not present, for $`N>d`$. Numerical simulations  found a stretched-exponential decay $`f(q)\mathrm{exp}[q^\nu ]`$.

Despite this rather simple phenomenology the problem of deriving the scaling properties from first principles is still open. On the analytical side, the only soluble model  for conserved order parameter is the one with $`N=\mathrm{}`$. When considering this unphysical limit one hopes that the gross features of the kinetic process are retained for $`N=\mathrm{}`$ leaving further refinements to $`1/N`$ perturbation theories. However, although the global behavior of the $`N=\mathrm{}`$ model is qualitatively resemblant  of real systems, the scaling symmetry (1) is violated already at a qualitative level. The explicit solution of the model  shows in fact that instead of the standard scaling (1) one has a multiscaling symmetry produced by the existence of two logarithmically different lengths. Actually the ordering process with $`N=\mathrm{}`$ is more a condensation in momentum space , than a genuine phase-separation process. These results shadow the possibility to develop a successful theory of the segregation process by systematic $`1/N`$ expansions around the large-$`N`$ limit.

In this scenario a prominent role is played by a class of approximate theories known as gaussian auxiliary field theories, originally introduced by Mazenko . The essence of these is a non-linear mapping between the order parameter $`\varphi (\stackrel{}{x},t)`$ and an auxiliary field $`m(\stackrel{}{x},t)`$. The actual form of the relationship $`m(\varphi )`$ is largely arbitrary and, depending on different physically motivated choices, different schemes have been developed . The basic idea is that with a proper choice of $`m(\varphi )`$ the equation obeyed by the auxiliary field can be treated to lowest order in a mean-field approximation while the basic non-linearities of the evolution are still retained through the non-linear mapping $`m(\varphi )`$. This ad hoc assumption is generally uncontrolled and its use is justified a posteriori by the satisfactory quality of the predictions. Starting from the method of Mazenko, Bray and Humayun (BH) have derived  a non-linear closed equation of motion for the correlation function $`G(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ within the framework of the $`1/N`$ perturbative expansion. Letting $`N\mathrm{}`$ in the BH equation one recovers the large-$`N`$ model previously discussed; the BH approach, however, does not amount to a straightforward $`1/N`$-expansion because all orders in $`1/N`$ are reintroduced through the gaussian auxiliary field approximation. On one side, the uncontrolled character is the limit of the BH scheme, since it is not clear how to improve the approximation, but on the other side, represents a powerful tool to overcome the shortcomings of standard perturbation theory previously discussed. As shown by BH their equation reinstates standard scaling (1) as a truly asymptotic symmetry, leaving to multiscaling a merely pre-asymptotic role. An additional feature at variance with the $`N=\mathrm{}`$ limit is the form of the scaling function $`f(q)`$, which, in the BH approximation falls exponentially at large momenta, as opposed to the quartic exponential decay of the $`N=\mathrm{}`$ model.

In this paper we are interested in the diffusive phase separation process of a binary fluid in the presence of an applied shear flow, namely an imposed fluid velocity along $`x`$ with a constant gradient along $`y`$. The presence of the flow radically changes the behavior and even the phenomenology is much less understood. A first trivial effect is the anisotropic deformation of the growing pattern that appears greatly elongated along $`x`$ . Then, when dealing with growth laws one has to specify the length of the equilibrated regions for each direction, $`L_x(t),L_y(t),L_z(t)`$, and in general $`L_x(t)>>L_y(t),L_z(t)`$. A more subtle point, that may have important consequences, is the following: stretching of the domains causes ruptures of the network  that may render the segregation incomplete. Actually, the characteristic lengths in the different directions could keep on growing indefinitely, as without shear, or due to domains break-up the system may eventually enter a stationary state characterized by domains with a finite thickness. In general there is no agreement on this point both from the experimental  and theoretical point of view. On the theoretical side large-$`N`$ calculations  show the existence of a multiscaling regime with ever growing lengths in all directions. However numerical simulations  cannot still establish a clear evidence due to finite size and discretization effects. Another intriguing feature which is probably related to the stretching and break-up of the domains is the observation of an oscillatory pattern in the observables. Let us consider the excess viscosity $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta `$ as an example. Stretching of domains require work against surface tension leading to an increase of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta `$. However when a domain breaks up the stress is released since the fragments are more isotropic; this produces a decrease of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta `$. If repeated in time this mechanism produces an oscillatory pattern that is observed in simulations  and possibly in experiments . In the large-$`N`$ limit it can be shown that this process has a periodicity in $`\mathrm{log}t`$. Similar patterns are also reported in apparently different contexts as fractures in heterogeneous solids  or in stock market indices , suggesting a possible common underlying interpretation. However we do not have nowadays analytical tools to enlighten this feature.

The spatial properties of the mixture are encoded into the correlation function $`G(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ or, equivalently, into its Fourier transform $`C(\stackrel{}{k},t)`$, the structure factor. The latter is directly measured with scattering techniques and is more suited for comparison with the experiments. The form and the evolution of $`C`$ are themselves modified by the presence of the flow. When the shear becomes effective, after an initial isotropic regime where $`C`$ has the shape of a circular volcano, the tip of $`C`$ is deformed into an ellipses. This is expected as a consequence of the anisotropy, and is generally observed in experiments. In some cases the presence of four pronounced peaks on the edge of $`C`$ can be detected . The existence of these multiple maxima has been also observed in numerical studies  of phase separation and in different physical systems such as stationary microemulsion in shear flow , suggesting that this is a rather general feature of sheared fluids. A peak in the structure factor is generally interpreted as the signature of a characteristic length proportional to the inverse of the wavevector where the peak is located. In this anisotropic case to each peak one associates one typical length for each space direction. Taking into account the symmetry $`\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{k}`$ this suggests that a couple of characteristic lengths for each direction is present: It is not completely clear, however, to which extent this interpretation can be pushed.

In this partly unclear scenario the development of theoretical tools for reliable predictions to be tested in experiments is important. In the case without shear the BH scheme turns out to be a reference theory capable to describe the main ingredients of the phenomenology. Therefore in this paper we address a numerical solution of the BH equation in the presence of shear flow. We will compare its behavior with previous results pertaining to the large-$`N`$ limit or to numerical simulations of the fully non-linear scalar model. Our results confirm the occurrence of a scaling regime with growing lengths in every direction. The dynamical exponents are found to coincide with those of the $`N=\mathrm{}`$ model. The four peak pattern for the structure factor is exhibited, similarly to what observed both for $`N=\mathrm{}`$ and in the scalar model, the actual form of $`C`$ being, however, rather different in the three cases. Concerning the oscillating behavior of the typical lengths and of the excess viscosity, on the other hand, the BH model behaves quite differently, in that these are strongly inhibited or even absent, at variance with $`N=\mathrm{}`$ and $`N=1`$.

This paper is divided in 4 Sections: In Sec. II we introduce the BH equation and discuss some numerical details about its integration; in Sec. III the results of the numerical solution are presented and a comparison with different approaches is proposed. In Sec. IV we draw the conclusions of this work.

## II The model

We consider a system described by an order parameter with $`N`$ components. The evolution is described by the convection-diffusion equation  that generalizes the Cahn-Hilliard-Cook equation in the case of an applied velocity field $`\stackrel{}{v}`$

$$\frac{\varphi (\stackrel{}{x},t)}{t}+\stackrel{}{}\left[\varphi (\stackrel{}{x},t)\stackrel{}{v}(\stackrel{}{x},t)\right]=\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\frac{\delta \left(\{\varphi \}\right)}{\delta \varphi }+\eta (\stackrel{}{x},t)$$
(2)
where $`\varphi \{\varphi _\alpha \}`$ is the vector order parameter that in the scalar case represents the concentration difference between the two species of the fluid, $`\stackrel{}{x}\{x,y,z\}`$ is the space coordinate, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a transport coefficient and $`\eta `$ is a gaussian stochastic field with expectations

$`\eta (\stackrel{}{x},t)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (3)
$`\eta (\stackrel{}{x},t)\eta (\stackrel{}{x}^{},t^{})`$ $`=`$ $`2T\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\delta (\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}^{})\delta (tt^{})`$ (4)
describing thermal fluctuations. The symbol $`\mathrm{}`$ means an ensemble average. $``$ is the equilibrium Ginzburg-Landau free energy

$$(\{\varphi \})=𝑑\stackrel{}{x}\left[\frac{r}{2}\varphi ^2+\frac{g}{4N}\left(\varphi ^2\right)^2+\frac{u}{2}|\varphi |^2\right]$$
(5)
where $`\varphi ^2=_\alpha \varphi _\alpha \varphi _\alpha `$. The parameter $`r`$ distinguishes between the mixed state with $`r>r_c(T)`$ ($`r_c(T)<0`$) and the phase separated states with $`r<r_c(T)`$. For a plane shear flow the velocity term is given by

$$\stackrel{}{v}=\gamma y\stackrel{}{e}_x$$
(6)
where $`\stackrel{}{e}_x`$ is the unit vector in the flow direction $`x`$ and $`\gamma `$ is the shear rate.

In the approximation framework developed by BH  the following equation of motion can be derived for the equal time correlation function $`G(\stackrel{}{r},t)=\varphi _\alpha (\stackrel{}{x},t)\varphi _\alpha (\stackrel{}{x}+\stackrel{}{r},t)`$

$$\frac{G(\stackrel{}{r},t)}{t}+\gamma y\frac{G(\stackrel{}{r},t)}{x}=2^2\left\{^2G(\stackrel{}{r},t)R(t)\left[G(\stackrel{}{r},t)+\frac{1}{N}G^3(\stackrel{}{r},t)\right]\right\}$$
(7)
where we have dropped the component indices due to internal symmetry. In deriving Eq. (7) from Eq. (2) we have let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1`$ and $`u=1`$ since this simply amounts to a redefinition of time and space scales and we have neglected the thermal disturbance $`\eta `$ because it can be shown  that the temperature is an irrelevant parameter below the coexistence line. The quantity $`R(t)`$ is a function of time that is asymptotically determined by the requirement $`lim_t\mathrm{}G(0,t)=S_{eq}=r/g`$. Here we use the self-consistent determination of $`R(t)`$

$$R(t)=g[G(0,t)S_{eq}]$$
(8)
that is usually adopted . For $`N=\mathrm{}`$, namely dropping the cubic term on the r.h.s., Eq. (7) becomes the $`N=\mathrm{}`$ model.

We have considered the evolution of Eq. (7) with $`N=1`$. Some comments about the role of $`N`$ are in order. Eq. (7) is derived in an $`1/N`$ perturbative framework. Then, in principle, the quality of the approximation is expected to be better for large $`N`$ and, in any case, this whole approach is meaningful for vectorial systems with continuous symmetry. Given that the nature of the symmetry is relevant for the scaling properties, as discussed in Sec. I, one cannot pretend to push this scheme down to the physically relevant case with $`N=1`$ in a completely successful way. However, besides numerical simulation that are quite difficult and not particularly instructive in this case, most of the understanding of phase separation with shear comes nowadays from the $`N=\mathrm{}`$ model, which surely suffers of much more profound shortcomings than the present approach, if used to infer the properties of physical systems. The BH scheme represents a first step beyond $`N=\mathrm{}`$, despite of course being not conclusive. It must be recalled, moreover, that at least without shear the BH equation substantially reproduces the behavior of the system with $`N=\mathrm{}`$, including multiscaling, in a preasymptotic time domain $`t<t^{}(N)(\mathrm{\Delta }N)^{4/d}(\mathrm{ln}N)^3`$ after which the cubic correction in Eq. (7) becomes effective . The choice $`N=1`$, besides being appropriate for physical systems, is also the most efficient in order to amplify as much as possible the role of finite-$`N`$ corrections, given the limited timescale numerically accessible.

Eq. (7) have been solved on a two dimensional lattice of size $`L=4096`$, the lattice constant being $`\mathrm{\Delta }x=1`$, via a finite difference first order Euler scheme with $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=0.01`$. Periodic boundary conditions have been adopted. The initial condition $`G(\stackrel{}{r},0)=\mathrm{\Delta }\delta (\stackrel{}{r})`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ being a constant, corresponds to a quench from an equilibrium state at infinite temperature. The parameter of the free energy we use are $`r=g=1`$; different choices correspond to a redefinition of the order parameter amplitude. We will present data relative to the case $`\gamma =0.01`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.01`$; we have tested that other choices produce similar results.

The structure factor $`C(\stackrel{}{k},t)=\widehat{\varphi }(\stackrel{}{k},t)\widehat{\varphi }(\stackrel{}{k},t)`$ obeys the equation

$$\frac{C(\stackrel{}{k},t)}{t}\gamma k_x\frac{C(\stackrel{}{k},t)}{k_y}=2k^2\left[k^2+R(t)\right]C(\stackrel{}{k},t)2\frac{k^2}{N}R(t)D(\stackrel{}{k},t)$$
(9)
where $`D(\stackrel{}{k},t)`$ is the Fourier transform of $`G^3(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$. Due to the structure of this Equation, however, it is more efficient to compute $`G`$ from Eq. (7) and to obtain $`C`$ by Fourier transform. From the knowledge of $`C`$ one can extract the characteristic lengths along $`x`$ and $`y`$ as

$`L_x(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝑑\stackrel{}{k}|k_x|C(\stackrel{}{k},t)}{𝑑\stackrel{}{k}C(\stackrel{}{k},t)}}\right)^1`$ (10)
$`L_y(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝑑\stackrel{}{k}|k_y|C(\stackrel{}{k},t)}{𝑑\stackrel{}{k}C(\stackrel{}{k},t)}}\right)^1`$ (11)
and rheological indicators such as the shear stress

$$\sigma _{xy}(t)=\frac{d\stackrel{}{k}}{(2\pi )^d}k_xk_yC(\stackrel{}{k},t)$$
(12)
For a steady flow the excess viscosity is defined in terms of the shear stress as $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta (t)=\gamma ^1\sigma _{xy}(t)`$.

## III results

The anisotropic character of the evolution, with the ordered regions aligning along the flow direction, is reflected in the behavior of the correlation function $`G`$, shown in Fig. (1). $`G`$ has a peak at $`\stackrel{}{r}=0`$ and is continuously stretched along the $`x`$-direction, assumining increasingly eccentric elliptical patterns.

Snapshots of the structure factor at the same times are shown in the $`k_x,k_y`$ plane in Fig. (2). Initially, not shown here, $`C`$ develops the form of a circular volcano, as in the case without shear. A later observation, at $`\gamma t=1`$, shows a deep in the volcano profile along the direction $`k_y=k_x`$. This deep becomes progressively more pronounced until $`C`$ appears separated into two symmetric foils. At times of order $`\gamma t=5`$ in each foil a couple of maxima are built up. We denote by the letter A the peak that in the figure at time $`\gamma t=5`$ is higher. With respect to the other maximum, denoted by B, A is characterized by having $`|k_x|>>|k_y|`$, whereas in B $`|k_x||k_y|`$. The relative height of these maxima changes in time. This is observable in Fig. (2) at time $`\gamma t=9`$: now B is prevailing.

Up to this time the qualitative evolution of the structure factor is comparable to what reported for $`N=\mathrm{}`$  and for the numerical solution  of the full model equation with $`N=1`$. Computer limitations prevent the observation of the system on longer times. Only in the $`N=\mathrm{}`$ case the dynamics can be followed by numerical integration of the equations on larger timescales and it can be shown that the repeated prevalence of either A or B maxima continues cyclically in time. It turns also out that the recurrent dominance of A and B is periodic in the logarithm of the strain $`\gamma t`$. A physical interpretation of this pattern in terms of stretching and break-up of domains is proposed in .

The spherical average

$$C_{sf}(k,t)=𝒩^1𝑑\theta C(\stackrel{}{k},t),$$
(13)
where $`\mathrm{tan}\theta =k_y/k_x`$ and $`𝒩`$ is the number of lattice points contained in a circular shell of width $`\pi /256`$ centered around $`k`$, and the averages along $`k_x`$ or $`k_y`$

$$C_x(k_y,t)=L^1𝑑k_xC(\stackrel{}{k},t)$$
(14)
and

$$C_y(k_x,t)=L^1𝑑k_yC(\stackrel{}{k},t)$$
(15)
are plotted in Fig. (3). This figure shows that in the large-$`\stackrel{}{k}`$ tail the structure factor decays exponentially, as already observed without imposed flow , at variance with the faster decay observed for $`N=\mathrm{}`$ . As already mentioned, the absence of power-law tails is related to the absence of stable localized topological defects in the Bray-Humayun approximation.

Next we consider the growth laws. For $`N=\mathrm{}`$, in the large time region  $`L_x`$ and $`L_y`$ keep increasing with (logarithmically corrected) power laws $`L_x\gamma (t^5/\mathrm{ln}t)^{1/4}`$, $`L_y(t/\mathrm{ln}t)^{1/4}`$ modulated by a log-periodic oscillation. The short time part of this pattern is observed in Fig. (4b). The same growth exponents are expected for the BH model (but without logarithmic corrections); this is because the model amounts to an $`1/N`$ perturbative expansion and, therefore, it is accurate for vectorial systems whose growth exponents belong to the same universality class of $`N=\mathrm{}`$. Actually the value of the exponents can be easily determined by means of a scaling analysis. If standard scaling holds the structure factor can be cast as

$$C(\stackrel{}{k},t)=L_x(t)L_y(t)f(X,Y)$$
(16)
where $`X=k_xL_x(t)`$ and $`Y=k_yL_y(t)`$ and $`f`$ is a scaling function. From (16) one also has

$$D(\stackrel{}{k},t)=bL_x(t)L_y(t)h(X,Y)$$
(17)
where $`b`$ is a constant and $`h`$ another scaling function. Inserting expressions (16,17) into the equation of motion of $`C`$ (9) and assuming that asymptotically $`L_x`$ prevails over $`L_y`$ one obtains

$`2Y^4f(X,Y)`$ $`=`$ $`2R(t)L_y(t)^2\left[f(X,Y)+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{N}}h(X,Y)\right]Y^2+{\displaystyle \frac{L_y(t)^5}{L_x(t)}}\gamma X{\displaystyle \frac{f(X,Y)}{Y}}`$ (18)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{dL_y(t)^4}{dt}}\left\{1+{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{d\left[\mathrm{ln}L_x(t)\right]}{dt}}{\frac{d\left[\mathrm{ln}L_y(t)\right]}{dt}}}\right\}`$ (19)
The l.h.s. of Eq. (19) does not depend explicitly either on time and $`\gamma `$. Then in order to fulfill this equation for each $`X,Y`$ both $`t`$ and $`\gamma `$ must drop out from the r.h.s. Then one has

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}L_x(t)\gamma t^{\frac{5}{4}}\hfill & \\ L_y(t)t^{\frac{1}{4}}\hfill & \\ R(t)t^{\frac{1}{2}}\hfill & \end{array}$$
(20)
As already anticipated the exponents are those pertaining to systems with continuous symmetry. Furthermore one can observe that the shear rate enters linearly in $`L_x`$ but the growth in the shear direction $`y`$ is unaffected by $`\gamma `$. For completeness we recall that in the full scalar model one expects different exponents, namely $`L_x\gamma t^{4/3}`$, $`L_yt^{1/3}`$ from scaling  or renormalization group  arguments, but these are not yet clearly observed in simulations. Moreover the very existence of an asymptotic scaling dynamics is debated in this case. Fig. (4a) shows that initially both $`L_x`$ and $`L_y`$ start growing with an exponent which is consistent with the value $`1/4`$ as in absence of shear. In this time regime the fluid essentially does not feel the presence of the flow, as already discussed for the structure factor. Then, starting from $`\gamma t0.5`$, $`L_y`$ keeps growing unexpectedly larger than $`L_x`$ untill at $`\gamma t2`$ it decreases. Up to this point the BH model roughly resembles the $`N=\mathrm{}`$ case, despite the fact that the overshoot of $`L_y`$ is much more pronounced in the latter case. Fig. (4c), instead, shows that the full scalar model behaves quite differently, with a pronounced decrease of $`L_y`$ in the range of times where in the other models a fast growth was observed. For longer times the asymptotic stage is entered. The numerical integration of the BH model presented insofar shows that Eq. (20) is obeyed but, at variance with the other two cases, the oscillatory pattern is absent or, at least, strongly depressed.

Now we turn to the discussion of Fig. (5) where the behavior of the excess viscosity is reported. In all the cases considered $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta `$ initially grows to a maximum, then falls negative and raises to a second maximum. This pattern has been observed also in experiments  and is referred to as double overshoot. After the second maximum the asymptotic stage is entered. On the basis of scaling arguments one expects that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta `$ scales as $`\gamma ^1`$ times the inverse of the typical volume $`L_xL_y`$ of the domains of the two species. Then $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta \gamma ^2t^{3/2}`$ for vector order parameter and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta \gamma ^2t^{5/3}`$ for the scalar model. The former exponent is observed in Fig. (5a) for the BH model, although in the very last part of the simulation. For $`N=\mathrm{}`$ the same exponent (with logarithmic corrections) has been exactly computed  and observed numerically on larger timescales, but modulated by log-time periodic oscillations . In the scalar case a definite exponent cannot be extracted from simulations, but the oscillations are observed.

## IV conclusions

In this Article we have considered the behavior of a binary fluid quenched below the mixing temperature in the presence of an applied shear flow. The description of this system has been carried out in the context of the continuum convection-diffusion equation based on the Ginzburg-Landau equilibrium free energy. The nature of our approach, which neglects hydrodynamic effects, limits the domain of applicability of the model to the diffusive regime which takes place at short times. We have studied this model in the approximation scheme introduced by Bray and Humayun. This amounts to an expansion in $`1/N`$ on top of the auxiliary field theory approximation originally introduced by Mazenko. A comparison is also presented with two different approaches: the $`N=\mathrm{}`$ limit and the full scalar model, which is the most appropriate for fluids. The first has the great advantage to be fully soluble analytically, al least in the large time domain, providing an unambiguous description. Furthermore it can be easily studied numerically from the instant of the quench onwards. However, besides the fact that the case $`N=\mathrm{}`$ is far from physical, it has also proved to violate the qualitative symmetry of standard scaling in favor of multiscaling, rendering this model insecure as an approximation to real systems. On the other hand the full scalar model is well suited for describing fluids but it cannot be studied analytically. Numerical simulations, although important, have not yet provided clear evidences of the basic phenomenology, due to technical limitations. The BH model is ideally located in between these two: It shares with the large-$`N`$ limit the property of being a closed equation for an observable, the correlation function, that is already an ensemble average. Then, even if one resorts in the end to a numerical solution, one still has the great advantage to avoid the average over a large number of realizations. Secondly, due to its perturbative character, it is believed to represent a step forward with respect to the case $`N=\mathrm{}`$. This statement has been proven to be correct at least without shear.

Given the essence of the BH scheme, one does not expect to obtain a fully reliable approximation to real systems with $`N=1`$. The spirit of this work is more to establish if and to which extent its phenomenology compares better to the numerical simulations of the physical model than to the case $`N=\mathrm{}`$. From the analysis of the behavior of the characteristic lengths and of the excess viscosity we can conclude that the BH model behaves more like the $`N=\mathrm{}`$ case with damped oscillations than like the full scalar model, despite that, with the choice $`N=1`$, the corrections to the case $`N=\mathrm{}`$ contained in Eq. (7) are effective almost from the beginning, as it is clear from Figs. (4,5). This is true not only for the value of the dynamic exponents, but also for the qualitative behavior of the typical lengths.

On the other hand, regarding the oscillating character of most observables, the BH model behaves rather differently from both $`N=\mathrm{}`$ and $`N=1`$ in that strong oscillations are observed in the latter two while they are practically absent in the former. Under this respect the BH model is atypical and cannot be regarded as a bridge between $`N=\mathrm{}`$ and $`N=1`$. It is possible that the BH scheme resembles more the behavior of vectorial system with a finite $`N`$ under shear, but this is a totally unexplored field.

Regarding the important issue of the existence of an asymptotic scaling regime characterized by ever growing lengths $`L_x,L_y`$, in the time range accessed in this work we do not see any saturation effect and both $`L_x`$ and $`L_y`$ keep firmly growing with the expected power laws. In the BH scheme, then, the presence of an asymptotic scaling regime is confirmed while a stationary state with domains of a finite thickness is not observed.

Acknowledgments

We warmly acknowledge Marco Zannetti for suggesting this study. F.C. and G.G. acknowledge partial support by the European TMR Network-Fractals Contract No. FMRXCT980183 and by INFM PRA-HOP 1999.


format: text

text:
# Status of the 𝑁^∗ Program at Jefferson Lab

## 1 Introduction

Resonance electroproduction has rich applications in nucleon structure studies at intermediate and large distances. Resonances play an important role in understanding the spin structure of the nucleon buli ; ioffe . More than 80% of the helicity-dependent integrated total photoabsorption cross section difference (GDH integral) is a result of the excitation of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$ buli ; mami . At $`Q^2`$= 1 GeV2 about 40% of the first moment $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^P(Q^2)=_0^1g_1(x,Q^2)𝑑x`$ for the proton is due to contributions of the resonance region at $`W<2`$GeV devita ; burkert\_trieste ; minehart . Conclusions regarding the nucleon spin structure for $`Q^2<2`$ GeV2 must therefore be regarded with some scepticism if contributions of baryon resonances are not taken into account.

The nucleon’s excitation spectrum has been explored mostly with pion beams. Many states, predicted in the standard quark model, have not been seen in these studies, possibly many of them decouple from the $`N\pi `$ channel koniuk . Electromagnetic interaction and measurement of multi-pion final states may then be the only way to study some of these states. While photoproduction is one way, electroproduction, though harder to measure, adds additional sensitivity due to the possibility of varying the photon virtuality.

Electroexcitation in the past was not considered a tool of baryon spectroscopy. CLAS is the first full acceptance instrument with sufficient resolution to measure exclusive electroproduction of mesons with the goal of studying the excitation of nucleon resonances in detail. The entire resonance mass region, a large range in the photon virtuality $`Q^2`$ can be studied, and many meson final states are measured simultaneously. Figure 1 shows the coverage in the invariant hadronic mass W and the missing mass $`M_X`$ for the process $`epepX`$ for a 4 GeV electron beam.

## 2 Quadrupole deformation of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$ and QCD

An interesting aspects of nucleon structure at low energies is a possible quadrupole deformation of the nucleon or its lowest excited state. In the interpretation of ref. buchmann  this would be evident in non-zero values of the quadrupole transition amplitudes $`E_{1+}`$ and $`S_{1+}`$ from the nucleon to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$. In models with $`SU(6)`$ spherical symmetry, this transition is simply due to a magnetic dipole $`M_{1+}`$ mediated by a spin flip from the $`J=\frac{1}{2}`$ nucleon ground state to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with $`J=\frac{3}{2}`$, giving $`E_{1+}=S_{1+}=0`$ . Non-zero values for $`E_{1+}`$ and $`S_{1+}`$ would indicate deformation. Dynamically such deformation may arise through interaction of the photon with the pion cloudsato ; yang  or through the one-gluon exchange mechanism koniuk . At asymptotic momentum transfer, a model-independent prediction of helicity conservation requires $`R_{EM}E_{1+}/M_{1+}+1`$. An interpretation of $`R_{EM}`$ in terms of a quadrupole deformation can therefore only be valid at low momentum transfer.

Results of the multipole analysis of the CLAS datakjoo  are shown in Fig.2, where data from previous experiments published after 1990 are included as well beck ; legs ; frolov . $`R_{EM}`$ remains negative and small throughout the $`Q^2`$ range. There are no indications that leading pQCD contributions are important as they would result in a rise of $`R_{EM}+1`$ carlson . $`R_{SM}`$ behaves quite differently. While it also remains negative, its magnitude is strongly rising with $`Q^2`$. The comparison with microscopic models, from relativized quark modelswarns ; aznaury , the chiral quark soliton modelsilva , and dynamical modelssato ; yang ; dmt  show that simultaneous description of both $`R_{EM}`$ and $`R_{SM}`$ is achieved by dynamical models that include the nucleon pion cloud, explicitly. This supports the claim that most of the quadrupole strength is due to meson effects which are not included in other models.

Ultimately, we want to come to a QCD description of these important nucleon structure quantities. At the time of this conference no lattice QCD calculations with sufficient accuracy were available to predict non-zero values for $`R_{EM}`$. This situation has changed very recently with a calculation of the $`R_{EM}`$ and $`R_{SM}`$ ratio in quenched and unquenched QCD in the $`Q^2`$ range of the CLAS resultsalexandrou . The full QCD results give $`R_{EM}`$ values more negative than in the quenched approximation showing the contribution of the pion cloud to be negative, and causing an oblate deformation of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$. The calculation at $`Q^2=0.52`$ GeV2 is in agreement with the CLAS data for $`R_{EM}`$ and $`R_{SM}`$.

While the new JLab data establish a new level of accuracy, improvements in statistics and the coverage of a larger $`Q^2`$ range are expected for the near future, and they must be complemented by a reduction of model dependencies in the analysis. This becomes increasingly important as the full QCD calculations get more precise, and calculations in a wide range of $`Q^2`$ may be forthcoming. It would be highly interesting to see if QCD calculations can describe the observed $`Q^2`$ evolution of $`R_{SM}`$.

Model dependencies in the analysis are largely due to our poor knowledge of the non-resonant terms, which become increasingly important at higher $`Q^2`$. The $`\sigma _{LT^{}}`$ response function, a longitudinal/transverse interference term is especially sensitive to non-resonant contributions if a strong resonance is present. $`\sigma _{LT^{}}`$ can be measured using a polarized electron beam in out-of-plane kinematics for the pion. Preliminary data on $`\sigma _{LT^{}}`$ from CLAS are shown in Fig. 3 in comparison with dynamical models, clearly showing the model sensitivity to non-resonant contributions. All models predict nearly the same unpolarized cross sections at the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ mass (upper panel for W = 1.22 GeV), however they differ in their handling of non-resonant contributions.

## 3 $`N^{}`$’s in the second resonance region

Three states, the “Roper” $`N_{1/2^+}^{}(1440)`$, and two strong negative parity states, $`N_{3/2^{}}^{}(1520)`$, and $`N_{1/2^{}}^{}(1535)`$ make up the second enhancement seen in inclusive electron scattering. All of these states are of special interest to obtain a better understanding of nucleon structure and strong QCD.

### 3.1 The Roper resonance - still a mystery

The Roper resonance has been a focus of attention for the last decade, largely due to the inability of the standard constituent quark model to describe basic features such as the mass, photocouplings, and their $`Q^2`$ evolution. This has led to alternate approaches where the state is assumed to have a strong gluonic component libuli , a small quark core with a large meson cloud cano , or a hadronic molecule of a nucleon and a hypothetical $`\sigma `$ meson $`|N\sigma >`$ krewald . Very recent lattice QCD calculations lattice-1  however indicate that the state may have a significant 3-quark component, and calculate the mass to be close to the experimental value.

Given these results the question what is the nature of the existing Roper state becomes an urgent topic to address. Electroexcitation may help provide an answer as it probes the underlying structure.

The Roper, as an isospin 1/2 state, couples more strongly to the n$`\pi ^+`$ channel than to the p$`\pi ^o`$ channel. Lack of data in that channel and lack of polarization data has hampered progress in the past. Fortunately, this sitation is changing significantly with the new data from CLAS. For the first time complete angular distributions have been measured for the n$`\pi ^+`$ final state. Preliminary separated response functions obtained with CLAShovanes  are shown in Fig.4. These data, together with the $`p\pi ^o`$ response functions and the spin polarized $`\sigma _{LT^{}}`$ response function for both channels, have been fitted to a unitary isobar modeljanr . The results are shown in Fig. 5 together with the sparse data from previous analyses. The CLAS results confirm the fast fall-off with $`Q^2`$ for the $`A_{1/2}`$ amplitude. Much improved data are needed for more definite tests of the models in a larger $`Q^2`$ range. An interesting question is whether the $`A_{1/2}(Q^2)`$ amplitude changes sign, or remains negative. The range of model predictions for the $`Q^2`$ evolution illustrates dramatically the sensitivity of electroproduction to the internal structure of this state.

### 3.2 The first negative parity state $`N_{1/2^{}}^{}(1535)`$

Another state of special interest in the 2nd resonance region is the $`N_{1/2^{}}^{}(1535)`$. This state was found to have an unusually hard transition formfactor, i.e. the $`Q^2`$ evolution shows a slow fall-off. This state is often studied in the $`p\eta `$ channel which shows a strong s-wave resonance near the $`\eta `$-threshold with very little non-resonant background. Older data show some discrepancies as to the total width and photocoupling amplitude. In particular, analyses of pion photoproduction datapdg  disagree with the analysis of the $`\eta `$ photoproduction data by a wide margin.

Data from CLASthompson , together with data from an earlier JLab experimentarmstrong  now give a consistent picture of the $`Q^2`$ evolution, confirming the hard formfactor behavior with much improved data quality, as shown in Fig. 6. Analysis of the n$`\pi ^+`$ and p$`\pi ^o`$ data at $`Q^2`$= 0.4GeV2 gives a value for $`A_{1/2}105\times 10^3`$ GeV-1/2 consistent with the analysis of the p$`\eta `$ dataaznaury-1 .

The hard transition formfactor has been difficult to understand in models. Recent work within a constituent quark model using a hypercentral potential santopinto  has made progress in reproducing the transition amplitude $`A_{1/2}`$ to the $`N_{1/2^{}}^{}(1535)`$. The hard formfactor is also in contrast to models that interpret this state as a $`|\overline{K}\mathrm{\Sigma }>`$ hadronic molecule weise . Although no calculations exist from such models, the extreme “hardness” of the formfactor and the large cross section appear counter intuitive to an interpretation of this state as a bound hadronic system. Lattice QCD calculations also show very clear 3-quark strength for the state lattice-1 .

## 4 Higher mass states and missing resonances

Approximate $`SU(6)O(3)`$ symmetry of the symmetric constituent quark model leads to relationships between the various states. In the single-quark transition model (SQTM) only one quark participates in the interaction. The model predicts transition amplitudes for a large number of states based on only a few measured amplitudes hey . Comparison with photoproduction results show quite good agreement, while there are insufficient electroproduction data for a meaningful comparison. The main reason for the lack of data on these states is that many of the higher mass states decouple largely from the $`N\pi `$ channel, but couple dominantly to the $`N\pi \pi `$ channel. Study of $`\gamma ^{}pp\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ as well as the other charge channels are therefore important. Moreover, many of the so-called “missing” states are predicted to couple strongly to the $`N\pi \pi `$ channels capstick2 . Search for some of these states is of great importance for the understanding of nucleon structure as alternative symmetry schemes do not predict nearly as many “missing” stateskirchbach .

### 4.1  Resonances in the $`p\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ channel.

New CLAS total cross section electroproduction data are shown in Fig. 7 in comparison with photoproduction data from DESY desy . The most striking feature is the strong resonance peak near W=1.72 GeV seen for the first time in electroproduction of the $`p\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ channel. This peak is absent in the photoproduction data. The CLAS data ripani  also contain the complete hadronic angular distributions and $`p\pi ^+`$ and $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ mass distributions over the full W range. They have been analyzed and the peak near 1.72 GeV was found to be best described by a $`N_{3/2^+}^{}(1720)`$ state. While there exists a state with such quantum numbers in this mass range, its hadronic properties were found previously to be very different from the state observed in this experiment. The difficulties in decribing these results seems to rest with the hadronic properties of the PDG state. Trying to keep the couplings within the limits of analyses of hadronic processes forces a strong reduction of the electrocouplings and the introducion of a second state with the same quantum numbers but strongly different hadronic couplings (solid line).

Could this state be one of the “missing” states? Capstick and Roberts capstick2  predict a second $`N_{3/2^+}^{}`$ state at a mass 1.87GeV. There are also predictions of a hybrid baryon state with these quantum numbers at about the same mass page , although the rather hard form factor disfavors the hybrid baryon interpretation libuli . As mass predictions in these models are uncertain to at least $`\pm `$100MeV, interpretation of this state as a “missing” state is a definite possibility. Independent of possible interpretations, the hadronic properties of the state seen in the CLAS data appear incompatible with the properties of the known state with same quantum numbers as listed in Review of Particle Properties pdg  and the analyses of $`N\pi \pi `$ final states in $`\pi N`$ scattering.

### 4.2 Nucleon states in $`K\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ production?

Strangeness channels have recently been examined in photoproduction as a possible source of information on new baryon states, and candidate states have been discussed saphir ; angelo . New CLAS electroproduction data niculescu  in the $`K\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ channel show clear evidence for resonance excitations at masses of 1.7 and 1.85 GeV as show in Fig. 8. The analysis of the $`K\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ channel is somewhat complicated by the large t-channel exchange contribution producing a peak at forward angles. To increase sensitivity to s-channel processes the data have been divided into a set for the forward hemisphere and for the backward hemisphere. Clear structures in the invariant mass emerge for the backward hemisphere (right panel in Fig. 8). While the lower mass peak is probably due to known resonances, the peak near 1.85 GeV could be associated with the bump observed with the SAPHIR detector saphir , although its mass seems to be lower. A more complete analysis of the angular distribution and the energy-dependence is needed for more definite conclusions.

### 4.3 Photoproduction of $`\eta `$ mesons

New results on $`\gamma pp\eta `$ have recently become available from CLASeta\_prl  covering the resonance region for $`W<2.15`$ GeV. Nearly complete angular distributions have been measured and the total cross section has been extracted. The total cross section data are shown in Figure 9. The data show structure beyond the well known $`N^{}(1535)`$ indicative of higher mass resonance contributions to the $`p\eta `$ channel. Further analysis of the angular and energy dependences are needed to come to more definite conclusions on the excitation of specific resonances.

### 4.4 Resonances in virtual Compton scattering

Vitual Compton scattering, i.e. the process $`\gamma ^{}pp\gamma `$ is yet another tool in the study of excited baryon states. This process has recently been measured in experiment E93-050 in JLab Hall Afonvieille  at backward photon angles. The excitation spectrum shown in Fig.10 exhibits clear resonance excitations at masses of known states such as the $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$, $`N^{}(1520)`$, and $`N^{}(1650)`$. The attractive feature of this process is the absence of final state interaction which complicates the analysis of processes with mesons in the final state. The disadvantage is the low rate which makes it difficult to collect sufficient statistics for a full partial wave analysis.

## 5 Baryon spectroscopy at short distances

Inelastic virtual Compton scattering in the deep inelastic regime (DVSC) can provide a new avenue of resonance studies at the elementary quark level. The process of interest is $`\gamma ^{}p\gamma N^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }^{})`$ where the virtual photon has high virtuality ($`Q^2`$). The virtual photon couples to an elementary quark with longitudinal momentum fraction $`x`$, which is re-absorbed into the baryonic system with momentum fraction $`x\xi `$, after having emitted a high energy photon. The recoil baryon system may be a ground state proton or an excited state. The elastic DVCS process has recently been measured at JLab stepanya  and at DESY hermes  in polarized electron proton scattering, and the results are consistent with predictions from perturbative QCD and the twist expansion for the process computed at the quark-gluon level. The theory is under control for small momentum transfer to the final state baryon. For the inelastic process, where a $`N^{}`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance is excited, the process can be used to study resonance transitions at the elementary quark level. Varying the parameter $`\xi `$ and the momentum transfer to the recoil baryon probes the two-parton correlation functions, or generalized parton distributions (GPDs).

That this process is indeed present at a measureable level is seen in the preliminary data from CLAS guidal  shown in Fig. 11. The reaction is measured at invariant masses $`W>2`$ GeV. The recoiling baryonic system clearly shows the excitation of resonances, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$, $`N^{}(1520)`$, and $`N^{}(1680)`$. While these are well known states that are also excited in the usual s-channel processes, the DVCS process has the advantage that it decouples the photon virtuality $`Q^2`$ from the 4-momentum transfer to the baryon system. $`Q^2`$ may be chosen sufficiently high such that the virtual photon couples to an elementary quark, while the momentum transfer to the nucleon system can be varied independently from small to large values. In this way, a theoretical framework employing perturbative methods can be used to probe the “soft” $`NN^{}`$ transition, allowing to map out internal parton correlations for this transition.

## 6 Conclusions

Electroexcitation of nucleon resonances has evolved to an effective tool in studying nucleon structure in the regime of strong QCD and confinement. The new data from JLab in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{3/2^+}(1232)`$ and $`N_{1/2^{}}^{}(1535)`$ regions give a consistent picture of the $`Q^2`$ evolution of the transition form factors. The $`R_{EM}`$ and $`R_{SM}`$ ratios for the $`\gamma ^{}N\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$ transition are consistent with an oblate deformation of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$. This is now also confirmed by calculations in full lattice QCD. Large data sets in different channels including polarization observables will vastly improve the analysis of states such as the “Roper” $`N_{1/2^+}^{}(1440)`$, and many other higher mass states. A preliminary analysis of $`n\pi ^+`$ and $`p\pi ^{}`$ cross section data and beam polarization asymmetries at $`Q^2=0.4`$ GeV2 show little indication of the $`N_{1/2^+}^{}(1440)`$, which is consistent with earlier analyses showing a fast drop of the Roper excitation strength with $`Q^2`$. A strong resonance signal near 1.72 GeV, seen with CLAS in the $`p\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ channel, exhibits hadronic properties which appear incompatible with any of the known states in this mass region and may indicate a new $`N_{3/2^+}^{}(1720)`$ state.

While s-channel resonance excitation will remain the backbone of the $`N^{}`$ program for years to come, inelastic deeply virtual Compton scattering is a promising new tool in resonance physics at the elementary parton level that allows the study of parton-parton correlations in resonance transition within a well defined theoretical framework.

The Southeastern Universities Research Association (SURA) operates the the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility for the United States Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC05-84ER40150.


text:
# Ultra high energy photon showers in magnetic field: angular distribution of produced particles.

## I Introduction

Magnetic fields play a foundamental rôle not only for the acceleration and propagation of charged cosmic rays, but also for the absorption of neutral particles, photons and neutrinos, if the magnetic field is sufficiently strong or the particles have sufficiently high energy Ginzburg:sk . In particular, photons can initiate an electromagnetic shower in magnetic field which is analogous to the showers produced in matter; the main features of such showers (longitudinal development and particles energy spectra) has been analyzed in Refs. Akhiezer:du ; Anguelov:2000dz  under the assumption that momenta be orthogonal to the magnetic field.

Important examples of electromagnetic showers in strong magnetic fields are the $`\gamma `$ and radio emission in pulsars Sturrock:gp  and blasars Bednarek:1996py  in active galatic nuclei Bednarek:1998jq . Strong magnetic fields of the order of $`10^{12}`$ G can be found in the proximity of pulsars Daugherty:mg ; Da:82 ; Usov:1995tj ; Baring:2000cr : in magnetic field of this order of magnitude photons loose energy by radiating photons (photon splitting Usov:2002df ) or creating $`e^+e^{}`$ pairs Daugherty:tr ; Ba:88  which feed the cascade by producing more bremsstrahlung photons. In such fields even neutrinos radiate photons Gvozdev:1996kx ; Ioannisian:1996pn ; Gvozdev:1997bs , create $`e^+e^{}`$ pairs Borisov:rb ; Kuznetsov:1996vy ; Gvozdev:1997bs  or even $`W`$ particles Erdas:2002wk .

If the energy of the primary particle is sufficiently high, an electromagnetic shower can develop even in weak fields, such as those present in the interstellar medium or in the vicinity of stars and planets Ah:91 ; Vankov:ns . A very important such a case is the shower produced by UHE ($`E10^{18}`$ eV) photons in the magnetic field outside the earth atmosphere: this early shower influences the later atmospheric shower. These UHE photons are predicted by top-down theories as possible explaination of the experimental spectrum of ultra high energy cosmic rays Berezinsky:1997td ; Berezinsky:1997hy ; Berezinsky:1997iz ; Berezinsky:mw ; Olinto:2002mc ).

In this paper we study the two processes that are the building block of the electromagnetic shower in magnetic field: synchrotron radiation by UHE electrons and $`e^+e^{}`$ pair production by UHE photons. In particular, we derive formulae for the angular distribution. The precise dependence of the angular distribution from the field strength and from the energies of the particles is necessary to determine important features of the phenomena, such as the three-dimensional development and the lateral spreading.

A foundamental question is whether the three-dimensional development of the shower could experimentally discriminate between UHE air showers originated from a primary photon or from a primary proton (or heavier hadron) Ma:01 ; Vankov:ns ; Bednarek:1999wg ; Be:99a  and, therefore, discriminate between competing theories of the high energy tail of the cosmic ray spectrum. In fact, UHE photons start the shower well outside the atmosphere producing an additional lateral spread to the subsequent atmospheric shower relative to a shower originated by a proton. In addition a shower that begins outside the atmosphere is less affected by the Landau-Pomeranchuk-Migdal effect Ka:96 ; Stanev:1996ux ; Sh:01 ; Bednarek:2001fw .

Another context where it is important the precise knowledge of the angular distribution of the particles produced in the electromagnetic shower is the modeling of the pulsar emission. For instance in the polar cup model proposed by Sturrock Sturrock:gp ; Daugherty:mg ; Usov:1995tj  high energy electrons, due to the intense ($`10^{12}G`$) magnetic fields, follow the field lines to minimize synchrotron radiation energy losses: photons are emitted in a narrow cone nearly parallel to the field lines. The contribution of pair production to the photon interaction length depends on the magnetic field component orthogonal to the photon momentum: since momenta of the particles in the shower are nearly parallel to the field, the precise emission angle might be critical for the shower development.

In the following Section II we introduce the notation, derive formulae for the synchrotron radiation (magnetic bremsstrahlung) by UHE electrons/positrons, discuss these formulae and show some relevant plots. In Section III we make the analogous derivations and discussion for $`e^+e^{}`$ pair creation by UHE photon in magnetic field. The last Section IV is reserved to our conclusions.

## II Synchrotron radiation

Synchrotron radiation (or magnetic bremsstrahlung) from ultrarelativistic electrons has been studied by many authors, see for instance Refs. Ba:88 ; Erber:1966vv ; Be:82 ; Schwinger:ix ; Sokolov:nk , where many results mediated over the angular distribution can be found. For our study of the angular dependence of both for the synchrotron radiation and the pair production we shall follow the approach of Berestetskii-Lifshitz-Pitaevskii-Landau (BLPL) Be:82 . In the following discussion we shall assume that the electron momentum $`𝐩`$ is perpendicular to the magnetic field $`𝐇`$: eventually we discuss results for the general case in the last section (conclusions).

We recall some of the relevant notation. The characteristic parameter is

$$\kappa =\frac{H}{H_c}\frac{E}{mc^2},$$
(1)
where $`H`$ is the stationary magnetic field, $`m`$ and $`E`$ the electron mass and energy and $`H_c`$ is the critical field

$$H_c=\frac{m^2c^3}{e\mathrm{}}=4.41410^{13}\text{},$$
(2)
which is a natural quantum mechanical measure of the magnetic field strength Erber:1966vv . The four-momenta of the incoming and outgoing electron and the one of the emitted photon are, respectively, $`P=(E/c,𝐩)`$, $`P^{}=(E^{}/c,𝐩^{})`$ and $`K=(\mathrm{}\omega /c,𝐤)`$. In most of the formulae we shall use $`\mathrm{}=c=1`$.

We are interested in the limit when both the ingoing and outgoing electron are ultrarelativistic, $`Emc^2`$, and the field is relatively low $`HH_c`$. In this limit the quantization of the electron motion is not important, since $`E`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=\mathrm{}\omega `$ are much larger than $`\mathrm{}\omega _0=\mathrm{}ceH/E`$, and we can use the semiclassical approximation of BLPL with the electron following its classical orbit.

The differential probability to emit a photon is Be:82 :

$$dw=\underset{f}{}\left|_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑tV_{fi}(t)\right|^2\frac{d^3𝐤}{(2\pi )^3}$$

with

$$V_{fi}(t)=ed^3𝐫\psi _f^{}\stackrel{}{\alpha }\psi _i\stackrel{}{A}^{}=\frac{e\sqrt{2\pi }}{\sqrt{\omega }}f\left|Q(t)\right|ie^{i\omega t},$$

were $`\psi _{i,f}`$ are the wave functions of the initial/final electron state, $`\stackrel{}{A}`$ is the vector potential, and $`\stackrel{}{\alpha }`$ are Dirac matrices; $`Q(t)`$ is the corresponding time-dependent Heisenberg operator.

Using the completeness relation and introducing the variables $`\tau =t_2t_1`$ and $`t=(t_2+t_1)/2`$, the probability of photon emission per unit time is:

$$\frac{dw}{dt}=\frac{e^2}{\omega }\frac{d^3𝐤}{(2\pi )^2}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑\tau i\left|Q^+(t+\tau /2)Q(t\tau /2)\right|ie^{i\omega \tau },$$
(3)
where $`d^3𝐤=\omega ^2d\omega d\mathrm{\Omega }=\omega ^2d\omega \mathrm{sin}\vartheta d\vartheta d\phi `$ with $`\vartheta `$ the angle between $`𝐤`$ and $`𝐩`$, and $`\phi `$ the angle between $`𝐇`$ and the projection of $`𝐤`$ on the plane orthogonal to $`𝐩`$.

In Eq. (3) the probability can be expanded in powers of $`\tau `$, since the main contribution comes from small values of $`\tau `$, when there is superposition between the amplitudes. In fact the values of $`\tau `$ for which the superposition is significant can be evaluated using semiclassical arguments. For kinematical reasons ultra-relativistic electrons radiate in a narrow cone $`\vartheta m/E`$: the amplitudes for the emission sum coherently along a section of the classical electron path where the direction changes of an angle $`\vartheta m/E`$, i.e., $`\omega _0\tau m/E`$, giving a formation time

$$\tau _f\frac{m}{E\omega _0}=\frac{m}{eH}=\frac{1}{m}\frac{H_c}{H}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{mc^2}\frac{H_c}{H}=1.2910^{21}(H_c/H)\mathrm{sec}^1.$$
(4)
To leading order in $`\omega _0\tau m/E`$ the resulting non-polarized photon emission probability is:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dw}{dtd\omega d\mathrm{\Omega }}}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2\omega }{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau \left({\displaystyle \frac{E^2+E_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{4E_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}(\omega _0\tau )^2+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{EE^{}}}\right)`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left[i{\displaystyle \frac{E}{E^{}}}\omega \tau \left(1𝐧𝐯+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0^2}{24}}\tau ^2\right)\right],`$
where $`𝐯`$ is the initial electron velocity.

The integration in $`d\tau `$ of Eq. (II) yields

$$\frac{dw}{dtd\omega d\mathrm{\Omega }}=\frac{e^2}{\pi }\left[\frac{E^2+E_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{EE^{}}X\left(\frac{\omega }{\kappa E^{}}\right)^{2/3}\right]\mathrm{\Phi }(X),$$
(6a)
where
$$X2\left(\frac{E}{m}\right)^2\left(1\left(1\frac{m^2}{2E^2}\right)\mathrm{cos}\vartheta \right)\left(\frac{1}{\kappa }\frac{\omega }{E^{}}\right)^{\frac{2}{3}},$$
(6b)
$`\kappa `$ is the characteristic parameter defined in Eq. (1) and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(X)`$ is the Airy function Ab:64 :

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(x)=\frac{1}{\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t\mathrm{cos}\left(xt+\frac{t^3}{3}\right).$$
(7)
In the ultra-relativistic limit the differential probability of photon emission, Eqs. (6), depends only on the angle $`\vartheta `$ between the electron and emitted photon directions, threfore $`d\mathrm{\Omega }=2\pi d(\mathrm{cos}\vartheta )`$.

It is often useful, for instance when writing the cascade equations, to express the result in terms of the fractional energy carried by the photon $`u=\omega /E`$; then equations (6) become

$$\frac{dw}{dtd\mathrm{}\omega d\mathrm{cos}\vartheta }=\frac{2\alpha }{\mathrm{}}\left[\frac{1+(1u)^2}{(1u)}X\left(\frac{u}{(1u)\kappa }\right)^{2/3}\right]\mathrm{\Phi }(X)$$
(8a)
with
$`X`$ $`=`$ $`2\left({\displaystyle \frac{E}{m}}\right)^2\left(1\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{2E^2}}\right)\mathrm{cos}\vartheta \right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{u}{(1u)\kappa }}\right)^{2/3}`$ (8b)
$`=`$ $`\left(1+2(1\mathrm{cos}\vartheta ){\displaystyle \frac{E^2}{m^2}}(1\mathrm{cos}\vartheta )\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{u}{(1u)\kappa }}\right)^{2/3}`$ (8c)
where $`\alpha `$ is the fine-structure constant. In the ultrarelativistic limit it is convenient to use $`2(1\mathrm{cos}\vartheta )\vartheta ^2(m/E)^2`$ as angular variable.

Equations (6) or, equivalently, Eqs. (8) are our main new result, together with the analogous result for pair creation, Eqs. (17), result which is presented in the next Section, i.e., the angular dependence of the produced particles.

The integral of Eq. (8) in $`d\mathrm{cos}\vartheta `$ yields the differential emission probability per unit energy:

$$\frac{dw}{dtd\omega }=e^2\left(\frac{m}{E}\right)^2\left(_\xi ^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Phi }(x)𝑑x+\frac{E^2+E_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{EE^{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(\xi )}{\xi }\right)$$
(9a)
where
$$\xi \left(\frac{\omega }{\kappa E^{}}\right)^{2/3}=\left(\frac{u}{\kappa (1u)}\right)^{2/3}.$$
(9b)
The result in Eqs. (9) agrees with previous calculations Be:82 ; Sokolov:nk ; Ba:88 ; Ka:96 .

Other important quantities in the study of the electromagnetic shower in magnetic field are the differential energy loss for unit time and unit of photon energy:

$$\frac{dE}{dtdu}=\frac{\alpha }{\mathrm{}}(mc^2)^2u\left(_\xi ^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Phi }(x)𝑑x+\frac{1+(1u)^2}{1u}\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(\xi )}{\xi }\right),$$
(10)
where $`\xi `$ is given in Eq. (9b), and the total energy loss per unit time (emissivity):

$$\frac{dE}{dt}=\frac{\alpha }{\mathrm{}}(mc^2)^2\frac{\kappa ^2}{2}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{4+5\kappa x^{3/2}+4\kappa ^2x^3}{(1+\kappa x^{3/2})^4}x\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(x)𝑑x.$$
(11)
Note that, as expected from the lack of other dimensional scales in the limit of $`Em`$, the spectral emissivity in Eq. (10) depends only from $`\kappa `$ and $`u`$ (scaling), and the emissivity in Eq. (11) depends only from the characteristic parameter $`\kappa `$, apart from the overall factor $`(mc^2)^2`$.

Before studying the angular dependence of the emitted photons let us discuss the total energy loss as a function of $`\kappa `$, Eq. (11), and the energy dependence of the differential energy loss, Eq. (10). For $`\kappa 1`$ the energy loss goes to zero as $`\kappa ^2`$, therefore we limit our discussion to the more physically important case $`\kappa 1`$.

The main feature of Eqs. (8) and (10) which determines both the energy and the angular dependence is the presence of the Airy function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x)`$ that goes to zero exponentially for large values of $`x`$. Only for the purpose of this discussion we use $`x1`$ as a simple threshold value (note that $`\mathrm{\Phi }(1)/\mathrm{\Phi }(0)=0.381`$, while $`\mathrm{\Phi }(2)/\mathrm{\Phi }(0)=0.0984`$), i.e., we assume for the purpose of this discussion that most of the photons be emitted for value of $`x1`$ (the discussion does not change if we use 2 or 3 intestead of 1), and use the ultrarelativistic limit $`2(1\mathrm{cos}\vartheta )\vartheta ^2(m/E)^21`$.

According to this criterion the differential energy loss per unit of photon energy, Eq. (10), is large when $`\xi 1`$, and, therefore, most of the photons are emitted with a fractional energy $`u`$ that verify the condition

$$u\frac{\kappa }{1+\kappa },$$
(12)
i.e., photons with a large fraction of the electron energy are emitted only for relatively large values of $`\kappa `$. In addition, since the energy loss is proportional to the energy fraction $`u`$ carried out by the photon, the energy loss goes to zero with $`u`$. Figure 1 summarizes this discussion by showing the probability of emission as function of the energy fraction with an arbitrary normalization of 1 at $`u=0`$ for different values of $`\kappa `$. Curve 1, which corresponds to the largest value of $`\kappa =100`$, has a peak for values of $`u`$ close to 1, while curve 6, which corresponds to the smallest value of $`\kappa =0.5`$, is peaked at values of $`u`$ close to 0.1 and goes to zero at $`u=0`$.

The same criterion applied to the angular distribution, i.e. the constrain

$$X=\left(1+\left(\vartheta \frac{E}{m}\right)^2\right)\left(\frac{u}{(1u)\kappa }\right)^{2/3}1$$
(13)
implies that the angle within which most of the photons are emitted depends on the energy:

$$\vartheta \frac{E}{m}\sqrt{\left(\frac{(1u)\kappa }{u}\right)^{2/3}1}=\sqrt{1/\xi 1}$$
(14)
when $`\xi <1`$. If instead $`\xi 1`$ the angular distribution decays exponential from the value $`\vartheta E/m=0`$ with a width proportional to $`\sqrt{\kappa (1u)/u}`$. In other words photons with large energy fraction, $`u1`$, can be emitted within a smaller angle than photons of low energy $`u1`$. Figure (2) demonstrate this effect by showing the probability of emission as function of the variable $`\sqrt{2(1\mathrm{cos}\vartheta )}E/m\vartheta E/m`$ for four choices of the couple $`(u,\kappa )`$. Dashed courves (1 and 3) have $`\kappa =0.1`$ and show how the angle becomes more than an order of magnitude larger going from $`u=0.5`$ (1) to $`u=10^3`$ (3). The same effect is show for $`\kappa =1`$ going from curve 2 to curve 4. The same angle grows more than a factor of two going from $`\kappa =0.1`$ 1 (3) to $`\kappa =1`$ 2 (4).

## III Pair production

The amplitude for pair production can be obtained from the amplitude for synchrotron radiation using the cross-channel symmetry Be:82 . Results mediated over the angular distribution can also be found in To:52 ; Ro:52 ; Erber:1966vv ; Tsai:1974fa ; Sokolov:nk ; Ba:88 ; Ka:96 .

The calculation follows closely the steps in the previous Section with the necessary formal differences. The characteristic parameter $`\chi `$ is analogous to $`\kappa `$ in Eq. (1) with the substitution of the incoming-electron energy $`E`$ with the incoming-photon energy $`\mathrm{}\omega `$:

$$\chi =\frac{H}{H_c}\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{mc^2}:$$
(15)
we use a different notation for clarity. Now the four-momenta of the incoming photon and of the outcoming electron and positron are $`K=(\omega ,𝐤)`$, $`P_{}=(E_{},𝐩_{})`$, and $`P_+=(E_+,𝐩_+)`$. As in the previous section, we work in the limit when incoming and outgoing particles are relativistic and the field is relatively low, $`HH_c`$.

After performing the cross-channel transformations $`(E,𝐩)(E_+,p_+)`$, $`(E^{},𝐩^{})(E_{},𝐩_{})`$, $`(\omega ,𝐤)(\omega ,𝐤)`$, and substituting the emitted-photon phase space with the one of the created positron (or electron), we obtain the analogous of Eq. (II) for the probability of pair production by an unpolarized high-energy photon that propagates othogonal to the magnetic field (the probability is summed over the final spins and integrated over the electron direction, if we measure the positron energy: the rôles of electron and positron can be exchanged).

This formula can again be expanded in the formation time $`\tau _f`$, Eq. (4), and the result is:

$$\frac{dw}{dtdE_+d\mathrm{\Omega }_+}=\frac{e^2}{\pi }\left[\frac{(E_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+E_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})E_+}{\omega ^2E_{}}X+\left(\frac{E_+^2}{\chi \omega E_{}}\right)^{2/3}\right]\mathrm{\Phi }(X)$$
(16a)
where
$$X2\left(\frac{E_+}{m}\right)^2\left(1\left(1\frac{m^2}{2E_+^2}\right)\mathrm{cos}\vartheta \right)\left(\frac{\omega ^2}{\chi (E_+E_{})}\right)^{2/3}.$$
(16b)
Again there is no dependence on the azimuthal angle $`\phi `$ and $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_+=2\pi d\mathrm{cos}\vartheta `$. Introducing the fractional energy carried out by the positron, $`v=E_+/\omega `$, Equations (16) become

$$\frac{dw}{dtdE_+d\mathrm{cos}\vartheta }=\frac{2\alpha }{\mathrm{}}v\left[\frac{v^2+(1v)^2}{(1v)}X+v\left(\frac{1}{v(1v)\chi }\right)^{2/3}\right]\mathrm{\Phi }(X)$$
(17a)
with
$`X`$ $`=`$ $`2\left({\displaystyle \frac{E_+}{m}}\right)^2\left(1\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{2E_+^2}}\right)\mathrm{cos}\vartheta \right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{v(1v)\chi }}\right)^{2/3}`$ (17b)
$`=`$ $`\left(1+2(1\mathrm{cos}\vartheta ){\displaystyle \frac{E_+^2}{m^2}}(1\mathrm{cos}\vartheta )\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{v(1v)\chi }}\right)^{2/3},`$ (17c)
and $`2(1\mathrm{cos}\vartheta )\vartheta ^2(m/E)^2`$ the convenient angular variable in the ultrarelativistic limit.

As in the case of the synchrotron radiation, we can cross-check our result by integrating Eq. (17) over the polar angle and comparing the differential emission probability per unit energy with Refs. Erber:1966vv ; Be:82 ; Tsai:1974fa ; Sokolov:nk ; Ba:88 ; Ka:96 :

$$\frac{dw}{dtdE_+}=e^2\left(\frac{m}{\omega }\right)^2\left(_\xi ^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Phi }(x)𝑑x\frac{E_+^2+E_{}^2}{E_+E_{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(\xi )}{\xi }\right)$$
(18a)
where
$$\xi \left(\frac{1}{\chi }\frac{\omega ^2}{E_+E_{}}\right)^{2/3}=\left(\frac{1}{\chi v(1v)}\right)^{2/3}.$$
(18b)
The differential emission probability per unit time and unit of fractional energy $`v`$ is:

$$\frac{dw}{dtdv}=\frac{\alpha }{\mathrm{}}\frac{(mc^2)^2}{\mathrm{}\omega }\left(_\xi ^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Phi }(x)𝑑x\frac{v^2+(1v)^2}{v(1v)}\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(\xi )}{\xi }\right)$$
(19)
with $`\xi `$ defined in Eq. (18b), while the total pair production probability is:

$$\frac{dw}{dt}=\frac{\alpha }{\mathrm{}}\frac{(mc^2)^2}{\mathrm{}\omega }_{\left(4/\chi \right)^{2/3}}^{\mathrm{}}\left(\frac{2x^{3/2}+1/\chi }{x^{11/4}(x^{3/2}4/\chi )^{1/2}}\right)\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(x)𝑑x.$$
(20)
Note again that the differential emission probability depends only from $`\chi `$ and $`v`$ and the total pair production probability only from $`\chi `$ (scaling), apart the dimensional constant in front $`(mc^2)^2`$, as a consequence of the lack of other dimensional scales in the limit of $`Em`$. Note also that the pair production probability, differently from the synchrotron emission, is exponentially suppressed in the limit of $`\chi 4`$, since the Airy function decays exponentially for large values of its argument. The physical cause of this suppression is the presence of a threshold for pair creation. In the following discussion we consider the range $`\chi 4`$.

As in the case of the synchrotron radiation the main feature of Eqs. (17) and (19) that determines both the energy and the angular dependence is the exponential suppression of the Airy function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x)`$ with growing $`x`$; we use the threshold value $`x1`$ and work in the ultrarelativistic limit $`\vartheta m/E1`$. In addition the pair creation probability is symmetric in the two variable $`E_+`$ and $`E_{}`$, i.e., is symmetric respect to the point $`v=1/2`$.

In this case the chosen criterion imples that the differential energy loss per unit of electron/positron energy, Eq. (19), is large when $`\xi 1`$, and, therefore, most of the $`e^+e^{}`$ are emitted with a fractional energy $`v`$ that verify the condition

$$\sqrt{\frac{1}{4}\frac{1}{\chi }}v\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{1}{4}\frac{1}{\chi }},$$
(21)
when $`\chi >4`$, i.e., $`e^+e^{}`$ can be emitted with one of them carrying a large fraction of the photon energy only for relatively large values of $`\chi `$. Figure 3 summarizes this discussion by showing the probability of emission as function of the energy fraction with the area arbitrary normalized to 1 for different values of $`\chi `$. The smallest value of $`\chi =0.1`$ (curve 1) is strongly peaked at $`v=1/2`$, while the largest value of $`\chi =100`$ (curve 6) has a much flatter distribution with peaks at values close to $`v=0`$ and $`v=1`$, in spite of the fact that the distribution must go to zero at exactly $`v=0`$ and $`v=1`$.

The angular distribution is described by exactly the same constrain found for the synchrotron radiation

$$X=\left(1+\left(\vartheta \frac{E}{m}\right)^2\right)\left(\frac{1}{v(1v)\chi }\right)^{2/3}1,$$
(22)
which implies that the energy-dependent angle within which most of the pairs are emitted is:

$$\vartheta \frac{E}{m}\sqrt{\left(v(1v)\chi \right)^{2/3}1}=\sqrt{1/\xi 1}$$
(23)
where we are considering only values of $`\xi <1`$. If instead $`\xi 1`$ the angular distribution decays exponential from the value $`\vartheta E/m=0`$ with a width proportional to $`\sqrt{(1v)v\chi }`$. In other words pairs that share equally their energy $`v1/2`$ can be emitted within a larger angle than pairs where one of the two particles carries a large part of the energy, $`v1`$ or $`v0`$. Figure (4) demonstrates this effect by showing the probability of emission as function of the variable $`2(1\mathrm{cos}\vartheta )(E/m)^2\vartheta ^2`$; the distribution has been arbitrary normalized such that it is equal to 1 at $`\vartheta E/m=10^1`$. Going from an asymmetric distribution of the energy, $`v=0.1`$, (curves 1 and 3) to a symmetric one, $`v=0.5`$, (curves 2 and 4) the angle becomes wider; the same happens when $`\chi `$ increases from 4 (curves 1 and 2) to 100 (curves 3 and 4).

## IV Conclusions

In this paper we have studied the angular dependence of photons emitted by UHE electrons and of the $`e^+e^{}`$ pairs emitted by UHE photons in a static magnetic field: this dependence is needed for detailed studies of the electromagnetic cascade in magnetic fields, such as those initiated by UHE cosmic rays in the geomagnetic field, or by charged particles emitted by pulsar.

The main results are shown in Eqs. (8) for the magnetic bremsstrahlung and in Eqs. (17) for the pair production. For simplicity we have sketched the derivation of these formulae in the case of propagation in the plane orthogonal to the magnetic field, but it is possible to show, as we have explicitely verified by performing the appropriate Lorentz transformations, that the same formulae are valid in the general case if $`H`$ is substituted with $`H_{}`$, the component of the magnetic field perpendicular to the propagation.

These results are also plotted as function of the angle for different values of the fractional energy in Figs. 2 and 4 and briefly discussed in text. The angle becomes wider for larger values of the characteristic parameter and for smaller energy fraction (synchrotron radiation) or more symmetric energy fraction (pair production).

We have verified that our results, when integrated over the emission angle, reproduce the known results for the differential in the energy and total probability of emission.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work is partially supported by M.I.U.R. (Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca): “Cofinanziamento” P.R.I.N. 2001.


text:
# Current induced spin wave excitations in a single ferromagnetic layer

## Abstract

A new current induced spin-torque transfer effect has been observed in a $`single`$ ferromagnetic layer without resorting to multilayers. At a specific current density of one polarity injected from a point contact, abrupt resistance changes due to current-induced spin wave excitations have been observed. The critical current at the onset of spin-wave excitations depends linearly on the external field applied perpendicular to the layer. The observed effect is due to current-driven heterogeneity in an otherwise uniform ferromagnetic layer.

Recently, spin-torque transfer effects have attracted a great deal of attention due to potential device applications  as well as the novel fundamental physics it reveals. The magnetic configuration of a system is known to affect its electrical behavior, such as those in anisotropic, giant , and tunneling  magnetoresistance (AMR, GMR and TMR respectively) effects. Spin-torque transfer is an example of the reverse effect, where an electrical current can alter the magnetic configuration of a system. It has been theoretically predicted  and experimentally observed  that at sufficiently high current densities, a spin-polarized current is able to exert a torque on a ferromagnetic entity and switch its magnetization in the low field regime or stimulate spin precession (spin waves) in the same system in the high field regime. Tsoi $`etal.`$  first reported on spin wave excitations in Co/Cu multilayers by current injection through a mechanical point contact. Myers $`etal.`$  observed current induced switching in point contacts made by nano-lithography on Co/Cu/Co trilayers. Both magnetization switching and spin precession have been reported by Katine $`etal.`$  in patterned Co/Cu/Co trilayered nanopillars. Other current induced effects have also been observed in Ni nanowires  and manganite junctions .

To date, most theoretical treatments and experimental observations have featured heterostrctures such as FM/NM multilayers or FM/NM/FM trilayers, where FM=ferromagnet and NM=non-magnetic metal, with a current flowing perpendicular to the layers. There are two considerations that favor the multilayer structures. First of all, these structures provide at least one static FM layer and one free FM layer in the system. The static layer has a fixed magnetization throughout the measurement (realized by shape anisotropy and/or the application of an external field). The static layer, acting as a polarizer, also defines the polarization direction for the current. The free layer is separated from the static layer by a non-magnetic metal. As the spin-polarized current produced by the static layer passes through the free layer, the current carriers transfer their spin angular momenta onto the magnetic moments in the free layer, thereby imparting a torque. The consequence of the torque depends on the polarity of the current. If the electrons flow from the static layer to the free layer, the torque favors a parallel alignment of the FM layers. For electrons flowing in the opposite direction, the torque favors an anti-parallel alignment of the FM layers. As the current is swept between polarities, at a critical current value, the magnetization of the free layer can be altered between parallel and anti-parallel alignment with respect to the static layer. In the presence of a strong external field (of the order of tesla), however, full magnetization reversal into anti-parallel state becomes unfeasible. Instead, spin waves are stimulated, featuring a precession of spin moments between the parallel and the anti-parallel states.

Secondly, the FM/NM/FM trilayer or FM/NM multilayer structure also exhibits GMR, which becomes a detection mechanism for the magnetization reversal or spin precession. The parallel and the antiparallel configurations of the FM layers define the low and high resistance states respectively in the system. Deviations in configuration, such as that of magnetization reversal, result in changes in the resistance. The spin wave precession can be identified as an increase in the resistance ($`V`$/$`I`$) or a peak in differential resistance at a certain critical current value in the polarity such that the electrons flow from the free layer to the static layer.

The persuasive rationale for a multilayer structure notwithstanding, multilayer structures have been exclusively employed in experiments for realizing the spin-torque effects. We report in this Letter experimental observation of current induced spin waves in a $`single`$ ferromagnetic layer without heterostructures involving non-magnetic metals. This effect is due to the rapidly degrading current density, which results in magnetic inhomogeneity with a large magnetization gradient within the single layer.

Mechanical point contact technique  has been used to inject a current with a current density in excess of 109 A/cm2 from a silver tip into a 3000 Å sputtered Co layer, with an external field up to 9 T applied perpendicular to the Co layer. All the measurements we report in this Letter have been carried out at 4.2 K, using a four-probe method, with $`I`$\+ and $`V`$\+ made on the tip and $`I`$\- and $`V`$\- made on the film. For current in the negative polarity, electrons are flowing from the tip into the Co film. We have measured resistance $`R`$ and differential resistance $`dV/dI`$ either as a function of current $`I`$ at a fixed field $`H`$ or as a function of field $`H`$ at a fixed bias current $`I`$. The differential resistance $`dV/dI`$ has been measured using a phase sensitive detection technique with an AC modulation current of 1 $`\mu `$A and 2 kHz.

Figure 1 shows a typical contact that exhibits the unusual behavior of $`R`$ and $`dV/dI`$. The contact resistance is about 28 $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ at zero bias and the external field is 5 T. In the positive polarity, both quantities are slowly varying as a function of current $`I`$. The small increase of $`R`$ or $`dV/dI`$ at higher bias can be attributed to phonon and magnon scattering . At negative polarity, however, a sharp peak in $`dV/dI`$ and a prominent step in $`R`$ (enlarged in the inset) can be seen at a bias current of $`I`$ = -3.27 mA. The upward jump of $`R`$ is about 1 $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, about 3% of the total resistance. The differential resistance changes by more than 100% at the same bias. Beyond the main peak, $`dV/dI`$ also displays a small upward step at even higher bias. We have studied more than 50 point-contacts that show similar features. The peak in $`dV/dI`$ or step in $`R`$ is always present in the negative bias, and never in the positive bias. The peak structure disappears at a field lower than 4$`\pi `$$`M`$ (1.7 T), the demagnetizing field of the Co film.

Figure 2(a) shows the results of an Ag/Co contact at different external fields from 2 T to 9 T. All the curves display a peak structure but at different negative bias current. All the curves fall onto the same background, demonstrating that the contact is not altered throughout the measurements. We define the current value corresponding to the peak in $`dV/dI`$ as the critical current $`I_c`$, which, as shown in Figure 2(b), depends linearly on $`H`$.

It is interesting to note that Figure 2(b) establishes also a phase diagram for that contact, excluding the low field region where spin waves could not be stimulated. The region above the line represents the excited states with spin precession whereas the region below the line is the ground state where all the spin moments are aligned by the external field. The measurements performed in Figure 2(a) correspond to a scan along a vertical line at a fixed $`H`$ in Figure 2(b). As the boundary defined by the straight line is crossed, resistance changes (a step in $`R`$ and a peak in $`dV/dI`$) are encountered. The phase diagram so determined is specific to a given contact.

The phase diagram in Figure 2(b) indicates that one can also perform a field scan along a horizontal line and monitor resistance and $`dV/dI`$ as the phase boundary is crossed. The result of such a scan using a different contact is shown in Figure 3. At a field of 5 T, as the current is scanned from -5 mA to -3 mA, as shown in Figure 3(a), a peak appears in $`dV/dI`$ at -3.8 mA, signifying the excitation of spin waves beyond this critical value. We then hold the current at -3.0 mA, ramp down the field, and measure $`R`$ and $`dV/dI`$ (Figure 3(b-c)). At 2.6 T, a peak in $`dV/dI`$ and a step in $`R`$ appear. As shown in Figure 2, as the field is decreased, the critical current value will also decrease. At a lower field, 2.67 T in this case, the critical current value becomes -3.0 mA, hence the $`dV/dI`$ peak.

We note that the results shown in Figure 1-3 with a single Co layer bear close resemblance to the experimental results of Tsoi $`etal.`$  and Katine $`etal.`$  using multilayers. The characteristics also agree well with the theory of Slonczewski  in the context of multilayers. The single Co layer geometry that we have used does not contain a static layer/NM/free layer geometry nor a GMR detection mechanism. The multilayer geometry is therefore not a prerequisite for observing the spin-torque transfer effect. In the following, we propose a microscopic picture that accounts for the observed effects, and the salient differences from those observed in multilayers.

The geometry that we use for spin injection through a point contact is schematically in Figure 4. In the negative polarity, where the spin waves are excited, electrons are flowing from the tip into the Co film. The contact size can be estimated from the contact resistance $`R`$, the resistivity $`\rho `$, and the electron mean free path $`l`$ using $`R`$=4$`\rho `$$`l`$/3$`\pi `$$`a^2`$+$`\rho `$/2$`a`$, the Wexler formula,  which is a combination of Sharvin and Maxwell resistances . The typical resistance value of our contacts is between 10-100 $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, corresponding to a contact radius of the order of 3-8 nm. As an estimate, at an injection current of 3 mA through such a small contact, the current density is between 1.2$`\times `$109 A/cm2 and 9$`\times `$109 A/cm2. However, immediately after the current injection into the Co film, the current spreads and the current density decrease rapidly due to the expanding geometry. Beyond a certain depth, which is marked by a horizontal dashed line in Figure 4, the current density would be too low to excite spin waves. All the spin moments below would be unaffected by the current and aligned in the external field direction. The region below serves as a static region in the system and provides a source for the spin-polarized carriers. The region above the boundary, where the current density is sufficiently high, acts as the free region. In this manner the single Co layer is separated into a free ”layer” immediately below the point contact and a fixed layer for the remainder of the Co layer. The thickness of the ”free” layer is determined by the current distribution underneath the point contact. In this sense, the single Co film is divided into two regions by a dynamic process, rather than physically separated by the insertion of a non-magnetic layer as in Co/Cu/Co trilayers.

Electrons from the tip first flow through the free region and then enter the static region. As discussed earlier, in this polarity the current induced torque onto the free region tends to deflect the spin moments from the parallel alignment, causing spin precession. The resistance step or $`dV/dI`$ peak, which is considered the signature of spin precession, can be understood as such. As the precession is excited, spin moments in the free region will have a small tilt angle with respect to the spin in the static region. Given the small length scale, the magnetization gradient would be extremely high. As the charge carriers moving from the free region to the static region, their spin moments could not relax adiabatically. Instead, spin-dependent scattering occurs, giving rise to a high resistance state.

The above model accounts for the experimental results using a single FM layer well. It also implies certain features that are different from multilayers. Slonczewski  has calculated the current threshold of spin excitations in the context of point contact current injection into a laterally unbounded FM1/NM/FM2 structure, with a field perpendicular to plane. There are two distinct origins of current threshold requirements. One is due to energy loss through radiation from the central excited region under the contact to the rest of the FM1 layer. This term is proportional to exchange stiffness and the thickness of FM1 layer. The other is attributed to the alignment of the effective field, which includes the external field, the demagnetizing field, the anisotropy field and the exchange field from FM2 layer. The current induced torque has to be large enough to overcome the effective field and viscous damping. So the field dependent term is proportional to the effective field, the Gilbert damping coefficient, and the total magnetic moments in the excitation region. In the case of a single Co layer, both terms imply a higher threshold current than those in multilayers. The propagation of energy will no longer be constricted in a very thin FM1 layer. Instead the excited region will dissipate energy through exchange interaction into the entire 300 nm thick Co film. The exchange field experienced by the excited region is also much larger, without separation by a non-magnetic metal between the free layer and the static layer.

The $`dV/dI`$ peaks that we have observed occur in a negative bias voltage between 100 mV to 200 mV in Figure 2(a). The estimated current density is 5-8$`\times `$109 A/cm2, which is considerably higher than the value of 108 A/cm2 in trilayered pillars , and the value of about 1$`\times `$109 A/cm2 for multilayers . In the latter, since the current injected from a point contact spreads out in the multilayers, perhaps only the top layers can be excited and the rest of the layers remain fixed as a polarizer.

In conclusion, we report spin wave excitations in a single ferromagnetic layer by high-density current injection through a point contact. Without a multilayer structure involving non-magnetic metal or a nanolithographically patterned trilayer nano-pillar, we have observed spin precession, albeit at a higher current density. The spin precession occurs in a constricted region underneath the point contact. The resistance changes, signatures of spin-wave excitations, are attributed to spin dependent scattering due to a localized large magnetization gradient. The effects that have been observed in single ferromagnetic layers imply that similar effects could also appear in multilayers, even though the multialyers have been designed to create magnetic heterogeneity.

Work supported by National Science Foundation grant no. DMR00-80031 and DMR01-01814.