text:
# Possible cosmological implications in electrodynamics due to variations of the fine structure constant

## I Introduction

Since the first half of the 20th century different researchers Dirac (1938); Teller (1948); Jordan (1959) began to put forward the idea that the fine structure constant $`\alpha `$ could present cosmological variations. Today, recent observations of quasars have suggested Webb et al. (1999, 2001); Murphy et al. (2001) that the fine structure constant $`\alpha e^2/\mathrm{}c`$ might present variations with respect to cosmic time. Here, $`e`$ represent the electron charge, $`c`$ the speed of light and $`\mathrm{}`$ Planck’s constant. These observations imply that the fluctuations $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha /\alpha `$ of this fundamental constant are given by

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha }{\alpha }=0.72\pm 0.18\times 10^5,$$
(1)
in the interval of redshifts $`z`$ given by $`0.5<z<3.5`$.

Because the constants $`\mathrm{},e\text{ and }c`$ that define $`\alpha `$ might vary in different ways Davies et al. (2002) so as to give the value given by eq.(1), one may assume that the electromagnetic fields and the electric charges are coupled in different forms that depend on cosmic time. Since the electric charge could have variations of cosmological origin, possibly the continuity equation no longer holds and/or part of the electric charge is not generating electromagnetic field, or contrary, it generates an extra electromagnetic field. In this letter we explore these possibilities and some of its immediate consequences on space–time.

Previous research has been conducted on this topic. Most notably the work by Bekenstein Bekenstein (1982) and Chodos & Detweiler Chodos and Detweiler (1980) had given in the past theoretical clues as to why the fine structure constant might vary in time or position as the universe expands. Bekenstein developed a complete analysis using the principle of least action. Chodos & Detweiler analysed $`\alpha `$ variations using a five dimensional (4+1) space–time based on ideas first proposed by Kaluza and Klein.

It is well known that one can decompose a vector field as the sum of one solenoidal component plus a non–rotational one (cf. Helmholtz decomposition theorem). A generalisation in terms of differential forms is given by the Hodge decomposition theorem for Riemannian manifolds. Also, an $`n`$–dimensional manifold can be foliated with submanifolds of smaller dimensions. For the electromagnetic case that we study in this letter, it is possible to foliate the space–time (with a 3+1 Lorentzian metric) with 2–dimensional and 0–dimensional manifolds that “emerge” from vector fields which represent the electric charge–current densities. It is then natural to use the formalism of differential forms in order to obtain a more general study of the problem through a Hodge–like decomposition of the differential form that represents the electromagnetic charge–current distributions.

## II Electrodynamics

Let us take the 1–form $`𝑱_{\text{std}}=\rho _{\text{std}}𝐝x^0+\left(j_k^{\text{(std)}}/c\right)𝐝x^k`$ representing the charge–current in the usual sense Misner et al. (1995) with $`k=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}`$. Here the signature of the metric is given by ($`,+,+,+`$), $`\rho _{\text{std}}`$ is the charge density, $`j_k^{\text{(std)}}`$ are the components of the current density, $`𝐝x^\mu `$ is a basis for the cotangent space with coordinates ($`x^0=ct,x^1,x^2,x^3`$) and greek indices have values $`0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}`$. $`𝑱_{\text{std}}`$ satisfies Maxwell’s equations

$$𝐝𝑭=0,𝜹𝑭=4\pi 𝑱_{\text{std}},$$
(2)
which imply naturally the continuity equation

$$𝜹𝑱_{\text{std}}=0.$$
(3)
In the previous equations $`𝑭`$ is a 2–form that builds up the standard electromagnetic field and is given Misner et al. (1995) by $`𝑭E_1𝐝x^1𝐝x^0+E_2𝐝x^2𝐝x^0+\mathrm{}+B_3𝐝x^1𝐝x^2`$. $`𝑬\text{ and }𝑩`$ represent the electric and magnetic components of the electromagnetic field. $`𝜹^{}𝐝^{}`$ is the co–differential operator and  is the Hodge star operator Misner and Wheeler (1957); Misner et al. (1995); Nakahara (1990); de Rham (1984).

In a universe with varying $`\alpha `$, the continuity equation is not necessarily valid. This can be interpreted as if a universal “total charge–current” 1–form $`𝑱_e`$ given by

$$𝑱_e𝑱_{\text{std}}+𝑱_\text{n}+𝑱_\text{h},$$
(4)
is associated to the “global electrodynamics” of the universe at all cosmological times. In eq.(4), the 1–form $`𝑱_e`$ is such that it accepts a Hodge–like decomposition (cf. Hodge decomposition theorem in Nakahara (1990); de Rham (1984)). With this assumption, the differential 1–forms $`𝑱_{\text{std}}`$, $`𝑱_\text{n}`$ and $`𝑱_\text{h}`$ are coexact, exact and harmonic 1–forms respectively.

Eq.(4) is a natural generalisation of the result expressed by eq.(1). Indeed, eq.(1) means that $`\alpha \left(10.72\times 10^5\right)\alpha _{\text{today}}`$. If the total charge–current $`𝑱_e`$ obeys a similar relation, that is

$$𝑱_e=(1+\eta )𝑱_{\text{std}},$$
(5)
where $`\eta `$ is a scalar 0–form, then it follows that $`𝑱_\text{n}+𝑱_\text{h}=\eta 𝑱_{\text{std}}`$. To simplify things it is possible to assume that $`\eta `$ can be decomposed in two additive terms, $`\eta _\text{n}`$ and $`\eta _\text{h}`$ such that $`\eta =\eta _\text{n}+\eta _\text{h}`$. These terms satisfy

$$𝑱_\text{n}=\eta _\text{n}𝑱_{\text{std}},\text{ and }𝑱_\text{h}=\eta _\text{h}𝑱_{\text{std}}.$$
(6)
From the previous considerations it follows that the 1–form $`𝑱_e`$ does not satisfy a continuity–like equation when $`\eta _n0`$.

## III Mathematical relations between fields

In order to analyse the electrodynamics imposed by the conditions of the previous section, let us multiply eq.(4) by $`4\pi `$ and substitute eq.(2) and eq.(6) on this to obtain

$$4\pi 𝑱_e=𝜹𝑭+𝐝M+4\pi \eta _\text{h}𝑱_{\text{std}},$$
(7)
in which the scalar 0–form $`M`$ is such that

$$𝐝M=4\pi \eta _\text{n}𝑱_{\text{std}},\text{ and }𝜹M=0.$$
(8)
Note that eq.(7) reduces to the standard Maxwell’s equations when there is no cosmological variation of $`𝑱_e`$. That is, when $`\eta _\text{n}=\eta _\text{h}=0`$ and so $`𝑱_e=𝑱_{\text{std}}`$. In the general case, when this condition is not valid, the electromagnetic field is such that it is represented by two mathematical objects, the Maxwell 2–form $`𝑭`$ and the 0–form $`M`$. $`𝑭`$ satisfies Maxwell’s equations, eq.(2), and $`M`$ satisfies a set of Maxwell’s-like equations given by eq.(8). In other words, the cosmic time variations of $`𝑱_e`$ imply that the electrodynamics of space–time are given by two fields. One field turns out to be the standard Maxwell 2–form $`𝑭`$. The other is a scalar field $`M`$ introduced by the cosmological variations of $`𝑱_e`$.

According to eq.(7), the 0–form $`M`$ satisfies the following “Poisson’s” equation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }M\left(𝜹+d\right)^2M=^{}\left\{𝐝\eta _\text{n}𝐝^{}𝑭\right\}.$$
(9)
In other words, the scalar field $`M`$ is produced by the changes in the 2–form field $`𝑭`$ and the scalar $`\eta _\text{n}`$.

We can also give an expression for Dirac’s equation. From eq.(7), using again a Hodge–like decomposition, it follows that we can introduce a 1–form $`𝑨`$ that represents the electromagnetic potential given by

$$𝑨=𝑨_{\text{std}}+𝑨_M+𝑨_\text{h},$$
(10)
where $`𝑨_{\text{std}},𝑨_M\text{ and }𝑨_\text{h}`$ are co–exact, exact and harmonic 1–forms respectively. In eq.(10) we have added the 1–form $`𝑨_\text{h}`$ for mathematical completeness, despite the fact that it is usually discarded in standard physics. With this, and because $`e=(1+\eta )e_{\text{std}}`$, where $`e_{\text{std}}`$ is the standard charge of an electron, then Dirac’s equation takes the form

$$\left(i\mathbf{}\frac{\alpha }{\left(1+\eta \right)e_{\text{std}}}\mathit{}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{mc}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(11)
Here $`i^2=1`$, $`\mathbf{}=\gamma ^\mu _\mu `$, $`m`$ is the electron’s rest mass, $`\mathit{}=\gamma ^\mu A_\mu `$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is Dirac’s spinor and $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ is the identity element of the algebra generated by Dirac’s matrices $`\gamma ^\mu `$ that satisfy the following equation

$$\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\nu +\gamma ^\nu \gamma ^\mu =2g^{\mu \nu }\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1},$$

where $`g^{\mu \nu }`$ are the metric components assigned to space–time.

## IV Discussion

The previous analysis was made under the assumption that the variations of the 1–form $`𝑱_e`$ are time dependent. However, all the presentation is still valid if the variations are not only functions that depend on time, but also functions that could vary on space. That is, the variations can equally occur on space and/or time and the coupling of the two fields $`𝑭`$ and $`M`$ will still occur in the same form. More generally, the results obtained in the previous section are also valid if space–time variations on the “fundamental” constants $`\mathrm{},e\text{ and }c`$, or even Ivanchik et al. (2002) $`m`$ occur.

It is intriguing that our daily experiments do not show any evidence of the physical properties that the field $`M`$ might induce on space–time. However, there has been a report (Monstein and Wesley, 2002; van Vlaenderen, 2003) in which such a field produces longitudinal electrodynamic waves. One can also think that the reason for a non–observable field $`M`$ happens because it vanishes at our present epoch. This is the same as saying that we live in a very peculiar place or time in the universe, something that is difficult to believe. On the other hand, one can think that we have constructed our standard Maxwell electrodynamics in such a way that the properties of the field $`M`$ do not affect any of our experiments. This is also difficult to believe. Another possible way in which the field $`M`$ might had been missed by our experiments is if its strength is tiny. For example, since eq.(1) suggests that $`\eta `$ is a small quantity, then it follows that the field $`M`$ is weak. Indeed, when $`\eta =0`$ then $`\eta _\text{h}=\eta _\text{n}`$. This result together with eq.(6) and combined with the properties of $`𝑱_\text{n}\text{ and }𝑱_\text{h}`$ imply that $`\eta _\text{h}=\eta _\text{n}=0`$. Thus, the trivial solution of eq.(8) occurs when $`\eta =0`$ and gives $`M=0`$ because $`M`$ is not harmonic. When $`\eta `$ is a small quantity, one has to proceed slightly different. The Lorentz force can be naturally generalised as $`\mathrm{d}𝑷/\mathrm{d}\tau ={}_{}{}^{}𝑭{}_{}{}^{}𝑱_{e}^{}+M𝑱_e=\left(1+\eta \right)\left({}_{}{}^{}𝑭{}_{}{}^{}𝑱_{\text{std}}^{}+M𝑱_{\text{std}}\right)`$, where $`\tau `$ is the proper time and $`𝑷`$ is the 1–form momentum. So, if $`\eta `$ is small and $`M`$ is not negligible then we would had already observed the properties of the field $`M`$ in our laboratories. However, this Lorentz force can be used in experiments to test the validity of our reasoning.

On the other hand, when $`\eta _\text{n}=0`$, then $`𝑴=0`$, and the Lorentz force is given by

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}𝑷}{\mathrm{d}\tau }=\left(1+\eta _\text{h}\right){}_{}{}^{}𝑭{}_{}{}^{}𝑱_{\text{std}}^{}.$$
(12)
This means that the standard Lorentz force is changed by a factor $`(1+\eta _\text{h})`$ because the variations of $`\eta _\text{h}`$ produce deviations in the intensities of the electromagnetic interactions.

However, eq.(12) can be written as

$$\frac{1}{\left(1+\eta _\text{h}\right)}\frac{\mathrm{d}𝑷}{\mathrm{d}\tau }={}_{}{}^{}𝑭{}_{}{}^{}𝑱_{\text{std}}^{}.$$
(13)
This equation means that the electromagnetic forces are producing deviations from the standard dynamics, since $`\eta _\text{h}0`$ associates changes on the momentum which are not Newtonian.

The duality presented in eqs.(12)-(13) is similar to that presented by some researchers Milgrom (1983, 2001, 2002); Sanders and McGaugh (2002) for the gravitational forces in order to explain the rotation curves of galaxies, and other astronomical observations. These theories, the so called Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) theories, suggest that our standard ideas of dynamics should be changed. For the electromagnetic case considered in the present article, this modification occurs naturally.


format: text

text:
# Single Heavy MSSM Higgs Production at 𝑒⁺𝑒⁻ Linear Collider

## Abstract

We briefly review the single heavy Higgs production at high energy $`e^+e^{}`$ linear collider, $`\gamma \gamma `$ collider and $`e^{}\gamma `$ collider. We present the recent results for $`e^+e^{}W^\pm H^{}`$ in the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model and preliminary results for $`e^+e^{}\nu \overline{\nu }A^0`$.

preprint: hep-ph/0210448

The measurement of the properties of the heavy Higgs bosons $`H^0`$, $`A^0`$ and $`H^\pm `$ of Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) could tell us a lot about the MSSM parameters. The mass of the heavy Higgses are related to the overall scale $`m_{A^0}`$ (CP-odd Higgs mass), with a distinctive mass relation between $`m_{A^0}`$, $`m_{H^0}`$ and $`m_{H^\pm }`$ in MSSM. The heavy Higgs couplings to the fermions are sensitive to $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ (the ratio of the two Higgs vacuum expectation values) and Yukawa couplings, and its couplings to the sfermions are sensitive to the trilinear $`A`$-terms. Unlike the light CP-even Higgs $`h^0`$, whose couplings become increasingly insensitive to the MSSM parameters in the decoupling limit ($`m_{A^0}m_Z`$), the couplings of the heavy Higgs bosons are always sensitive to the MSSM parameters. Thus, measurements of the properties of the heavy MSSM Higgs bosons are very valuable, especially in the decoupling limit.

Discovery of the heavy Higgs bosons, however, poses a special challenge at future colliders, contrary to the case of the light CP-even Higgs $`h^0`$, when the discovery is almost certain at current and future collider experiments. Run II of the Fermilab Tevatron, now in progress, has a limited reach for the neutral heavy MSSM Higgs bosons $`H^0`$ and $`A^0`$ at small $`m_{A^0}`$ and large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. The charged Higgs boson $`H^\pm `$ can be discovered in top quark decays for $`m_{H^\pm }m_t`$ and large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ HiggsatRunII ; GuchaitHpm . The CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has a much greater reach for heavy MSSM Higgs boson discovery at moderate to large values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ via the process of $`H^0`$ and $`A^0`$ decays to $`\tau `$ pairs AtlasTDR ; CMS  and the charged MSSM Higgs boson $`H^\pm `$ mode: $`gbtH^{}`$ with $`H^{}\tau \overline{\nu }`$ AtlasH+ ; CMS . The absence of a Higgs boson discovery at the CERN LEP-2 experiments implies that $`0.5<\mathrm{tan}\beta <2.4`$ and $`m_{A^0}<91.9`$ GeV are excluded at 95% confidence level LEP2 . This leaves a wedge-shaped region of parameter space at moderate $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ in which the heavy MSSM Higgs bosons could be missed at the LHC.

At a future high energy $`e^+e^{}`$ linear collider (LC), the heavy Higgs bosons will be produced in pairs, if it is kinematically allowed. The dominant production modes are $`e^+e^{}H^0A^0`$ and $`e^+e^{}H^+H^{}`$. At large $`m_{A^0}`$, $`m_{A^0}m_{H^0}m_{H^\pm }`$ up to mass splittings of order $`m_Z^2/m_{A^0}`$, so that the pair-production modes are kinematically allowed only if $`m_{A^0}0.5\sqrt{s}`$. In particular, the pair-production modes are limited to $`m_{A^0}250`$ GeV ($`m_{A^0}500`$ GeV) at a LC with $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV ($`\sqrt{s}=1000`$ GeV).

In this talk we consider the production of one of the heavy Higgs bosons in association with lighter SM particles at the LC. While the cross sections for such production modes are typically very small, they offer the possibility of extending the reach of the LC to higher values of $`m_{A^0,H^0,H^\pm }0.5\sqrt{s}`$. Single heavy Higgs boson production has been studied in the context of the MSSM or a general two Higgs doublet model (2HDM) in a number of processes at LC, $`\gamma \gamma `$ collider and $`e^{}\gamma `$ collider. At a LC, the following final states have been considered:
(I) Tree-level processes suppressed by $`\mathrm{cos}^2(\beta \alpha )`$, where $`\alpha `$ is the mixing angle that diagonalizes the CP-even neutral Higgs boson mass-squared matrix. Such processes includes the associated $`h^0A^0`$ production $`e^+e^{}h^0A^0`$FDHiggsprod , Higgsstrahlung $`e^+e^{}ZH^0`$FDHiggsprod , $`W`$ and $`Z`$-boson fusionOrangebook , $`e^+e^{}\nu \overline{\nu }H^0`$; $`e^+e^{}e^+e^{}H^0`$. In the decoupling limit, $`\mathrm{cos}^2(\beta \alpha )m_Z^4/m_{A^0}^4`$, so these cross sections decrease rapidly as $`m_{A^0}`$ increases.
(II) Production in association with pairs of third-generation fermionsbbHAHpm ; bbHA ; bbHpm ; KanemuraReview : $`e^+e^{}b\overline{b}H^0`$, $`b\overline{b}A^0`$, $`\tau ^{}\overline{\nu }H^+`$, and $`\overline{t}bH^+`$. The cross sections for the first three of these processes are strongly enhanced at large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, and the fourth is enhanced at both large and small $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.
(III) Single heavy MSSM Higgs production modes that are zero at the tree level but arise at one loop: $`e^+e^{}ZA^0`$eeZA2HDM ; eeZAMSSM , $`e^+e^{}\gamma A^0`$gammaA ; eeZA2HDM ; FGL , $`e^+e^{}\nu \overline{\nu }A^0`$FGL ; nunuafull ; arhrib  and $`e^+e^{}W^\pm H^{}`$eeWH2HDM ; KanemuraeeHW ; SHZhu ; Breinee ; HW ; HW2 .

Because detailed experimental studies of almost all of these processes are unavailable, we choose an optimistic standard of detectability to be 10 heavy Higgs boson production events in the LC data sample. We assume data samples of 500 fb-1 at $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV and 1000 fb-1 at $`\sqrt{s}=1000`$ GeV. For neutral Higgs boson production, this 10-event standard corresponds to a cross section of 0.02 fb at $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV (0.01 fb at $`\sqrt{s}=1000`$ GeV). For charged Higgs boson production, we add together the cross sections for $`H^+`$ and $`H^{}`$ production before applying the 10-event standard. In what follows we assume that the $`e^+`$ and $`e^{}`$ beams are unpolarized, and adapt the cross sections presented in the literature accordingly. We consider only $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ values above the LEP lower bound of 2.4 LEP2  and heavy Higgs masses above $`\sqrt{s}/2`$. The comparison of various production modes in the reach of $`m_H\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ plane is given in Fig. 1.

If the $`e^+e^{}`$ LC is converted into a photon collider through Compton backscattering of intense laser beams, the neutral heavy Higgs bosons $`H^0`$ and $`A^0`$ can be singly produced in the $`s`$-channel through their loop-induced couplings to photon pairs. This process appears to be very promising for detecting $`H^0`$ and $`A^0`$ with masses above $`\sqrt{s}/2`$ and moderate $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ values between 2.5 and 10 gamgamAsner ; gamgamMuhlleitner ; gamgamGunionHaber . In particular, a recent realistic simulation of signal and backgrounds gamgamAsner  showed that a 630 GeV $`e^+e^{}`$ LC running in $`\gamma \gamma `$ mode for three years would allow $`H^0`$, $`A^0`$ detection over a large fraction of the LHC wedge region (in which the heavy MSSM Higgs bosons would not be discovered at the LHC) for $`m_{A^0}`$ up to the photon-photon energy limit of $`500`$ GeV. At a 1000 GeV LC, the mass reach is likely to be above 600 GeV gamgamMuhlleitner .

The cross sections for production of $`\tau ^{}\overline{\nu }H^+`$ and $`\overline{t}bH^+`$ in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions CPYuan  are expected to be larger than the corresponding cross sections in $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions at large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Production of $`W^+H^{}`$ in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions also occurs at the one-loop levelggHW , which is competitive with $`e^+e^{}W^+H^{}`$ in the MSSM for a TeV machine.

Finally, if the LC is run in $`e^{}\gamma `$ mode, the process $`e^{}\gamma \nu H^{}`$ is possible. Unfortunately, with the typical expected $`e^{}\gamma `$ luminosity of 100 fb-1, the cross section for this process in the 2HDM is too small to be of interest Kanemuraegamma . This process could become promising in the MSSM if its cross section is enhanced by the contributions of light superpartners, or if the $`e^{}\gamma `$ luminosity is increased.

Let us now focus on the two processes that we have studied: $`e^+e^{}W^\pm H^{}`$ and $`e^+e^{}\nu \overline{\nu }A^0`$. The 2HDM contributions to $`e^+e^{}W^\pm H^{}`$ have been studied in eeWH2HDM , and we calculated the additional contributions from superparticles in MSSM. Details of the analysis can be found in HW . Similar analysis has been done Breinee  and reported by O. Brein at this conference. There is no contribution at tree level due to the vanishing of $`\gamma W^+H^{}`$ and $`ZW^+H^{}`$ couplings and the leading contribution appears at one-loop. Unlike the case of the non-supersymmetric 2HDM, in which the top/bottom quark loops give by far the largest contribution to the cross section, in the full MSSM the fermionic loops involving charginos/neutralinos and the bosonic loops involving stops/sbottoms also give contributions of similar size. Although the stop/sbottom loops are enhanced by the large $`H^{}\stackrel{~}{t}_R\stackrel{~}{b}_L^{}`$ coupling (which is proportional to the top quark Yukawa coupling), these diagrams are suppressed by higher powers of the superparticle masses than the fermionic loops.

Figures 2 show the dependence of the $`e^+e^{}W^+H^{}`$ cross section on the charged Higgs mass for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2.5`$, $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV (left) and $`\sqrt{s}=1000`$ GeV (right). Solid lines are the contributions from the non-SUSY 2HDM with the Higgs sector constrained by the MSSM mass and coupling relations. The dotted (dashed) lines show the cross sections in the full MSSM, including the contributions from all the superparticles, for $`A_t=A_b=0`$ ($`A_t=A_b=200`$ GeV). We compare the cross sections with 80% left-handed $`e^{}`$ polarization, no polarization, and 80% right-handed $`e^{}`$ polarization, which are denoted in each plot by the same type of lines, from top to bottom. Left-handed $`e^{}`$ polarization always gives a larger cross section. The additional SUSY contributions generally enhance the cross section. The cross sections decline as $`m_{H^\pm }`$ increases; however, reasonable cross sections can be obtained for $`m_{H^\pm }>\sqrt{s}/2`$, especially for small $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.

In Fig. 3 we compare the cross section in the MSSM with that in the 2HDM as a function of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, for $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ and 1000 GeV. We fix $`m_{H^\pm }`$ to a single value, $`m_{H^\pm }=\sqrt{s}/2`$, in order to more clearly illustrate the effect of the MSSM contributions. The rest of the MSSM parameters are chosen randomly within 1 TeV, taking into account the experimental lower limit on the superparticle searches. Details of the analysis can be found at HW2 . While the 2HDM cross section falls rapidly with increasing $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, the MSSM contributions depend much more weakly on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, especially at $`\sqrt{s}=1000`$ GeV, where the maximum cross section is almost independent of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. This implies that the largest relative cross section enhancements due to MSSM contributions occur at large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, as shown by the different symbols in Fig. 3. At a 500 GeV machine, an enhancement of more than a factor of 10 can occur for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >10`$, while a factor of 100 can occur for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >40`$. At a 1000 GeV machine, the enhancements can be even larger. At low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, cross section enhancements of roughly 50% are typical.

The maximum 10-event reaches in $`m_{H^\pm }`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is shown in Fig. 4. In all cases considered, the MSSM contributions increase the 10-event reach over that in the 2HDM: the reach in $`m_{H^\pm }`$ is increased by about 20 GeV at $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV, and by about 40 GeV or more at $`\sqrt{s}=1000`$ GeV. At $`\sqrt{s}=1000`$ GeV, increasing the $`\mu `$ parameter from 200 to 500 GeV with other SUSY parameters held fixed increases the reach by about 70 GeV in $`m_{H^\pm }`$, and by about 1 unit in $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. At $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV, the $`\mu `$ dependence is much weaker. For either value of $`\mu `$, using an 80% left-polarized $`e^{}`$ beam increases the reach compared to using unpolarized beams by about 30 GeV in $`m_{H^\pm }`$ at $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV and by twice that at $`\sqrt{s}=1000`$ GeV; at either center-of-mass energy the reach in $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ increases by about 1 unit.

Comparing to the other single charged Higgs production modes at LC collider, we see that while $`e^+e^{}\tau \overline{\nu }H^+`$ and $`e^+e^{}\overline{t}bH^+`$ is promising at large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`W^+H^{}`$ production is the only channel in $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions analyzed to date that yields $`10`$ events containing charged Higgs bosons at low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ values for $`m_{H^\pm }\sqrt{s}/2`$.

For the single CP-odd Higgs production mode $`e^+e^{}\nu \overline{\nu }A^0`$, the leading contribution from top and bottom quark correction to the $`WWA^0`$ vertex has been reported in FGL . Details of the full 2HDM contributions can be found in nunuafull . Part of the SUSY contributions including CP violation phases has been done in arhrib  and reported by A. Arhrib at this conference. In addition to the $`t`$-channel $`W`$ fusion contributions, there are diagrams of $`s`$-channel Z boson exchange. For on-shell intermediate $`Z`$, such process is the same as $`e^+e^{}ZA^0`$ with $`Z`$ decaying into neutrinos, which has been calculated for 2HDM and full MSSM in eeZA2HDM ; eeZAMSSM  and the production cross section is found to be small. Moreover, $`Z`$ resonance portion can be removed experimentally by the recoil reconstruction. However, for off-shell intermediate $`Z^{}`$, such processes have the same $`\nu \overline{\nu }A^0`$ final state, which interfere with the $`t`$-channel diagrams and have to be included in our calculation. Fig. 5 show the cross section for 2HDM contributions, for 500 GeV and TeV LC. The cross section is too small to be observed for $`m_{A^0}>\sqrt{s}/2`$ FGL .

In summary, we can see that the single heavy Higgs production could be important at LC when the heavy Higgs mass is larger than half of the center of mass energy. The production modes $`e^+e^{}ZH^0,h^0A^0,W^\pm H^{}`$ and $`b\overline{b}H^0`$ at 500 GeV machine and $`e^+e^{}W^\pm H^{}`$, $`h^0A^0`$, $`\nu \overline{\nu }H^0`$ and $`t\overline{b}H^{}`$ at TeV machine has reasonable 10-event reach in $`m_{H^\pm }\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ plane. At low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, SUSY contributions from light superparticles and using left-polarized electron beam could enhance the cross section for $`e^+e^{}W^\pm H^{}`$. While for $`e^+e^{}\nu \overline{\nu }A^0`$, the non-supersymmetric 2HDM contribution seems to be too small to be interesting. A few additional processes that have not yet been computed may be promising for single heavy Higgs boson production at an $`e^+e^{}`$ collider, for example, the weak boson fusion process $`e^+e^{}\overline{\nu }e^{}H^+`$ at $`\sqrt{s}1000`$ GeV. Also, to have a realistic analysis of the reach for various single heavy Higgs production modes, the background study is important and necessary.

Acknowledgment: The author is grateful to Heather Logan, Jack Gunion and Tom Farris for collaborations on works presented in this talk. We would also like to thank Oliver Brein and Abdesslam Arhrib for comparison of the results. The work of S.S is supported by the DOE under grant DE-FG03-92-ER-40701 and by the John A. McCone Fellowship.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

NeXus1 aspires to become a common data format for both the synchrotron and neutron scattering community. The aim of the NeXus proposal is to provide an efficient and platform independent self describing data exchange format. The NeXus proposal has five levels:

* A physical file format.
* A Application Programmer Interface (API) for accessing data files.
* A file structure.
* Rules for storing single data items.
* A dictionary of parameter names.

As physical file format the hierachical data format (HDF)2 from the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA) was choosen. This is a binary, platform independent, self describing data format. HDF is well supported by major data analysis packages. HDF files are accessed through a library of access functions. This library is public domain software. Libraries are available for the ANSI–C, Fortran77 and Java programming languages on all important computing platforms. The HDF–4 library supports a lot of different content types such as scientific datasets, groups, images, tables etc. Of these NeXus only uses the scientfic dataset and the group structures. HDF–4 groups allow to order information hierarchically in a HDF file, much like directories in a filesystem. As the HDF library is also fairly complex a NeXus-API was defined which facilitates access to NeXus HDF files.

The file structure part of the NeXus definition provides application programs with the information where to find certain data elements in the file. NeXus files are structured into several groups, much like directories in a file system. The NeXus file structure provides for multiple datasets in a single file and easy retrieval of plottable information. NeXus encourages users to include all necessary information about an experiment in one file and not to distribute such information across multiple file. Therefore the NeXus file structure provides for a complete description of an instrument used for an experiment.

The rules for storing individual data items in a NeXus file provide the infrastruture for locating the axises of multi–dimensional datasets and require the user to store the units of measurement with each data item.

The NeXus dictionary, the least developed area of the NeXus standard, provides names for data items in a NeXus files and files structures for known instrument types. More information about NeXus can be found at the NeXus WWW-sites:

http://www.neutron.anl.gov/nexus and http://lns00.psi.ch/NeXus.

## 2 A New NeXus-API

The original NeXus-API as described above had been developed to support the then prevalent HDF version 4.1 (HDF–4). Over time the HDF–4 library had become overly complex and also imposed certain limitations on users. Therefore the NCSA decided to redesign HDF. This brought a new version of HDF, HDF version 5, into existence which has a different access library and a different, incompatible file format. HDF version 5 (HDF–5) maintained all the advantages of the HDF version 4 format. But a couple of important limitations of HDF–4 were levied:

* HDF–4 limits the number of objects in a HDF file to 20000. This sounds much, but isn’t because most HDF-4 content types consist of multiple objects.
* File size was restricted to 2GB.
* HDF–4 is not thread safe.

Some of these limitations of HDF–4 were already hit by NeXus users. Though NCSA commited itself to maintaining HDF–4 for some time to come, the need was felt to move to HDF–5 as the physical file format for NeXus.

Therefore the NeXus design team decided to program a new API with following design goals:

* Support for both HDF–4 and HDF–5.
* API compatibility to the old version.

In order to achieve this goal a framework was developed for adding further file formats, for example XML, to the NeXus-API.

After some trouble with the HDF–5 libraries the new NeXus–API version 2.0 was released. This version can be built to support either HDF–4, HDF–5 or both. The goal of API compatibility was achieved with three exceptions:

* Due to technical reasons, the mechanism for the creation of compressed datasets had to change.
* When creating a new file a user has to select if a HDF–4 or HDF–5 is to be created.
* In HDF–4 groups are ordered in the sequence of their creation in the data file. In HDF–5 an alphabetical order is imposed. Thus the order of groups in HDF–4 and HDF–5 NeXus files is not identical. The HDF–5 team at NCSA promised to do something about this.

A little problem was posed by NeXus classes. NeXus uses the class name of a group and its name for identification. In HDF–5 the concept of a group class was abandoned. However, HDF–5 brought us arbitrary attributes to groups. The problem was thus solved by storing the NeXus class in a group attribute with the name NXclass. So, the news is that there is no news! The NeXus-API stayed the same. The new API is stable and is already in production use at the SINQ–instruments TRICS and AMOR at PSI.

The new NeXus–API is available for the programming languages:

* ANSI–C and C++
* Fortran 77
* Fortran 90
* Java

It has been tested on True64Unix 5.1, Linux, Mac-OS 10 and Windows operating systems so far.

It is now recommended to use the newer HDF–5 file format wherever possible. Conversions from HDF–4 to HDF–5 and back can be performed with a set of utilities provided by NCSA. This conversion does not produce valid NeXus files though. The NCSA utility for converting from HDF–4 to HDF–5, h4toh5, was made NeXus compliant with a little patch. This utility also converts links properly. The corresponding utility h5toh4, for conversion from HDF–5 to HDF–4 files, can not be that easily patched to work with NeXus because h5toh4 changes the file structure. There also exists a Java utility for conversion from HDF–4 NeXus files to HDF–5 NeXus files and back. This utility cannot be used in production use, though, because it duplicates linked datasets.

## 3 A New NeXus IDL API

There has always been a NeXus–API for RSI’s Interactive Data Language (IDL) data treatment program. This NeXus–API for IDL (NIDL) was based on the HDF–4 access functions provided by IDL. As HDF–5 support is not yet available for IDL, this approach was not feasible for the new NeXus–API. Moreover, a reimplementation using IDL HDF–5 access functions would have meant a complete reimplementation and duplicated code. Therefore it was choosen to integrate the new NeXus–API into IDL through IDL’s native function ANSI–C interface. This would also save work in the case of further extensions to the NeXus file format list. This approach, a IDL NeXus API through IDL’s native functions, has been implemented. It currently is known to work well under True64Unix version 5.1. As IDL standardizes many aspects of the native function interface ports to other unix like operating system should not be a big deal, a port to Microsoft Windows type operating systems may require only a little more work.

## 4 New NeXus Aware Software

### 4.1 Browsers and Utilities

Browsers allow to view the content of a NeXus file and sometimes even edit it. The simplest of such applications is the command line browser NXbrowse which is distributed with the NeXus package. It can browse both NeXus HDF–4 and NeXus HDF–5 files.

Very new is the HDFView3 program from NCSA. This is a merged version of the older jhv and h5view applications from NCSA. HDFview can display the hierarchy of a NeXus file and give some basic renditions of data. HDFview also allows for editing of HDF files. HDFview works with both HDF–4 and HDF–5. HDFview is written in Java and thus available for a variety of platforms.

There is also a new NeXus Explorer program written in Visual Basic for Windows by Albert Chan at ISIS. Besides browsing, this application can also edit the NeXus file. With the help of IDL the application is able to do 2D plots of data. The NeXus Explorer is only available for the Windows platform from

http://www.isis.rl.ac.uk/geniebinaries/NexusExplorerBits.zip

A couple of new NeXus utilities have been developed and been included into the NeXus–API package:

Manuel Lujan from APNS provided NXtree which displays the structure of a NeXus file as a tree. Output can be in text, html or latex format.

is an experimental utility which converts a NeXus binary file into a XML file. The xml format has still to be finalised through.

is another experimental program which documents the structure of a NeXus program as a XML data Type definition (DTD). This tool shall help in the process of defining the NeXus dictionary and instrument type specifications. Both XML utilities were contributed by Ray Osborn, APNS.

### 4.2 Data Analysis Programs

#### 4.2.1 General Data Analysis Programs

Besides the known NeXus supporting data analysis tools IDL, opengenie and Lamp there is now a new system named openDave brought to us by the FRM–2 reactor group in munich. OpenDave has a modulare architecture which allows to process data from a selection of sources through various filters and output them to various types of sinks, including graphics. OpenDave is written in C++ with the QT toolkit and is thus restricted to operating systems supported by QT. Unfortunately, QT requires a developers license on a lot of platforms

#### 4.2.2 TOF Data Analysis Programs

Besides the programs inx, nathan and Isaw, the IDA program from Andreas Meyer, TU munich was adapted to support NeXus files as produced by the FOCUS instrument at PSI.

#### 4.2.3 Filters to Other Packages

In this section filters to and from NeXus to other data formats are discussed. For the small angle scattering community two such tools exist:

converts PSI–SANS NeXus files to a format suitable for the SANS data processing suite from the Hahn Meitner Institute in berlin. This utility was provided by Joachim Kohlbrecher, PSI.

Ron Gosh wrote nx2ill in order to convert SANS NeXus files to the format understood by the ILL SANS data processing tools.

There exists also a small utility which combines powder diffraction NeXus data files into a large powder diagram which is then stored in a format suitable for the Rietveld program fullprof.

#### 4.2.4 Single Crystal Diffractometer Data Analysis

At PSI a new program for the integration of single crystal diffraction data collected with a PSD with the name anatric was written. This program is optimised for the SINQ single crystal diffractometer TRICS. TRICS is a four circle diffractometer with a conventional eulerian cradle and three position sensitive detectors positioned on a movable detector arm at 0, 45 and 90 degrees offset. Typical measurements involve omega scans across a given omega range with all other angles fixed. TRICS saves its data in HDF–5 NeXus files.

Anatric is able to perform two operations:

anatric locates reflections in the data without prior knowledge about the crystal through a local maximum search. Reflection positions are determined through a center of gravity calculation. The output of this step is a list of reflections to be used for indexing or UB matrix refinement.

anatric can integrate reflection intensities for further processing with a crystal structure data determination package.

Anatric has been designed to cope with two TRICS specific problems. The first is that measurements are performed at low and at high two theta at the same time. This together with the resolution of the instrument has the consequence, that reflection positions shift by up to 2.5 pixels between omega frames at the high two theta detector. Moreover at TRICS reflections show up as rather large features on the detector. These two factors combined would make rectangular reflection boxes for integration excessively large and thus impractical. Anatric now takes this shift into account and extracts data to integrate along an arbitrary axis through the reflection. This axis is determined experimentally from strong reflections in the reflection location step.

The second problem is the large size of the reflections at TRICS in relation to the size of the position sensitive detectors ( 20x20cm). A reflection box for integration must be large enough to enclose strong reflections completely. Using such a large reflection box for all reflections however would kill off many perfectly well measured smaller reflections at the border of the detectors due to the necessary border tests. In order to cope with this, anatric determines for each reflection the size of the necessary integration box individually. If the reflection is to weak for this to work, a minimum integration box is used.

The actual integration of intensities is then performed with a variation of the dynamic mask procedure as described by Sjölin and Wlodawer5. Anatric has been written in C++. It is more or less finished, however the program still needs to be verified against a full structure refinement.

### 4.3 Monte Carlo Simulation Packages

Monte Carlo simulations of instruments become an increasingly valuable tool for instrument design, instrument optimisation and measurement planning. The NeXus file format can offer full documentation of the simulation run and efficient transfer of large simulated datasets to such packages. Moreover it could also become possible to simulate data files for testing of data analysis programs. Currently only one Monte Carlo simulation program, McStas6, has been ported to use NeXus for data file storage by Emmanuel Farhi at ILL. As of now, only a XML format is supported but support for binary NeXus files will follow soon. Such binary NeXus files will be written through the NeXus dictionary API. This allows the user to customize the NeXus file structure to his demands. NeXus support for the simulation package Vitess7 is in early stages.

## 5 Future Developments of NeXus

Most effort in developing the NeXus standard should now go into the refinement of the dictionary and the definition of NeXus file structures and content for a couple of different instrument types. It would also be good to set up a kind of scheme for standardizing such definitions.

The other thing which needs to be done is to make the NeXus installation and linking easiser. Feedback from users show that many have difficulties when juggling with all the different libraries, NeXus, HDF–4 and HDF–5, when compiling and linking programs. Possible solutions could be autoconf scripts for platforms which support this and perhaps the automatic generation of a shell script for linking against NeXus.

One main objection against NeXus is: it is not ASCII, I cannot edit my data! A possible answer to this objection would be a XML NeXus format. XML means eXtended Markup Language and is a scheme for defining a markup language in ASCII. The best known example of a markup language is html which is driving the WWW. A XML NeXus format is in the process of being defined. It is suggested to extend the NeXus–API to support XML as well.

It would also be helpful to provide NeXus support for some more general data analysis packages, especially free ones such as octave and scilab.

## 6 Conclusion

With the inclusion of the new HDF–5 file format into the NeXus–API, this API is well braced for the future. More and more NeXus aware data analysis software is being written and the software already available covers a wide area of applications.

## 7 Acknowledgements

The port of the NeXus–API to HDF–5 was supported through the european SCANS-network program. The SCANS RTD network was supported under the Access to Research Infrastructure activity, Improving Human Potential Program of the European Commission under contract number HPRI–CT–1999-50013 and the Bundesamt für Bildung un Wissenschaft, Berne, Switzerland under contract number BBW Nr.: 00.0208. This support is gratefully acknowledged.

## 8 References

1. P. Klosowski, M. Koennecke, J. Z. Tischler and R. Osborn: NeXus: A common data format for the exchange of neutron and synchrotron data. Physica B 241–243, 151–153, (1998)
2. HDF: http://hdf.ncsa.uiuc.edu
3. http://hdf.ncsa.uiuc.edu/hdf-java-html/hdfview/index.html
4. openDave,
5. L. Sjölin, A. Wlodawer, Improved Technique for Peak Integration for Crystallographic Data Collected with Position–Sensitive Detectors: A Dynamic Mask Procedure, Acta Cryst. A37, 594–604, (1981)
6. K. Lefmann, K. Nielsen, McStas , Neutron News 10/3, 20, (1999)
7. D. Wechsler, G. Zsigmond, F. Streffer, F. Mezei: VITESS: Virtual Instrumentation Tools for Pulsed and Continuour Sources, Neutron News 11/4, 25–28 (2000)


text:
# Unpolarized spin

## Unpolarized spin

: The equilibrium energy band diagram along the length of the wire is shown in Fig. 1(b). We neglect band bending in the semiconductor and insulator because of resident charges, since such bending may cause small quantitative changes, but no qualitative change to the discussion that follows.

The insulating layers are thin enough to be at least translucent to electrons, but the semiconductor layer is too thick to allow tunneling through it.

If a small potential $`V_{SD}`$ is applied between the source and drain contacts shown in Fig. 1(b), a current will flow only if an electron can jump from the source to the lowest subband in the quantum dot, and thence to the drain. For this discussion, we assume that the temperature is zero (kT = 0) and we also neglect all weak virtual processes, so that such a transition is not possible as long as the lowest subband in the semiconductor dot is above the Fermi level in the source contact.

Let us now pull the lowest subband in the dot to the Fermi level in the source contact by applying a positive potential to the semiconductor, while maintaining $`V_{SD}`$ = 0. This potential can be applied with a wrap-around gate (in much the same way as in ref. ) or with a remote gate in the configuration we will propose later. The gate potential does not affect the ferromagnetic metals (because they are “metals” which screen the gate field), but affects the energy states in the semiconductor (and insulator). We label the gate potential $`V_g`$ and the corresponding potential shift that it causes in the semiconductor conduction band states is called $`V_g^{}`$. The energy band diagram corresponding to the situation when the lowest subband in the dot aligns with the Fermi level is shown in Fig. 1(c). For this case, the gate potential shift $`V_g^{}`$ = $`\varphi _{ms}+\mathrm{\Delta }`$. We call this value of $`V_g^{}`$ ($`V_g`$) = $`V_{g1}^{}`$ ($`V_{g1}`$). When $`V_g`$ = $`V_{g1}`$, it becomes energetically possible for an electron to jump into the lowest subband in the dot from either contact. The dot occupancy now changes from 0 to 1.

Once an electron occupies the dot, it repels a second electron from coming into the dot because of Coulomb interaction. For the second electron, the lowest available energy state appears to be the level shown by the broken line in Fig. 1(c) which is $`e/2C`$ ($`C`$ = capacitance of the dot) above the lowest subband energy. We have to increase $`V_g^{}`$ by an additional $`e/2C`$ to pull the levels down enough so that the broken line is aligned with the Fermi level in the source as shown in Fig. 1(d). We call this value of $`V_g^{}`$ = $`V_{g2}^{}`$ and the corresponding $`V_g`$ = $`V_{g2}`$. Obviously, $`V_{g2}^{}`$ = $`\varphi _{ms}+\mathrm{\Delta }+e/2C`$. When $`V_g`$ = $`V_{g2}`$, a second electron can enter the dot and occupy it. Pauli Exclusion Principle dictates that this electron must have its spin anti-parallel to that of the first electron since both electrons are occupying the same lowest subband of the quantum dot.

A plot of electron occupancy versus the gate voltage is shown in Fig. 2(a). If we increase the gate voltage further, beyond $`V_{g2}`$, ultimately, we will pull the second subband level below the Fermi level. Thereafter, more than two electrons can occupy the dot, but we shall not explore that region.

## Polarized spin

: Now assume that the ferromagnetic contacts are taken to their saturation magnetization so that the electrons in them are spin polarized. Furthermore, assume that the spin polarization is 100% (the ferromagnets are essentially half-metallic). Hence, every electron that enters the dot from the contact has the same spin.

The first electron still enters the dot at $`V_g`$ = $`V_{g1}`$, but the second electron cannot enter the dot at $`V_{g2}`$. This is because this electron has the same spin as the first, and hence cannot co-exist in the lowest subband with the first electron because of Pauli Exclusion. In fact, the second electron can enter the dot only when the gate voltage shift $`V_g^{}`$ = $`\varphi _{ms}+\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Delta }^{}+e/2C`$. We call this value of $`V_g^{}`$ ($`V_g`$) = $`V_{g3}^{}`$ ($`V_{g3}`$). The energy band diagram for this situation is shown in Fig. 1(e). The charging diagram (or dot occupancy versus gate voltage) for spin polarized electrons is shown in Fig. 2(b).

## Transport: unpolarized spins

So far, we have assumed that no potential is applied across the source and drain contacts ($`V_{SD}`$ = 0), so that no current flows. We were merely changing the occupancy of the dot by a gate potential. Now, let us assume that we apply a small voltage $`V_{SD}`$ between source and drain contacts to induce transport, so that a non-zero current can flow.

The energy band diagrams at different gate voltages $`V_{ga}`$, $`V_{gb}`$, $`V_{gc}`$, $`V_{gd}`$ and $`V_{ge}`$ are shown in Fig. 3 for a fixed value of $`V_{SD}`$.

When $`V_g`$ = $`V_{ga}`$, no current can flow since the intermediate state in the quantum dot is not energetically accessible from the source.

When $`V_g`$ = $`V_{gb}`$, a current will flow at any $`V_{SD}`$ because the intermediate state in the dot has become accessible from the source. Furthermore, the drain is also accessible from the intermediate state. This is true for any non-zero value of $`V_{SD}`$.

Now consider the situation in Fig. 3(c) when $`V_g`$ = $`V_{gc}`$. The intermediate state is accessible from the source, but the drain is not accessible from this intermediate state unless $`V_{SD}V_t`$. If $`V_{SD}<V_t`$, then the Fermi level in the drain is above the subband level in the dot and therefore electron cannot flow from the dot to the drain. Consequently, there will be a threshold behavior in the current-voltage characteristic. The current voltage characteristic for $`V_{gb}`$ and $`V_{gc}`$ are shown in Fig. 4(a).

Then, if we increase $`V_g`$ beyond $`V_{gc}`$, ultimately the Coulomb repelled level (shown by the broken line) will align with the Fermi level in the source contact (see Fig. 3(d)). We call this value of $`V_g`$ = $`V_{gd}`$. Now the second electron can come in from the source into the dot and escape to the drain no matter how small $`V_{SD}`$ is. The first electron is still blocked for $`V_{SD}<V_t`$, but this does not matter since the second electron (and all following electrons) can cause current flow. Thus, the threshold behavior disappears at $`V_{gd}`$.

It is also obvious that the maximum value of $`V_t`$ is $`e/2C`$ and is reached just before the gate voltage reaches $`V_{gd}`$. The dependence of the threshold voltage on the gate voltage is shown in Fig. 4(b).

Fig. 4(b) is valid when the two electrons have opposite spins. Pauli Exclusion would have prevented the second electron from coming into the dot at $`V_g`$ = $`V_{gd}`$, if both electrons had the same spin.

## Transport: spin polarized electrons

. Next, we consider the situation when both electrons have the same spin. This corresponds to the case when the ferromagnets are magnetized and only one kind of spin can enter from the contacts. In this case, electron 1 and electron 2 will have the same spin (unless one flips a spin by scattering or because of user intervention).

When both electrons have parallel spins, the threshold behavior will not disappear until the gate voltage is much larger than $`V_{gd}`$, and is, in fact, equal to $`V_{ge}`$ as shown in Fig. 3(e). At this gate voltage, the second subband level aligns with the Fermi level in the source so that a second electron of the same spin as the first can enter the dot. This electron comes into the second subband since the first subband is not available by virtue of the Pauli Exclusion Principle.

The dependence of $`V_t`$ on $`V_g`$ for the same spin case is shown in Fig. 4(c). It is obvious that the maximum value of $`V_t`$ in this case is $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}/e+e/2C`$.

## Measurement of single spin

: One can now see how it is possible to measure a single electron spin. Our target spin is that of electron 1 and our “scout spin” is that of electron 2. The scout spin comes in from a magnetized ferromagnetic contact and hence its spin is known. By measuring the threshold behavior and discriminating between the cases shown in Fig. 4(b) and 4(c), we can tell if the target spin is parallel or anti-parallel to the scout spin. Hence we can determine the orientation of the target spin. Note that the target spin remains trapped in the quantum dot and the scout spin goes out to the contact to cause a current. Thus, we can determine the target spin somewhat non-invasively without pushing it out to the contact where it will be lost irretrievably.

## Candidate system

: One can synthesize the penta-layered structure of Fig. 1(a) by sequentially electrodepositing Fe, ZnSe, GaAs, ZnSe and Fe within the pores of a nanoporous alumina film produced by the anodization of aluminum in sulfuric acid . We have produced such structures in the past. Absorption and Raman spectroscopy have independently determined that the subband spacing in these dots is about 500 meV . Coulomb blockade experiments in these structures have shown that the capacitance of the semiconductor layer can be about 0.5 aF, leading to a single electron charging voltage $`e/2C`$ = 160 mV . Therefore, we can attain the condition $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}>e/2C>kT/e`$ at $`T`$ = 77 K. One can also selectively contact a few (about 10) wires by relatively large area contacts of 100 $`\mu `$m $`\times `$ 100 $`\mu `$m by exploiting a feature of electrochemical synthesis that results in wires of non-uniform height . Therefore using 30 $`\mu `$m $`\times `$ 30 $`\mu `$m sized contact pads (easily made by standard photolithography), one can hope to contact a single wire and make the measurements described in this paper. The gate potential can be applied by a remote gate that is located far away from the source and drain contacts. This structure is in fact identical to the structure proposed for a universal quantum gate in ref. . Hence, it can be easily used as a reader of qubit in that structure.

This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under grant ECS-0196554.

Fig. 1: (a) A penta-layered quantum wire structure of transverse dimension $``$ 10 nm. The thicknesses of the constituent layers are shown. FM = ferromagnet, I = insulator and SC = semiconductor. (b) Equilibrium energy band diagram along the length of the wire. $`\varphi _{ms}`$ is the metal semiconductor work function difference, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the quantization energy of the first subband and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ is the difference between the quantization energies of the second and first subband. (c) Energy band diagram when a gate potential $`V_{g1}`$ pulls the semiconductor (and insulator) conduction band down to make the lowest subband level in the semiconductor quantum dot align with the Fermi level. A single electron can now occupy the dot. (d) Energy band diagram when the gate potential $`V_{g2}`$ pulls the quantum dot levels down by an additional $`e/2C`$ ($`C`$ = dot capacitance). Now two electrons can occupy the dot if they have opposite spins. (e) Energy band diagram when the second subband is pulled down flush with the Fermi level by gate potential $`V_{g3}`$. Now two electrons of the same spin can occupy the dot.

Fig. 2: Charging diagram (dot occupancy versus gate voltage) for (a) spin-unpolarized electrons and (b) spin-polarized electrons.

Fig. 3: Electron energy band diagram at different gate voltages (a) $`V_g`$ = $`V_{ga}`$ when no current can flow since the intermediate dot state is not accessible from the source. (b) $`V_g`$ = $`V_{gb}`$ when the first subband lines up with the Fermi level in the source. Now the intermediate state is accessible from the source and the drain is accessible from this intermediate state. Hence, a current can flow at any value of $`V_{SD}`$. (c) $`V_g`$ = $`V_{gc}`$ when the first subband level dips below the Fermi level at the source. At this point the intermediate state is accessible from the source, but the drain is not accessible from this intermediate state unless $`V_{SD}`$ exceeds a certain threshold value. (d) $`V_g`$ = $`V_{gd}`$ when the Coulomb repelled level (broken line) lines up with the Fermi level in the source. In this case, current can flow when $`V_{SD}>e/2C`$ so that the threshold voltage $`V_t`$ = $`e/2C`$. This is the maximum value of the threshold voltage. If we increase the gate voltage further, the second electron can come in from the source and conduct current at any $`V_{SD}`$ thereby collapsing the threshold behavior. This will happen only if the two electrons have opposite spins so that Pauli blockade is not operative. If the second electron has the same spin as the first, it cannot come into the dot because of Pauli exclusion and hence the threshold behavior will continue and not collapse. (e) $`V_g`$ = $`V_{ge}`$ when the second subband level lines up with the Fermi level in the source. Now the second electron can enter the dot even if it has the same spin as the first because it is not occupying the same subband. At this point, the threshold behavior will collapse even if the electrons have parallel spins.

Fig. 4:(a) Current voltage characteristic showing a threshold behavior. Threshold voltage $`V_t`$ versus gate voltage $`V_g`$ when (b) the electrons have anti-parallel spins, and (c) the electrons have parallel spins.


text:
# Two Particle Azimuthal Correlation Measurements in PHENIX

## 1 Introduction

Differential measurement of azimuthal ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$) correlation functions for charged hadrons is arguably one of the most important experimental probes for high energy-density nuclear matter created at the Brookhaven Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC). The anisotropy as well as the asymmetry of such correlation functions are predicted to; (i) serve as a “barometer” for collective transverse flow and hence a probe for the equation of state (EOS) , (ii) provide important constraints for the density and effective energy loss of partons , and (iii) provide invaluable information on nuclear saturation scales . Full exploitation of these correlation functions require a good understanding of the mechanistic origin of two-particle azimuthal correlations at RHIC energies. Detailed systematic measurements of such correlations constitute important steps in this endeavor.

## 2 Analysis and Results

The colliding Au beams ($`\sqrt{s_{_{NN}}}=200`$ GeV) used in these measurements have been provided by the RHIC. Charged particles from mimum-bias triggered events were detected in the fully instrumented east and west central arms of PHENIX . Each of these arms subtends 90o in azimuth $`\varphi `$, and $`\pm 0.35`$ units of pseudo-rapidity $`\eta `$. The axial magnetic field of PHENIX (0.5 T) allowed for the tracking of particles with $`\mathrm{p}>0.2`$ GeV/c ($`\delta \mathrm{p}/\mathrm{p}1\%`$) in the fiducial volume of both arms. Good track quality was ensured via matching and veto cuts to outer detectors in each arm. The Zero Degree Calorimeters (ZDC), were used in conjunction with the Beam-Beam Counters (BBC), to provide off-line selections of a wide range of centralities expressed as a fraction of the total interaction cross section.

Two-particle azimuthal correlation functions were constructed via the ratio of two distributions ; $`C(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi )=N_{cor}(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi )/N_{mix}(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi )`$, where $`N_{cor}(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi )`$ is the observed $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ distribution for charged particle pairs selected from the same event, and $`N_{mix}(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi )`$ is the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ distribution for particle pairs selected from mixed events. Mixed events were obtained by randomly selecting each member of a particle pair from different events having similar centrality and vertex position. Two correlation functions were obtained for each $`p_T`$-range of interest. In the first, charged hadron pairs were formed by selecting both particles from a reference range $`p_{T_{Ref}}`$, which excludes the $`p_T`$ range of interest (i.e. a reference correlation ). In the second, hadron pairs were formed by selecting one member from the $`p_T`$ range of interest, and the other from the reference range $`p_{T_{Ref}}`$ (i.e. an assorted-$`p_T`$ correlation ).

Figure 1 shows representative differential assorted-$`p_T`$ correlation functions for an event centrality cut of 20-40%. The hadron pairs were formed by selecting one member from the range $`2.5<p_T<3.0`$ GeV/c and the other from a non-overlapping reference range $`p_{T_{Ref}}`$. An additional requirement that particle pairs detected in the same PHENIX arm have the same charge (++ or - -) was also imposed to reduce \[but not exclude\] non-flow correlations. The right panel of Fig. 1 indicates an essentially symmetric correlation function for $`0.5<p_{T_{Ref}}<1.0`$ GeV/c. By contrast the correlation function for $`1.0<p_{T_{Ref}}<2.5`$ GeV/c (left panel) shows an asymmetry at small $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$. This asymmetry grows if narrow pseudo-rapidity cuts ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta <0.35`$) are imposed or if particle pairs are required to have dissimilar charge (+ -). These trends are compatible with the effects of jet fragmentation .

The anisotropy and asymmetry of the generated correlation functions have been characterized via fits. A good representation of the data for the reference-$`p_T`$ and the assorted-$`p_T`$ correlation functions is obtained with the fit functions

$$C(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi )=\lambda exp(0.5(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi /\sigma )^2)+a_1(1+2v_{2_f}^2cos(2\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi ))$$

$$C(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi )=\lambda exp(0.5(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi /\sigma )^2)+a_1(1+2v_{2_a}cos(2\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi ))$$

respectively. Here the Gaussian term and the $`cos(2\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi )`$ term is used to characterize the asymmetry \[at small $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$\] and the anisotropy respectively. The anisotropy parameter for the $`p_T`$ range of interest $`v_2^{}`$, is given by $`v_2^{}`$ = $`v_{2_a}`$/$`v_{2_f}`$ where $`v_{2_a}`$ and $`v_{2_f}`$ are the anisotropies extracted from the assorted and the reference correlations respectively. The value of $`v_2^{}`$ can be compared to the second Fourier coefficient $`v_2`$, commonly used to quantify the anisotropy with respect to the reaction plane . Differential values of $`v_2^{}`$ (hereafter referred to as $`v_2`$) are summarized in Figs. 2 and 3.

Figure 2 shows differential anisotropies $`v_2(p_T)`$, which increase with $`p_T`$ followed by an apparent saturation for $`p_T\stackrel{>}{}`$ 2.5 GeV/c. This trend is similar for all centralities shown and is without doubt related to the collision dynamics. Hydrodynamic models  provide a good description of the data for $`p_T`$ up to $`1.5`$ GeV/c. However, these models do not predict the observed saturation of $`v_2(p_T)`$ (see inset). The lack of saturation indicates that the model assumption that local equilibrium can be maintained until a sudden freeze-out hypersurface is reached, is invalid outside some finite domain of phase space. Results obtained from the jet dominated model HIJING, also show poor agreement with the data at high $`p_T`$. Models incorporating only strong jet quenching  or jet quenching acting in concert with hydrodynamic expansion  do not provide a good description of the high-$`p_T`$ data as well. By contrast, results from a recent implementation of a covariant transport theory  gives a good representation of the data if either extremely high initial gluon density or very large parton-parton scattering cross sections are employed in the calculations (see left panel of Fig. 2). Results from a saturation model  can also account for the observed anisotropies (see left panel and inset of Fig. 2).

The mechanistic origin of two-particle correlations in the transport and saturation models are very different. Consequently, additional constraints are required to facilitate a distinction between them. One such constraint is the centrality dependence of $`v_2`$. The saturation model predicts that $`v_2`$ should scale as $`1/\sqrt{N_{Part}}`$ , where $`N_{Part}`$ represents the number of participants in the collision. For large opacities (high initial gluon density or very large parton-parton scattering cross sections) one expects the transport model to exhibit essentially $`N_{Part}`$ scaling.

Fig. 3 show initial tests for $`1/\sqrt{N_{Part}}`$ scaling ( right panel), and $`N_{Part}`$ scaling (left panel) for charged hadrons of $`2.5<p_T<4.0`$ GeV/c. The data indicates better overall agreement with $`N_{Part}`$ scaling for the centrality range presented but does not exclude $`1/\sqrt{N_{Part}}`$ for relatively central collisions.

## 3 Summary

In summary, two-particle correlation measurements indicate sizeable anisotropies and asymmetries. The trend of the asymmetries are compatible with the asymmetric emission pattern of mini-jets. The anisotropy ($`v_2`$) increases with decreasing centrality and increases with $`p_T`$ up to $`p_T2.5`$ GeV/c. For higher $`p_T`$’s the anisotropy saturates for each centrality cut. This important feature is not reproduced by hydrodynamic models but is well reproduced by the covariant transport theory of Molnar et al, and the saturation model of Kovchegov et al. More detailed measurements of the centrality dependence of $`v_2`$ may allow one to distinguish between the two very different mechanisms for two-particle correlations, implied by the latter models.