text:
# SUSY Dark Matter: Closing The Parameter Space

## 1 Introduction

We are now approaching the time when experiments will tell us what the new physics is that will replace the Standard Model. Neutrino experiments have already shown the breakdown of the Standard Model with the evidence of neutrino masses. However, this does not shed light on how the new dynamics resolves the gauge hierarchy problem, and there are many suggestions for this: SUSY and SUGRA models, extra dimensions (large and small), string/M-theory models, etc.

SUSY models all contain a large number of parameters to be determined finally by experiment. The more phenomena the model applies to, the more one will be able to limit the parameter space. We consider here SUSY models with R-parity invariance, since these have the unexpected prediction of the existence of dark matter . The requirement that the theory predict the experimentally measured amount of dark matter already puts strong constraints on the parameter space. The MSSM with over 100 free parameters is not very restrictive. At the other extreme is mSUGRA which is consistent with grand unification (up to now the only direct experimental evidence in favor of SUSY!) and has only four new parameters and one sign. It’s natural therefore to start with mSUGRA and see how the current experiments restrict its parameter space, and hence what predictions can be made for future dark matter experiments and for accelerator experiments at the LHC and NLC. We will then perturb the mSUGRA framework with non-universal soft breakings that are consistent with current data, and thus get some idea of how robust the mSUGRA predictions are.

The current experiments that most strongly restrict the SUSY parameter space are the following:

(1) The amount of cold dark matter (CDM). Global fits to the CMB and other data yield $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{CDM}}h^2=0.139\pm 0.026`$ , and we take a 2.5$`\sigma `$ range around the central value:

$$0.07<\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{CDM}}h^2<0.21$$
(1)
The MAP data, due out in the near future, will be able to significantly narrow this range.

(2) Higgs mass. The LEP lower bound of $`m_h>114.1`$  is a significant constraint for lower $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ (i. e. $`\mathrm{tan}\beta \stackrel{<}{}30`$), but generally will become very significant if the bound were to rise by just a few GeV. Unfortunately, theoretical calculations still have an error of about (2 - 3) GeV, and so we will (conservatively) interpret this experimental bound to mean that that the theory calculation of $`m_h`$ should obey $`m_h>111`$ GeV. mSUGRA predicts $`m_h\stackrel{<}{}130`$ GeV, which could make the light Higgs within the reach of the Tevatron Run2B.

(3) $`bs\gamma `$ decay. The CLEO data has both systematic and theoretical error, and so we take a relatively broad range around the central value:

$$1.8\times 10^4<B(BX_s\gamma )<4.5\times 10^4$$
(2)
The $`bs\gamma `$ rate is significant for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ ($`\mathrm{tan}\beta \stackrel{>}{}30`$) where it produces a lower bound on the gaugino mass $`m_{1/2}`$. If the lower bound on the branching ratio were raised, it would increase this lower bound on $`m_{1/2}`$.

(4) Muon magnetic moment anomaly, $`a_\mu `$. Since this conference, the Brookhaven E821 experiment has released new results that have halved the statistical error with the central value essentially unchanged . Also, new data from CMD-2 and BES has allowed a better evaluation of the SM contribution and two new theoretical evaluations have appeared . Using the $`e^+e^{}`$ data to evaluate the hadronic contribution, both analyses lead now to a 3$`\sigma `$ deviation. e.g. :

$$\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu =33.9(11.2)\times 10^{10}$$
(3)
If, on the other hand, the tau decay data (with CVC breaking corrections included) is used, one finds only a 1.6$`\sigma `$ discrepancy , and further, the two results are statistically inconsistent. In the following, we will assume that the $`e^+e^{}`$ data is correct, and take a 2$`\sigma `$ band around the central value of Eq.(3) to see what this implies. However, it may turn out that the tau data evaluation is correct, under which circumstances, the current $`a_\mu `$ data will give no significant constraint.

Future experiments at accelerators will eventually determine if SUSY is correct. Thus Run2B at the Tevatron should be sensitive to $`B_s\mu ^++\mu ^{}`$ with 15fb-1/detector data , and perhaps distinguish different SUGRA mediation models . The LHC can, of course measure SUSY masses and couplings, e.g. for the gluino up to 2.5 TeV (i.e. $`m_{1/2}\stackrel{>}{}1`$ TeV), while the NLC might observe stau and neutralino production processes.

## 2 mSUGRA Model

The mSUGRA model depends upon four parameters and one sign. It is convenient to chose these as follows:(i) $`m_0`$, the scalar soft breaking mass at the GUT scale $`M_G`$. (2) $`m_{1/2}`$, the gaugino mass at $`M_G`$. \[Note that $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}0`$.4 $`m_{1/2}`$ (where $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ is the lightest neutralino), $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }0.8m_{1/2}`$ (where $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ is the lightest chargino), and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}2.5m_{1/2}`$ (where $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ is the gluino).\] (3) $`A_0`$ the cubic soft breaking mass at $`M_G`$. (4) $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =<H_2>/<H_1>`$ at the electroweak scale, where $`H_{2,1}`$ gives mass to the (up,down) quarks. In addition there is the sign of $`\mu `$, the Higgs mixing parameter in the superpotential term $`W=\mu H_1H_2`$. We examine the parameter space over the following range: $`m_0>0`$, $`m_{1/2}<1`$TeV ($`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}<2.5`$ TeV), $`2<\mathrm{tan}\beta <55`$, and $`|A_0|<4m_{1/2}`$.

For heavy nuclei, the spin independent neutralino-nucleus cross section dominates for terrestrial dark matter detectors, which allows one to extract the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ \- proton cross section $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}`$. (Here $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ is the dark matter candidate.) The neutralino scattering by quarks in the nuclear target proceeds through s-channel squark states, and t-channel Higgs boson states ($`h`$, $`H`$). To calculate the relic density of neutralinos left over after the Big Bang, one needs the neutralino annihilation amplitudes. The annihilation proceeds through the s-channel Z and Higgs channels ($`h`$, $`H`$, $`A`$), and t-channel sfermion channels. However, if a second particle is nearly degenerate with the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$, one must include it in the early universe annihilation processes, which leads to the co-annihilation phenomena. In SUGRA models this accidental near degeneracy occurs naturally for the light stau, $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$. Co-annihilation then begins at $`m_{1/2}\stackrel{}{=}`$ (350-400)GeV and the scalar mass $`m_0`$ must be raised as $`m_{1/2}`$ increases to keep the $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$ heavier than the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$.

The neutralino -proton cross section has the following general behavior: $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}`$ increases with increasing $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, and decreases with increasing $`m_{1/2}`$, $`m_0`$. The maximum value of $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}`$ then generally occurs at large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and small $`m_{1/2}`$, $`m_0`$.

One starts the analysis at $`M_G`$ and uses the renormalization group equations (RGE) to obtain predictions at the electroweak scale. In carrying out these calculation, it is necessary to include a number of corrections and we list some of these here: (1) We use two loop gauge and one loop Yukawa RGE in running from $`M_G`$ to the electroweak scale $`M_{\mathrm{EW}}`$, and three loop QCD RGE below $`M_{\mathrm{EW}}`$ for light quark contributions. (2) Two loop and pole mass corrections are included in the calculation of $`m_h`$. (3) One loop correction to $`m_b`$ and $`m_\tau `$ are included. (5) All stau-neutralino co-annihilation channels are included in the relic density calculation . (Chargino-neutralino co-annihilation does not occur for $`m_{1/2}<1`$ TeV.) Large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ NLO SUSY corrections to $`bs\gamma `$ are included. We do not include Yukawa unifications or proton decay constraints as these depend sensitively on post-GUT physics, about which little is known.

Figs. 1 and 2 illustrate the allowed regions in the $`m_0m_{1/2}`$ plane for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =50`$ for $`A_0=0`$, $`\mu >0`$. We note for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$, that the lower bound on $`m_{1/2}`$ is set by the lower bound on the Higgs mass. The narrowness of the dark matter allowed band does not imply any fine tuning. Thus the lower edge is determined from the co-annihilation effect so that the $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$, which is nearly degenerate with the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ does not cause too much early universe annihilation (violating the lower bound of Eq(1)), while above the upper bound of the band, too little early universe annihilation occurs (violating the upper bound of Eq. (1)). Thus the MAP (and Planck) satellite data will narrow this band further, with more accurate determinations of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{CDM}}`$. At $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =50`$, the allowed dark matter band expands at low $`m_{1/2}`$ due to the fact that the A Higgs becomes light, allowing additional early universe annihilation, and this is compensated by raising $`m_0`$. Note here it is the $`bs\gamma `$ branching ratio that give the lower cut off in $`m_{1/2}`$. The vertical lines through the dark matter allowed bands represent the values of $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}`$. We see that the cross sections range from $`5\times 10^8`$ pb to $`10^9`$ pb. The $`\mu <0`$ possibility (not shown) allows for regions of much smaller dark matter cross sections . However, if the SUSY contribution to $`a_\mu `$ is indeed positive (which is the case for the $`e^+e^{}`$ evaluation of the SM contribution), then the $`\mu <0`$ possibility is eliminated .

## 3 The Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly

As discussed in the introduction, it is still unclear if the current measurements of the muon magnetic moment indicate a deviation with the Standard Model prediction. In this section we will assume that the analysis based on the $`e^+e^{}`$ data, which yields the 3$`\sigma `$ deviation of Eq.(3), is correct, in order to see what restriction on the SUSY parameter space this possibility allows. In supersymmetry, one expects a contribution to the muon magnetic moment of characteristic size $`10\times 10^{10}`$ arising from chargino-sneutrino and neutralino-smuon loops (with the photon attached to any charged line). If the final result requires $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ to be much smaller than $`10\times 10^{10}`$, it would mean that the SUSY squark and gluino masses are in the TeV domain, while a value of $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}\stackrel{>}{}40\times 10^{10}`$ would exclude mSUGRA . Thus the allowable range for $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ is already somewhat restricted. Fig.3 exhibits the effect of the muon magnetic moment anomaly for the case of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =40`$, $`A_0=0`$, $`\mu >0`$. The shaded region in the upper right would be the part of the parameter space excluded at the 2$`\sigma `$ level (assuming the $`e^+e^{}`$ evaluation of the SM). Combined with the dark matter constraint, one sees that the $`a_\mu `$ constraint give rise to an upper bound $`m_{1/2}\stackrel{<}{}800`$GeV or $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}<320`$ GeV, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }<640`$ GeV and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}<2`$ TeV. The $`bs\gamma `$ constraint gives a lower bound of $`m_{1/2}>350`$GeV, and thus the parameter space is constrained at both ends. Note also that it would not take a significantly larger value then the central value of $`33\times 10^{10}`$ to exclude the full parameter space for this value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Thus a resolution of the Standard Model contribution to $`a_\mu `$ is of great importance for SUSY models.

## 4 The $`B_s\mu ^++\mu ^{}`$ Decay

The $`B_s\mu ^++\mu ^{}`$ decay  offers another window for investigating the mSUGRA parameter space. The Standard Model predicts a branching ratio that is quite small i. e. B\[$`B_s\mu ^++\mu ^{}`$\] = $`(3.1\pm 1.4)\times 10^9`$. However, the SUSY contribution can become quite large for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. An example of one of the important graphs for this process is shown in Fig. 4, where the amplitude grows as $`(\mathrm{tan}\beta )^3`$, and hence the rate grows as $`(\mathrm{tan}\beta )^6`$. This process has become interesting because it appears possible to observe it at Run2B of the Tevatron . A set of cuts eliminating the background (e.g. gluon splitting of $`gb\overline{b}`$ and non-b background) exits and leads to a sensitivity for CDF for a luminosity of 15fb-1 of

$$B[B_s\mu ^++\mu ^{}]\stackrel{>}{}1.2\times 10^8$$
(4)
(and if a similar sensitivity can be obtained by D0 the combined sensitivity would be $`0.65\times 10^8`$ ). Fig. 5 shows the branching ratio for different $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ for the case $`m_0=300`$GeV, $`A_0=0`$, $`\mu >0`$, and Fig. 6 shows the expected limit on the branching ratio observable by CDF as a function of luminosity. We see that with 15 fb-1, CDF should be sensitive to this decay for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta \stackrel{>}{}30`$, and in fact too large a branching ratio could exclude mSUGRA with 2 fb-1.

## 5 NLC Reach

We consider here two possible accelerators at energies of 500GeV and 800GeV to examine what part of the SUSY spectrum would be available to linear colliders. We’ve seen that the $`m_h`$ and $`bs\gamma `$ bounds already means that $`m_{1/2}\stackrel{>}{}(350400)`$ GeV, and so for mSUGRA, gluinos and squarks would generally be beyond the reach of such machines. The most favorable SUSY signals are then

$`e^++e^{}`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0(l^++l^{}+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0)+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ (5)
$`e^++e^{}`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1^++\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1^{}(\tau +\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0)+(\tau +\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0)`$
where $`l^\pm `$ is any charged lepton. Since in mSUGRA $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ one has for the kinematic mass reach $`1/2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}\stackrel{<}{}165(265)`$ GeV for $`\sqrt{s}=500(800)`$ GeV, and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}\stackrel{<}{}250(400)`$ GeV for $`\sqrt{s}=500(800)`$ GeV. In general the stau is the lightest slpeton and so will be the major signal, as the selectron and smuon will not be accessible for most of the parameter space. There are a number of backgrounds however, and appropriate cuts have to be arranged to suppress them. This is currently being studied \[bdutta4\].

## 6  The mSUGRA Parameter Space

We now summarize the effects on the mSUGRA parameter space of the constraints from $`m_h`$, $`bs\gamma `$, dark matter, and $`a_\mu `$ (assuming Eq. (3) is valid). We will also see what effect might be expected from measurement of the $`B_s\mu \mu `$ decay at the Tevatron, and examine the NLC reach for SUSY. Fig. 7 exhibits these effects for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =`$10, $`A_0=0`$, $`\mu >0`$. We see that for low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, the $`a_\mu `$ constraint eliminates most of the parameter space, and the NLC with $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV would be able to scan the full remaining space with either the stau or neutralino signal. The $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}`$ cross sections are small, but of the size that future experiments hope to achieve (e.g. GENIUS, Cryoarray, ZEPLIN IV, CUORE).Of the two NLC signals, the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ is sensitive to large $`m_0`$, while the $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$ is sensitive to relatively large $`m_{1/2}`$. Due to the dark matter constraint, the latter appears to be the more important signal.

Fig. 8 shows similar information for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =40`$. For larger $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, the possibility of observing the $`B_s\mu \mu `$ signal at the Tevatron becomes significant, and assuming the combined CDF and D0 data were available, it could cover the full parameter space for an $`a_\mu `$ anomaly $`>10\times 10^{10}`$. The NLC (500GeV) tau-tau signal would now cover only about one half the allowed parameter space, while for 800GeV the full parameter space could be examined.

For very large tanbeta, a new feature of a “bulge” occurs in the dark matter channel at low $`m_{1/2}`$ in the allowed dark matter channel. This is due to the fact the heavy Higgs A and H become light, and allow a more rapid annihilation in the early universe through the A and H s-channel poles. Figs. 9 and 10 for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =`$ 50 and 55 exhibit this feature. (We note in general that the results for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 45`$ become very sensitive to the precise values of $`m_t`$ and $`m_b`$. We are here using the central values of $`m_t(pole)=175`$ GeV and $`m_b(m_b)=4.25`$GeV, but the figures would change significantly if one were to go one or two $`\sigma `$ away from the mean.) We see from the figures that the $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$ LC signal would be able to cover the full parameter space of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =50`$ for an 800 GeV collider, but not quite cover it all for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =55`$. Of course, for these large tanbeta, the $`B_s\mu \mu `$ signal is greatly enhanced, as is the dark matter detector cross sections.

## 7  Non-universal Models

Our previous discussion has been within the framework of mSUGRA with universal soft breaking occurring. It is interesting to investigate what aspects of these results would survive in the presence of some non-universal soft breaking. One peculiar feature of mSUGRA is the narrow dark matter allowed bands due in part to the “accidental” near degeneracy of the $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$ and the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$. This phenomena would be maintained even if the gaugino masses were non-universal at $`M_G`$, since $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^2`$ depends mainly on $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1`$. Thus this type of co-annihilation effect is generic. A second feature of mSUGRA, that the combined effects of the $`m_h`$ and $`bs\gamma `$ experimental bounds put a lower limit $`m_{1/2}>(300400)`$ GeV for all tanbeta, is however sensitive to the mSUGRA assumption of universal gaugino masses at $`M_G`$. Thus if one assumes gluino breaking of this universality at $`M_G`$,

$$\stackrel{~}{m}_1=\stackrel{~}{m}_2=\stackrel{~}{m}_3(1+\stackrel{~}{\delta }_3),$$
(6)
then a positive $`\stackrel{~}{\delta }_3`$ raises the stop mass and effects strikingly both the $`bs\gamma `$ branching ratio and the value of $`m_h`$. This is illustrated in Fig. 11 for the case of $`\stackrel{~}{\delta }_3`$= 1, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =50`$, $`A_0=0`$, $`\mu >0`$. One sees that both the $`bs\gamma `$ and $`m_h`$ constraint is moved strongly towards lower $`m_{1/2}`$, and now the lower bound on $`m_{1/2}`$ is only $`m_{1/2}\stackrel{>}{}190`$ GeV. The Higgs lines are also moved and lie approximately 150 GeV lower in $`m_{1/2}`$. The $`a_\mu `$ bound, however, becomes somewhat more constraining.

A second non-universality that might naturally arise is with the scalar soft breaking masses. Thus while flavor changing neutral current constraint require squark masses to be nearly degenerate at the GUT scale, there is little theoretical reason to require that the Higgs masses be degenerate. We consider here the simple model where at $`M_G`$

$$m_{H_1}^2=m_0^2(1+\delta _1);m_{H_2}^2=m_0^2(1+\delta _2)$$
(7)
where $`m_0`$ is the universal squark and slepton masses. While this introduces two new parameters into the model, one may qualitatively understand the effects of $`\delta _{1,2}`$. In SUGRA models, the $`\mu `$ parameter governs much of the physics, and if $`\mu ^2`$ decreases (increases), then the Higgsino content of the neutralino $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ increases (decreases). The RGE with radiative breaking shows that $`\mu ^2`$ is indeed sensitive to $`\delta _2`$ (but only slightly sensitive to $`\delta _1`$). For $`\delta _2`$ positive, $`\mu ^2`$ decreases, and this produces two effects: (1) it increases the dark matter detection cross section $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}`$ since this quantity depends on the interference between the Higgsino and gaugino parts of the neutralino. (2) It increases the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0Z`$ coupling, allowing more early universe annihilation of the neutralinos through the Z s-channel. This then opens another channel of allowed relic dark matter in the $`m_0m_{1/2}`$ plane at relatively low $`m_{1/2}`$ but high $`m_0`$ (so that too much annihilation doesn’t occur). These effects are seen in Figs. 12 and 13. Fig. 12 shows the new $`Z`$-channel allowed dark matter region at high $`m_0`$, along with the usual stau co-annihilation narrow band at low $`m_0`$ for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =40`$. Fig. 13 shows the corresponding values of $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}`$, the upper dashed band corresponding to the $`Z`$-channel of Fig. 13. One sees that the detector cross section for this possibility can be a factor of ten or more larger than the usual stau band.

## 8  Conclusions and Summary

We have examined here for SUGRA models of neutralino dark matter, the constraints on the SUSY parameter space that arise from current experiments, and have considered models both with universal soft breaking (mSUGRA) and with non-universal soft breaking.

For mSUGRA, co-annihilation effects and the current bounds on the relic density generally restrict the allowed parameters to be in a narrow band in the $`m_0m_{1/2}`$ plane with relatively low $`m_0`$ (except in the low $`m_{1/2}`$ region where for very large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ a “bulge” can exist). If the SUSY contribution to the muon magnetic moment anomaly is $`\stackrel{>}{}10\times 10^{10}`$ (which is the current 2$`\sigma `$ bound for the $`e^+e^{}`$ data analysis of the SM contribution), then the ”focus point” region  of very large $`m_0`$ is also eliminated. The current bounds on $`m_h`$ and $`bs\gamma `$ further produce a lower bound on $`m_{1/2}`$ of $`m_{1/2}\stackrel{>}{}`$ (300- 350) GeV over the full tanbeta domain. This implies that $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}\stackrel{>}{}`$120 GeV, $`M_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }\stackrel{>}{}`$ 240 GeV and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}\stackrel{>}{}`$ 750 GeV. These mass bounds are larger than what exists now from accelerators. In general we find that dark matter direct detection neutralino -proton cross sections range from $`5\times 10^8`$ to $`5\times 10^{10}`$, which are mostly within the range of sensitivity of future planned dark matter detectors. The $`B_s\mu \mu `$ decay will be accessible to the Tevatron over much of the parameter space for tanbeta $`\stackrel{>}{}30`$ with 15 fb-1 of luminosity. The accessibility of the $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ SUSY signals for the NLC was examined.

To see how robust the above results are, we examined two types of non-universal soft breaking models: those with non-universal gaugino masses at the GUT scale, and those with non-universal Higgs masses. In general for these types of models, the co-annihilation effects still remain. However, an increased non-universal gluino mass can significantly reduce the lower bound constraints on $`m_{1/2}`$ arising from the $`bs\gamma `$ and $`m_h`$ constraints, making these constraints less significant. ( The $`a_\mu `$ constraint is simultaneously somewhat strengthened). Non-universal Higgs soft breaking masses can also produce some striking effects. Thus an increase of the $`H_2`$ mass at the GUT scale increases the Higgsino part of the neutralino, which then increases the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0Z`$ coupling and opens a new $`Z`$ s-channel annihilation region at low $`m_{1/2}`$ and high $`m_0`$ with acceptable amount of relic dark matter. In this region the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p`$ detection cross section is a factor of 10 or more larger than that from the $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$ co–annihilation region, making it accessible to the next round of dark matter detector experiments. However, SUSY signals in such regions would be difficult to detect for a 500 GeV NLC.

## References


format: text

text:
# Noncommutative Planar Particles: Higher Order Versus First Order Formalism and Supersymmetrization

## 1 Introduction

In  the present authors introduced the following nonrelativistic higher order action for D=2 (planar) particle:

$$L_1^{(0)}=\frac{m\dot{x}_1^2}{2}kϵ_{ij}\dot{x}_i\ddot{x}_j.$$
(1)
The canonical quantization of (1) implies the consideration of $`x_i,\dot{x}_i`$ as independent degrees of freedom (see e.g. ) with the following canonically conjugated two momenta

$$p_i=\frac{L^{(0)}}{\dot{x}_i}\frac{d}{dt}\frac{L^{(0)}}{\ddot{x}_i}=m\dot{x}_i2kϵ_{ij}\ddot{x}_j,$$
(2)
$$\widehat{p}_i=kϵ_{ij}\dot{x}_j.$$
(3)
The relation (3) introduces a second class constraint, i.e. after the introduction of Dirac brackets the Lagrangian system (1) is described by six degrees of freedom $`Y_A=(x_i,p_i,v_i=\dot{x}_i)`$. One gets the following set of Dirac brackets :

$$\{Y_A,Y_B\}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 1_2& 0\\ 1_2& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \frac{1}{2k}ϵ\end{array}\right)$$
(4)
In order to get the first order formulation of the action (1) one can use the technique proposed by Faddeev and Jackiw . The action (1) is equivalent to the following one222The equivalence of (5) and (1) can be seen in a clear way if we consider the generating functionals based on both actions (5) and (1) - the last term in (5) shall introduce the functional Dirac delta function replacing $`v_i`$ by $`\dot{x}_l`$.

$$L^{(0)}=\frac{mv_i^2}{2}kϵ_{ij}v_i\dot{v}_j+p_i(\dot{x}_iv_i),$$
(5)
with six canonical variables $`(x_i,v_i,p_i)`$. The canonical quantization of (5) using Dirac brackets leads again to the relations (4).

Next we introduce the variables

$`Q_i`$ $`=`$ $`2k(v_ip_i),P_i=p_i`$ (6)
$`X_i`$ $`=`$ $`x_i+ϵ_{ij}Q_j,`$ (7)
one gets the following set of canonical Poisson brackets (PB)

$`\{X_i,X_j\}`$ $`=`$ $`2kϵ_{ij},\{P_i,P_j\}=0,`$ (8)
$`\{X_i,P_j\}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{ij},`$ (9)
and

$$\{Q_i,Q_j\}=2kϵ_{ij}.$$
(10)
The action (5) takes the form

$$L^{(0)}=L_{\mathrm{ext}}^{(0)}+L_{\mathrm{int}}^{(0)},$$
(11)
where

$`L_{\mathrm{ext}}^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`P_i\dot{X}_ikϵ_{ij}P_i\dot{P}_j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{}{P}^2,`$ (12)
$`L_{\mathrm{int}}^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4k}}ϵ_{ij}Q_i\dot{Q}_j+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8k^2}}\stackrel{}{Q}^2.`$ (13)
We note that the external and internal degrees of freedom are dynamically independent, and following Duval and Horvathy  we can consider the part (10) of the action as the first order action describing noncommutative particles. We observe that our model permits easily the consistent introduction of a scalar potential , electromagnetic interactions \[5–7\] and general Lagrangian framework .

We see that the action (10) describes an invariant sector of the model (1) in “external” phase space $`X_i,P_i`$. The internal degrees of freedom (11) can be related with nonvanishing anyonic spin . The aim of this note is to supersymmetrize both actions (1) and (10) and discuss the relation between such supersymmetric models. We will show that the split (9) into dynamically independent supersymmetric parts with external and internal degrees of freedom can be performed again.

## 2 Supersymmetrization of Higher Order Action and its First Order Form

Let us consider for simplicity N=1 supersymmetric quantum mechanics. We introduce the real field $`X_i(t,\theta )`$ with one Grassmann variable $`\theta `$

$$x_i(t)X_i(t,\theta )=x_i(t)+i\theta \psi (t),$$
(14)
where $`\theta ^2=\theta \psi _j+\psi _j\theta =\psi _i\psi _j+\psi _j\psi _i=0`$. Introducing the supersymmetric covariant derivative

$$D=\frac{}{\theta }i\theta \frac{}{t}D^2=i\frac{}{t}=H,$$
(15)
we get the following supersymmetric extension of (1)

$`L_{\mathrm{SUSY}}^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle 𝑑\theta \left(\frac{m}{2}\dot{X}_iDX_ikϵ_{ij}\ddot{X}_iDX_j\right)}`$ (16)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}\left(\dot{x}_i^2+i\dot{\psi }_i\psi _i\right)kϵ_{ij}\left(\dot{x}_i\ddot{x}_ji\dot{\psi }_i\dot{\psi }_j\right).`$ (17)
If $`k=0`$ we obtain the standard case of N=1 nonrelativistic spinning particle, with fermionic second class constraints. If $`k0`$ the fermionic momenta become independent from fermionic coordinates $`\psi _i`$.

Using the Faddeev-Jackiw method we extend supersymmetrically the action (5) as follows:

$`L_{\mathrm{SUSY}}^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{mv_i^2}{2}}kϵ_{ij}v_i\dot{v}_j+{\displaystyle \frac{im}{2}}\psi _i\rho _i`$ (19)
$`+ikϵ_{ij}\rho _i\rho _j+p_i(\dot{x}_iv_i)+\chi _i(\dot{\psi }_i\rho _i).`$
The field equation for $`\rho _i`$ is purely algebraic where $`\rho _i`$ and $`\chi _i`$ are fermionic. Substituting

$$\chi _i=\frac{im}{2}\psi _i2ikϵ_{ij}\rho _j,$$
(20)
we find that (we put for simplicity further $`m=1`$)

$`L_{\mathrm{SUSY}}^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{v_i^2}{2}}kϵ_{ij}v_i\dot{v}_j+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\psi _i\dot{\psi }_i`$ (22)
$`+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}ikϵ_{ij}\dot{\psi }_i\rho _jikϵ_{ij}\rho _i\rho _j+p_i(\dot{x}_iv_i).`$
For the fermionic sector of the action (17) one obtains with the use of Dirac brackets the following PB algebra

$$\{\psi _i,\psi _j\}=0,\{\psi _i,\rho _j\}=\frac{i}{2k}ϵ_{ij},\{\rho _i,\rho _j\}=i\frac{1}{4k^2}\delta _{ij}$$
(23)
In order to split (15) into external and internal sector we introduce besides the variables (6) also new fermionic variables

$$\psi _i\stackrel{~}{\psi }_i=\psi _i2kϵ_{ij}\rho _j.$$
(24)
We get

$$L_{\mathrm{SUSY}}^{(0)}=L_{\mathrm{SUSY};\mathrm{ext}}^{(0)}+L_{\mathrm{SUSY};\mathrm{int}}^{(0)},$$
(25)
where

$$L_{\mathrm{SUSY};\mathrm{ext}}^{(0)}=P_i\dot{X}_ikϵ_{ij}P_i\dot{P}_j\frac{1}{2}P_i^2+\frac{i}{2}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_i\dot{\stackrel{~}{\psi }}_i,$$
(26)
$$L_{\mathrm{SUSY};\mathrm{int}}^{(0)}=\frac{1}{4k}ϵ_{ij}Q_i\dot{Q}_j+\frac{1}{8k^2}\stackrel{}{Q}^22ik^2\rho _k\dot{\rho }_kikϵ_{ij}\rho _i\rho _k,$$
(27)
The new fermionic coordinates satisfy the following PB algebra

$`\{\stackrel{~}{\psi }_i,\stackrel{~}{\psi }_j\}=i\delta _{ij},`$ $`\{\stackrel{~}{\psi }_i,\rho _j\}=0.`$ (28)
We see therefore that again the supersymmetric action (15) or (20) can be split into dynamically independent external and internal sectors (see (21)–(22)).

## 3 Supersymmetry in External and Internal Sectors

The actions (21) and (22) describe the supersymmetric extensions respectively of external and internal actions (10) and (11). These actions are invariant under the following set of supersymmetry transformations:

i) in external sector (see (21))

$`\delta X_i`$ $`=`$ $`iϵ\stackrel{~}{\psi }_i,`$ (29)
$`\delta \stackrel{~}{\psi }_i`$ $`=`$ $`ϵP_i,`$ (30)
$`\delta P_i`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (31)
ii) in internal sector (see (22))

$`\delta Q_i`$ $`=`$ $`2ikϵϵ_{ij}\rho _j,`$ (32)
$`\delta \rho _i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4k^2}}ϵQ_i,`$ (33)
where $`ϵ`$ is a constant Grassmann number.

The supercharge corresponding to (22) is given by the formula

$$Q_{\mathrm{ext}}=i\stackrel{~}{\psi }_iP_i$$
(34)
and we get consistently the external Hamiltonian (see (21))

$$\frac{i}{2}\{Q_{\mathrm{ext}},Q_{\mathrm{ext}}\}=\frac{1}{2}P_i^2=H_{\mathrm{SUSY};\mathrm{ext}}^{(0)}.$$
(35)
Similarly from (7) and (22) we obtain the tranformation (25) if

$$Q_{\mathrm{int}}=iQ_i\rho _i$$
(36)
and our internal Hamiltonian (see (22)) is given by

$$\frac{i}{2}\{Q_{\mathrm{int}},Q_{\mathrm{int}}\}=\frac{1}{8k^2}\stackrel{}{Q}^2+ikϵ_{ij}\rho _i\rho _j=H_{\mathrm{SUSY};\mathrm{int}}^{(0)}.$$
(37)
We would like to add here that one could consider only the external part, described by the action (20), as describing supersymmetric planar particles. The quantum mechanical states describing the internal sector can be eliminated by subsidiary conditions.

## 4 Final Remarks

We would like to mention that

i) We have considered here the N=1 world line supersymmetry. It is quite straightforward to extend the above considerations to N=2 by employing the N=2 D=1 superfields.

ii) We have discussed here, for simplicity, only the free case. The supersymmetrization of the models with gauge intersections considered in \[6 \] is under active consideration.


text:
# Cosmic Strings Coupled with a Massless Scalar Field

## I INTRODUCTION

The first exact solution to the vacuum - Einstein equations in cylindrical geometry is dated back to 1925 by Guido Beck . However, the well known solutions in this geometry belongs to Einstein and Rosen (ER) . The solution presented by ER represents first exact radiative solutions. The solution is radiative because the waves carry away energy from the mass located at the axis of symmetry. Furthermore, the solution obtained by ER have two spacelike Killing vectors which are hypersurface orthogonal. The most general vacuum solution describing cylindrical waves was studied independently by Kompaneets and by Ehlers et al . The cross polarized version of ER waves was given by Halilsoy .

Chandrasekhar has constructed rather different type of formalism for obtaining cylindrical waves with cross polarizations, similar to that used for the discussion of the collision of plane gravitational waves . The main motivation for obtaining new cylindrical waves was to find applications in general relativity and astrophysics. One of the application arena for cylindrical spacetimes are cosmic strings. Cosmic strings are known to be topological defects that formed during the cosmological phase transitions as a result of spontaneous symmetry breaking of the Grand Unified Theory. Cosmic strings would have important consequences for astrophysics. To say the least, it is believed that the cosmic strings are responsible for galaxy formation and gravitational lensing.

A long time ago, by employing the method of Chandrasekhar, Xanthopoulos has obtained a family of three parameter and time dependent solutions both in vacuum- Einstein  (hereafter paper I) and Einstein - Maxwell theory (hereafter paper II ). These solutions are cylindrically symmetric solutions with remarkable properties that, they are regular on the axis, asymptotically flat away from the axis and free from the curvature singularites. One of the parameters of the solution measures the azimuthal angle deficit that the space time exhibits and signals the presence of infinite length of a straight cosmic string.

One of the solution given in paper II, is just the Einstein-Maxwell extension of paper I. In that solution, it was shown that the deficit angle near the axis or away from that axis is independent of the electromagnetic parameter. For a particular value of deficit parameter $`\alpha `$, the deficit angle vanishes and the solution represents propogation of cylindirical gravitational and electromagnetic fields.

In this paper we present the Einstein-Scalar (ES) extension of paper I, with the properties outlined in the third paragraph. The solution describes the interaction of a spinning cosmic string with cylindrical gravitation and scalar fields. Our solution is one-parameter generalization of paper I. In addition to the parameters of paper I, we introduce a parameter $`\beta `$ that controls the intensity of the scalar field, such that for $`\beta =0`$ the solution reduces to the one given in paper I. In our analysis we have shown that in contrast to the paper II, the deficit angle becomes dependent on the scalar field parameter $`\beta .`$

The paper is organised as follows; in section II we review the solution given in paper I. Section III deals with the construction of the Einstein-Scalar solution. In section IV we discussed the physical properties of the solution. We conclude the paper with a discussion in section V.

## II REVIEW OF THE XANTHOPOULOS’S SOLUTION

This solution represents a three parameters time-dependent cylindirically symmetric solutions of the vacuum Einstein equations. The interesting properties of the solution are,

(a) it is asymptotically flat.

(b) it admits a regular axis and

(c) it is free of curvature singularities and

(d) it exhibits an angle deficit in going around the axis and it is interpreted as an infinitely long cosmic strings surrounded by gravitational field.

Furthermore, the solution is Petrov type-D, and describes the propogation of non-radiating gravitational waves. The non-radiating property implies the stability of the cosmic string when it is interacting with gravitational waves. The technique used by Xanthopoulos in obtaining the solution is the one introduced by Chandrasekhar. In order to provide the regularity on the axis and asymptotic flatness behavior, he adopts the prolate coordinate system which is found very useful in the description of interacting plane gravitational waves. The following metric is obtained in these prolate coordinate system.

$$ds^2=\alpha ^2X\left(\frac{d\tau ^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\frac{d\sigma ^2}{\delta }\right)\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\delta X}{Y}d\phi ^2\frac{Y}{X}\left(dzq_2d\phi \right)^2$$
(1)
where,

$`X`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1p\tau \right)^2+q^2\sigma ^2`$ (2)
$`Y`$ $`=`$ $`p^2\tau ^2+q^2\sigma ^21=p^2\mathrm{\Delta }+q^2\delta `$ (3)
$`q_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2q\delta \left(1p\tau \right)}{pY}}`$ (4)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`\tau ^2+1`$ (5)
$`\delta `$ $`=`$ $`\sigma ^21`$ (6)
such that $`\tau \mathrm{}`$ and $`\sigma 1.`$ The parameters $`\alpha `$,$`p`$ and $`q`$ are constants with $`q^2p^2=1`$. Using the following transformation

$`\omega =\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }\delta }\text{ , }t=\tau \sigma `$

line element $`\left(1\right)`$ transforms into cylindirical coordinates

$$ds^2=\frac{\alpha ^2X}{\tau ^2+\sigma ^2}\left(dt^2d\omega ^2\right)\frac{\omega ^2X}{Y}d\phi ^2\frac{Y}{X}\left(dzq_2d\phi \right)^2$$
(7)
with

$`2\tau ^2=\sqrt{D}+t^2\omega ^21,\text{ }2\sigma ^2=\sqrt{D}t^2+\omega ^2+1`$

where

$`\sqrt{D}=\left(\omega ^2t^2+1\right)^2+4t^20.`$

Therefore the solution is analysed in the cylindirical coordinates while the field equations are solved in some other coordinates. With reference to the detailed analysis in paper I, the behavior of the metric functions near the axis $`\left(\omega 0^+\right)`$ and asymptotically $`\left(\omega +\mathrm{}\right)`$ are obtained by using the following relations.

Near the axis $`\omega \left|t\right|`$ , $`t=`$finite

$`\tau `$ $``$ $`t{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2t}{2\left(1+t^2\right)}}+O\left(\omega ^4\right)`$ (8)
$`\sigma `$ $``$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2}{2\left(1+t^2\right)}}+O\left(\omega ^4\right)`$ (9)
Asymptotically $`\omega \left|t\right|`$

$`\tau `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{t}{\omega }}+{\displaystyle \frac{t\left(t^21\right)}{2\omega ^3}}+O\left(\omega ^4\right)`$ (10)
$`\sigma `$ $``$ $`\omega +{\displaystyle \frac{\left(1t^2\right)}{2\omega }}+O\left(\omega ^2\right)`$ (11)
In paper I, it was shown that the deficit angle which indicates the presence of cosmic strings obtained as

$$\delta \phi =2\pi \left(1e^C\right)$$
(12)
where, $`C`$ is the $`C`$-energy and it was also shown that this energy is non-radiating. The absence of radiation can also be justified by calculating the Weyl scalars, which are all vanishing in the asymptotic region.

## III CONSTRUCTION OF THE EINSTEIN-SCALAR SOLUTION

Cylindirical gravitational waves with cross polarization are described in general by the line element of Jordan- Ehlers-Kundt- Kompaneetz  as

$$ds^2=e^{2\left(\gamma \psi \right)}\left(dt^2d\omega ^2\right)\omega \left[\omega e^{2\psi }d\phi ^2+\frac{e^{2\psi }}{\omega }\left(dz+q_2d\phi \right)^2\right]$$
(13)
In order to couple massless scalar field to the system we write the Lagrangian density as follows

$$L=\left(\lambda _\omega \gamma _\omega \lambda _t\gamma _t\right)\lambda \left[\psi _\omega ^2\psi _t^2+2\left(\varphi _\omega ^2\varphi _t^2\right)\right]\frac{e^{4\psi }}{4\lambda }\left(q_{2\omega }^2q_{2t}^2\right)$$
(14)
where $`\varphi `$ is the scalar field and $`\gamma =\gamma (\omega ,t),\psi =\psi (\omega ,t),\varphi =\varphi (\omega ,t),q_2=q_2(\omega ,t)`$ and $`\lambda `$ is a coordinate condition and for the present problem we choose it as $`\lambda =\omega `$.

The Einstein- Scalar field equations, which are obtained by varying the Lagrangian described in equation $`\left(8\right)`$, are

$$\psi _{tt}\frac{\psi _\omega }{\omega }\psi _{\omega \omega }=\frac{e^{4\psi }}{2\omega ^2}\left(q_{2t}^2q_{2\omega }^2\right)$$
(15)
$$q_{2tt}+\frac{q_{2\omega }}{\omega }q_{2\omega \omega }=4\left(q_{2\omega }\psi _\omega q_{2t}\psi _t\right)$$
(16)
$$\gamma _\omega =\omega \left(\psi _t^2+\psi _\omega ^2\right)+\frac{e^{4\psi }}{4\omega }\left(q_{2t}^2+q_{2\omega }^2\right)+2\omega \left(\varphi _\omega ^2+\varphi _t^2\right)$$
(17)
$$\gamma _t=2\omega \psi _\omega \psi _t+\frac{e^{4\psi }}{2\omega }q_{2t}q_{2\omega }+4\omega \varphi _\omega \varphi _t$$
(18)
$$\varphi _{\omega \omega }+\frac{\varphi _\omega }{\omega }\varphi _{tt}=0$$
(19)
The solution to these equations are obtained by employing the formalism of Chandrasekhar. Hence, we prefer to use the notation of Chandrasekhar .

If we set

$$\nu =\gamma \psi \text{ and }\chi =\omega e^{2\psi }$$
(20)
Line element $`\left(7\right)`$ becomes

$$ds^2=e^{2\nu }\left(dt^2d\omega ^2\right)\omega \left[\chi d\phi ^2+\chi ^1\left(dzq_2d\phi \right)^2\right]$$
(21)
where $`\frac{}{z}`$ and $`\frac{}{\phi }`$ are the axial and azimuthal Killing fields and $`\nu ,\chi `$ and $`q_2`$ are functions of $`\omega `$ and $`t.`$ Using equation $`\left(14\right)`$ in the field equations $`\left(11\right)`$ and $`\left(12\right)`$ they transform into

$$4\nu _\omega =\frac{1}{\omega }+\frac{\omega }{\chi }\left[\chi _t^2+\chi _\omega ^2+q_{2t}^2+q_{2\omega }^2\right]+8\omega \left(\varphi _\omega ^2+\varphi _t^2\right)$$
(22)
$$\nu _t=\frac{\omega }{2\chi ^2}\left[\chi _t\chi _\omega +q_{2t}q_{2\omega }\right]+4\omega \varphi _\omega \varphi _t$$
(23)
respectively. In terms of the Ernst potentials ($`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$) defined in paper I equations $`\left(16\right)`$ and $`\left(17\right)`$ become

$$\left(\nu +\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Psi }}\right)_t=\frac{\omega }{2\mathrm{\Psi }^2}\left(\mathrm{\Psi }_t\mathrm{\Psi }_\omega +\mathrm{\Phi }_t\mathrm{\Phi }_\omega \right)+4\omega \varphi _\omega \varphi _t$$
(24)
$$\left(\nu +\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Psi }}\right)_\omega =\frac{\omega }{4\mathrm{\Psi }^2}\left(\mathrm{\Psi }_t^2+\mathrm{\Psi }_\omega ^2+\mathrm{\Phi }_t^2+\mathrm{\Phi }_\omega ^2\right)+2\omega \left(\varphi _\omega ^2+\varphi _t^2\right)$$
(25)
The scalar field $`\varphi `$ is coupled to the system by shifting the metric function $`\nu `$ in accordance with

$$\nu =\nu _0+\mathrm{\Gamma }$$
(26)
where

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_t`$ $`=`$ $`4\omega \varphi _\omega \varphi _t`$ (27)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\omega `$ $`=`$ $`2\omega \left(\varphi _\omega ^2+\varphi _t^2\right)`$ (28)
and $`\nu _0,\chi _0`$ and $`q_{20}`$ satisfy the vacuum Einstein equations and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the additional metric function that arises due to the presence of the scalar field. Integrability condition for the equations $`\left(21\right)`$ imposes the massless scalar field equation $`\left(13\right)`$ as a constraint condition from which we can generate a large class of ES solution. The solution to the ES field equations will be obtained in the prolate coordinates as a requirement of the formalism of Chandrasekhar. If we set,

$`\omega =\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }\delta }\text{}t=\tau \sigma \text{}\mathrm{\Delta }=\tau ^2+1\text{}\delta =\sigma ^21`$

we can express the theory of cylindirical gravitational and scalar waves in the $`(\tau ,\sigma )`$ coordinates whose range are

$`\tau \mathrm{}\text{ }\sigma 1`$

note that $`\sigma =1`$ corresponds to the axis $`\omega =0`$. We find that line element $`\left(15\right)`$ becomes

$$ds^2=\left(\tau ^2+\sigma ^2\right)e^{2\left(\nu _0+\mathrm{\Gamma }\right)}\left[\frac{d\tau ^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\frac{d\sigma ^2}{\delta }\right]\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }\delta }\left[\chi _0d\phi ^2+\chi _0^1\left(dzq_{20}d\phi \right)^2\right]$$
(29)
In this paper we wish to couple a massless scalar field to the solution presented in paper I. Hence as an Einstein-vacuum solution $`\nu _0,\chi _0`$ and $`q_{20}`$ , we shall make use of the solution obtained in paper I that describes the cylindirical gravitational waves with interesting properties discussed. Therefore the resulting metric that describes ES solution is given by

$$ds^2=\frac{\alpha ^2X}{\tau ^2+\sigma ^2}e^{2\mathrm{\Gamma }}\left(dt^2d\omega ^2\right)\frac{\omega ^2X}{Y}d\phi ^2\frac{Y}{X}\left(dzq_2d\phi \right)^2$$
(30)
where $`X,Y`$ and $`q_2`$ are given in equation $`\left(2\right).`$ In terms of the new coordinates equation $`\left(21\right)`$ becomes

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }}{\tau ^2+\sigma ^2}}\left[\sigma \delta \varphi _\sigma ^2+\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _\tau ^22\tau \delta \varphi _\sigma \varphi _\tau \right]`$ (31)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\tau `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\delta }{\tau ^2+\sigma ^2}}\left[2\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _\sigma \varphi _\tau \tau \delta \varphi _\sigma ^2\tau \mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _\tau ^2\right]`$ (32)
The massless scalar field equation in terms of $`(\tau ,\sigma )`$ may be written as

$$\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _\tau \right)_\tau \left(\delta \varphi _\sigma \right)_\sigma =0$$
(33)
This equation has many solutions. Among the others we wish to adopt as a scalar field, Bonnor’s non-singular cylindirical wave solutions found long time ago . The interesting property of this solution is that, it is regular near the axis and vanishes asymptotically. In terms of $`(\tau ,\sigma )`$ coordinates the scalar field is given by

$$\varphi (\tau ,\sigma )=\frac{\beta \sigma }{\tau ^2+\sigma ^2}$$
(34)
where $`\beta `$ is a constant parameter measuring the intensity of the scalar wave. Using equation $`\left(24\right)`$ the additional metric function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is found as

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau ,\sigma )={\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2\mathrm{\Delta }}{\tau ^2+\sigma ^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4\tau ^4\mathrm{\Delta }}{\left(\tau ^2+\sigma ^2\right)^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{4\tau ^2\left(1+2\tau ^2\right)}{\left(\tau ^2+\sigma ^2\right)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1+9\tau ^2}{2\left(\tau ^2+\sigma ^2\right)}}1\right]`$

Extending this to the Einstein-Maxwell-Scalar version of paper II is straightforward.

## IV PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF THE SOLUTION

### A Boundary Conditions

In order to interpret the present solution physically acceptable, we should impose certain conditions on the behavior of the metric functions near the symmetry axis and asymptotically far away from the axis. These conditions, given in paper I, are as follows:

(a) The symmetry axis should be regular when $`\omega 0`$. This means that, the squared norm of the rotational (or azimuthal) Killing field $`\left(\frac{}{\phi }\right)`$

$$\left|\frac{}{\phi }\right|^2=\omega \frac{\left(\chi ^2+q_2^2\right)}{\chi }$$
(35)
should approach zero like $`\omega ^2`$ near $`\omega =0`$. This condition quarantees that the axis is regular.

(b) Asymptotically far away from the symmetry axis, i.e. in all directions such that $`\omega \mathrm{}`$, the solution should become asymptotically flat. It should be noted that this solution is not asypmtotically simple in the sense of Penrose. The reason is the spatial infinity in the direction $`z\mathrm{}`$ cannot be carried out, because, $`\frac{}{z}`$ is a Killing vector and the metric functions are independent of $`z`$.

### B Behaviour Near The Axis : $`\omega t`$ $`\left(\omega 0\right)`$

Using the expressions given in equation $`\left(4\right)`$ we find the behavior of the metric functions near the axis$`\left(\omega 0^+\right)`$ as follows

$`1p\tau `$ $``$ $`1pt+O\left(\omega ^2\right)`$ (36)
$`\delta `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2}{t^2+1}}+O\left(\omega ^4\right)`$ (37)
$`X`$ $``$ $`\left[\left(1pt\right)^2+q^2\right]+O\left(\omega ^2\right)`$ (38)
$`Y`$ $``$ $`p^2\left(1+t^2\right)+O\left(\omega ^2\right)`$ (39)
$`\tau ^2+\sigma ^2`$ $``$ $`1+t^2+O\left(\omega ^2\right)`$ (40)
$`e^{2\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\beta ^2}`$ (41)
so that:

$`\chi `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A}{p^2}}\omega +O\left(\omega ^3\right)`$ (42)
$`q_2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2q\left(1pt\right)}{p^3\left(1+t^2\right)^2}}\omega ^2+O\left(\omega ^3\right)`$ (43)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\chi ^2+q_2^2}{\chi }}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A}{p^2}}\omega +O\left(\omega ^2\right)`$ (44)
where

$`A={\displaystyle \frac{\left(1pt\right)^2+q^2}{1+t^2}}`$

The norms of the two Killing fields behave like

$`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{}{\phi }}\right|^2`$ $`=`$ $`\omega {\displaystyle \frac{\chi ^2+q_2^2}{\chi }}{\displaystyle \frac{A}{p^2}}\omega ^2+O\left(\omega ^3\right)`$ (45)
$`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{}{z}}\right|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\chi }}{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{A}}+O\left(\omega \right)`$ (46)
We show that in the limit $`\omega 0^+`$ is a regular surface of the spacetime. Note that, the coupling of the scalar field does not play a role in the behavior of the two Killing fields. Using expressions (28 -29 ), we find the metric near the axis;

$$ds^2\alpha ^2Ae^{\beta ^2}\left[dt^2d\omega ^2\frac{\omega ^2e^{\beta ^2}}{p^2\alpha ^2}d\phi ^2\right]\frac{p^2}{A}dz^2+\frac{4q\left(1pt\right)\omega ^2}{p\left(1+t^2\right)^2A}dzd\phi +O\left(\omega ^3\right)$$
(47)
### C Asymptotic Behaviour : $`\omega \left|t\right|`$ $`\left(\omega \mathrm{}\right)`$

Using the expressions (5), we find that

$`X`$ $``$ $`q^2\omega ^2+\left(1+q^2q^2t^2\right)+O\left(\omega ^1\right)`$ (48)
$`Y`$ $``$ $`q^2\omega ^2+\left(p^2q^2t^2\right)+O\left(\omega ^1\right)`$ (49)
$`\delta `$ $``$ $`\omega ^2t^2+O(\omega ^1)`$ (50)
$`q_2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{pq}}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{pt}{\omega }}\right]+O\left(\omega ^2\right)`$ (51)
$`\tau ^2+\sigma ^2`$ $``$ $`\omega ^2+\left(1t^2\right)+O\left(\omega ^1\right)`$ (52)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $``$ $`0`$ (53)
Line element (23) , asymptotically becomes;

$$ds^2\alpha ^2q^2\left[dt^2d\omega ^2\frac{\omega ^2}{\alpha ^2q^2}d\phi ^2\right]\left(dz\frac{2}{pq}d\phi \right)^2$$
(54)
by letting $`z\stackrel{~}{z}=z\frac{2}{pq}\phi ,`$ the last term in the metric is changed and metric (23 ) becomes asymptotically flat.

### D Existence of Cosmic Strings

Comparing the two metrics obtained for near the axis $`\left(\omega 0\right)`$ and asymptotic case $`\left(\omega \mathrm{}\right)`$, we observe that exact metric (23) allows an angle deficit measured by $`\frac{e^{\beta ^2}}{\alpha ^2p^2}`$ near the axis and $`\frac{1}{\alpha ^2q^2}`$ asymptotically far away from the axis. This can be shown as follows.

For any metric in the form of

$$ds^2=f\left[d\omega ^2+k^2\omega ^2d\phi ^2\right]+\mathrm{}..$$
(55)
with constant $`k`$ and $`f`$ independent of $`\omega `$, the angle deficit near the axis $`\left(\omega 0\right)`$ or asymptotically $`\left(\omega \mathrm{}\right),`$ can be obtained from the definition:

$$\delta \phi =2\pi \underset{\omega 0(\mathrm{})}{lim}\frac{_0^{2\pi }\sqrt{g_{\phi \phi }}𝑑\phi }{_0^\omega \sqrt{g_{\omega \omega }}𝑑\omega }$$
(56)
Using the above definition, we find the deficit angle as,

$$\delta \phi =2\pi \left(1k\right)$$
(57)
Exact metric (23) displays a conical singularity on the axis, measured by the angle deficit, which signals the existence of the cosmic string on the axis.

$$\left(\delta \phi \right)_{ax}=2\pi \left(1\frac{e^{\frac{\beta ^2}{2}}}{\left|\alpha \right|\left|p\right|}\right)$$
(58)
For $`\alpha =e^{\frac{\beta ^2}{2}}\left|p\right|^1`$ it removes the angle deficit and implies the absence of the cosmic string. The axis becomes locally flat, and the metric (23) represents the propogation of coupled cylindirical gravitational and scalar waves.

In references $`[10,11,12,13]`$ it has been shown that the mass per unit length of the string $`\mu _0`$ is related to the angle deficit by

$$8\pi \mu _0=\delta \phi $$
(59)
Hence, the mass density $`\mu _0`$ for the present paper becomes

$$\mu _0=\frac{1}{4}\left(1\frac{e^{\frac{\beta ^2}{2}}}{\left|\alpha \right|\left|p\right|}\right)$$
(60)
Note that the mass per unit length $`\mu _0`$ is constant, does not depend on time $`t.`$

Asymptotically the spacetime exhibits an angle deficit given by

$$(\delta \phi )_{asy}=2\pi \left(1\frac{1}{\left|\alpha \right|\left|q\right|}\right)$$
(61)
For the value of $`\alpha =e^{\frac{\beta ^2}{2}}\left|p\right|^1`$ eliminates the angle deficit near the axis while asymptotically the angle deficit becomes

$$\left(\delta \phi \right)_{asy}=2\pi \left(1\frac{p}{qe^{\frac{\beta ^2}{2}}}\right)$$
(62)
Since $`q^2p^2=1`$ , this implies that $`\left|q\right|>\left|p\right|`$ and gives a larger angle deficit compared to the result obtained in paper I.

The choice $`\alpha =\left|q\right|^1`$, removes the asymptotic angle deficit and the angle deficit near the axis becomes

$$\left(\delta \varphi \right)_{ax}=2\pi \left(1\frac{qe^{\frac{\beta ^2}{2}}}{p}\right)$$
(63)
This choice causes a larger negative angle surplus near the axis compared with the paper I. The choice $`\alpha >e^{\frac{\beta ^2}{2}}\left|p\right|^1`$ imposes deficit angle both in asymptotically and near the axis. Note that; for this particular case asymptotic angle deficit is greater than the angle deficit near the axis. This property is also encountered in the analysis of paper I and paper II. It has been shown in paper II that, the angle deficit near the axis and asymptotically, are independent of electromagnetic parameter. However, in our case the angle deficit near the axis depends on the constant parameter $`\beta `$, which measures the intensity of the scalar wave but asymptotically the angle deficit is independent of the scalar field. This is natural and expected because the intensity of the scalar field is maximum near the axis and approaches zero for far away from the axis. Hence, in contrast to the electromagnetic case (paper II), intervening gravitational and scalar waves contribute to the angle deficit.

### E Discussion of Energy

One of the important elements in cylindirically symmetric systems is the $`C`$-energy introduced by Thorne . This $`C`$-energy represents the total gravitational and scalar energy per unit length between $`\omega =0`$ and $`\omega `$ at any time $`t`$. The $`C`$-energy in the present paper is described by the quantity.

$$C=\nu +\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Psi }}+\mathrm{\Gamma }$$
(64)
which is equivalent to

$`C`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2\left(p^2\tau ^2+q^2\sigma ^21\right)}{\tau ^2+\sigma ^2}}\right]+`$ (66)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2\mathrm{\Delta }}{\tau ^2+\sigma ^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4\tau ^4\mathrm{\Delta }}{\left(\tau ^2+\sigma ^2\right)^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{4\tau ^2\left(1+2\tau ^4\right)}{\left(\tau ^2+\sigma ^2\right)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1+9\tau ^2}{2\left(\tau ^2+\sigma ^2\right)}}1\right]`$
Near the axis (when $`\sigma =1`$ or $`\omega 0`$), equation ( 44) gives

$$C\mathrm{ln}\left|\alpha p\right|\frac{\beta ^2}{2}\text{ }\left(\omega 0\right)$$
(67)
while asymptotically it becomes

$$C\mathrm{ln}\left|\alpha q\right|+\mathrm{ln}\left|1\frac{1}{2q^2\omega ^2}\right|\text{ }\left(w\mathrm{}\right)$$
(68)
Using equation (43) in equations $`\left(18\right)`$ and $`\left(19\right)`$ we obtained

$$C_t=\frac{\omega }{2\mathrm{\Psi }^2}\left(\mathrm{\Psi }_t\mathrm{\Psi }_\omega +\mathrm{\Phi }_t\mathrm{\Phi }_\omega \right)+4\omega \varphi _\omega \varphi _t$$
(69)
$$C_\omega =\frac{\omega }{4\mathrm{\Psi }^2}\left(\mathrm{\Psi }_t^2+\mathrm{\Phi }_t^2+\mathrm{\Psi }_\omega ^2+\mathrm{\Phi }_\omega ^2\right)+2\omega \left(\varphi _\omega ^2+\varphi _t^2\right)$$
(70)
We introduce the null coordinates

$`u`$ $`=`$ $`t+\omega `$ (71)
$`v`$ $`=`$ $`t\omega `$ (72)
so that future null infinity corresponds to $`u\mathrm{}`$ with finite $`v`$ while past null infinity corresponds to $`v\mathrm{}`$ with finite $`u`$. Equations (18) and (19) take the form

$$C_u=\frac{1}{2}\left(C_t+C_\omega \right)>0$$
(73)
$$C_v=\frac{1}{2}\left(C_tC_\omega \right)$$
(74)
where equation (51) measures the rate of radiation of the $`C`$ energy . For the present paper, equation (51) interms of $`(\tau ,\sigma )`$ coordinates takes the form

$$C_v=\frac{\left(\sigma \sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}+\tau \sqrt{\delta }\right)^2}{\left(\tau ^2+\sigma ^2\right)^2}\left\{\frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }\delta }}{2Y}+\frac{\omega \beta ^2}{\left(\tau ^2+\sigma ^2\right)^4}\left[\sqrt{\delta }\left(\tau ^2\sigma ^2\right)+2\tau \sigma \sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right]^2\right\}$$
(75)
Using the following asymptotic behavior

$`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ $``$ $`1\text{ }\sqrt{\delta }\omega \text{ }\tau ^2+\sigma ^2\omega ^2t^2+1`$ (76)
$`\tau ^2\sigma ^2`$ $``$ $`\omega ^2+t^21\text{ }Yq^2\omega ^2+\left(p^2q^2t^2\right)`$ (77)
$`\sigma `$ $``$ $`\omega +{\displaystyle \frac{1t^2}{2\omega }}\text{ }\tau {\displaystyle \frac{t}{\omega }}+{\displaystyle \frac{t\left(t^21\right)}{2\omega ^3}}`$ (78)
we obtain that

$$C_v\frac{1}{2\omega ^3}\left(1+\frac{2t}{\omega }\right)\left(\frac{1}{q^2}+2\beta ^2\right)+O\left(\omega ^5\right)$$
(79)
It is clear to observe that $`\underset{\omega \mathrm{}}{lim}C_v=0`$ and the solution is non-radiating

### F The Weyl and Ricci Scalars

The description of the solution in terms of the Weyl and Ricci scalars are obtained by Newman-Penrose formalism. We introduce new coordinates $`(\theta ,\psi )`$ by

$`\tau `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sinh}\psi `$ (80)
$`\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cosh}\theta `$ (81)
The line element $`\left(23\right)`$ describing ES solution takes the form

$$ds^2=U^2\left(d\psi ^2d\theta ^2\right)\frac{V^2}{1\epsilon \epsilon ^{}}\left[\left(1\epsilon \right)dz+i\left(1+\epsilon \right)d\phi \right]$$
(82)
where

$`U^2=\alpha ^2Xe^{2\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$

and a suitable null basis for the metric is

$`l`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{U}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(d\psi d\theta \right)`$ (83)
$`n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{U}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(d\psi +d\theta \right)`$ (84)
$`m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(VL_{}^{}dziVL_+^{}d\phi \right)`$ (85)
Here

$`L_\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1\pm \epsilon }{\sqrt{1\left|\epsilon \right|^2}}}`$

$`V^2=\mathrm{cosh}\psi \mathrm{sinh}\theta `$

$`\epsilon ={\displaystyle \frac{Z1}{Z+1}}\text{ where }Z=\chi +iq_2`$

and $``$ denotes the complex conjugate. The exact form of the Weyl and Ricci scalars are too long and complicated. Hence, we prefer to give their asymptotic forms

$$\psi _2\frac{i}{2\alpha ^2q^3\omega ^3}$$
(86)
$$\psi _0\frac{3i}{2\alpha ^2q^3\omega ^3}+\frac{\beta ^2}{2\alpha ^2q^2\omega ^4}+O\left(\omega ^5\right)$$
(87)
$$\psi _4\frac{3i}{2\alpha ^2q^3\omega ^3}+\frac{\beta ^2}{2\alpha ^2q^2\omega ^4}+O\left(\omega ^5\right)$$
(88)
$$\varphi _{00}\frac{\beta ^2}{2\alpha ^2q^2\omega ^4}\left(1\frac{1}{\omega ^2}\right)+O\left(\omega ^7\right)$$
(89)
$$\varphi _{22}\frac{\beta ^2}{2\alpha ^2q^2\omega ^4}\left(1\frac{1}{\omega ^2}\right)+O\left(\omega ^7\right)$$
(90)
$$\varphi _{11}\frac{\beta ^2}{2\alpha ^2q^2\omega ^4}\left(1+\frac{q11}{2\omega ^2}\right)+O\left(\omega ^7\right)$$
(91)
$$\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{\beta ^2}{6\alpha ^2q^2\omega ^4}\left(1+\frac{q11}{2\omega ^2}\right)+O\left(\omega ^7\right)$$
(92)
The asymptotic dying-off of the Weyl (like $`\omega ^3`$ ) and Ricci ( like $`\omega ^4`$) scalars indicates that the present solution is non-radiating. This is totally in agreement with the $`C`$-energy discussion.

The non-radiating character of the present solution indicates the stability of the cosmic string in the presence of a scalar field as well.

It should be noted that the inclusion of scalar field changes the geometric intrepretation of the resulting spacetime from Petrov type-D to Petrov type-I.

## V DISCUSSION

In this paper, we have given the scalar field generalization of the vacuum Einstein solution of paper I, that describes the interaction of rotating cosmic strings with gravitational waves. The obtained solution is a kind of special solution that preserves the properties of the background solution; that is, regular on the axis, asymptotically flat and free from the curvature singularities. It is shown that the presence of a scalar field contributes to the angle deficit near the axis. However in the asymptotic case, the angle deficit is produced completely from the gravitational waves. Our analysis shows that, the effect of the scalar field tends to increase the angle deficit. We also note that the inclusion of the scalar field did not change the stability character of the cosmic string. This is not surprising because the character of the inserted scalar field is well-behaved and asymptotically vanished. Addition of a different scalar field which does not behave well will change all these nice features completely.

###### Acknowledgement 1

We would like to thank Mustafa Halilsoy for discussions.


text:
# An Analysis of Mutual Communication between Qubits by Capacitive Coupling

## Abstract

A behavior of a two qubit system coupled by the electric capacitance has been studied quantum mechanically. We found that the interaction is essentially the same as the one for the dipole-dipole interaction; i.e., qubit-qubit coupling of the NMR quantum gate. Therefore a quantum gate could be constructed by the same operation sequence for the NMR device if the coupling is small enough. The result gives an information to the effort of development of the devices assuming capacitive coupling between qubits.

preprint: HUBP-08/02

Toward the realization of quantum computers, various type of devices have been studied intensively in systems such as ion trapsion1 ; ion2  , NMRNMR1 , linear opticslin1 ; lin2 , cavity QED with atomscavqed1 , quantum dots in optical cavity QD1 ; QD2 , and Josephson-JunctionJJ1 ; NEC , etc. In terms of the basic physics of the quantum gate, the quantum system must satisfy requirements that; 1) the transition between two levels in each qubit has to be controllable independently for both phase and amplitude, 2) qubits must have suitable mutual interaction to construct a quantum gate. It has to be emphasized that the first requirement means that the two-qubit system has to have a function to switch interaction between qubits during the quantum gate operation.

Recently, an observation of Rabi oscillation in two-qubit system using the Josephson-Junction device operating in the charge regime has been reportedNEC-new . It is an encouraging evidence of the existence of the capacitive interaction between qubits. However, the construction of the universal quantum gate is yet to be demonstrated both theoretically and experimentally, i.e., a way of switching interaction between qubits is necessary to be demonstrated. The switching could be realized by either an embedded mechanism in the device or by a sophisticated operation with proper qubit-qubit interaction. The first one is simple and straightforward to understand, however, it may be difficult in the Josephson-Junction device in the charge regime or the Exciton-Photon device yamanishi-THZ ; yamanishi-QIT  since the device itself has to have a kind of mechanism to decouple two qubits.

For later case, a typical and a widely used way by NMR devices is to utilize the dipole-dipole interaction between qubits which can be described by Hamiltonian as;

$`\begin{array}{c}H_{\text{dipole}}=\mathrm{\Omega }_i\sigma _x^i+\mathrm{\Omega }_j\sigma _x^j+\omega _i\sigma _z^i+\omega _j\sigma _z^j+\omega _{ij}\sigma _z^i\sigma _z^j\end{array}`$ (3)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{i(j)}`$ and $`\omega _{i(j)}`$ are the Rabi oscillation strength and the energy level of the quantum states in the i(j)-th qubit, while the last term describes dipole-dipole coupling between the i-th and j-th qubits with the strength of $`\omega _{ij}`$. The Pauli matrix $`\sigma _z^{i(j)}`$ stands for the magnetic or the electric dipole operator depending on the devices being considered.

The possibility of multi-qubits coupling using Josephson-Junction devices with the interaction (3) has been discussed in JJ1  using a LC-oscillator mode coupling between qubits, however, the Josephson-Junction device described in NEC-new  and the Exciton-Photon device intend to use the capacitive coupling between two qubits rather than the dipole-dipole coupling. In these devices, the excited and the ground state in a qubit are characterized by the difference of the electric charge rather than the direction of the dipole moment so that the interaction of the two qubits is not described by the same Hamiltonian as (3).

The operation of single qubit by the Josephson-Junction devices in the phase regime has been reported JJ-phase  and the quantum mechanical behavior of two-qubit coupling via capacitive coupling in the phase regime has been studied by several authorsBlais ; Johnson ; Strauch . These works showed the way to construct the universal quantum gate with the Josephson-Junction devices in the phase regime.

In this letter, the quantum mechanical calculation of the behavior of the two-qubit system operating in the charge regime is reported. We show that the system has the same nature with the dipole-dipole coupling, therefore, the same operation with the NMR devices are applicable to construct quantum gates in weak coupling regime

In order to see the behavior of the capacitive coupling between two qubits, we analyzed the wave function of a two-qubit system in four dimensional vector space; $`\psi \phi _1\phi _2`$, where the basis of the space is defined explicitly as

$`\left(\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccccc}|1& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ |0& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \end{array}\right)_1\left(\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccccc}|1& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ |0& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \end{array}\right)_2=\left(\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccccc}|1|1& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ |1|0& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ |0|1& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ |0|0& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \end{array}\right).`$ (12)
The time evolution of each qubit can be described by the Schrodinger’s equation as $`i\mathrm{}\frac{d\phi _i}{dt}=H_i\phi _i`$, where $`H_i`$ is the Hamiltonian of i-th qubit and its explicit form is, $`H_i=\left(\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccccc}\mathrm{\Delta }_i& a_i& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ a_i& \mathrm{\Delta }_i& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \end{array}\right)`$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ and $`a_i`$ being the energy level and the Rabi oscillation strength of the qubit. It is assumed, as in all proposed devices, that Rabi oscillation in the qubit can be controlled by changing the energy level $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ via external parameters such as voltages applied to the device. Using these Hamiltonians, the time evolution of the two-qubit system $`\psi `$ in four dimensional space is described as $`i\mathrm{}\frac{d\psi }{dt}=\left(H_1I+IH_2+H_{12}\right)\psi `$ where $`H_{12}`$ stands for the interaction between two qubits. As for the $`H_{12}`$, we assume that the electric charge appears only for the excited state so that an additional energy is put only when both qubits are in the excited state ($`|1|1`$ state in (12)) 111 In general, difference of the electric charge between the excited and the ground state is essential and the ground state is not necessary to be electrically neutral. However, it can be absorbed by the constant energy shift in the diagonal element of the Hamiltonian without loosing accuracy of the discussion.. The Hamiltonian to describe the system is;

$`H_{\text{cap}}=\left(\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccccc}\mathrm{\Delta }_1+\mathrm{\Delta }_2& a_2& a_1& 0& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ a_2& \mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{\Delta }_2& 0& a_1& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ a_1& 0& \mathrm{\Delta }_1+\mathrm{\Delta }_2& a_1& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ 0& a_1& a_1& \mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{\Delta }_2& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccccc}\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}& 0& 0& 0& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ 0& 0& 0& 0& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ 0& 0& 0& 0& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ 0& 0& 0& 0& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \end{array}\right)`$ (21)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}`$ in the second term is the coupling energy between two qubits. This assumption contrasts to the dipole-dipole interaction described in Hamiltonian (3). In fact, in four dimensional vector space, Hamiltonian (3) can be expressed as;

$`H_{\text{dipole}}=\left(\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccccc}\omega _1+\omega _2& \mathrm{\Omega }_2& \mathrm{\Omega }_1& 0& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \mathrm{\Omega }_2& \omega _1\omega _2& 0& \mathrm{\Omega }_1& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \mathrm{\Omega }_1& 0& \omega _1+\omega _2& \mathrm{\Omega }_2& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ 0& \mathrm{\Omega }_1& \mathrm{\Omega }_2& \omega _1\omega _2& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccccc}\omega _{12}& 0& 0& 0& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ 0& \omega _{12}& 0& 0& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ 0& 0& \omega _{12}& 0& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ 0& 0& 0& \omega _{12}& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \end{array}\right)`$ (30)
where the second term is a four dimensional expression of the dipole-dipole interaction. We see the coupling energies are added symmetrically to the diagonal elements of the Hamiltonian and they also change their sign as the direction of a dipole flips. This feature plays an essential role to switch off the interaction between qubits effectively by the refocusing operation.

In order further to see characteristics of the capacitive coupling, it is useful to re-write the Hamiltonian (21) in a two component form as;

$`\begin{array}{c}H_{\text{cap}}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}}{4}}I+a_1\sigma _x^1+a_2\sigma _x^2+\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}}{4}}\right)\sigma _z^1+\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_2+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}}{4}}\right)\sigma _z^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}}{4}}\sigma _z^1\sigma _z^2\end{array}`$ (33)
A comparison of the Hamiltonian (3) and (33) clearly shows similarities and differences of the two couplings schemes. Both of the two have the same type of the dipole coupling term as seen in the last term of Hamiltonians. On the other hand, in Hamiltonian (33), the coupling energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}`$ are added to the energy level of each state as shown in the fourth and the fifth term. As a result, the energy level, $`E_{1(2)}`$, of the quantum state in the 1(2)-th qubit can be expressed as;

$`E_{1(2)}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{1(2)}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}/4\pm \mathrm{\Delta }_{12}/4`$ (34)
where the first two terms represent modified but fixed energy level of the quantum state in the qubit while the last term is the contribution from the dipole type coupling in Hamiltonian (33). The sign of the last term depends on the relative states of the two qubits. This fact shows that interaction of the capacitive coupling can be described essentially by the same form with the dipole-dipole couplings. Therefore, it may be possible to perform the same quantum gate operations which have been applied on devices of the dipole-dipole coupling such as NMR devices.

To realize the operation discussed above, the most important condition on the parameters is the strength of the qubit-qubit coupling, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}`$. Since the energy level of the quantum state in the qubit,$`E_{1(2)}`$, depends on the state of the neighboring qubit as expressed by the $`\pm `$ sign in the equation (34), the quantum state of a qubit affects the condition of Rabi oscillation of neighboring qubit. This fact does not allow the independent control of each qubit. However, if the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}`$ is smaller enough than the $`a_{1(2)}`$, the condition of Rabi oscillation can be virtually independent of neighboring qubit as typical width of Rabi resonance is its strength $`a_{1(2)}`$.

It has to be reminded that the situation described above is the same for the interaction with the Hamiltonian (3); i.e., for NMR devices. The quantum operations demonstrated using the NMR devices always have been performed in the weak coupling regime. Since the spin-spin coupling of the NMR devices is so small that the condition of weak coupling has been satisfied without any special treatment.

It is now known that the capacitive coupling interaction also has the dipole-dipole feature as shown in the Hamiltonian (33), so that devices with capacitive coupling could be operative as a universal quantum gate utilizing the same operation sequence on the NMR devices.

In order to see feasibility of the quantum computation with weak capacitive coupling, we performed a numerical calculation of a quantum gate operation using the Hamiltonian (21). As an example of the two-qubit operation, we tried a controlled-NOT operation by the procedure commonly used in NMR devicesNMR-CNOT  which is schematically expressed in Fig. 1. It has to be noted that even though it is a single controlled-NOT operation, it consists of all necessary operations for general quantum gate operations.

The controlled-NOT operation described in Fig. 1 is expressed in term of a unitary transformation as;

$`\psi _i\psi _f=\sqrt{i}\left(\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccccc}0& 1& 0& 0& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ 1& 0& 0& 0& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ 0& 0& 1& 0& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ 0& 0& 0& 1& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \end{array}\right)\psi _i`$ (39)
after subtracting overall phase factor. In the calculation, the initial state was chosen as $`\psi _i=(1,0,0,0)`$ on the basis shown in Eq. (12) and the expected final state is $`\psi _f=(0,e^{1/4\pi },0,0)`$. As the result of the calculation, we plotted, in Fig. 2, the amplitude and the phase of the $`|1|0`$ state as a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}`$ normalized to $`a_{1(2)}`$, where we expect 1.0 and $`1/4\pi `$ for the amplitude and the phase respectively.

In the calculation, we also have to consider treatment of the Rabi oscillation strength, $`a_{1(2)}`$, in a qubit. Depending on the devices, we can assume that parameter $`a_{1(2)}`$ exists throughout the operation or appears only when the device is on Rabi oscillation. Since it depends on devices considered, we calculated both cases.

It can be concluded that the result are reasonably close to the expected values and are stable up to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}0.1a_{1(2)}`$. As for the treatment of $`a_{1(2)}`$, some deviation from the ideal value is seen if the $`a_{1(2)}`$ is ON throughout the calculations, particularly for the phase of the sate. It is preferable to control $`a_{1(2)}`$ as is realized in NMR devices, however, the deviation appears to be acceptable level. It is also worthwhile mentioning that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}0.1a_{1(2)}`$ is much lager than those of typical NMR devices. It indicates that the devices with capacitive coupling potentially have advantage of larger signal than those of NMR devices.

In summary we analyzed the interaction between two charge qubits via capacitive coupling. We conclude that the coupling is essentially the same as the dipole-dipole type interaction and the device can be a operative as a quantum gate if the coupling is smaller enough than the Rabi oscillation strength. This fact gives an important information for the development of those devices such as Josephson-Junction or Exciton-Photon devices.

The authors would like to thank late Prof. Osamu Miyamura of Hiroshima University who started this work. One of the author(T.M) specially thank him for his guidance and encouragement. This work is supported in part by the Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research from Japan Society for the Promotion of Science and Iwata Real-Time Recognition Project of Hiroshima Prefectural Institute of Industrial Science and Technology.


text:
# Hopping Conductivity Beyond The Percolation Regime Probed By Shot-Noise Measurements

## Abstract

We have observed suppression of shot noise in the variable-range hopping regime for a two-dimensional electron gas whose localization length, $`\xi `$, is controlled by a gate voltage. We have found that the suppression factor $`F`$ (Fano factor) is approximately inversely proportional to the length of the system $`L`$ ($`F=L_0^{}/L`$) for a broad range of values of $`\xi /L_0^{}`$, where $`L_0^{}`$ is the characteristic length. In the case $`\xi /L_0^{}<<1`$, we have identified $`L_0^{}`$ with the distance $`L_0`$ between the hard hops along the sample length. On the other hand, when $`\xi `$ is of the order of $`L_0^{}`$, we have observed that $`L_0^{}`$ does not agree with $`L_0`$ calculated from the percolation model of hopping. We attribute this discrepancy to a breakdown of that model and to a reconstruction of the hopping paths.

Shot noise in the hopping regime has attracted attention only recently,Kor ; Kuz ; Sverdlov  in spite of the fact that shot-noise measurements can shed light on the microscopic processes of electronic transport.Bla  It has been shown experimentally that the study of shot noise provides important information on electron hopping. Kuz  In particular, it was found that the noise power spectral density, S, of a two-dimensional (2D) hole gas in a SiGe quantum well is smaller than the Poissonian value of $`2eI`$, with the Fano factor ($`FS/2eI`$) being inversely proportional to the length of the sample.Kuz  The proportionality constant was interpreted as a characteristic scale for inhomogeneity of the hopping process. An analogous reduction of the shot noise was observed recently in GaAs MESFET devices in both two- and one-dimensional (1D) configurations.Ros

In the hopping regime, the electrons are localized within the *localization length* $`\xi `$. According to the percolation model of hopping,ES  there is another characteristic length, $`L_0>>\xi `$, which represents the distance between the so-called hard hops. In other words, $`L_0`$ is the size of cells of the infinite cluster of less-resistive hops, the backbone of the percolative network which carries the current.ES  At a scale much greater than $`L_0`$, a sample can be considered homogeneous.

It has been found experimentally that when the percolation model is applicable (when $`L>>L_0>>\xi `$) the Fano factor is approximately inversely proportional to the number of hard hops along the sample: $`F=L_0/L`$, where $`L`$ is the sample length.Kuz  This observation is consistent with the theoretical prediction for noise suppression in a 1D hopping system: the Fano factor is $`F=1/N`$ for hopping through $`N`$ identical barriers.Kor  In order to apply this result to a 2D network, one should treat $`N`$ as the number of hard hops along the sample length.

A recent numerical calculationSverdlov  has found that in a 2D system $`F1/L^\alpha `$ with $`\alpha =`$ 0.85. Although within the limited data available the experimental result in Ref. 2 is also consistent with an $`\alpha =`$ 0.85 exponent, that calculation is based on simplifications (e.g., $`T=`$ 0 K, no e-e interactions) that in some cases may restrict its applicability. Previous experimentsKuz ; Ros  have been analyzed within the framework of the percolation modelES  using the $`F=L_0/L`$ dependence, which offers a more intuitive picture and fits the data at least equally well. In the case of a 2D hole system, Kuz  $`L_0`$ was determined to be $``$$`\mu `$m for the 2-5 $`\mu `$m-long samples, while $`\xi `$ was estimated to be $``$0.01 $`\mu `$m. A similar value for $`\xi `$ was obtained for shorter (0.2 $`\mu `$$``$ L$``$ 0.4 $`\mu `$m) GaAs devices.Ros  In the latter case, however, a deviation from the dependence $`F=L_0/L`$ was found: the Fano factor saturated below the value of 1, expected when $`L_0L`$, for both 2D and 1D configurations. This result was tentatively attributed to the Coulomb interaction between hopping electrons.Ros

Neither of these studies has considered the situation when $`L_0`$ is of the order of $`\xi `$. Under this condition, it is questionable to treat the hopping conductivity as the charge percolation through a 2D network of lumped resistors, which represent individual hops. It is also unclear what to expect for the Fano factor in such a case.

To address this question, we have studied the shot noise of hopping 2D electrons over a wide range of $`\xi /L_0`$ values, from very small up to values of the order of unity, using a low-mobility 2D electron gas in a Si-doped GaAs structure. A single $`\delta `$-doped layer of Si donors (concentration 1.3$`\times `$1012 cm-2) was separated from the metal-film gate electrode by a 0.1 $`\mu `$m-thick MBE-grown layer of undoped GaAs . The width of the conducting channel between the source and drain was 100 $`\mu `$m. Two metal gates across the channel, 5 $`\mu `$m and 10 $`\mu `$m long, allowed to deplete the 2D gas and to drive it into the hopping regime (see the inset in Fig. 1).

Figure 1 shows the source-to-drain current-voltage characteristics for the section of the channel intercepted by the 5 $`\mu `$m-long gate, at various values of the gate voltage, $`V_g=`$ -1.1 to -1.3 V. (Similar curves were obtained for the section intercepted by the 10 $`\mu `$m-long gate.) The observed increase of the source-drain resistance with decreasing gate voltage reflects an increasing depletion of carriers under the gate. The current asymmetry for the two polarities of the source-drain voltage, $`V_{sd}`$, is a consequence of the electronic configuration employed, in which large positive (negative) values of $`V_{sd}`$ decrease (increase) the effective gate voltage.

The electronic noise of the source-drain current was measured at a frequency of 80 kHz, using a set-up described in Ref. 2 and with the sample immersed in liquid He. The current dependence of the noise power spectral density for several gate voltages is summarized in Figs. 2 and 3, for the 5 $`\mu `$m- and 10 $`\mu `$m-long gates, respectively. The Fano factor has been extracted from the fit to the expressionRos

$$S_I=F2eIcoth(FeV/2kT).$$
(1)
In the $`eV>>2kT/F`$ limit, this equation reverts to the familiar $`S_I=F2eI`$. In our case, however, it is important to use the full expression, especially for $`V_g=`$ -1.1 V, where $`eV2kT/F`$. In Figs. 2 and 3, open circles are experimental points, and solid lines are fits to Eq. 1. From an analysis of these data, we draw the following conclusions: (a) In all cases, the shot noise is partially suppressed ($`F<1`$). (b) For fixed gate length, $`F`$ increases as $`V_g`$ becomes more negative, as shown in columns 2 and 3 of Table I for the 5 micron and 10 micron long gates, respectively. This can be interpreted as a decrease of the number of hard hops (increase of $`L_0`$) as the sample becomes more resistive. (c) The suppression is approximately inversely proportional to the gate length. The values of the proportionality constant, $`L_0^{}`$, are indicated in column 6 of Table I. We note that although the parameters are different, these conclusions are similar to those reached previously using very different materials systems.Kuz ; Ros  This similarity lends additional support to the generality of the underlying physical mechanism and to the simple expression we have used connecting Fano factor and gate length.

In order to compare the experimental results with the theoretical predictions based on the percolation model of hopping,Kor  we need to estimate the characteristic lengths for the samples studied. In the strongly-localized regime, the temperature dependence of the conductivity (see Fig. 4 and Ref. 7) resembles the Efros-Shklovskii (ES) law for variable-range hopping,ES  $`G(T)exp[(T_0/T)^{0.5}]`$. In this case, the localization length can be estimated as

$$\xi =Ce^2/\kappa k_BT_0,$$
(2)
where $`C`$ is a constant of the order of unity,ES ; VK  and $`\kappa `$ is the dielectric constant. The values of the fitting parameter $`T_0`$, and $`\xi `$ calculated from Eq. 2, are shown in Table 1. Tuning the gate voltage over the range $`V_g=`$ -1.1 to -1.3 V results in large variations of $`\xi `$, from 0.084 $`\mu `$m to 0.010 $`\mu `$m. It is worth mentioning that application of the ES model for the hopping with a large localization length ($`V_g=`$ -1.1 V) is not fully justified (see, e.g., Ref. 9), and we need to treat this estimate with caution.Ref\_Caution

We are now in a position to compare two characteristic lengths, $`\xi `$ and $`L_0^{}`$. For $`V_g=`$ -1.3 V, the ratio $`\xi /L_0^{}`$ is much smaller than 1, and the percolation model of hopping holds. We assume that in this case $`L_0^{}`$ coincides with the distance between hard hops, $`L_0`$ \[Ref. 11\]:

$$L_0=\xi (T_0/T)^{(\nu +1)/2},$$
(3)
where $`\nu `$ is the critical index of the correlation radius ($``$1.3 in 2D). In Table 1 we list the values of $`L_0`$ obtained from Eq. 3 using the tabulated values of $`T_0`$ and $`\xi `$. Indeed, for $`V_g=`$ -1.3 V and -1.2 V, where $`\xi /L_0^{}<<`$ 1, the values of $`L_0^{}`$ and $`L_0`$ are in good agreement.

The situation is different, however, for $`V_g=`$ -1.1 V, where $`\xi /L_0^{}=`$ 0.53. In this case, $`L_0^{}`$ is a factor of three smaller than the estimate for $`L_0`$ from Eq. 3 (see Table 1). This discrepancy suggests that the percolation model is not applicable when $`\xi `$ becomes of the order of $`L_0^{}`$. The relation $`F=L_0^{}/L`$ is apparently still valid in this limit, but for a correct interpretation of $`L_0^{}`$ it is necessary to go beyond the percolation model. This implies to take into account not only the backbone of the infinite percolation cluster, but also new hopping trajectories which come into play when $`\xi `$ becomes comparable to $`L_0^{}`$.

Given the limited (2) number of gate lengths used in our experiment, it is fair to ask whether one could have analyzed the experimental results using instead a $`F=(L_0^{}/L)^{0.85}`$ dependence, as suggested by recent numerical calculations.Sverdlov  Such an analysis yields values of $`L_0^{}`$ that are somewhat different from those shown in Table I; however, the large difference between $`L_0^{}`$ and $`L_0`$ for $`V_g=`$ -1.1 V remains, indicating that our conclusion is not qualitatively affected by small deviations of the exponent from unity.

In principle, percolation theory could still explain our results if, in analogy with the 3D case, we would assume that the dielectric constant, $`k`$, increases as the sample becomes more conductive.SPC  An increase of $`k`$ by a factor of three at $`V_g=`$ -1.1 V would give a good match between the predicted $`L_0`$ from percolation theory and our measured $`L_0^{}`$. This interpretation is appealing since at that gate voltage the sample still seems to follow the ES law (as seen in Fig. 4). However, it is an open question whether in the 2D system considered here the dielectric constant might grow with increasing localization length. We hope that the experimental results presented here will stimulate the development of a theoretical model applicable for an arbitrary ratio of $`\xi /L_0^{}`$.

In short, we have found that the Fano factor $`F`$ is approximately inversely proportional to the length of the system $`L`$ ($`F=L_0^{}/L`$), in a broad range of values of the $`\xi /L_0^{}`$ ratio, where $`\xi `$ and $`L_0^{}`$ are the localization and characteristic lengths, respectively. In the limit $`\xi /L_0^{}<<`$ 1, we have identified $`L_0^{}`$ with the distance $`L_0`$ between hard hops along the sample length. On the other hand, when $`\xi L_0^{}`$, we have observed that $`L_0^{}`$ does not agree with $`L_0`$ calculated from the percolation model of hopping, thus signaling a reconstruction of the hopping paths.

This work has been sponsored by the National Science Foundation Grants Nos. DMR-9804023 (E.E.M.) and DMR-0077825 (M.G.).