text:
# Near-Field Microlensing and Its Effects on Stellar Transit Observations by Kepler

## 1 Introduction

In a transit experiment where the goal is to look for obscuration of light caused by the transiting body, the effect of microlensing by the transiting body is generally thought to be negligible. The main reason is the following: for orbital separations of a few AU, the Einstein ring due to a stellar companion (the lens) is typically much smaller than the size of the primary (the source), so that the maximum amplification caused by the lens is small. In addition, the lens has a finite size, which may cause one or more of the rays to be occulted, which makes the effect of microlensing small compared to the obscuration caused by the lens. In principle however, the effect of microlensing can be important, and this effect becomes more important when the binary companion is a degenerate star (i.e. massive but small) or if the orbital separation is large. Gould (1995) argued that self-lensing in binaries in which at least one member is an ordinary (non-compact) star (assuming $``$ 0.3 mag amplification) would be exceedingly rare. Marsh (2001) argued for better prospects in finding microlensing signatures in main-sequence, white dwarf binaries, but also concluded that finding microlensing in binaries containing neutron stars or black holes is unlikely. At high photometric precision, however, microlensing effects at much lower amplitude can be important, and this effect must be taken into account in interpreting the observed light curves.

The Discovery-class mission, Kepler: A Search for Terrestrial Planets, with an expected launch in 2007, is a high-precision photometric mission whose main goal is to detect a statistically large number of extrasolar, earth-like planets, if such planets are common around stars in the extended solar-neighborhood. Kepler will provide such detections by obtaining extensive (four years), near-continuous photometry on the same set of over 100,000 stars at typical transit-depth precisions of 90 parts per million on the 15 minute sampling rate for $`V12`$ stars. An Earth-analogue transit will typically last $``$10 hours and be detected at $``$6 $`\sigma `$ per event which repeats once per year. (More details on Kepler, which is a NASA-approved discovery-class mission, can be found at http://www.kepler.arc.nasa.gov/). At such precision, the effect of microlensing by a transiting compact and massive body can often be significant. For example, when the lens is a compact object such as a white dwarf or a neutron star, the effect of microlensing can far exceed the transit signal, causing a net positive amplification. The microlensing contribution due to a brown dwarf at 1 AU would be several percent of the transit depth. In this paper, we explore the astrophysical implications of such microlensing in the near-field limit of a lens orbiting the source, with particular emphasis on the upcoming Kepler mission.

## 2 Microlensing vs. Transit

Gravitational microlensing studies over the past decade have revealed large numbers of events toward the Magellanic Clouds and the Galactic Bulge (Alcock et al., 2000; Udalski, 2000; Lassere et al., 2001). With near real-time analysis of the photometry, many of the microlensing events are detected early enough to provide alerts allowing for close and intense follow-up monitoring of potentially interesting events. Such intense monitoring has been carried out for several purposes such as, to look for planets associated with the lens (Albrow et al. 2001a; Gaudi et al. 2002); to determine limb-darkening parameters of the source (Albrow et al. 2001b); to measure lens masses through parallax effects and orbital motions of binary lenses (An et al. 2002); to determine the caustic crossing time-scales to determine the lens location (Afonso et al. 2000), etc. The literature on microlensing both from observational and theoretical perspectives is now quite large and mature (e.g. Schneider et al. 1993, Paczyński, 1996 & Gould, 2001).

By contrast, the much simpler effect of geometric obscuration resulting in transits as one object passes in between a source and the observer has received much less attention relative to microlensing (unless one includes binary star eclipses in this context), although there has been a surge of interest on this topic recently. In the case of classical microlensing the events are rare, thus the successful projects monitor very dense stellar fields with large format detectors. However, the microlensing signal can be quite large, so these projects require only modest precision. Transits of planets generally provide much smaller signals: Jupiter transiting the Sun, for example, would yield an event of 1% depth. Furthermore, the inclinations are expected to be random, so for planets with orbital radii of $``$1 AU, $`>`$99% of the existing systems would not exhibit transits due to the small chance of having the required alignment. For terrestrial planets the transit depth is even smaller: about one part in 10,000. Hence, although seeking evidence of Earth-like, extrasolar planets (i.e., having a size comparable to the Earth at a distance of about an AU from a solar-analogue host star) via transits has long been advocated as a means to search for terrestrial planets (Borucki and Summers 1984), this is a challenging experiment. With the stable observing conditions provided by observations from space and the ability to mosaic a significant number of CCDs it has become feasible to detect true Earth-like extrasolar planets with a modest, dedicated mission such as Kepler.

In a mission with such unprecedented photometric accuracy, it is obviously important to make sure that the signature of an earth-like planet is unique. Since a white dwarf has a radius comparable to that of the Earth, a white dwarf in a one year orbit transiting a solar-like star could in principle mimic the signature of a terrestrial planet (although this can be easily eliminated in most cases by follow up radial velocity measurements). This study is motivated by asking if the photometric signal itself due to microlensing by the white dwarf, even though it is only 1 AU from its host star, might be detectable. Indeed for the case of a white dwarf in a one year orbit, the geometric obscuration effect is at the level of one part in $`10^4`$, but the microlensing effect is much larger, amounting to a few parts in $`10^3`$. As we will show later, the light curve caused by the microlensing has a form very similar to the transit light curve with a change of sign. Taking into account the effect of gravitational microlensing, we will show that white dwarfs transiting main sequence stars with orbital periods of $``$3 days would produce positive intensity signals, and hence will not be a source of confusion with terrestrial planets for Kepler. The purpose of this paper is to establish the framework for calculating microlensing in this near-field regime, to establish domains in source and lens characteristics where the effect is measurable, and to explore whether the near-field microlensing signal can be exploited to return astrophysical information such as the lens mass. In §3 we discuss the amplification in the near-field regime and present a generalized formalism for generating light curves taking the finite source size, the finite lens size, the inclination of the orbit and the limb-darkening parameters into account, and discuss how the simpler cases of point source etc. can be considered as special cases of this generalized case. In §4, we discuss the amplifications caused by various types of degenerate and non-degenerate secondaries at different orbital separations for different types of sources, and discuss the interesting cases in which the gravitational light amplification and geometric obscuration effects are similar in amplitude. §5 is devoted to a more detailed discussion of special cases such as Earth-mass planets, Jupiters, brown dwarfs, white dwarfs, neutron stars and black holes as secondaries in orbit around main sequence stars. We conclude in §6 with a summary of earlier sections and further discussion on the prospects of such observations with the upcoming Kepler mission, and the possible astrophysical returns from such observations.

## 3 Microlensing with Finite Source and Finite Lens

Some early theoretical work involving a finite source (and a point lens) was carried out by Bontz (1979). A mathematical description leading to an analytical solution for such a case can be found in Schneider et al. (1992) and Witt and Mao (1994). Dominik (1998) and Gould & Gaucherel (1997) have independently developed efficient schemes for calculating the finite source effects using Green’s theorem and line integrals instead of following the conventional approach of 2-dimensional integration over the source. The numerical recipe developed by Sahu (1994 a,b) uses a polar coordinate system centered on the source, which is particularly useful in considering radially-symmetric effects such as the limb darkening, which is followed here.

The effect due to a finite lens has received much less attention; nevertheless this has been discussed in some detail by Bromley (1996) and Marsh (2001), and more recently by Agol (2002) and Beskin and Tuntsov (2002). The literature dealing with the combined effect of both a finite source and a finite lens is generally lacking. Gould (1995) considered the effect of microlensing in binaries and concluded that only pairs of pulsars would be interesting. However, his analysis was done in the frame-work of the “standard” microlensing where the source lies within the Einstein ring radius of the lens, in which case the amplification may be more than 34%. Marsh (2001) has generated light curves for compact, degenerate binaries with small orbital separations, where he assumed that the source is uniformly bright and that the fainter of the two images is occulted by the lens. In order to ensure that the results are valid for all cases observed by Kepler, our calculations take appropriate limb-darkening parameters into account, and do not assume a priori that the fainter image is occulted.

In the following section, we discuss in detail the approach adopted here in determining the effect of finite sizes of the source and the lens simultaneously. Our light curve simulations are valid for low-mass as well as high-mass binaries at any orbital separation, and also include an appropriate limb-darkening for the source and different inclinations of the orbital plane. We note that in the extreme case where the lens is a point lens, the net effect would be the same as that of pure microlensing. In the extreme case where the lens mass is zero, the effect would be the same as that of a pure transit.

### 3.1 Formalism for Light Curve Simulation

Let us first consider the source to be a point source. Let $`D_L`$ be the distance to the lens ($`L`$), $`D_{LS}`$ be the distance from the lens to the source ($`S`$), and $`D_S`$ be the distance from the observer to the source as shown in Fig. 1. Let $`R_s`$ represent the distance between the center of the lens and the source projected onto the lens plane.

The radius of the Einstein ring at the lens plane, $`R_E`$, can be written as

$$R_E^2=\frac{4GM_LD}{c^2},D\frac{D_{LS}D_L}{D_S}$$
(1)
where $`M_L`$ is the the mass of the lens.

The lens produces two images of the source, $`S^{}`$ and $`S^{\prime \prime }`$, as shown in Fig. 1. At the lens plane, these two images are situated on the line joining the source and the center of the lens, one inside and the other outside the Einstein ring. The distance between the lens and the two images can be expressed as (e.g. see Paczyński 1996 for details)

$$R_{+,}=0.5[R_s\pm (R_s^2+4R_E^2)^{1/2}]$$
(2)
.

The amplification of these two images are given by

$$A_p^{+,}=\frac{u^2+2}{2u(u^2+4)^{1/2}}\pm 0.5,uR_s/R_E$$
(3)
.

Thus we see that the image outside the Einstein ring is the brighter of the two images, and is at least as bright as the source itself. The combined amplification $`A_p`$ for a point source is given by

$$A_p=A_p^++A_p^{}=\frac{u^2+2}{u(u^2+4)^{1/2}}$$
(4)
If $`u`$ is replaced by the minimum impact parameter $`u_0`$, we get the maximum amplification $`A_p^0`$.

Let us now discuss the case of an extended source, which can be treated as an ensemble of point sources. We will assume the lens to be extended, opaque and spherically symmetric. For an extended source, it is convenient to work in the lens plane, and Fig. 2 schematically shows such a case, where the source is larger than the Einstein ring itself. The two circles A and B represent two parts of the source, whose images are (A, A′′) and (B, B′′), respectively. The brighter images (A and B) are outside the Einstein ring, none of which (A) is occulted by the lens. The fainter images (A′′, B′′) are inside the Einstein ring, one of which (A′′) is occulted by the lens. It is worth noting that the images of all the parts of the source are displaced with respect to the original positions such that no two images overlap. Microlensing preserves the surface brightness, and any amplification caused by microlensing is caused by a proportional increase in the size of the image with respect to the original size.

The amplification of an extended source would then be given by (equation 6.81 of Schneider et al. 1993)

$$A=\frac{d^2yI(y)A_p(y)}{d^2yI(y)}$$
(5)
where $`I(y)`$ is the surface brightness profile of the source, $`A_p(y)`$ is the amplification of a point source at position $`y`$, and the integration is carried out over the entire surface of the source.

For a lens with finite size, the above equation must be rewritten as

$$A=\frac{d^2yI(y)[A_p^+(y)+A_p^{}(y)]}{d^2yI(y)}$$
(6)
where the integration is carried out over all the points in the image plane which are not occulted by the lens.

Note that for a finite-size, uniformly bright source, the maximum amplification (corresponding to a point lens which is perfectly aligned with the source) is given by

$$A_{max}=[1+\frac{4R_E^2}{r_S^2}]^{\frac{1}{2}}$$
(7)
where $`r_S`$ is the radius of the source scaled to the lens plane.

In order to carry out the integration given by equation (6), let us follow Fig. 3 where $`R_s`$ is the distance between the lens and the center of the source projected onto the lens plane, and $`l`$ is the impact parameter (the minimum distance between the center of the lens and the center of the source at the lens plane as the lens traces the path shown in the figure). Let us choose a circular coordinate system and let ($`r,\theta `$) be the representative point which is at a distance $`y`$ from the lens. From Fig. 3 we see that

$$y=\sqrt{R_s^2+r^22R_srcos(\gamma )}$$
(8)
where

$$R_s=\sqrt{x_0^2+l^2},\gamma =\pi \theta \alpha and\alpha =sin^1(l/R_s)$$
(9)
i.e.

$$y=\sqrt{R_s^2+r^2+2R_srcos(\alpha +\theta )}$$
(10)
The two images of the point ($`r,\theta `$) are formed at distances $`y_+`$ and $`y_{}`$ from the center of the lens along the line joining the lens and the point ($`r,\theta `$) such that

$$y_{+,}=0.5[y\pm (y^2+4R_E^2)^{1/2}]$$
(11)
.

The image is not occulted if

$$y_{+,}>r_l$$
(12)
where $`r_l`$ is the radius of the lens.

The amplification corresponding to these two images can be written as

$$A_{+,}(y)=\frac{(y/R_E)^2+2}{2(y/R_E)[(y/R_E)^2+4]^{1/2}}\pm 0.5$$
(13)
In calculating the combined amplification $`A(y)=A_+(y)+A_{}(y)`$, we consider only the images which satisfy the condition (12) to ensure that the image is not occulted by the lens.

Using equation(6), the total amplification can be calculated by integrating over the source using

$$A=\frac{_0^{r_S}_0^{2\pi }A(y)I(y)𝑑r𝑑\theta }{_0^{r_S}_0^{2\pi }I(y)𝑑r𝑑\theta }$$
(14)
This is an expression suitable for numerical integration which will take the finite size of both the lens and the source into account. The light curve can be reproduced as a function of time $`t`$, which is related to $`x_0`$ through the relation $`x_0=(R_E/t_0)t`$ where $`t_0`$ is the timescale of microlensing (which is the time taken by the lens to cross its own Einstein ring). $`y`$ in turn, is related to $`x_0`$ through equation 8 and 9.

Since we are mostly interested in the effect caused by the secondary in a binary, we need to include the effect of the inclination, which can be incorporated through a suitable choice of the minimum impact parameter. The light curves can then be calculated with the amplification as a function of the phase (see Fig. 3).

### 3.2 Determination of the Lens Mass

We also provide here the equations that allow the mass of the lens to be derived from photometry in the limit where microlensing amplification dominates the light curve, as for example would be the case for a white dwarf orbiting a main-sequence star at 1 AU. If multiple, periodically repeating events have been observed, Kepler’s law provides a relation between the orbital period ($`P`$), semi-major axis ($`a`$) and the sum of the masses:

$$P^2=\frac{4\pi ^2a^3}{(M_S+M_L)G}$$
(15)
where $`M_S`$ is the mass of the source which may be constrained from independent observations (such as spectroscopy and spectral classification and/or with radial velocity observations), and $`M_L`$ is the lens mass for which an estimate is desired.

Assuming $`D_{LS}a<<D_L`$, equation (7) can be rewritten as

$$M_L=\frac{(A_0^21)r_S^2c^2}{16Ga}$$
(16)
where $`r_S`$ is the radius of the source star scaled to the lens plane, and $`c`$ is the velocity of light. $`A_0`$ is the maximum amplification during the microlensing event which we have assumed to be $`A_{max}`$. Note that for source sizes much larger than the Einstein ring radius, the maximum amplification during the microlensing event ($`A_0`$) is nearly equal to $`A_{max}`$ given by equation 7 regardless of the impact parameter, provided that the lens actually transits the source. This is demonstrated by the flat-topped nature of the numerically-simulated lightcurves (Fig. 10, 14 and 15), and is consistent with discussions in several other papers (e.g. Agol 2002). Thus $`A_0A_{max}`$ is generally a good approximation. If independent observations provide constraints on the source radius, then equation (16) can be used to solve for orbital separation, $`a`$, and $`M_L`$.

An additional constraint comes from the duration of the transit ($`T_t`$) which, for a circular orbit and 90 inclination, can be written as

$$T_t=\frac{2r_sP}{2\pi a}=\frac{2a^{1/2}r_S}{[(M_L+M_S)G]^{1/2}}$$
(17)
.

Combining equations (16) and (17) to eliminate $`r_S`$

$$(A_0^21)T_t^2=\frac{64M_La^2}{(M_L+M_S)c^2}$$
(18)
After a little algebra, this can be rewritten as

$$M_L=\frac{M_S(A_0^21)T_t^2c^2}{64a^2(A_0^21)T_t^2c^2}$$
(19)
This equation can be used to derive the mass of the lens if $`M_S`$ and $`a`$ are known.

We can also combine equations (16) and (17) to eliminate $`a`$, and write

$$A_0^21=\frac{4G^2M_L(M_L+M_S)T_t^2}{c^2r_S^4}$$
(20)
This equation can be solved to express the lens mass

$$M_L=\frac{[G^2M_S^2T_t^2+(A_0^21)c^2r_S^4]^{1/2}GM_ST_t}{2GT_t}$$
(21)
This equation can be used to derive the mass of the lens if $`M_S`$ and $`r_S`$ are known.

We will return to a discussion of lens mass determination with an example in § 5.2.

### 3.3 Generalization to a limb-darkened source

Since the polar coordinate system we have chosen is centered on the source (Fig. 3, equation 8), it is easy to incorporate limb-darkening for the source which has an azimuthal symmetry. Recently, the limb darkening parameters were derived for HD 209458 using the high signal-to-noise observations obtained with the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph aboard Hubble Space telescope in the wavelength region 582 to 638 nm (Brown et al. 2001). Based on these observations, a limb-darkening of the form

$$I(\mu )=1.0u_1(1\mu )u_2(1\mu )^2$$
(22)
was used, where $`\mu `$ is the cosine of the angle between the line of sight and the normal to the local stellar surface (Claret & Gimenez 1990). We have used $`u_1=0.3`$ and $`u_2=0.35`$ as applicable to HD 209458 in the wavelength region 582 to 638 nm, in generating all the light curves here. We should note, however, that the formalism discussed in this paper can be used to take any other specific form of the limb-darkening as well.

### 3.4 Special case: point lens and zero-mass lens

In the limiting case of a point lens, the results should be identical to the results obtained from other standard treatments of microlensing involving a finite source and a point lens. In particular, equation (7) can be directly used to calculate the amplification for the special case where the lens and the source are perfectly aligned. This provides a direct test (although only for the special case of a point lens) which was used to check the algorithm discussed above. The previous results obtained by Sahu (1994b) and confirmed by Dominik & Hirshfeld (1996) also served as a test case for a point lens, to check the correctness of the simulated light curves. We have also checked our calculations with a few special cases calculated by Marsh (2001) and obtained consistent results.

In the limiting hypothetical case where the mass of the lens is zero (but the size is finite), the results obtained here should be identical to the results obtained for pure transit. The transit light curve simulated by Brown et al (2001) for HD 209458 serves as a test case for this purpose. Our algorithm was used to simulate a light curve for HD 209458 using the same limb-darkening parameters suggested by Brown et al (2001). The resultant light curve was found to be identical to the one published by Brown et al (2001) which provided a further check on the validity of the algorithm used here.

The treatment for a zero-mass lens is equivalent to assuming that the images are not deflected, the amplification corresponding to the brighter image is one, and the amplification corresponding to the fainter image is zero. This, in turn, is equivalent to a restricted version of the algorithm where all deflections and amplifications are ignored. The light curves were simulated using both these approaches, and the resultant light curves were identical as expected.

## 4 Net amplifications for various secondaries

The maximum net amplification caused by a secondary companion (after taking the finite sizes for the source and the lens into account) generally corresponds to the configuration where the lens and the source are perfectly aligned (except in a few special cases where the maximum amplification occurs just before or after the egress as explained later). This configuration corresponds to $`R_s=0`$ (equation 8), which can be used in equations (8-14) to calculate the amplification. An analytical solution for such a configuration was derived by Marsh (2001).

The maximum amplification thus calculated for a variety of secondaries (Jupiter, brown dwarf, white dwarf, neutron star and black hole) at various orbital separations are shown in figures 2 to 7, assuming $`D_L>>D_{LS}`$. Figs. 4-8 assume the source to be a solar type star with radius 7 $`\times 10^{10}`$cm. The radii and the masses assumed for the different secondaries are given in Table 1.

In most cases that we consider, the secondary (lens) will provide an amount of light in the system that is small compared to that from the primary (source). We therefore do not provide explicit corrections to light curves from the luminosity of the lens itself. We also note the obvious, yet subtle, point that the light from the lens is constantly present before, during and after an occultation/microlensing event. Therefore, during the transit the only effect from the light from the secondary is a dilution of the light curve changes in the same proportion as the secondary contributes to the total light light away from the transit. For a canonical case of a white dwarf orbiting a solar-like star in which the surface brightness of the two components are similar, the white dwarf will have a flux about $`10^4`$ that of the primary implying a 0.01% dilution effect. ($`Kepler`$ might be able to detect the secondary eclipse, and this would be interesting, but correcting for the minor change of inferred microlensing amplitude is not relevant). Exceptions to this rule can arise, e.g. when the primary is intrinsically small such as a brown dwarf, the amplifications of which are shown in Fig. 9. In the case of a white dwarf lensing a brown dwarf, this dilution effect could be a dominant effect which can be applied in a trivial manner using the expected luminosities of the two objects in the observational bandpass.

Fig. 4 shows the effects of different secondaries for orbital separations of 0 to 1 AU and Fig. 5 shows the same for orbital separations of 0 to 5 AU. Note that the radii of a Jupiter and a brown dwarf are identical. However, while the microlensing contribution due to a Jupiter is negligible, the microlensing contribution due to a brown dwarf is appreciable at Kepler’s sensitivity even at 1 AU. As a result, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$mag caused by these two types of secondaries are different at Kepler’s sensitivity at 1 AU, which is shown in Fig. 4. This effect must be taken into account in deriving the radius of a brown dwarf (more details on such a case are given later).

For white dwarfs, neutron stars and black holes, the net effect is dominated by the microlensing at any orbital separation, and the transit contribution is negligible (Figs. 4-5). In order to show the Kepler sensitivity, it had to be multiplied by factors of 10 and 100 in Figs. 4 and 5, respectively. The net effects caused by the neutron star and the black hole at 1 AU, 5 and 30 millimag respectively, are large enough in principle to be detectable even from ground-based observations.

An enlarged view of the effects of the brown dwarf and Jupiter are shown in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7, for orbital separations of 0-5 AU and 0-100 AU, respectively. As seen from Fig. 6, the microlensing contribution due to a brown dwarf is significant even for small orbital separations and must be taken into account in estimating its radius from the observed light curves. Even for a Jupiter-mass secondary, the microlensing contribution starts to become relevant at orbital separations of 5 AU or more at Kepler’s sensitivity. From Fig. 7 we see that the microlensing contribution from a brown dwarf almost exactly cancels out the transit contribution at an orbital separation of $``$55 AU, beyond which the net amplification is positive.

An enlarged view of the effects of the white dwarf, neutron star and black hole are shown in Fig. 8 for small orbital separations of 0 to 0.1 AU. For neutron star and black hole secondaries, the net amplification is positive at any orbital separation. For a white dwarf, the microlensing contribution almost exactly cancels out the transit contribution at $``$0.05 AU, beyond which the net amplification is positive.

The effect of microlensing is more dramatic if the size of the source is smaller, as is the case for a brown dwarf. Fig. 9 shows such a case where we assume the size of the source to be $`7\times 10^9`$ cm, as applicable for a brown dwarf or a Jupiter. The amplification, which is the ratio of the amplified luminosity and the original luminosity, is typically much larger compared to the earlier case of a solar type source.

The expected amplification is a function of inclination, which is shown in Fig. 10. The solid curve is the expected maximum transit depth, and the dotted curve shows the expected amplification at mid point taking both the transit and the microlensing into account. Here the source (primary) is assumed to be a solar type star and lens (secondary) is a white dwarf at an orbital separation of 1 AU.

To show the relative importance of microlensing and transit for various kinds of secondaries at different orbital separations, we have plotted in Fig. 11 the orbital radius at which the microlensing signal equals the transit signal as a function of the mass of the secondary. For example, for a white dwarf secondary, the expected transit depth, given by $`r_L^2/r_S^2`$, where $`r_L`$ and $`r_S`$ are the radii of the secondary (lens) and the primary (source) respectively, is 0.0001 and the mass of the lens is 0.6 M. The corresponding orbital separation at which the microlensing signal equals the transit signal is 0.046 AU. For an Earth-mass object, the corresponding orbital radius is $``$2300 AU.

## 5 Special Cases

### 5.1 Jupiters and Brown Dwarfs

The radii of brown dwarfs are similar to the radii of Jupiters, so the expected light curves due to their transits would be similar. Thus, a brown dwarf is indistinguishable from a Jupiter from its transit signal alone. However, since the mass of a brown dwarf is considerably larger (15-80 MJup), the microlensing signal from a brown dwarf would be much larger. For example, Fig. 12 shows the light curves as expected from a Jupiter and a 50 MJup brown dwarf at 1 AU. The dashed curve shows the pure transit for both objects and the solid curve shows the combined effect of the transit and microlensing for a brown dwarf. For a Jupiter, the combined effect of transit and microlensing is indistinguishable from a pure transit curve. For a brown dwarf, the combined light curve is different from the transit curve. Note that the expected depth in the observed light curve is smaller for a brown dwarf than for a Jupiter, but the shapes of the light curves for both objects are very similar. Thus, there is a degeneracy between the light curves due to a Jupiter and a brown dwarf. It is clear that the contribution due to microlensing must be taken into account in the interpretation of the observed light curves, particularly in estimating the mass/radius of the secondary. Fig. 13 shows the light curves for a brown dwarf at 55 AU which, if observed, would be easy to interpret as due to a brown dwarf since the light curve due to a Jupiter is close to the transit curve itself. Notice that there is a slight positive amplification at the ingress (egress) since the microlensing begins before (ends after) the transit contribution begins (ends). This curve corresponds to an orbital period of 405 yr, and is hence mostly of pedagogical interest since the probability of observing such an event is very small.

### 5.2 Earths and White Dwarfs

Interestingly, white dwarfs have radii similar to Earth-mass planets. As mentioned earlier, one of the prime objectives of Kepler is to detect Earth-mass planets from their transit signals. There has been some concern that the Earth-mass planets would be confused with white dwarfs since their transit signals would be similar. (The secondary eclipse may provide a clear test to distinguish between a white dwarf and an Earth-mass planet, but the secondary eclipse may not be seen in some cases when the orbital eccentricity is high or because the timescale is such that only the primary eclipse is observed). However, as we explained in §4, in the case of a white dwarf the effect of microlensing will dominate the signal. Fig. 14 shows the light curves due to a white dwarf secondary at 0.03 AU, 0.0463 AU and 0.1 AU, with corresponding periods of 1.50, 2.88 and 9.13 days, respectively. The dashed curves are the light curves expected from pure transit, and the dotted, solid and dot-dashed curves are the corresponding light curves after taking the microlensing contribution into account. Only at orbital separations smaller than 0.0463 AU would the expected $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$mag be negative, with the shape of the observed light curve similar to the transit curves. We note that at an orbital separation of less than 0.01 AU, the primary is likely to fill its Roche lobe (Eggleton, 1983). This will cause mass-transfer from the primary, which may cause light variations much larger than the transit or the microlensing effect. Also, the primary will be tidally distorted producing distinct ellipsoidal variations. Thus, the transit effect may be difficult to observe for separations below 0.05 AU, beyond which the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$mag is expected to be positive.

The expected light curve when the white dwarf is at 1 AU is shown in Fig. 15. In such a case, the white dwarf would be detectable through its positive amplification at $`>`$100 $`\sigma `$-level in observations averaged over a single event with Kepler!

It is of interest to consider how accurately Kepler observations of a White Dwarf transiting a solar-like star in a 1 AU orbit would constrain the lens mass. For such a canonical case (shown in Fig. 15), the maximum amplification is 0.0024 magnitudes. The precision per 15 minute sample for an assumed $`V`$ = 12 star observed with Kepler is 90 $`\mu `$mag. Hence, with 40 samples during the 10 hour lensing event, the maximum amplification will be determined to about 15 $`\mu `$mag, resulting in a relative error on $`A_0`$ of 0.6%. Given that the mass of the lens scales as the square of the amplification (equations 15-16), and assuming that four events are available for averaging, the relative error contribution for the lens mass from the microlensing observations is also 0.6%. However, equations (15) and (16) also contain the mass and radius of the source star for which we do not have direct values available from the Kepler observations alone. Radial velocity observations of even moderate quality would provide a further constraint on the mass, leaving uncertainties on the radius of the source star, $`r_S`$, as the likely largest contributing error source. Equation (17) provides a direct constraint on $`r_S`$ simply from the event width, but the unknown orbital inclination must also be allowed for. Spectroscopic measurements might suffice to constrain $`r_S`$ at about 10% level, thus the lens mass to 20% level. As was done for HD 209458 (Brown et al. 2001), constraints on the source stellar radius may also be derived from the light curve itself, since some subtle details will depend in unique ways on the generally degenerate effect of $`r_S`$ and $`M_L`$ in fixing the light curve. Equation (21) provides a further constraint on the lens mass if an estimate of the mass of the primary is available. Note that the orbital inclination and limb darkening parameters can also be estimated from the observed light curve (as was done for HD 209458), and a detailed treatment of the errors would be required in determining the uncertainties in different physical parameters. Fitting the entire light curve would take all the constraints in a self-consistent manner, providing the best determination of the various parameters, including the lens mass to an estimated accuracy of 1 to 5 percent.

### 5.3 Neutron Stars and Black Holes

The expected transit signals from a neutron star and a black hole are of the order of nano-magnitudes and smaller. So the transit signal in these cases can be neglected for all practical purposes. In the treatment of microlensing, we note that the deflection corresponding to the fainter image (i.e. the smaller of the two deflections) is larger than the size of the lens even for small orbital separations. So the finite size of the lens can also be ignored. Thus the expected light curve is the same as what is expected from the pure microlensing of an extended source and a point lens, e.g. as in Fig. 15 with amplitude scaled approximately linearly by the lens mass. Note that the expected $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$mag from a neutron star and a black hole at an orbital radius of 1 AU are 5 and 28 milli-magnitudes respectively, which may be detectable from ground-based observations.

## 6 Discussion and Summary

We have shown that near-field microlensing of main sequence stars by orbiting compact companions provides signals that would be easily detected by a space mission such as Kepler dedicated to the detection of extrasolar terrestrial planets via transits. For terrestrial planets with orbital periods up to a few years to which Kepler has sensitivity to transits, the microlensing contribution to the signal will always be entirely negligible. Jovian class planets in orbits of a few AU provide a microlensing contribution that just starts to be relevant, albeit still small compared to the inherent transit signal. White dwarfs, neutron stars, or black holes transiting a main sequence star in an $``$1 AU orbit would provide easily detectable microlensing signatures that swamp any underlying transit signal. Therefore, although the radius of a white dwarf is similar to that of a terrestrial planet, a transiting white dwarf (with an orbital separation of 0.25 - 2.0 AU, which is the region of prime interest for Kepler) will not provide a source of false alarms for extrasolar planet detection since the resulting signal will be a significant brightening rather than a small diminution in light.

Compact objects like white dwarfs, neutron stars, and black holes are now easily found when they reside in close orbits ($``$ 0.1 AU) from a main-sequence companion since they induce ellipsoidal variations in the companion. Furthermore, such systems often become x-ray and radio sources through emissions associated with mass transfer (even when the mass transfer occurs at low levels). While the microlensing signal may be detectable even for an orbital separation as small as $``$0.1 AU, other variations (such as ellipsoidal variations caused by the distortion of the companion, variations from star spots for induced rapid rotation) clearly call attention to the presence of a degenerate object in such systems. As an example, we note that KPD 1930+2752 is one such interesting case of a sdB binary in which the unseen companion is likely to be a white dwarf with an orbital period of 0.095 days (Maxted et al. 2000, Billeres et al. 2000).

The microlensing signal for compact objects with orbital separations of $``$1 AU will be easily seen by Kepler. In such cases, old white dwarfs, neutron stars and black holes would not already have signaled their presence since the wide separation would not induce the canonical signatures discussed above. However, as with extrasolar planet transits, microlensing from orbiting compact objects will only be observed in a very small fraction of cases in which the inclinations happen to be ideal so that transits can be observed. The probability of transits is $`r_S/a`$, where $`r_S`$ is the radius of the primary, and $`a`$ is the orbital separation. For a solar like star and an object at 1 AU this probability is about 0.005. Thus if all 100,000 stars in the Kepler sample have compact objects orbiting within 0.25 to 2.0 AU, some 500 would be detected through their microlensing signatures. If a more physically reasonable fraction of 1% of stars surveyed contain such compact, massive objects then the number detected by Kepler would be 5. What, then, are the prospects for observing compact objects via microlensing signatures by Kepler? Duquennoy & Mayor (1991) and Heacox & Gathright (1994) show that about two-thirds of G-type stars are binaries, and that about 20% of them have periods between 0.25 and 2.0 years. Thus, for the Kepler mission to detect a statistically modest total of 5 systems with microlensing in such circumstances, $``$7.5% of binary systems must contain a compact object (most likely a white dwarf). By comparison, the observed white dwarf fraction in the solar-age open cluster M67 is about 9% by mass Richer et al. (1998), and since incompleteness may still be important in this case, this is a lower limit to the detected cluster white dwarfs. This suggests that the overall fraction of white dwarfs is sufficient to yield several detections during the Kepler mission. Estimates of the fraction of baryonic mass in compact objects in the local disk typically span values of 10 – 30% (e.g. Weidemann, 1990). This, in turn, implies that the detected number of such microlensing systems will be able to place interesting constraints on the fraction of stars having compact companions.

For microlensing detections from systems where the orbital period is known from repeated events, it will be possible to determine the mass of the compact object directly from the amplitude of the microlensing signal (assuming independent information on the primary main sequence star is available). For the case of white dwarfs, information on the compact object may also be available if the secondary eclipse is observed, and radial velocity followup observations will be able to determine independent mass estimates.

We thank Meena Sahu and Mario Livio for useful discussions. We wish to thank the referee, Scott Gaudi, for useful suggestions.


format: text

text:
# Carbon doping of superconducting magnesium diboride

## 1 Introduction

Since the discovery of superconductivity in magnesium diboride at elevated ($`T_c`$ 40 K) temperature , considerable progress has been achieved in material synthesis as well as in understanding of its physical properties . From these initial days of research on superconducting MgB2 many attempts were made to tailor the physical properties of the material to suite different needs as well as to explore the neighboring compounds in search of even higher $`T_c`$ values.

A number of groups undertook synthesis and characterization of (Mg1-zTz)B2 or Mg(B1-yMy)2 (T = transition metal, Li, Be, Al; M = C, Si) materials. The agenda was multi-fold: to look for changes in $`T_c`$, to perform tests of the superconducting mechanisms in MgB2, and to introduce additional pinning centers that could lead to higher critical current densities. Since many diborides crystallize in the same, hexagonal AlB2 type of structure as MgB2, and these compounds have been known and studied for decades  these substitutions initially were viewed as feasible. In spite of considerable efforts, substitutions in MgB2 appeared to be difficult and in many cases unsuccessful or, at best, ambiguous.

For magnesium site substitutions apparently only Al was shown to enter the structure unambiguously  although in a limited concentration range. For boron site substitutions a number of attempts with different elements were made. Carbon substitution was reported in several publications . Most of these attempts had elemental magnesium, boron and carbon as starting materials and the synthesis was performed at different pressures and temperatures. The results varied considerably depending on the details of sample synthesis (for uniformity we refer to the chemical formula written as Mg(B1-xCx)2): carbon solubility less then 1.25% was reported in , a two-step transition was observed in resistance measurements for nominal $`x=0.1`$ , a solubility limit of approximately $`x=0.35`$ and shift of $`T_c`$ down to $``$ 34.8 K for $`x=0.03`$ was reported in , a $`T_c`$ value of 34 K (at 2% of full diamagnetic signal, $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_c=`$ 3K) was measured by DC magnetization at 20 Oe in Mg(B0.8C0.2)2 (with no mention of solubility limit) in , and a solubility limit of $`x0.15`$ and $`T_c`$($`x=0.15`$) $``$ 30 K was determined from magnetic measurements in .

One of the difficulties associated with doping of MgB2 may be the fact that the MgB2 structure is robust and an intimate, atomic level, mixing of the dopant with the doped element before or in the process of synthesis is required to achieve the substitution. An interesting approach for carbon doping of MgB2 was suggested by Mickelson et al. . The starting materials for synthesis were elemental magnesium and boron carbide (B4C) powder. The result of their synthesis was carbon doped MgB2 as a majority phase and MgB2C2 as a minority phase. The $`T_c`$ of the material was decreased by 7 K (down to 32 K) as seen by magnetization and resistance measurements. The resulting composition of the sample was estimated to be Mg(B0.9C0.1)2. This initial study motivated us to attempt to optimize this synthetic route so as to eliminate the impurity phases and to perform a thorough investigation of the physical properties of the resulting material.

## 2 Experimental

Samples of carbon doped MgB2 for this study were synthesized in the form of sintered pellets following the procedure used for pure MgB2 . Magnesium lumps (99.9%) and B4C powder (99% - Alfa Æsar) were sealed into tantalum tubes, sealed in quartz, placed into a heated box furnace and then (after the desired synthesis time) quenched to to room temperature. For all the samples except one (MgB2C0.5), the nominal stoichiometry was kept as Mg(B0.8C0.2)2, i. e. Mg5(B4C)2. Synthesis temperature and time were varied systematically so as to optimize sample quality.

Powder X-ray diffraction (XRD) measurements were made at room temperature using Cu $`K_\alpha `$ radiation in a Scintag diffractometer. A Si standard was used for all runs. The Si lines were removed from the X-ray diffraction data leading to the apparent gaps in the powder X-ray data. The lattice parameters were obtained by fitting the X-ray diffraction spectra using Rietica software.

DC magnetization measurements were performed in Quantum Design MPMS-5 and MPMS-7 SQUID magnetometers. Four-probe AC resistance measurements were carried out in Quantum Design MPMS (with external LR-400 and LR-700 resistance bridges) and PPMS-9 units. Platinum wires were attached to the samples with Epotek H20E silver epoxy. Heat capacity data was collected on small pressed pellet samples using the PPMS-9 instrument in an applied field of up to 9 T utilizing the relaxation technique.

## 3 Synthesis Optimization

Figure 1a presents low field magnetization data for a nominal Mg(B0.8C0.2)2 sample that was synthesized by heating for two hours at $`600^{}`$C and then for two more hours at $`700^{}`$C. This sample was made using the temperature/time schedule outlined by Mickelson et al.  and serves as a point of comparison. $`T_c`$ of this sample (defined via the onset of diamagnetism criterion) is $``$ 30.5 K and the superconducting fraction is significantly less than 100 %. Temperature dependent resistance for this sample is shown in the inset of Fig. 1a. The resistive transition temperature is consistent with the one determined by magnetic measurements. The residual resistance ratio $`RRR`$ = $`R`$(300K)/$`R_0`$ 5.5 (with $`R_0`$ defined, in this case, as normal state resistance just above the transition). Powder X-ray diffraction (see Fig. 1b) confirmed that the Mg(B1-xCx)2 phase was formed, however three other phases, Mg2C3, MgB2C2 and remnants of B4C were also detected. Although the $`T_c`$ of this sample is comparable with the one reported by Mickelson et al. , it appears to be poorly formed and clearly requires optimization.

The presence of unreacted B4C in the X-ray pattern indicates that the reaction is probably not complete. Our next step in optimization was to increase the reaction time to 24 hours and to perform synthesis at number of different temperatures. Figure 2 presents powder X-ray diffraction spectra for nominal Mg(B0.8C0.2)2 samples synthesized for 24 hours at four different temperatures: 750C, 950C, 1100C, and 1200C. Whereas the 750C/24h sample contains a considerable amount of unreacted B4C, traces of B4C are much smaller for the 950C/24h sample and are not visible in the XRD patterns of the 1100C/24h and 1200C/24h samples. In addition the amount of the two other impurity phases (Mg2C3 and MgB2C2) clearly decrease with an increase in synthesis temperature (see Fig. 2). The XRD patterns for 1100C/24h and 1200C/24h are very similar with respect to the apparent quantities of the impurity phases and present a significant improvement in purity in comparison to the 750C/24h and 950C/24h samples as well as to the sample reported in ref.  and data presented in Figure 1. The reactions carried out either at 1100C or 1200C appear to be approaching single phase.

Low field DC magnetization and zero field resistance data taken for the same set of samples also show an evolution of physical properties with the synthesis temperature (Fig. 3). The superconducting transition for the 750C/24h sample has an onset of the diamagnetic signal at 29 K but the transition, in fact, is very broad that probably reveals a distribution of transition temperatures within the sample probably due to chemical inhomogeneities. The transitions as seen in the $`M(T)`$ data sharpen with the increase of the reaction temperature. The onset temperatures of the diamagnetic signal at the superconducting transition seem to decrease with the increase of the reaction temperature (see Fig. 3a, inset), however the temperatures at which the majority of the sample becomes superconducting (50% of the transition or maximum in $`M/T`$ points) increase with the synthesis temperature for 950C/24h - 1200C/24h samples. Resistance data (Fig. 3b) manifest a similar trend e.g. the transition width decreases with the increase of reaction temperature. The transition temperatures defined using $`R=0`$ criterion are 27, 19, 21, and 21.5 K for reaction temperatures of 750C, 950C, 1100C, and 1200C respectively. $`RRR`$ decreases from 4.2 to 1.4 with the increase of the reaction temperature.

At this point we attempt (with some hesitancy) to estimate the room temperature resistivity or these samples. Very rough evaluation results in the values: 0.3 m$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-cm, 0.4 m$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-cm, 2 m$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-cm and 2 m$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-cm for 750C/24h, 950C/24h, 1100C/24h, and 1200C/24h samples respectively. These numbers present the apparent resistivity, with an understanding that (i) the porosity of the samples was not taken into account, (ii) no attempt was made to account for the possible contributions to the measured resistivity value from grain boundaries and impurity phases. Whereas the porosity of different samples prepared by the route described above can be considered as similar and allow for relative comparison of resistivities, we suggest that the possible effects of grain boundaries and impurity phases cannot be reliably accounted for within the available data on Mg(B1-xCx)2 compounds and the minority phases encountered in them. Only gross, order-of-magnitude, changes in apparent resistivity may, with some reservations, be taken as reflecting the real evolution of transport properties. Keeping this warning in mind we compare the apparent room temperature resistivities of nearly single phase nominal Mg(B0.8C0.2)2 1100C/24h and 1200C/24h compounds (2-3 m$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-cm) with those measured on pellets of pure MgB2 (0.02-0.03 m$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-cm ) synthesized by similar technique using isotopically pure boron. In addition it should be mentioned that the apparent resistivity for MgB2 synthesized using only 90% pure boron  was estimated to be 0.1 m$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-cm (these samples have $`RRR`$ 1.8, similar to carbon doped 1100C/24h and 1200C/24h compounds). In addition, no literature reports on bulk, nominally pure MgB2 prepared by different techniques report a room temperature resistivity value above several tenths of a m$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-cm. Based on these comparisons we conclude that our nearly single phase nominal Mg(B0.8C0.2)2 has a room temperature resistivity that appears to be significantly higher than pure MgB2. Any conclusion beyond this fairly gross, qualitative statement runs the risk of over interpreting these data.

Since in a number of applications synthesis at lower temperatures can be beneficial and because the details of the reaction between elemental Mg with B4C are not known, we have checked to see if by performing this reaction at lower temperatures but longer time we can obtain a material of similar or superior quality to the 1100C/24h - 1200C/24h samples. X-ray diffraction patterns taken on samples reacted at 950C for 3 hours, 24 hours and 5 days are shown in Fig. 4. For this reaction temperature the samples tend to improve with increasing reaction time, the intensities of the peaks corresponding to impurity phases monotonically decrease as reaction time increases from 3 h to 24 h to 5 days. The traces of unreacted B4C are not seen for 950C/5 days sample but Mg2C3 and MgB2C2 are still clearly detectable. The quality of this sample (as inferred from XRD data) is approaching that of the sample synthesized at 1100C or 1200C for 24 hours (compare Figs. 2 and 4) but is still apparently inferior. Similarly, the low field magnetization (see Fig. 5a) shows a gradual decrease of the width of the transition, indicating more homogenous samples, with the increase of the reaction time. Temperature dependent resistance data (Fig. 5b) follow the same trend: transition width decreases with increases in the reaction time. The resistive transition temperatures (from $`R`$ = 0) are 19, 19, and 18 K for the 3 h, 24 h, and 5 days reaction times. The $`RRR`$ values decrease from 3 to 1.3 with the increase of the reaction time. On the other hand the transitions seen for all reaction times, even the 950C/5 days sample, are all significantly broader than those seen for the 1100C/24 h and 1200C/24h samples.

Based on the analysis of the two aforementioned data sets, the 1100C/24h - 1200C/24h reactions appear to optimize the sample quality. Having this in mind we wanted to address one final synthesis concern: would samples with nominal stoichiometry of Mg(B0.8C0.2)2 or MgB2C0.5 be cleaner, i. e. do we get better samples with a Mg:B ratio of 1:2 or a Mg:(B + C) ratio of 1:2? Both types of samples we synthesized following the 1100C/24h schedule. Powder XRD spectra (Fig. 6) attest to the fact that the Mg(B0.8C0.2)2 sample is cleaner. Low field temperature dependent magnetization (Fig. 7) show that the transition temperatures of these two samples are virtually identical with a possibly slightly higher superconducting fraction found for the Mg(B0.8C0.2)2 sample. Apparently the change to a MgB2C0.5 initial stoichiometry does not improve the purity of the phase or sharpness of the superconducting transition but does promote unwanted second phases.

To summarize, the analysis of the three sets of samples discussed above (having reaction temperature, reaction time and the Mg : B4C ratio as variables) we find that within the limitations of our synthesis route the Mg(B0.8C0.2)2 samples reacted at 1100C/24h - 1200C/24h are the closest to being single phase samples and have sharper superconducting transition as seen in the temperature dependent resistance and low field magnetization data. The transition for these samples has shifted down by $``$ 17 K ($`T_c`$ 22 K) with respect to pure MgB2. The $`a`$-lattice parameter is approximately 1.2% smaller than for pure MgB2 whereas the $`c`$-lattice parameter remains practically unchanged, a trend consistent with previous data . The phase purity of these samples is better than that of the sample reported by Mickelson et al.  and clearly much better than the sample described in Figure 1. From the resistance data for the two sets of samples (with reaction temperature or reaction time being varied) it appears that the more phase-pure and homogenous samples have lower residual resistance ratios. This observation is opposite to what follows from the Mattheissen’s rule and is consistent with significant extrinsic contribution to the normal state resistance (and $`RRR`$) from other phases, grain boundaries, etc. that render attempts to use even semiquantitative arguments based on normal state transport properties, e. g. the Testardi correlation , for such samples ambiguous. On the other hand, it is fairly clear that the intrinsic resistivity of the Mg(B0.8C0.2)2 samples is significantly higher than that of our pure MgB2 samples .

A serious shortcoming of carbon doping through this (Mg + B4C) reaction route is that determination of the carbon content in the final sample appears to be a difficult and non-trivial task. In this report we will not attempt to address this issue for our samples and will leave this problem for future work. It should be noted that reliable and accurate quantitative determination of the carbon content ($`x`$) and/or consistent relation between three parameters: $`T_c`$, $`x`$ and $`a`$-lattice parameter (since $`c`$ is practically constant in all reports) cannot be found in the available literature . As an aside note we would like to mention that we attempted to dope MgB2 with silicon and phosphorus through (Mg + B6Si) and (Mg + B13P2) synthesis routes. These attempts were apparently not successful and resulted in multiphased compounds with no indication of doping into B site.

## 4 Physical Properties

Once the best available synthesis route was established, the nearly single phase 1100C/24h sample was chosen for more detailed measurements of physical properties. Fig. 8 presents the temperature dependent resistance measurements taken in different applied fields up to 9 T (an enlarged region near the superconducting transition in 0 - 9 T field range is shown). Unlike the case of pure MgB2 samples  practically no magnetoresistance in the normal state was observed. This is consistent with the very low residual resistance ratio, $`RRR`$ 1.6 for this sample and high estimated $`\rho _0`$. the magnetotransport data (Fig. 8) together with field and temperature dependent magnetization data (not shown here) were used to determine the upper critical field for this sample (Fig. 9). The irreversibility line ($`H_{irr}`$) shown in this figure was determined from $`M(H)`$ loops taken at different temperatures. The irreversibility field for this sample is quite low: it extrapolates to $`H_{irr}(0)`$ 2 T, which probably points to the fact that the carbon substitutions in the sample prepared from the Mg and B4C mixture at 1100C/24h conditions do not significantly increase the pinning. On the other hand, the $`H_{c2}(T)`$ slope for this sample is considerably steeper than in pure MgB2 (see Fig. 9, inset), so although $`T_c`$ of the carbon doped sample is approximately half of that for pure MgB2, the extrapolation $`H_{c2}(T0)`$ will give the value close to 16 T, similar to that of high purity MgB2 . Fig. 10 presents the critical current density for the 1100C/24h sample as determined from magnetization loops using the Bean model . The critical current densities are quite low, $`J_c`$(1.8K, $`H`$=0) $``$ 30 kA/cm2, which is consistent with low pinning and the low lying irreversibility line (Fig. 9).

The heat capacity of the 1100C/24h nominal Mg(B0.8C0.2)2 sample was measured on two different pressed pellets, from two separate batches in zero and 9 T applied field. The specific heat jump at the superconducting transition is clearly seen (Fig. 11, inset) and the value of the jump is estimated as $`\mathrm{\Delta }C`$ 23 mJ/mol K. From 9 T measurements the electronic term in specific heat is extrapolated to $`\gamma `$ 1.9 mJ/mol K2 and the Debye temperature is estimated as $`\mathrm{\Theta }_D`$ 685 K. Both $`\gamma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_D`$ values are lower than those accepted in the literature for pure MgB2 samples  and have the same trend as seen experimentally in  and theoretically in . At a gross level, the significant decrease in $`T_c`$ is consistent with lower $`\gamma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_D`$ values for the carbon doped sample. The heat capacity difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }C_p/T=(C_p(H=0)C_p(9T))/T`$ as a function of temperature for the two different samples is plotted in Fig. 11. Both qualitatively and quantitatively the two sets of data are similar but it is worth noting that there is some sample-to-sample and measurement-to-measurement variation.

One of the samples was chosen for more detailed measurements in different applied magnetic fields. The results of these measurements are presented in Fig. 12 in the form of $`\mathrm{\Delta }C_p/T=(C_p(H)C_p(9T))/T`$ as a function of temperature. The shift in the specific heat jump at superconducting transition is a manifestation of the upper critical field and is consistent with $`H_{c2}(T)`$ measured by other techniques (see stars in Fig. 9). The more interesting feature appears to be the low temperature shoulder in the excess of specific heat seen in $`(C_p(H=0)C_p(9T))/T`$ data below 10 K (also clearly seen for both samples in the previous figure). A similar feature was observed in pure MgB2 by different groups  and was interpreted as experimental evidence of a second, much lower energy, superconducting gap in MgB2 . There are other important similarities between heat capacity data of pure magnesium diboride and the carbon doped sample: the low temperature feature disappears (lower gap is quenched) in small (0.5 T) applied field and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }C_p/\gamma T_c`$ value is substantially smaller than expected for a BCS superconductors. These two peculiar results were shown to be present in pure MgB2 and to be consequences of the two-gap nature of superconductivity in this material. These similarities in heat the capacity data of pure and carbon doped magnesium diboride imply that despite the significantly suppressed $`T_c`$ and apparently large increase in resistivity, the novel double gap nature of supercondutivity persists in our nominal Mg(B0.8C0.2)2 samples. It is worth noting whereas there have been estimates of $`T_c`$ 20 K for ”isotropic” (single gap) MgB2  the case we seem to find for our nominal Mg(B0.8C0.2)2 appears to be quite different with two distinct gaps. Further research will be required to confirm this initial observation but, as it currently stands, this finding requires that the two superconducting gaps survive quite dramatic perturbations.

Finally, the anisotropic upper critical field for carbon doped MgB2 was evaluated from temperature dependent magnetization measurements following the procedure outlined in . Although the feature corresponding to $`T_{c2}^{min}(H)`$ in $`(M/T)_H`$ for this sample was slightly broader than for pure MgB2 it was possible to trace $`H_{c2}^{min}`$ above $``$ 12 K (see Fig. 13). The anisotropy of $`H_{c2}`$ at $`\frac{2}{3}T_c`$ is close to 2, i.e. carbon doped MgB2 has apparently less anisotropic $`H_{c2}`$ than pure compound that may be a result of distortions in the Fermi surface and require additional theoretical/band-structure studies.

## 5 Conclusions

The synthesis of carbon doped magnesium diboride from magnesium and boron carbide (B4C) with a nominal stoichiometry of Mg(B0.8C0.2)2 was optimized and resulted in nearly single phase material with $`T_c`$ 22 K. Samples obtained by this route have an upper critical field of $``$ 9 T at 10 K and the slope of $`H_{c2}(T)`$ is much steeper than for pure MgB2. The sample has moderate $`J_c`$ values pointing out that carbon introduced in the lattice via this synthetic route does not increase pinning significantly. The specific heat data taken in different applied fields suggest that the two gap superconductivity is preserved in the Mg(B0.8C0.2)2 sample despite the heavily suppressed $`T_c`$. In addition whereas there is a significant $`H_{c2}`$ anisotropy ($`\gamma `$ $``$ 2 for $`T/T_c\frac{2}{3}`$), it is reduced from the anisotropy found in pure MgB2.

## 6 Acknowledgements

We would like to thank M. A. Avila and N.E. Anderson, Jr. for helpful assistance and many fruitful discussions. Ames Laboratory is operated for the U. S. Department of Energy by Iowa State University under Contract No. W-7405-Eng.-82. This work was supported by the director for Energy Research, Office of Basic Energy Sciences.


text:
# Friedel Sum Rule for single channel quantum wire

## Abstract

Elastic scattering in a quantum wire has several novel features not seen in $`1`$D, $`2`$D or $`3`$D. In this work we consider a single channel quantum wire as its application is inevitable in making devices based on quantum interference effects. We consider a point defect or a single delta function impurity in such a wire and show how some of these novel features affect Friedel-sum-rule (FSR) in a way, that is quite unlike in $`1`$D, $`2`$D and $`3`$D.

The density of states in a mesoscopic sample is very important to understand mesoscopic transport phenomena and also thermodynamic properties. It is believed that the properties of a mesoscopic sample, connected to leads, can be formalized in terms of the scattering matrix butpram02 ; hac . The Friedel-sum-rule (FSR) relates the density of states (DOS) to the scattering matrix and can be stated as $`\theta _f(E_2)\theta _f(E_1)\pi N(E_2,E_1)`$ fri52 . In $`1`$D, $`2`$D and $`3`$D, the equality being approximate is almost exact in the WKB regime where generally transport occurs. Here $`N(E_2,E_1)`$ is the variation in the number of states in the energy interval $`[E_1,E_2]`$ due to the scatterer and $`\theta _f(E)=\frac{1}{2}_j\xi _j=\frac{1}{2i}ln(det[S])`$ lan61 . $`S`$ is the scattering matrix and $`e^{i\xi _j}`$, j=1,2,….n are the n eigenvalues of the unitary matrix $`S`$. In differential form the FSR can also be stated as

$$\frac{}{E}\theta _f(E)=\frac{1}{2i}\frac{}{E}ln(det[S])\pi [\rho (E)\rho _0(E)],$$
(1)
where $`[\rho (E)\rho _0(E)]`$ is the variation of the DOS or the difference in the DOS due to the presence of the scatterer. $`\rho (E)`$ and $`\rho _0(E)`$ can be found by integrating the local DOS (LDOS) $`\rho (x,y,z,E)`$ and $`\rho _0(x,y,z,E)`$.

In 1994, Ref.butpram02  explored a relation between LDOS and the scattering matrix. We refer to it as the Büttiker-Thomas-Pretre (BTP) sum rule which could be exact but is of limited practical value as far as the global DOS is concerned, because of the following reasons. First of all if one wants to integrate the LDOS to find the DOS, then it is very cumbersome and may not be at all possible for complicated potentials. Secondly, in this local formalism, one has to take the derivatives of the S matrix elements with respect to the local potential and in some cases one encounters problems in including the non-local effects and non-local disturbances in the LDOS. Thirdly, if one wants to find the change in the S matrix due to an infinitesimal change in the local potential, then one has to know the change in the local wave-function due to that infinitesimal change in the local potential and then use the transfer matrix multiplication method or any other equivalent method to find the change in the S matrix. So then integrating the LDOS to find the DOS is just equivalent to integrating the wavefunction to find the DOS. Another such relation between the LDOS and the scattering matrix is given by Titov and Schomerus tit . Whereas, the power of the FSR lies in the fact that it gives this integrated quantity straightaway, without having to tamper the internal structure of the potential, but just by infinitesimally changing the energy of an external probing particle. Although, the BTP sum rule is of use in certain cases, it is definitely not a competitor of or a substitute for the FSR. No doubt, even the authors of Ref. , much after the proposition of the BTP sum rule in 1994, refers to Eq. 1 as the FSR, and are worried about to what extent it is valid tan99 ; yeybutt .

The scattering matrix of an impurity in a quantum wire have very unusual features that were not realized until very recently bag90 ; deo98 . In a single channel quantum wire, in the presence of a single attractive impurity, taken as a negative delta-function potential, the transmission probability can go to zero bag90  for some finite energy of the incident electron. At the corresponding energy, the scattering phase-shift shows a discontinuous jump(slip) by $`\pi `$ deo98 . It was shown that in the single channel case the Friedel phase $`\theta _f`$ is not affected by the discontinuous phase drops lee99 ; tan99 .

In the multichannel case, when the unitarity of a particular channel is not present and the electron can escape to a different channel, the transmission zeroes are replaced by minima and the discontinuous phase slip by $`\pi `$ are replaced by continuous and less than $`\pi `$ phase dropsmy1 . It was also shown that in the multi channel case too the Friedel phase $`\theta _f`$ is not affected by these continuous phase dropsmy1 . However, $`\frac{\theta _f(E)}{E}`$ may not bear any resemblance to $`\pi [\rho (E)\rho _0(E)]`$ my1 .

In this work we intend to study the FSR (Eq. (1)) for a single channel quantum wire with a delta-function impurity. The single channel case being the most important because it is in this regime that one can really control the quantum interference effects and use them to build mesoscopic devicesdatta  and point impurities like the delta function potential are always present. Besides, to study the transport across a quantum dot connected to two ideal leads on two sides, most theoretical works model the dot by a single bound state at the site of the dot as the Coulomb blockade makes the other levels of the dot to be very far away. As an attractive delta potential is capable of creating such a single bound state, it was used in Ref. deo98  to explain the Fano resonances in quantum dots and the unusual features of the scattering phase shift observed across the quantum dot. Besides, the present study provides general understandings, and we also understand the system and the results of Ref. tan99  better.

Scattering due to a spherical defect leads to asymptotic wave-functions that are plane waves and whose radial part is of the form $`\psi _{k,l}(r)\frac{1}{r}Sin(kr\frac{l\pi }{2}+\eta _l)`$ ziman . Here, $`k`$ is the wave-number, $`l`$ is the angular momentum quantum number and $`\eta _l`$ is the phase shift due to scattering. According to Friedel ziman , to approximately count the number of states created by the impurity, consider a large sphere of radius $`R`$ with a defect at the center, and impose a condition $`\psi _{k,l}(R)=0.`$ Thus we obtain $`kR\frac{l\pi }{2}+\eta _l=n\pi `$. The states $`k`$ thus obtained are real and not complex as it should be. Generally, scattering states have open boundary conditions that lead to their characterization in terms of complex energies. The imaginary part of their complex energy is called self energy and it arises because of the fact that the states can leak out to infinity and get absorbed by some detector there irrespective of boundary conditions datta . In this case also the interaction of the states within the large sphere of radius $`R`$ with the region outside the sphere will lead to a self energy. In absence of the scatterer, the scattering phase shift $`\eta _l=0`$ and thus one gets Eq. (1) ziman .

A more rigorous derivation, including the self energy is given by Buttiker et al yeybutt . Earlier treatment of Dashen, Ma and Bernstein das  and that of Avishai and Band avi  are also reviewed by these authors, in some of their works like Refs. butpram02 ; tan99 ; gas . These treatments are only valid for large systems. Souma and Suzuki sou  provides a straight forward extension of the work by Avishai and Band to quantum wires and also suffers from the same drawback. Ref. yeybutt  gives

$$\frac{}{E}\theta _f(E)+\mathrm{𝐼𝑚}Tr\widehat{G}_a\frac{\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^a}{E}=\mathrm{𝐼𝑚}Tr\widehat{G}^a$$

$$=\pi \left[\rho (E)\rho _0(E)\right].$$
(2)
$`\text{Here}\widehat{G}^a=\left[E\widehat{H}_{system}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^a(E)\right]^1`$ , is the advanced Green’s function and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^a`$ is the corresponding self energy. Note that $`\widehat{G}^a`$ is the advanced Greens function for the system alone, where the modifications in the system due to the presence of the leads is included. Hence apart from this $`Im`$ $`Tr\widehat{G}^a`$ which is equal to the integrated disturbance in the LDOS created by the impurity, i.e., $`\pi [\rho (E)\rho _0(E)]`$, there will be some disturbance in the LDOS in the leads which will depend on the Greens function of the lead and how it is affected by the system. This contribution is not important and also it gets screened away very easily as it is very small and the leads being ideal, carrier concentration is very high in the leads (this is often referred to as non-polarisable leads). The only assumption required to get Eq.(1) is to neglect $`\frac{\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^a}{E}`$ i.e. the energy dependence of the self energy. Now datta

$$\frac{}{E}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^a=\frac{}{E}\left[\tau _pg_p^a\tau _p^{}\right],$$
(3)
$`\tau _p`$ is the matrix element which couples the leads to the sample. In 1D, 2D and 3D $`\tau _p`$ is independent of energy in the WKB regime. $`g_a^p`$ being the local Greens function of a semi-infinite ideal wire, its energy dependence is not very important and thus in 1D, 2D and 3D, in the WKB regime, FSR \[(1)\] is almost exact. There will be violations in the non-WKB regime, but since transport occurs in WKB regime, these violations are not important.

The scattering matrix $`S`$ for this single channel quasi-one-dimensional (Q1D) system is

$$S=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{r}_{11}& \stackrel{~}{t}_{11}\\ \stackrel{~}{t}_{11}& \stackrel{~}{r}_{11}\end{array}\right).$$
(4)
Bagwell bag90  has obtained

$$\stackrel{~}{t}_{11}=1+\frac{i\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}}{2k_1}}{1+_{n>1}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nn}}{2\kappa _n}+i\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}}{2k_1}},$$
(5)
$$and\stackrel{~}{r}_{11}=1+\stackrel{~}{t}_{11},$$
(6)
$`\text{where,}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nm}=\frac{2m_e\gamma }{\mathrm{}^2}Sin[\frac{n\pi }{w}(y_i+\frac{w}{2})]Sin[\frac{m\pi }{w}(y_i+\frac{w}{2})],`$ $`\kappa _n=\sqrt{\frac{2m_e}{\mathrm{}^2}(E_nE)}`$, $`k_n=\sqrt{\frac{2m_e}{\mathrm{}^2}(EE_n)}`$, $`E_n=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\frac{n^2\pi ^2}{w^2}`$, $`\gamma `$ is the strength of the delta potential placed at a distance $`y_i`$ from the center of the quantum wire of width $`w`$. We find that a similar expression exists for the transition amplitude from the propagating mode ($`n`$=1) to the nth evanescent mode, given by

$$t_{1n}=\frac{\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1n}}{2\kappa _n}}{1+_{n>1}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nn}}{2\kappa _n}+i\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}}{2k_1}}$$
(7)
When the impurity potential is positive it can only support scattering states. However when the impurity potential is negative, it can also support bound states, apart from the scattering states. For each n we get a sub-band of scattering states ($`E`$ as a function of $`k_n`$). Similarly we get a bound state for each n, that are solutions to bag90

$$1+\underset{m=n}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{mm}}{2\kappa _m}=0.$$
(8)
For n=1 we get a true bound state. The bound state for n=2 may or may not be a true bound state. If the impurity potential is such that the solution to Eq.(8) lie in the energy range where $`n`$=1 channel is propagating, then this bound state for $`n=2`$, is degenerate with n=1 scattering state and it becomes a quasi-bound state.

We have also calculated to find

$`[\rho (E)\rho _0(E)]_{total}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{p}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{2|\stackrel{~}{r}_{pp}|}{hv_p}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑xCos(2k_px+\eta _p)`$ (9)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{p}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{hv_p}}{\displaystyle \underset{e}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{t_{pe}^2}{\kappa _e}}.`$
Here $`v_p=\mathrm{}k_p/m`$. $`_p`$ denotes sum over all propagating modes and $`_e`$ denotes sum over all evanescent modes. The 1st term on the R.H.S. is basically integrated change in the LDOS in the leads. Since the delta function potential is a point impurity, the integrated LDOS in the leads extends from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$. One can do the integration to find $`_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑xCos(2k_px+\eta _p)=\pi Cos(\eta _p)\delta (k_p)`$. So it is zero unless the quasi-bound state coincides with $`k_p=0`$. In the case of extended impurities one can see that this term gives an unimportant small contribution that does not change with energy. Also the carrier concentration in the leads is normally large enough to screen away a small oscillatory LDOS completely. So the relevant quantity that appears in FSR is

$$\rho (E)\rho _0(E)=\underset{p}{}\frac{2}{hv_p}\underset{e}{}\frac{t_{pe}^2}{\kappa _e},$$
(10)
This is actually the integrated local DOS around the impurity site and decaying away from the impurity site all the way up to $`\pm \mathrm{}`$. In the regime of single propagating channel $`p`$ can take only one value, i.e. $`p=1`$ and $`e=2,3,\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$. Thus we can independently calculate both sides of Eq. (1) starting from 1st principles, where we do not have to throw away dispersive behavior or energy dependence of self energy.

We first present below a discussion and definition of the WKB regime for a Q1D system, because it is an interesting subject on its own. When the incident electron propagates in a potential where the wavefunction changes very slowly in space then very little reflected wave is generated and that is taken to be the WKB regime merzbook . So a delta function potential in one-dimension (1D) has a WKB regime at higher energies, when the reflection probability is very small. In the inset of Fig.1, where we plot $`|\stackrel{~}{r}_{11}|^2`$ versus incident energy we find that there are three regimes. One is to the left of point $`P_1`$ where $`|\stackrel{~}{r}_{11}|^2`$ is large and also strongly energy dependent. The other is between the points $`P_1`$ and $`Q_1`$ where $`\frac{\mathrm{}^2k_1^2}{2m_e}>>\gamma `$. These two regimes can be seen in 1D scattering (e.g., a delta function potential in 1D) and are the non-WKB and WKB regimes, respectively. The third regime is to the right of the point $`Q_1`$, where again $`|\stackrel{~}{r}_{11}|^2`$ is very small and is hence a WKB regime, but the energy dependence of $`|\stackrel{~}{r}_{11}|^2`$ is very large. Such a regime cannot be seen in 1D and is a specialty of Q1D. So the energies that lie to the left of $`P_1`$ is the non-WKB regime, where the electron feels the potential very strongly and is almost entirely reflected back. Energies to the right of the point $`P_1`$ correspond to the WKB limit. Although, the system considered here is a Q1D system, corresponding to a scatterer in Q1D, there is an energy dependent scatterer in 1D hua ; tek ; legdeo . The bound states and scattering states of these two potentials are identical and this is an exact correspondence, valid in all regimes, quantum or semi-classical. And so when the reflection probability is small in Q1D, it is also small in the corresponding 1D potential. Then all the notions and results of WKB regime that we are familiar with in 1D are also true in Q1D.

In Fig.1 we find a large deviation of $`\pi [\rho (E)\rho _0(E)]`$ (dotted curve) from $`\frac{d\theta _f}{dE}`$ (solid curve) at energies in the non-WKB regime (left of $`P_1`$). This is similar to what is seen in 1D, 2D or 3D. In the WKB regime, that is to the right of the point $`P_1`$, although $`\stackrel{~}{r}_{11}^2`$ is very small, its energy dependence is not as negligible as that of a potential in $`1`$D (eg, a delta function potential in $`1`$D or a square well in $`1`$D). Energy dependence of $`|\stackrel{~}{r}_{11}|^2`$ automatically implies energy dependence of $`\tau _p`$ (or $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^a`$), i.e., dispersive behavior. So there is an appreciable difference between $`\pi [\rho (E)\rho _0(E)]`$ and $`\frac{d\theta _f}{dE}`$.

Let us now analytically analyse the curves (solid and dashed) to the right of $`Q_1`$. In this region $`\kappa _20`$. From Eq.(10) we find that only the 1st term in the series is relevant. That is

$$\pi \left[\rho (E)\rho _0(E)\right]_{\kappa _20}\text{diverges as}\left[\frac{2\pi }{hv_1}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{22}}\frac{1}{\kappa _2}\right]_{\kappa _20}$$
(11)
Thus the strong energy dependence in the energy beyond $`Q_1`$ is due to the rapid population of the second subband through evanescent modes, as it approaches its propagating threshold. Hence, unlike the Fano resonance, this is not a quantum interference effect. This is like the Van Hove singularity at the band edge. Similarly one can find

$$\left[\frac{d\theta _f}{dE}\right]_{\kappa _20}=\left[\frac{d}{dE}arg(\stackrel{~}{t}_{11})\right]_{\kappa _20}$$
(12)
diverges identically. Note that although $`arg(\stackrel{~}{t}_{11})`$ can have a discontinuity, the derivative exists at all energies. Essentially the right derivative and left derivative is the same at the discontinuity. Hence we prove FSR is exact as $`\kappa _20`$. This is understood when we note that when $`\kappa _20`$, $`|\stackrel{~}{r}_{11}|^2`$ goes to zero at the band edge bag90 . Also it is known that when $`\stackrel{~}{r}_{11}=0`$ then $`\tau _p`$ maximizes datta , and energy dependence of $`g_p^a`$ being negligible, $`\frac{d\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^a}{dE}`$=0 . Thus all the deviating terms being zero, the FSR is valid around the diverging DOS at the band edge.

For strong negative potentials, such that the bound state for $`n=2`$ is below the propagating threshold of $`n=1`$, the curves look similar to that in Fig. 1. For the negative $`\delta `$ function potential with the bound state for $`n=2`$, in the propagating regime of $`n=1`$, we have plotted the two sides of Eq.(1) in Fig.2. $`|\stackrel{~}{t}_{11}|^2`$ is shown in the inset. Note that $`|\stackrel{~}{t}_{11}|^2`$ shows that at the point P the system is in extreme non-WKB regime where $`|\stackrel{~}{t}_{11}|^2`$ goes to zero. At this energy there is a quasi-bound state and there is strong energy dependence of scattering matrix elements as well as self energy. According to earlier stated results butpram02 , there should be violation of FSR here. The peak in $`\pi [\rho (E)\rho _0(E)]`$ at P occurs due to the quasi-bound state. We also see that at this very point P there is an exact agreement between L.H.S. & R.H.S. of Eq.(1). This can be even verified analytically. Substituting the bound state condition given in Eq.(8) into $`\frac{d\theta _f}{dE}`$ as well as in $`\pi [\rho (E)\rho _0(E)]`$ separately, we get

$$\frac{d\theta _f}{dE}=\frac{m_ek_1}{\mathrm{}^2}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}}\underset{n>1}{}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nn}}{\kappa _n^3}=\pi [\rho (E)\rho _0(E)]$$
(13)
This agreement between $`\frac{d\theta _f}{dE}`$ and $`\pi [\rho (E)\rho _0(E)]`$ was argued to be equal for the case of a stub in ref tan99 , at the transmission zero where the $`\frac{\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^a}{E}`$ term in Eq.(2) was dropped from the very beginningtan99 . Dropping the energy dependence of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^a`$ in non-WKB regime and verifying the validity of FSR is rather meaningless, as the violations do come from the energy dependence of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^a`$. Even after including these terms we get exact agreement at the transmission zero for the negative $`\delta `$ function potential in a quantum wire, although it is in extreme non-WKB regime. The reasons are as follows. At the transmission zero, since there is a quasi-bound state, $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^a`$ becomes minimum and $`\frac{\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^a}{E}=0`$. All these arguments are also true for the stub.

The multichannel case was analysed in Ref.my1 . When two modes are propagating, the bound state coming from the 3rd sub-band, can be degenerate with the propagating channels. At that point there is no agreement between $`\frac{d\theta _f}{dE}`$ and $`\pi [\rho (E)\rho _0(E)]`$. While $`\pi [\rho (E)\rho _0(E)]`$ is not only positive definite, it also has a sharp peak meaning enhanced DOS at the energy corresponding to the bound state. The peak is completely missing from $`\frac{d\theta _f}{dE}`$ and $`\frac{d\theta _f}{dE}`$ turns out to be negative. Thus the disagreement is not just a quantitative one, but is a qualitative one.

Thus the purpose of this work was to verify FSR in single channel quantum wires in the presence or absence of Fano resonances. Fano resonance is a very general feature of quantum wires. At the Fano resonance all the quantities are strongly wave vector dependent as it is a purely quantum interference effect. Never the less, FSR is exact at the Fano resonance. This is contrary to the known fact that FSR is valid in semiclassical regimes where there is no strong dependence on wave vector. The exact agreement of the FSR in spite of the strong wave vector dependence is due to the fact that at the Fano resonance there is a quasi bound state that leads to a minimum in the self energy. Away from this quasi bound state there are strong violations. These are true for any negative potential in Q1D and the potential considered here and the associated calculations make this clear. For positive as well as negative delta function potentials, there is also strong wave vector dependence, close to the upper band edge of single channel propagation. This is due to the rapid population of the first evanescent mode at its propagation threshold and does not depend on the existence of Fano resonance. $`d\mathrm{\Sigma }/dE`$=0 here because of the perfect transmission at the band edge, and hence the agreement in FSR. So the former case of agreement in the peak is an agreement in purely quantum regime, while that in the case of the latter peak is in the semiclassical regime. Away from the peaks there is always violation. It may be interesting to work out some extended potentials in Q1D stub .

One of the authors(S.B.) gratefully thanks Prof. Binayak Dutta Roy and Debasish Chaudhuri for useful discussions.

Figure Captions

Fig. 1. The dashed curve gives $`\pi (\rho \rho _0)`$ and the solid curve gives $`\frac{d}{dE}(.5ilnDet[S])`$. Both the functions are plotted versus $`EW^2`$ using $`y_i=.21W`$ and $`\gamma =1`$. In the inset the corresponding $`|\stackrel{~}{r}_{11}|^2`$ is plotted. We have considered $`500`$ evanescent modes.

Fig. 2. The solid curve gives $`\pi (\rho \rho _0)`$ and the dashed curve gives $`\frac{d}{dE}(.5ilnDet[S])`$. Both the functions are plotted versus $`EW^2`$ using $`y_i=.21W`$ and $`\gamma =1.5`$. For this value of $`\gamma `$ there is a quasi-bound state at $`EW^2=36.1022`$. In the inset the corresponding $`|\stackrel{~}{t}_{11}|^2`$ is plotted. We have considered $`500`$ evanescent modes.