text:
# DMRG Study of Critical Behavior of the Spin-1/2 Alternating Heisenberg Chain

## I Introduction

The approach of quantum spin systems to criticality is an interesting and rather underexplored problem in computational physics. In this paper we consider the critical behavior of one of the simplest quasi-1D quantum spin systems, the alternating Heisenberg chain with spin-1/2, as it approaches the uniform chain limit. This model is of special interest for the study of critical behavior, since much is known analytically about the gapless uniform-chain limit through the Bethe Ansatz. This system is also important for studies of the magnetic spin-Peierls effect, and gives a reasonably accurate description of magnetic interactions in many dimerized quasi-1D antiferromagnets.

The alternating Heisenberg antiferromagnet is a simple generalization of the uniform Heisenberg chain, with the nearest-neighbor exchange constant $`J`$ replaced by two alternating values. The spin-1/2 system is defined by the Hamiltonian

$$H=\stackrel{~}{J}\underset{i=1}{\overset{L/2}{}}\left((1+\delta )\stackrel{}{S}_{2i1}\stackrel{}{S}_{2i}+(1\delta )\stackrel{}{S}_{2i}\stackrel{}{S}_{2i+1}\right)$$
(1)
and has a spin-singlet ground state with energy $`E_0`$ and a nonzero singlet-triplet gap $`E_1E_0`$ for any alternationDef  $`0<\delta <1`$.

For our study we introduce a finite-lattice, scaled ground-state energy per spin,

$$\stackrel{~}{e}_0(L,\delta )=E_0(L,\delta )/L\stackrel{~}{J}$$
(2)
and a corresponding singlet-triplet gap

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(L,\delta )=\left(E_1(L,\delta )E_0(L,\delta )\right)/\stackrel{~}{J}.$$
(3)
The tilde indicates that these energies are scaled by $`\stackrel{~}{J}`$ rather than $`J(1+\delta )\stackrel{~}{J}`$, which would divide our results by a factor of $`(1+\delta )`$ (albeit giving the same leading critical behavior). In addition, energies quoted with a single real argument and a tilde (e.g. $`\stackrel{~}{e}_0(\delta )`$) are bulk limits of the scaled alternating chain, those with no tilde and a single integer argument (e.g. $`e_0(L)`$) are finite-$`L`$ uniform chain results, and those with no arguments (e.g. $`e_0`$) are bulk limits of the uniform chain.

The uniform spin-1/2 Heisenberg antiferromagnetic chain, which we recover at $`\delta =0`$, is the best understood 1D critical quantum spin system. It has a ground-state energy per spin of $`e_0=1/4\mathrm{ln}2`$ and a band of gapless spin-triplet excitations with dispersion relation $`\omega (k)/J=\pi /2`$ $`|\mathrm{sin}(k)|`$. The approach of noncritical models to this limiting case is not well established, and has been the subject of surprisingly few theoretical and numerical studies.

Early analytical studies of the effect of a small alternation $`\delta `$ on the uniform chain were reported by Cross and Fisher Cro79  and Black and Emery Bla81 . Cross and Fisher used a Jordan-Wigner transformation to map the original spin problem onto a pseudo-fermion Hamiltonian, and approximated the latter by the exactly solvable Luttinger-Tomanaga model. This approach, which unfortunately involves uncontrolled approximations, yields critical exponents (defined by $`f(\delta )\delta ^p`$) of $`p=4/3`$ for the ground-state energy and $`p=2/3`$ for the singlet-triplet gap.

Black and Emery Bla81  related the critical behavior of the alternating Heisenberg chain to the 4-state Potts model, and found logarithmic corrections to these power laws,

$$e_0\stackrel{~}{e}_0(\delta )\delta ^{4/3}/|\mathrm{log}\delta |$$
(4)
for the ground-state energy per spin, and

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\delta )\delta ^{2/3}/|\mathrm{log}\delta |^{1/2}$$
(5)
for the gap. Note that at this order the gap scales as the square root of the ground-state energy defect. More recent theoretical work by Affleck et al. Affleck89  has shown that Eqs. (4,5) are leading-order predictions of the renormalization group. The overall constants in these results and implicit in the logarithms are non-universal, and have not yet been determined analytically for this model.

Several previous numerical studies have investigated the critical behavior of spin-1/2 alternating Heisenberg chains using bulk-limit extrapolations of exact diagonalization results on systems up to about $`L=30`$ in extent (see Barnes et al. Bar99  and Yu and Haas Haas  and references cited therein). We shall see that important systematic errors can arise from extrapolations using these relatively small systems, for example in estimates of critical exponents.

Studies of much larger spin-1/2 alternating Heisenberg chains have also been published using the DMRG algorithm, although there has been little systematic study of the critical behavior of the simple alternating chain model of Eq.(1) using DMRG. The single published reference on this topic is the work of Uhrig et al. Uhrig99 , who estimate a gap critical exponent of $`0.65`$. Their numerical energies however deviate systematically from this power law at small alternation $`\delta `$ (see Fig.3 of Uhrig et al. Uhrig99 ). In related work, Chitra et al. Chitra  used the DMRG method to study the effects of dimerization and frustration on a generalized alternating chain model with next-nearest-neighbor couplings, and Lou et al. Lou  studied the gap induced by a staggered magnetic field.

In this work we present a systematic DMRG study of the critical behavior of the original alternating spin-1/2 Heisenberg chain of Eq.(1), and compare the theoretical predictions Eqs.(4,5) to numerical results for the ground-state energy per spin and singlet-triplet gap of this model, using systems up to $`L=192`$ in extent.

## II Numerical method

For our numerical study we employed the density matrix renormalization group (DMRG) algorithm White , which is a very effective method for studying critical behavior in quasi-1D quantum spin systems. Numerical determination of the critical behavior of the alternating chain, or any similar quantum spin system, is a daunting computational task. One must accurately determine energy eigenvalues on quite large systems, since characteristic lengths typically diverge at critical points. An extrapolation through a series of fixed-$`L`$ results is then required on sufficiently large lattices to insure that one is in an asymptotic regime in which finite size effects can be accurately parametrized and eliminated. The computer memory requirements for diagonalizing these large systems are such that the detailed critical behavior of relatively few quantum spin systems has been explored numerically.

The DMRG algorithm has previously been applied to various interacting fermion systems, including one-dimensional spin chains White , lattice models Pes99 , quasilinear molecules Ziosi  and nuclei Duk01 ; Dim02 . The essential concept in DMRG is to “grow” a small, finite system into a larger one by the iterative incorporation of new lattice sites. At each such iteration one retains only the $`m`$ most relevant basis states for spanning the targeted energy eigenstate. (These basis states are chosen according to a density-matrix weight.) This selective sampling of Hilbert space yields accurate energy eigenvalues on systems which are well beyond the limits of exact diagonalization. For details of the DMRG method we refer the reader to the original papers of White White  and to a series of lectures recently compiled by Peschel et al. Pes99

Our numerical implementation proceeds as follows. We divide the spin chain into blocks $`AaBb`$, where $`A`$ and $`B`$ denote the “system” and “environment” blocks, and $`a`$ and $`b`$ are elementary blocks to be added to $`A`$ and $`B`$ respectively. Blocks $`b`$ and $`A`$ are linked by periodic boundary conditions. We take spin dimers (two lattice sites of spin $`s=1/2`$ each) as our elementary blocks, and use the infinite algorithm to grow the spin chain, while targeting the lowest-lying spin-0 or spin-1 state. In the case of the spin-0 ground state of the alternating Heisenberg chain, we found that subsequent sweeps with the finite algorithm do not lead to much improvement in the results of the infinite algorithm. In contrast, for the spin-1 state we found that sweeps with the finite algorithm were important for convergence. Our DMRG implementation uses large, sparse matrices, so the sparse matrix package Arpack Arpack  was employed. The time consuming matrix-vector multiplications and the Arnoldi/Lanczos algorithm Arpack were parallelized.

The ground-state energy per spin $`\stackrel{~}{e}_0(L,\delta )`$ of a spin chain of length $`L`$ and alternation $`\delta `$ is of special interest for our study of critical behavior (see Eq. (2)). DMRG yields approximate values $`\stackrel{~}{e}_0(m;L,\delta )`$ that typically converge exponentially fast from above as one increases the number $`m`$ of states retained White ; Pes99 . We also observed this behavior in the present study. We computed $`\stackrel{~}{e}_0(m;L,\delta )`$ numerically using DMRG on chains of length $`L=28`$, 48, 96, 144 and 192, and alternation $`\delta =2^3,2^4,2^5,\mathrm{},2^{10}`$. At each $`L`$ and $`\delta `$ we increased $`m`$ in steps of 10 starting at $`m=30`$ until a fit of the form $`\stackrel{~}{e}_0(m;L,\delta )=\stackrel{~}{e}_0(L,\delta )+c_1\mathrm{exp}(c_2m)`$ gave sufficiently stable coefficients for our desired accuracy; this $`m`$ extrapolation yielded our DMRG energy estimate $`\stackrel{~}{e}_0(L,\delta )`$. We found that the maximum $`m`$ needed for convergence to a given accuracy increases with increasing chain length $`L`$ and decreasing alternation $`\delta `$. For our extreme case $`L=192`$ and $`\delta =2^{10}`$, adequate convergence was not achieved until $`m=150`$, and we retained the maximum of $`m=170`$ states in this case. This resulted in a sparse matrix problem of dimension $`9\times 10^4`$ at each DMRG iteration. Finally, we also confirmed recovery of exact $`L=28`$ alternating chain results on allowing our DMRG code to iterate to the full Hilbert space.

## III Results

Table 1 gives our DMRG results for the ground-state energy per spin for different alternations $`\delta `$ and chain lengths $`L`$. For the rather large alternations $`\delta =2^3`$ and $`2^4`$ we confirmed convergence to accurately known energies with increasing basis state number $`m`$, as well as convergence with increasing chain length $`L`$. Finite size effects were more pronounced at smaller $`\delta `$, as expected since the system is closer to criticality. We estimate that the energy errors in Table 1 are a few units in the last digit, based on the difference between the maximum-$`m`$ DMRG result and the exponential $`m\mathrm{}`$ extrapolation which we quote.

Fig. 1 shows the approach of $`\stackrel{~}{e}_0(L,\delta )`$ to the limit $`e_0=1/4\mathrm{ln}2`$ as a function of alternation $`\delta `$ for spin chains of increasing length, $`L=28`$, 48, 96, 144 and 192. The asymptotic large-$`L`$ envelope evident in this figure for $`\delta 2^8`$ clearly shows the bulk limit. The dashed line is a power-law fit $`c_0\delta ^p`$ to this envelope, which gives $`c_0=0.39`$ and exponent $`p=1.45`$. The renormalization-group prediction $`p=4/3`$ from Eq. (4) (without the logarithmic factor) is also shown, displaced for clarity of presentation. Clearly this gives an inferior description of the DMRG data over the range considered here.

Fig. 2 shows the singlet-triplet gap $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(L,\delta )`$ as a function of alternation $`\delta `$ for spin chains of length $`L=28`$, 48, 96, 144 and 192. The envelope of these curves is the bulk limit $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\delta )`$, which is evident for $`\delta 2^7`$. A power-law fit to $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\delta )`$ as for $`\stackrel{~}{e}_0(\delta )`$ gives $`c_0=1.94`$ and $`p=0.73`$, shown as a dashed line in Fig. 2. The renormalization-group prediction $`p=2/3`$ from Eq.(5) is also shown, displaced for presentation. Evidently the renormalization-group exponent (without the logarithmic term) again gives a less accurate description of our DMRG data. Note that the two exponents obtained in our fits are related by a factor of two, which implies that the $`\stackrel{~}{e}_0(\delta )`$ defect scales as $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\delta )^2`$. This relation also follows from the leading-order renormalization group, Eqs. (4,5).

It is especially interesting to determine whether there is numerical evidence for logarithmic corrections to pure power-law behavior, as predicted by the renormalization group in Eqs.(4,5). We first consider the bulk-limit ground-state energy per spin, predicted to asymptotically approach the uniform chain limit as

$$e_0\stackrel{~}{e}_0(\delta )=\alpha \frac{\delta ^{4/3}}{\mathrm{ln}\left(\delta /\delta _0\right)}.$$
(6)
Here we have introduced an overall constant $`\alpha `$ and scale parameter $`\delta _0`$, which we will estimate from our DMRG data. On rearranging Eq. (6) we obtain the easily visualized form

$$\frac{\delta ^{4/3}}{e_0\stackrel{~}{e}_0(\delta )}=\alpha ^1\left(\mathrm{ln}\delta \mathrm{ln}\delta _0\right).$$
(7)
Fig. 3 shows our DMRG results for $`\delta ^{4/3}/(e_0e_0(\delta ))`$ (the l.h.s. of Eq. (7)) versus $`\mathrm{ln}\delta `$. The data clearly disagree with the leading-order renormalization group prediction Eq. (6) over this range of $`\delta `$, since the points do not lie on a straight line. Assuming that the two smallest-$`\delta `$ points are close to asymptotic, we estimate $`\alpha 2.2`$ and $`\delta _0110`$. A similar fit to the singlet-triplet gap gives

$$\left(\frac{\delta ^{2/3}}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\delta )}\right)^2=\alpha _{gap}^1\left(\mathrm{ln}\delta \mathrm{ln}\delta _0\right)$$
(8)
with $`\alpha _{gap}19.4`$ and $`\delta _0115`$. With these constants the theoretical renormalization-group results Eqs. (4,5) are barely distinguishable from our power-law fits in Figs. 1 and 2. There are no predictions of these constants in the literature to our knowledge.

Eq. (6) can be reexpressed as an effective power $`p_{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}(\delta )=4/3+1/\mathrm{ln}(\delta _0/\delta )`$. With $`\delta _0=110`$, the range $`\delta =10^310^1`$ corresponds to $`p_{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}=1.421.47`$, which may explain our good numerical agreement with a pure power of exponent $`p=1.45`$.

We have also investigated finite size effects in the uniform Heisenberg chain ($`\delta =0`$). Woynarovich and Eckle WE87  and Affleck et al.Affleck89  quote Bethe-Ansatz predictions for the leading finite size contributions to the ground-state energy per spin and singlet-triplet gap,

$$e_0e_0(L)=\frac{\pi ^2}{12L^2}\left(1+O((\mathrm{ln}L)^3)\right)$$
(9)
and

$$e_1(L)e_0=\frac{5\pi ^2}{12L^2}\left(1\frac{3}{5}(\mathrm{ln}L)^1+O((\mathrm{ln}L)^2)\right).$$
(10)
Fig. 4 shows our DMRG data for these energy defects on uniform chains of length $`L=28`$, 48, 96 and 144, together with the Bethe-Ansatz results.

The agreement between the leading-order Bethe-Ansatz predictions for finite size corrections to the ground-state energy per spin (Eq. (9)) and our DMRG results is evidently very good on the shorter chains. The discrepancy evident at $`L=144`$ may be due to convergence problems encountered by the DMRG algorithm when applied to this asymptotically gapless system on large lattices. The DMRG results for the spin-1 energy defect depart significantly from the leading-order term in Eq.(10), but are consistent with this prediction when we include the $`O(L^2(\mathrm{ln}L)^1)`$ correction.

Finally we consider the dependence of the ground-state energy per spin $`\stackrel{~}{e}_0(L,\delta )`$ on the chain length $`L`$ for fixed, nonzero alternation $`\delta `$. This is especially relevant to exact diagonalization studies, which extrapolate to the bulk limit from rather small systems of at most about 30 spins. To test the accuracy of finite size extrapolations we used DMRG to compute the ground-state energy per spin and singlet-triplet gap on chains of length $`L=28`$, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48, and fitted the results to $`f(L)=a+b\mathrm{exp}(L/c)/L`$ and $`g(L)=a+b\mathrm{exp}(L/c)`$ respectively. (These forms were used to extrapolate exact diagonalization results to the bulk limit by Barnes et al.Bar99  and Yu and Haas.Haas ) Both functions yield reasonably good fits to our six data points in the range $`L=28,\mathrm{},48`$. However, on comparing this extrapolation with our DMRG results on $`L=96`$, 144 and 192 lattices, we noted clear discrepancies as the alternation $`\delta `$ decreases. This is likely due to a rapid increase in the characteristic length (modeled by $`c`$ in the exponents of $`f(L)`$ and $`g(L)`$), which makes subleading terms in the asymptotic behavior more important. Our results thus suggest caution in attempting to establish critical behavior from studies of relatively small systems.

## IV Summary

We have employed the DMRG algorithm to determine the ground-state energy per spin and singlet-triplet gap of the alternating Heisenberg chain, and studied the critical behavior of this model in the limit of small alternation. We find that the approach of the bulk-limit ground-state energy per spin and singlet-triplet gap to the uniform chain limits are well described by power laws in the alternation parameter $`\delta `$ over the range $`0.008\delta 0.1`$, and scale approximately as $`\delta ^{1.45}`$ and $`\delta ^{0.73}`$ respectively.

The renormalization group predictions of power laws times logarithmic corrections also appear consistent with our results, provided that a surprisingly large scale factor $`\delta _0`$ is present in the logarithms.

## Acknowledgments

We acknowledge useful communications with I. Affleck, V. Barzykin, G. S. Uhrig and S. R. White. This research was sponsored in part by the Laboratory Directed Research and Development Program of Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), and computational resources were provided by the Center for Computational Sciences at ORNL. ORNL is managed by UT-Battelle, LLC for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC05-00OR22725.


format: text

text:
# Super-Kamiokande ℎ𝑒𝑝 neutrino best fit: a possible signal of nonmaxwellian solar plasma

## I Introduction

Results of the SK and SNO experiments Fukuda:2001nk ; Ahmad:2001an  provide model-independent evidence of electon-neutrino oscillation into other flavors. A recent global fit of the Super-Kamiokande (SK) Collaboration Fukuda:2002pe  that includes data of SNO, Gallex/GNO and SAGE shows that the Large Mixing Angle (LMA) solution is preferred at the 98,9% confidence level. The corresponding mass-square difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ is within the range $`310^5\text{eV}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m^21910^5\text{eV}^2`$, and the mixing angle $`\theta `$ within the range $`0.25\mathrm{tan}^2\theta 0.65`$.

The 8B flux resulting from the SK best fit, $`(5.33\pm 0.36)10^6`$ cm$`{}_{}{}^{2}\text{s}_{}^{1}`$, is in substantial agreement with the SSM value Bahcall:2000nu , $`(5.05_{0.81}^{+1.01})10^6`$ cm$`{}_{}{}^{2}\text{s}_{}^{1}`$. Also the 8B flux measured by SNO Ahmad:2002jz  assuming the standard 8B energy spectrum, $`(5.09_{0.43}^{+0.44})10^6`$ cm$`{}_{}{}^{2}\text{s}_{}^{1}`$, or the one obtained using a distorted spectrum, $`(6.42\pm 1.57)10^6`$ cm$`{}_{}{}^{2}\text{s}_{}^{1}`$, are in agreement with the SSM value and with the SK fit. On the contrary, the $`hep`$ flux resulting from the SK best fit,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{hep}^{\text{SK}}=3610^3\text{cm}^2\text{s}^1,$$

which corresponds to the LMA solution, is about four times higher than the one predicted in the SSM, $`9.310^3`$ cm$`{}_{}{}^{2}\text{s}_{}^{1}`$ Bahcall:2000nu , if one uses $`S_{hep}(0)=10.110^{20}`$ keV barn Marcucci:2000bh , or

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{hep}^{\text{SSM}}=7.910^3\text{ cm}^2\text{s}^1,$$

if one uses the more recent $`S_{hep}(0)=(8.6\pm 1.3)10^{20}`$ keV barn Park:2002yp . The second best fit (LOW) gives also a $`hep`$ flux considerable larger than the one predicted in the SSM, $`2310^3\text{ cm}^2\text{s}^1`$. Only the Quasi-VAC and SMA solutions, which appear disfavored from present data, give a $`hep`$ flux compatible with the SSM Fukuda:2002pe .

Given the actual experimental evidence, we should justify a $`hep`$ flux four times larger than in the SSM. Bahcall and Krastev Bahcall:1998se , discussing the possibility that the $`hep`$ flux be considerable larger than in the SSM, conclude that they cannot find a first-principle physical argument demonstrating that the astrophysical factor $`S_{hep}(0)`$ cannot exceed 20 or $`4010^{20}\text{ keV barn}`$, values which could explain the experimental value of the $`hep`$ flux. However, the latest detailed calculations Marcucci:2000bh ; Park:2002yp  exclude an astrophysical factor of this order of magnitude; the latest result Park:2002yp  gives

$$S_{hep}(0)=(8.6\pm 1.3)10^{20}\text{ keV barn}.$$

Excluding that the cross section be wrong by a factor of four, the average rate can be four times larger only if the product of the thermal average of the cross section $`\sigma v`$ times the $`p`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$ densities is four times larger. But both the temperature and the $`p`$ density are accurately measuread by helioseismology Bahcall:1996qw ; Ricci:1997pq  in the region where $`hep`$ neutrino are produced. In addition increasing the temperature or the densities would affect much more the $`{}_{}{}^{7}Be`$-, $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$\- and CNO-neutrino fluxes Berezinsky:1995zt . There remains the possibility of some improbable mechanism that increases the $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$ density, which is not measured by helioseismology Berezinsky:1999pe , by a factor of four in the $`hep`$-neutrino production region ($`r/R_{}0.12`$) but not in the $`{}_{}{}^{7}Be`$-, and $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$-neutrino production regions ($`r/R_{}<0.12`$). Note that mixing would produce the opposite effect Berezinsky:1999pe .

We propose that the large increase of $`hep`$ flux which fits the present experiemental data is a consequence of the enhancement the high-energy tail of the $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$-$`p`$ momentum distribution. The required $`hep`$ flux of $`3610^3\text{ cm}^2\text{s}^1`$ is a signal that the thermal ion distribution of the solar plasma deviates slightly from the standard one in the region where the reaction $`{}_{}{}^{3}He+p^3He+e^++\nu _e`$ is active. In fact small deviations in the high-energy tail give dramatic effects on the fusion rates without affecting the bulk properties of the medium, which are the ones measured by helioseismology Kaniadakis:1997my ; Coraddu:1998yb .

Let us remind a few of the reasons that lead to deviations from the Maxwellian distribution Kaniadakis:1997my ; Coraddu:1998yb . In plasmas with parameters such as those that can be found in part of the solar core, in the solar atmosphere or in the interior of giant planets Coraddu:2001ps , the Debye screening is approximately valid, but the essential many-body character of the interaction must be taken into account (nonlocality); the time necessary to build up again screening after hard collisions is comparable to the inverse of plasma frequency (memory effect or time nonlocality); since many collisions are necessary before particles loose memory of their initial state, the scattering process cannot be considered Markovian. The conditions are such that there is no clear separation between collective and individual degrees of freedom and the description of the system in the relevant energy range requires the use of additional scales, dynamically generated by the interaction, in addition to the temperature: the pure exponential $`\mathrm{exp}(E/kT)`$, which is determined by the single scale $`kT`$, is insufficient. The Maxwellian regime ends below a given scale. It has also be shown Coraddu:2000nu  that a finite width of the quasi-particle is effectively equivalent to a distortion of the momentum distribution.

Small deviations from the Maxwellian distribution, as the ones that are relevant for us, can be parameterized by the deformation parameter $`\delta `$ introduced many years ago by Clayton et al. Clayton:1975 . This description could be related to the general framework for non-Maxwellian distributions that has been proposed by Tsallis and applied in many different contexts Tsallis:1988 ; Latora:ad : the corresponding distribution depends on parameter $`q`$ that can be related to $`\delta `$ in the appropriate limit. The parameter $`\delta `$ can be related to the plasma parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and the ion-ion correlation special parameter $`\alpha `$ Kaniadakis:1997my ; Coraddu:1998yb , and to the finite width of the quasi-particle Coraddu:2000nu .

In the next Section we derive the $`hep`$ flux. In the third Section we present the expression that relates the deformation parameter $`\delta `$ or $`q`$ to the plasma parameter and the ion-ion correlation special parameter $`\alpha `$; in addition we calculate the effect on the other neutrino fluxes, considering the LMA oscillation and the admissible deviations from Maxwellian distribution of the different reacting ions. In the last Section we summarize and comment our results.

## II The $`hep`$ flux

The reaction $`{}_{}{}^{3}He+p^4He+e^++\nu _e`$ produces a neutrino with an endpoint energy of 18.81 MeV, the highest energy expected for solar neutrinos and the only one above 15 MeV. The rate of the $`hep`$ reaction is very slow and does not affect the solar structure.

The SSM $`hep`$ flux, which uses standard distribution in the plasma, is Bahcall:1998se :

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{hep}^{\text{SSM}}=2.1(1\pm 0.03)\left(\frac{S_{hep}(0)}{2.310^{20}\text{keV barn}}\right)10^3\text{ cm}^2\text{s}^1.$$

Latest values of $`S_{hep}(0)`$ have ranged from $`(2.3\pm 0.9)10^{20}`$ keV barn Schiavilla:1992  to $`(10.1\pm 0.9)10^{20}`$ Marcucci:2000bh . Let us mention that Alberico et al. Alberico:2000qe  have proposed a method to determine $`S_{hep}(0)`$ from a (challanging) laboratory experiment on electron scattering. The latest and more reliable determination Park:2002yp

$$S_{hep}(0)=(8.6\pm 1.3)10^{20}\text{keV barn}$$

gives

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{hep}^{\text{th}}=(7.9\pm 1.4)10^3\text{ cm}^2\text{s}^1,$$

where the quoted error includes only the contribution due to $`S_{hep}(0)`$.

Super-Kamiokande best global fit (LMA) yields a $`hep`$ flux, $`3610^3`$ cm-2 s-1, about four times $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{hep}^{\text{best}}`$, while their second best fit (only 1% of probability) yields $`2310^3`$ cm-2 s-1, about three times $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{hep}^{\text{best}}`$ Fukuda:2001nk ; therefore

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{hep}^{\text{exp}}=(3÷4)\times \mathrm{\Phi }_{hep}^{\text{th}}.$$

Fusion rates are proportional to the local densities of incoming particles and to the average cross section $`v\sigma (v)`$ where $`v`$ is the relative velocity. Therefore, rates depend on the statistical distribution, i.e., on the local temperature if the distribution is Maxwellian, and also on at least an additional deformation parameter if the distribution deviates from the Maxwellian. For example, small deviations can be parameterized by the form proposed by Clayton Clayton:1975 :

$$e^{E/kT}e^{E/kT\delta (E/kT)^2}$$
(1)
for $`\delta >0`$; this distribution (Druyvenstein distribution) introduces a scale $`kT/\delta `$ in addition to $`kT`$: the second term in the exponential becomes important when $`EkT/\delta `$.

To first approximation, we disregard the changes of the other rates and write the change of the average $`hep`$ cross section, and therefore of the rate, as Kaniadakis:1997my ; Coraddu:1998yb :

$$v\sigma (v)_{\delta _{1,3}}=v\sigma (v)_0e^{\gamma _{1,3}\delta _{1,3}}$$
(2)
where $`\gamma _{1,3}=\left(E_0/kT\right)_{hep}^2`$ with $`E_0=\left(E_G(kT)^2/4\right)^{1/3}`$; $`E_G=2\mu c^2(Z_1Z_2\alpha \pi )^2`$ is the Gamow energy and $`v\sigma (v)_0`$ the Maxwellian rate. The indices $`(1,3)`$ indicate the reaction 1H + 3He. For this reaction $`\gamma _{1,3}=\left(9.07\text{keV}/1.01\text{keV}\right)^281`$. For small enhancement of the tail of the distribution the deformation parameter $`\delta `$ is negative and related to Tsallis entropic parameter $`q`$, $`\delta =(1q)/2`$ with $`q>1`$. Note that even if the distribution of Eq. (1) is normalized only for $`\delta >0`$, the resulting change of the rate in Eq. (2), which is derived as an asymptotic expansion in $`\delta `$, can be analytically continued to $`\delta <0`$.

The required enhancement

$$e^{\gamma _{1,3}\delta _{1,3}}=3÷4\text{ implies}0.017\delta _{1,3}0.014.$$

Let us compare this range of values of $`\delta `$ with the relation derived and discussed in Refs. Kaniadakis:1997my ; Coraddu:1998yb

$$\left|\delta _{i,j}\right|=12\alpha _{i,j}^4\mathrm{\Gamma }_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_j,$$

which gives $`\delta _{i,j}`$ in terms of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i=Z_i_jZ_je^2(n_j)^{1/3}/kT`$, the plasma (or ion-ion) coupling constants ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i0.14Z_i`$ in the Sun core), where $`n_j`$ is the number density of ion $`j`$, and of $`\alpha _{i,j}`$, the ion-sphere-model parameters introduced by Ichimaru Ichimaru:1992 ; Yan:1986 , parameters that are related to the ion-ion correlation fuctions ($`0.4<\alpha <0.9`$). An alternative formula by Ichimaru Ichimaru:1993 , which uses $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i,j}^2\left(Z_iZ_je^2((n_i^{1/3}+n_j^{1/3})/kT)\right)^2`$ instead of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_j`$, yields similar ion-sphere-model paramenters.

## III The other fluxes

In this Section we want to give a quantitative estimate of the range of $`\delta `$’s compatible with the experimental determination of the main neutrino fluxes, and compare it with the range of values suggested for the $`hep`$ neutrino flux.

Previous calculations that assumed standard neutrinos have shown that $`\delta `$ of the order of a few times $`10^3`$ were compatible with the neutrino experiments even if these deviations from the Maxwellian distribution were not sufficient to solve the solar netrino problem Kaniadakis:1997my ; Coraddu:1998yb ; Coraddu:2000nu . Since we now have experimental evidence for oscillations and the best fit to the oscillation parameters (LMA) yields fluxes close to the one predicted in the SSM, we expect that the values of $`\delta `$ compatible with present data be even closer to zero. Therefore, the effect on the neutrino fluxes of small deviations from the Maxwellian distribution can be reliably obtained by using power laws that include the reajustment of the solar model Castellani:1996cm ; Coraddu:1998yb .

We repeat the analysis of Ref. Coraddu:1998yb  taking into account the oscillation probability. We add the survival probability factors $`P_i`$ of $`i`$-th neutrino flux to the four equations of Castellani et al. Castellani:1996cm . The Gallium Strumia:2002rv , Chlorine Cleveland:nv  and Luminosity equations yield:

$`70.8\pm 4.5`$ $`=`$ $`73.185R_{pp}P_{pp}+34.196R_{Be}P_{Be}+9.0165R_{CNO}P_{CNO}+2.43\mathrm{\Phi }_B^{SNO}`$ (3a)
$`2.56\pm 0.23`$ $`=`$ $`0.0226R_{pp}P_{pp}+1.1448R_{Be}P_{Be}+0.4239R_{CNO}P_{CNO}+1.11\mathrm{\Phi }_B^{SNO}`$ (3b)
$`63.85`$ $`=`$ $`0.98059.85R_{pp}+0.9394.77R_{Be}`$ (3c)
$`+0.9371.034R_{CNO}+0.49810^35.05R_B,`$
where $`5.05`$ is the produced 8B flux; the 8B flux in units of $`10^6`$ cm-2 s-1
$$\mathrm{\Phi }_B^{SNO}=(5.05_{0.81}^{+1.01})R_BP_B=1.76\pm 0.05$$
(3d)
is measured in the experiment SNO. The SSM fluxes $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are the ones calculated by Bahcall et al. Bahcall:2000nu . We use the survival probability $`P_i`$ extracted from the experiements by Berezinsky and Lissia Berezinsky:2001uv : $`P_{pp}=0.58`$ at 0.265 MeV, $`P_{Be}=P_{CNO}=0.55`$ at 0.814 MeV, and $`P_B=0.32`$ at 6.71 MeV. The quantity $`R_i`$, defined in Ref. Kaniadakis:1997my , represents the rate enhancement or depletion due to the nonmaxwellian tail. Eliminating $`R_{pp}`$ and using the relation between $`R`$ and $`\delta `$ Kaniadakis:1997my ; Coraddu:1998yb , the other $`R_i`$ (with conservative errors) are:

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}R_{Be}\hfill & =& e^{23\delta _{pp}139.75\delta _{He}}& =& \hfill 0.87\pm 0.09\\ R_{CNO}\hfill & =& e^{62.1\delta _{pp}+6.5\delta _{He}407\delta _p}& =& \hfill 0.87\pm 0.09\\ R_B\hfill & =& e^{62.1\delta _{pp}+149.5\delta _{He}190\delta _p}& =& \hfill 1.10\pm 0.20\end{array}$$
(4)
where for the purpose of this estimation we have introduced several $`\delta `$’s: $`\delta _{pp}`$ for protons in the $`pp`$ production region ($`r/R_{}1`$), which is also the region where the $`hep`$ neutrinos are produced, $`\delta _p`$ for protons in the inner core ($`r/R_{}1`$), where all other neutrinos are produced, and $`\delta _{He}`$ for the distribution of the $`He`$ nuclei (3H and 4H). The result is that $`\delta _{pp}10^2`$, while $`|\delta _p||\delta _{He}|210^3`$.

We note that neutrinos from the $`pp`$ and $`hep`$ reactions are produced in the same region ($`r/R_{}1`$), and they have similar values (limit) for $`\delta `$. The difference is that values of $`\delta 2\%`$ have large effect on the $`hep`$ reaction Coraddu:2000nu , while they have a much smaller effect on the $`pp`$ reaction both because the Coulomb barrier is lower and because the adjustment of the solar structure to a change of the $`pp`$ rate, which is directly linked to the luminosity, is such that it minimizes the change of the rate, that ends up being between 0.5% and 3.0% larger that in the SSM (at the solar surface).

The other neutrino fluxes are all produced in the inner core ($`r/R_{}1`$), where the plasma conditions are different, and they show much smaller deviation from Maxwellian distribution. We note that the value of $`\alpha `$ deduced from the $`\delta `$ of the proton component, i.e, a value between 0.54 and 0.72, is in agreement with the range of values allowed for a weakly coupled and weakly non ideal plasma ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }1`$). In addition the values of the different parameters $`\delta `$ are within the constraints imposed by helioseismology, as it was checked in Ref. Degl'Innocenti:dy  without considering oscillations: oscillations makes the agreement even better. In detail protons superdiffusion in the inner core would yield a 7Be flux reduced by 4–22% with respect to SSM calculations; the same range of reduction is obtained for the CNO flux (these fluxes are at the solar surface, before oscillation).

Such values of $`\delta `$ could be measured or excluded by more precise measurements and solar model calculations.

## IV Discussion and conclusion

Our work is based on the following points:

* the global best fit (LMA) to the neutrino experiments requires a $`hep`$-neutrino produced flux of $`3610^3`$ cm-2 s-1 Fukuda:2001nk , about four times the one predicted by the SSM Bahcall:2000nu ; also the second best fit (LOW) requires a flux three times the one in the SSM; if one consider the contribution to the signals on earth from $`hep`$ neutrinos, this contribution, even after oscillation is larger than the SSM prediction;
* the latest precise evaluation Park:2002yp  of the astrophysical factor, $`S_{hep}(0)=(8.6\pm 1.3)10^{20}`$ keV barn, which is slighter smaller than the values used in the SSM Marcucci:2000bh , rules out that the cross section could be a factor of four larger;
* temperature and $`p`$ density are measured very precisely by helioseismology in the region of interest and could not vary significantly without dramatically affecting the 8B- and 7Be-neutrino fluxes;
* it is not known a physical mechanism that could increase the density of 3He in the $`hep`$-neutrino production region without increasing the same density in the 8B- and 7Be-neutrino production region (any mixing would produce the opposite effect) Berezinsky:1999pe ;
* there exist several mechanisms that deform the high-energy tail of the ion velocity distribution in plasmas Kaniadakis:1997my ; Coraddu:1998yb ; Lavagno:2001nm ; Coraddu:2000nu ; we do not exclude that other mechanisms could be found that also produce deformation of the distribution.

We have proposed that the experimental results are signals of plasma effects on the fusion rates.

We have verified that the slight enhancement of the high-energy tail of the distribution naturally produces the needed large $`hep`$-neutrino flux; the resulting deformation parameter is in agreement with the theory of weakly coupled and weakly non-ideal plasmas. This kind of modifications of the distribution do not affect the bulk properties and, in particular, the measured helioseismiologic quantities. The other neutrino fluxes are not significantly modified.

Future more precise experimental determinations of the oscillation parameters, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ and mixing angle $`\theta `$, and of the high-energy neutrino spectrum (and in particular a direct measurement of the $`hep`$ contribution) and improved theoretical calculations, or experimental determination Alberico:2000qe , of the astrophysical factor $`S_{hep}(0)`$ could corroborate (or bound) the importance of plasma effects for some of the fusion rates in the Sun.

###### Acknowledgements.

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


text:
# Under-doped La2-xSrxCuO4 with x = 0.063 - 0.125: TSFZ growth of high-quality crystals and anomalous doping dependences of superconducting properties

## Abstract

A series of high-quality La2-xSrxCuO4 (LSCO) superconductor crystals in the under-doping region with x = 0.063, 0.07, 0.09, 0.10, 0.111 and 0.125 has been successfully prepared by traveling-solvent floating-zone (TSFZ) technique. The crystals are large and free of sub-grains and foreign phases. The high crystal quality has been revealed by double-crystal x-ray rocking curves and Rutherford backscattering spectrometry combined with ion-beam channeling effect. We find that the evolutions of the superconducting transition width and volume fraction as a function of carrier concentration exhibit interesting anomalies in the vicinity of some ”magic number” doping levels such as x = 1/42 (=0.0625) and 1/32 (=0.111). We argue that these behaviours are of intrinsic electronic origin. PACS Number: 74.72.Dn; 74.25.Ha.

La2-xSrxCuO4 (LSCO) system is known to be one of the cuprate superconductor systems with fewer components and a simple layered structure of K2NiF4 type which can be basically described as a stacking of single-plane CuO2 superconducting layers separated by two (La, Sr)O layers. The intrinsic Josephson junctions of LSCO have recently been characterized as stacked serial SIS junctions , and its high Josephson plasma frequency in THz region is quite interesting for developing new electronic devices such as THz generators and detectors . On the other hand, its electronic states strongly depend on hole-doping which can be achieved with the substitution of Sr2+ cations for La3+ ones. At very low doping (x $`<`$ 0.02), La2-xSrxCuO4 is an antiferromagnetic Mott insulator. After crossing a spin glass state (0.02 $`<`$ x $`<`$ 0.05) , it becomes a superconductor (0.05 $`<`$ x $`<`$ 0.26) and then changes to a normal metal (0.26 $`<`$ x $`<`$ 0.6)  and finally it behaves as a semiconductor (x $`>`$ 0.6) . In the superconductor regime, the critical temperature of LSCO reaches its maximum of 38 K at x = 0.15. The investigation on the doping dependences of low temperature physical properties in both normal and superconducting states is important for acquiring a better understanding of high TC superconductivity and strongly correlated electron systems. LSCO system is therefore not only attractive in its possible applications but also in such fundamental research. For both purposes, high-quality and sizable single crystals are highly demanded, and persistent effort has been made in the crystal growth using different techniques . Traveling-solvent floating-zone (TSFZ) method is widely accepted as a unique approach to growing such incongruent melting oxide superconductor crystals. This crucible-free technique avoids the crystal contamination from crucible material that will otherwise interfere with the observation of intrinsic physical properties. The large temperature gradient produced by focused lamp images makes possible good solid-liquid interfaces and a stable molten zone.

By using TSFZ method, we have successfully prepared a series of large and high-quality La2-xSrxCuO4 single crystals covering some interesting under-doping levels (x = 0.063 - 0.125) with the aim of systematic investigation on the physical properties. We first report here the results of TSFZ growth and characterizations of some properties of these LSCO crystals. Interesting anomalous doping dependences of superconducting properties are observed in this series of crystals and are briefly discussed.

High purity ($``$ 99.99%) oxides La2O3, CuO and carbonate SrCO3 were used as the raw materials. For the feed rods, the initial composition was (1-x/2)La2O3/xSrCO3/CuO in molar ratio with x = 0.063, 0.07, 0.09, 0.10, 0.111 and 0.125. Excess CuO of 1 - 2 mol% was added for compensating its evaporation loss in the growth process. The solvents were much richer in CuO as self-flux, typically of 78 mol% CuO. In determining the Sr contents of the solvents, we took into account the previously reported results of distribution coefficients kSr of Sr doping into La2CuO4 . The Preparation of dense and homogeneous feed rods is one of the key factors in achieving a stable and continuous TSFZ growth. Each step in the preparation was carefully checked and optimized, such as thorough mixing and grinding of the starting and prefired powders by a planetary ball mill, forming compact cylindrical rods under a high hydrostatic pressure before the feed rods being finally well sintered. An infrared heating floating-zone furnace with a quartet ellipsoidal mirror (Crystal Systems Inc., Model FZ-T-10000-H) was used for TSFZ experiments. The crystals were grown under an oxygen pressure of 0.2 MPa at a zone traveling rate of 0.8 mm/hr using seed crystals orientated along orthorhombic or tetragonal  or  directions.

By careful operations and the use of high quality feed rods, a stable molten zone was successfully maintained in most experiments until proceeding growths were artificially stopped just before the whole feed rods, typically 125 mm long, ran out. Shown in Fig.1 is the photo for one of as-grown ingots, with a typical size of 5-6 mm in diameter and 110 mm in length. Polished crystal pieces cut from the ingots were checked by optical microscopy using polarized or normal light. No grain boundaries were observed in the crystallized ingots after several centimeters away from the starting point of crystallization on seed crystals, indicating that large single-grain crystals were obtained. The compositions of grown crystals estimated by ICP-AES were very close to those of feed rods, and no foreign phases in crystal samples were detected by powder XRD analysis.

Experiments of x-ray rocking curves were performed on representative La1.91Sr0.09CuO4 (x = 0.09) crystal using a double-crystal diffractometer (Rigaku, Model SLX-1) equipped with a 12 KW rotating Cu target and a Ge (004) monochromator ($`\alpha 5^o`$). Fig. 2 shows the rocking curve of (008) Bragg reflection for this sample having a surface dimension of 4mm $`\times `$ 15mm (the beam slit size was set to 0.5mm $`\times `$ 10mm). The full-width-at-half-maximum (FWHM), which is correlated with the crystal mosaicity, is as small as 0.10o. This is one of the best data reported so far for LSCO crystals . The quality of the same crystal was also examined by Rutherford backscattering spectrometry combined with ion-beam channeling effect (RBS-channeling) which was carried out using 2 MeV well collimated He ion beam and a Si detector set at 160o to the incident direction. The channeling spectrum was taken along the c-axis of the crystal. The RBS-channeling minimum yield  is only $`\chi _{min}`$ = 3.8% (Fig. 3), being another evidence for the high quality of the crystal. Moreover, it can be seen from Fig. 3 that, for the aligned spectrum, the backscattering counts increase very slowly with depth. This is a strong indication that the defect density in the crystal is very low.

The Meissner (field-cooled) and shielding (zero-field-cooled) signals of all the six crystal samples were measured on a SQUID magnetometer (Quantum Design, MPMS XL) in a low field of 5 Oe with c//H, as shown in Fig. 4. The superconducting critical temperatures observed from the Meissner effects range from about 11K for x = 0.063 to about 31K for x = 0.125. It is of much interest to note that, around some special doping levels with ”magic numbers” such as x = 1/42 (=0.0625) and 1/32 (=0.111), the superconducting transitions are much sharper ($`\mathrm{\Delta }`$T $``$ 2K) than those at the doping contents away from them and the Meissner fraction drops remarkably upon doping in the close vicinity of x = 1/32 (Fig. 4). Moreover, the shielding signals exhibit the same broadening trend for the doping levels away from the magic numbers and they all have 100% volume fraction. This indicates that there is no macroscopic inhomogeneity and/or weak links. Generally speaking, crystalline imperfection may broaden superconducting transition and a narrow transition width is expected for superconductor crystals of high quality. We have evidenced that the x = 0.09 LSCO crystal is of excellent crystalline perfection, but, contrary to the expectation, it exhibits a broad superconducting transition. As a further check, the La1.91Sr0.09CuO4 sample was annealed under various conditions for several to twelve days at 600-1000oC under oxygen flow or 0.3 MPa oxygen pressure before quenched in liquid nitrogen. However, magnetic measurements showed that its transition width remained unchanged after these annealing processes. These results and observations thus lead us to conclude that such anomalies of superconducting properties in the vicinity of these magic doping levels as well as the broad transitions at the dopant contents away from these magic numbers are of intrinsic electronic origin. At these special carrier concentrations, some specific electronic state may occur but it may not be completely pinned down elsewhere in this doping region. Indeed, both superconducting electronic phase separations  and the formation of 2D electronic lattices  at magic doping numbers are reported in Sr doped and Sr/O co-doped lanthanum cuprates. Further related investigations are currently in progress.

In conclusion, we have successfully prepared by TSFZ method a series of high-quality La2-xSrxCuO4 superconductor crystals in the under-doping regime with x = 0.063 - 0.125. The crystals are pure, subgrain-free and large in size. We have observed from the magnetic measurements that the superconducting transition width narrows in the close vicinity of some magic doping levels while remains broad at other dopant contents, and the Meissner fraction shows an unusual decrease around x = 1/32. We suppose that such interesting anomalous behaviours in superconducting state may probably originate from some intrinsic electronic state occurring at these special carrier-dopings.

Acknowledgement The authors at IP&CCMP-CAS are very grateful to Prof. Z. L. Wang and Mrs. N. L. Li for their various and valuable helps in crystal orientation and processing. They would also like to thank many other colleagues for their technical assistances and measurements (SQUID, XRD, SEM etc.). The work in Beijing is supported by Ministry of Science and Technology of China and National Natural Science Foundation of China through Project G1999064601 and Project 10174090. The work in Houston is supported by the State of Texas through The Texas Center for Superconductivity.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Theories with an infinite number of massless higher-spin gauge fields (HS) have a long story. Recently, they have been reexamined by several authors . One of the reasons for this resurgence of interest is that these theories are candidates for a semi-classical treatment of the small tension limit of string theory. The important observation that higher-spin theories can be consistently formulated in Anti-de-Sitter space  also suggests that they are useful in the context of the AdS/CFT correspondence. Weakly coupled gauged theories contain an infinite number of almost-conserved currents that may be described by a dual HS theory in Anti de Sitter space. While our understanding of the description of the weak coupling limit of four dimensional YM in terms of higher-spin theories is still elusive, some progress has been made for certain three dimensional conformal field theories . The specific example of ref.  deals with three-dimensional $`O(N)`$ vector models. The singlet sector of the $`O(N)`$ theories contains an infinite number of conserved currents of even spin in the large $`N`$ limit. In , it was conjectured that the singlet sector of this theory is dual to that of the higher spin theories in $`AdS_4`$ studied by Vasiliev , which consists of a single Regge trajectory of even spin 111Further work on the subject can be found in .. Two different three-dimensional conformal field theories were considered in , the free $`O(N)`$ model and the infrared fixed point that can be obtained by perturbing the free theory with a relevant double trace operator. Following the general description of RG flows induced by double-trace operators , the authors of  also conjectured that both theories are described by the same Vasiliev Lagrangian, but with a difference consisting in the choice of boundary condition for a certain field. As shown in , and further studied in , the dual description of the RG flow induced by double-trace deformation of the boundary CFT is unusual. Instead of changing the 4-d background, this flow leaves the geometry unchanged, at least at tree level in the bulk theory, but it changes the boundary behavior of a certain bulk field.

This raises the question that we want to address in this paper. When the bulk Lagrangian is dual to the $`O(N)`$ model at the IR fixed point, the higher spin currents are conserved only in the large $`N`$ limit. Because of the standard relation between conformal dimension in 3-d, and mass in $`AdS_4`$, an infinite number of higher spins should become massive when $`1/N`$ corrections are included. All spins should instead remain massless in the description of the free UV theory. This raises an interesting puzzle. As we said, the two CFTs are described by the same bulk Lagrangian and they only differ by a choice of boundary condition of a certain field. How can such a change of boundary conditions in a (scalar) field induce masses for all particles of spin higher than 2? The answer to this question turns out to be surprisingly similar to a case recently studied by one of the authors ; namely, a graviton coupled to conformal matter in $`AdS_4`$. There, one can show that, when matter is given non-standard boundary conditions, it can form a bound state that acts as the Goldstone vector for the spin 2 field. In other words, in that case the graviton gets a mass through a one-loop effect. In this note, we show that a similar mechanism can give mass to all higher-spin fields in the dual of the $`O(N)`$ model at the IR fixed point. The mechanism is intrinsically one-loop in the bulk theory. That explains naturally why the masses of the higher-spin fields are $`O(1/N)`$. Differently from the case studied in ref. , here the boundary conditions of the bulk fields leave the spin-2 field massless, at the fixed points of the the double-trace RG flow. We finally show that mass generation can only occur, for spin $`s>2`$, when the $`AdS_4`$ theory is dual to the $`O(N)`$ model at the IR fixed point.

## 2 The AdS/HS Correspondence

To be self-contained, in this section we briefly review the details of the correspondence conjectured in . The $`O(N)`$ model is formulated in terms of a three-dimensional scalar transforming in the vectorial representation of $`O(N)`$, with Lagrangian:

$$=d^3x\left[\varphi ^a\varphi ^a+\frac{\lambda }{2N}(\varphi ^a\varphi ^a)^2\right],$$
(1)
where $`a=1,\mathrm{},N`$. The theory has two fixed points. There is an ultraviolet, free fixed point at $`\lambda =0`$, and an interacting infrared fixed point . The free UV theory has an infinite number of conserved currents. Restricting to operators that are singlets of $`O(N)`$ and single trace 222We follow the misuse of the term single trace introduced in ., we find a conserved current for each even spin. We can schematically write it as

$$J_{\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _s}=\varphi ^a(\stackrel{}{})^s\varphi ^a\text{traces}.$$
(2)
The IR theory is instead interacting and the currents in Eq. (2) are not conserved. We can reasonably assume that the only conserved current in the IR CFT is the stress-energy tensor. Among the non-singlet operator there are also other conserved currents; the Noether currents of the (global) $`O(N)`$ symmetry. However, it is known  that the currents in Eq. (2), for $`s2`$, also have canonical dimension in the large $`N`$ limit 333For more recent references on the subject see . Therefore, for $`N=\mathrm{}`$, the IR theory too has an infinite number of conserved currents. The currents do acquire anomalous dimensions at order $`1/N`$. The conjecture formulated in  states that the singlet sector of both theories has, in the large $`N`$ limit, a dual description in terms of a minimal bosonic HS theory containing one massless gauge field for each even spin . In this correspondence, $`N`$ must be identified with the inverse cosmological constant of the HS theory.

The description of the two fixed points differs only by a choice of boundary conditions. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be the bulk scalar dual to $`(\varphi ^a\varphi ^a)`$. $`\varphi ^a\varphi ^a`$ has dimension 1 in the UV and dimension $`2+O(1/N)`$ in the IR . $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a scalar field with mass $`m^2=2`$ at large $`N`$ (in units of the cosmological constant). $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is, therefore, a conformally coupled scalar field. The UV and IR conformal dimensions of the operator correspond, respectively, to the two roots of the equation

$$m^2=\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Delta }3).$$
(3)
The quantization of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is subtle, because both roots $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm `$ of the previous equation satisfies the unitary bound in three dimensions. The analysis of such cases has been performed in . The bulk theory corresponding to the assignment $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }_+`$ differs from the other, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$, by boundary conditions. Namely, if $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ has asymptotic behavior

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }\alpha z^\mathrm{\Delta }_{}+\beta z^{\mathrm{\Delta }_+},\mathrm{\Delta }_+>\mathrm{\Delta }_{},$$
(4)
where $`z`$ is the AdS radial coordinate, the two possible quantizations are obtained by interchanging the role of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ . In the UV, $`(\varphi ^a\varphi ^a)`$ has dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}=1`$ and it is quantized with boundary condition $`\alpha =0`$. In the IR $`(\varphi ^a\varphi ^a)`$ has dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+=2`$ in the large $`N`$ limit, and it is quantized with boundary condition $`\beta =0`$.

In  the interesting observation was made that the two CFTs are connected by a RG flow induced by the double-trace operator $`(\varphi ^a\varphi ^a)^2`$, which, in the UV, is a dimension-two relevant operator. An analysis of flows induced by double-trace operators was carried out in . The deformation by a double-trace operator only modifies the boundary condition for the bulk field $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ dual to $`(\varphi ^a\varphi ^a)`$. According to , the boundary condition on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to be imposed along the flow is:

$$\alpha =\lambda \beta .$$
(5)
We see that in the two limiting cases, $`\lambda =0`$ and $`\lambda =\mathrm{}`$, we recover the two different boundary conditions describing, respectively, the UV and the IR fixed points.

## 3 A Generalized Higgs Effect

It is intriguing to notice that the same Lagrangian gives a semi-classical description of two different fixed points, one of which is free while the other is interacting. In particular, an obvious question can be raised. Since the currents in Eq. (2) are not conserved in the IR at finite $`N`$, we expect that the corresponding higher spin fields in the bulk acquire a mass of order $`1/N`$, when quantum (loop) corrections are included. We want now to prove that this is indeed the case. Namely, that in the bulk Lagrangian describing the IR fixed point, a generalized Higgs effect may take place, which gives mass to all fields of spin greater than two. We will also show that no Higgs effect is expect in the Lagrangian describing the UV fixed point, and that boundary conditions alone are responsible for the different behaviors of the two theories.

In AdS, a spin $`s`$ field can acquire a mass by “eating” a single massive field of spin $`s1`$, by a Higgs-like mechanism. To describe this phenomenon properly, recall that the representations of the 3-d conformal group, $`SO(3,2)`$, which is also the isometry group of AdS4, are labeled by their quantum numbers under the maximal compact subgroup $`SO(3)\times U(1)`$: the spin $`s`$ and the conformal weight $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. A representation $`D(\mathrm{\Delta },s)`$ satisfies a shortening condition when $`\mathrm{\Delta }=s+1`$, and corresponds to a conserved current in the CFT and a massless field in $`AdS_4`$. A massive spin $`s`$ representation of the conformal group decomposes in the massless limit as

$$D(\mathrm{\Delta },s)\stackrel{\mathrm{\Delta }s+1}{}D(s+1,s)D(s+2,s1).$$
(6)
The representation $`D(s+2,s1)`$ is the Goldstone field. Since in $`AdS_4`$ the energy spectrum is discrete, two gauge fields can form a bound state with the quantum number of the Goldstone field (even when they are free!). In the presence of an appropriate trilinear coupling, a spin $`s`$ field can then acquire mass through radiative corrections. Let us stress that this phenomenon cannot occur in flat space where the spectrum is continuous. This analysis was already performed in  in the case of a graviton in $`AdS_4`$, coupled to a conformal scalar.

Let us denote with $`W_sW_{\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _s}`$ the spin $`s`$ gauge field. In a Lagrangian as those proposed by Vasiliev , we expect many trilinear couplings between gauge fields of different spin. Some involve the field $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and some do not. Those without $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ can be schematically written as $`W^s^k(W_{s_1}W_{s_2})`$ with $`s_1+s_2+k=s`$, with derivatives arbitrarily distributed among the gauge fields. They cannot be responsible for the Higgs mechanism. Even if the product of representations of spin $`s_1`$ and $`s_2`$ contains a mode in the representation $`D(s+2,s1)`$, the latter would have wrong parity for being a Goldstone field; let us see why. Since we are interested in a one loop effect, we can neglect $`1/N`$ corrections to the dimensions of our fields. All the $`W_s`$ are thus massless in the large $`N`$ limit and, therefore, have dimension $`s+1`$. The ground state of the would-be Goldstone representation has conformal dimension $`s+2`$. It is obtained from the lowest weight state of $`D(s_i+1,s_i)`$, which has dimension $`s_i+1`$, by acting on it with $`k`$ raising operators of the group $`SO(3,2)`$. Since the parity of a genuine spin $`s_i`$ field is $`(1)^{s_i}`$ and the parity of a raising operator is $`1`$, this mode has parity $`P=(1)^{s_1+s_2+k}=(1)^s`$, which is the wrong one for a spin $`(s1)`$ gauge field.

The field $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is what describes the RG flow, and it is, moreover, the only one to change under it, to leading order in $`1/N`$. So, we expect it to appear in the couplings needed to give mass to our high-spin fields. Recall that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ only has different boundary conditions at the two fixed points of the RG flow. We can easily write a trilinear coupling of the form

$$W^{\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _s}W_{\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _{s2}}_{\mu _{s1}}_{\mu _s}\mathrm{\Sigma },$$
(7)
where, for simplicity, we chose a specific distributions for the derivatives. Such coupling can be certainly reconstructed from the three point function of free fields in the CFT. It is also reminiscent of the equation for the conservation of the currents in Eq. (2). To see this, write the Lagrangian Eq. (1) in terms of an auxiliary field $`\sigma `$,

$$=d^3x\left[\varphi ^a\varphi ^a+\sigma (\varphi ^a\varphi ^a)\frac{N\sigma ^2}{2\lambda }\right],$$
(8)
and use the equations of motions $`\sigma =\lambda (\varphi ^a\varphi ^a)/N`$, $`\mathrm{}\varphi ^a=\sigma \varphi ^a`$. Then, the divergence of the current can be rewritten, schematically, as

$$^\mu J_{\mu ,\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _{s1}}J_{\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _{s2}}_{\mu _{s1}}\sigma |_{ST},$$
(9)
where the subscript means that the right hand side is projected on the symmetric-traceless part.

The coupling in Eq. (7) can give mass to the spin $`s`$ fields, by a one-loop diagram, only when the product of the representations to which $`W_{\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _{s2}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ belong contains the Goldstone representation $`D(s+2,s1)`$. To leading order in $`1/N`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ has dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1`$ in the UV, but dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }=2`$ in the IR, while all the $`W_s`$ have always dimension $`s+1`$. We also have

$$D(s1,s2)D(\mathrm{\Delta },0)=\underset{S=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}D(\mathrm{\Delta }+S+s+n1,s+S2).$$
(10)
This equation shows that a mode $`D(s+2,s1)`$, with the right quantum numbers to be the Goldstone, appears for both values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. However, it is easy to check that the candidate Goldstone has the same parity of the would-be massive field $`W_s`$ only when $`\mathrm{\Delta }=2`$ 444In the case $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1`$, we create the lowest weights of $`D(s+2,s1)`$ by applying two raising operators, $`L^{+i}`$, to the product of the lowest weight of $`D(s1,s2)`$ and $`D(1,0)`$, thus obtaining a field of parity $`P=(1)^s`$. $`D(s+2,s1)`$ is thus a pseudo-spin $`(s1)`$ field.. We conclude that, only when $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is quantized with conformal weight $`2`$ in the large $`N`$ limit, a Higgs mechanism is possible.

We must also check that the graviton remains massless: in a CFT, a singlet conserved current corresponding to the stress-energy tensor always exists. It was already noticed in  that the a graviton coupled to a conformal scalar can acquire mass only if the boundary conditions on the scalar make it belong to the reducible representation $`D(1,0)D(2,0)`$. In our case, the scalar belongs to the $`D(1,0)`$ in the UV, and to the $`D(2,0)`$ in the IR, so that no Higgs mechanism is expected. We can see this explicitly from the decomposition

$$D(\mathrm{\Delta }^{},0)D(\mathrm{\Delta },0)=\underset{S=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}D(\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Delta }^{}+S+2n,S),$$
(11)
that replaces Eq. (10) in the case $`s=2`$. No Goldstone representation $`D(4,1)`$ is contained in this formula for $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ equal to either 1 or 2.

## 4 Conclusions

The duality between $`O(N)`$ critical vector models and HS theories á la Vasiliev is still in its infancy. A challenge in establishing it firmly is that while the 3-d CFT is considerably simpler than in the adjoint case, the 4-d AdS dual is much more complicated than semiclassical supergravity. In this paper we furthered the study of that duality by showing how to explain a puzzling feature of the IR (interacting) fixed point of the $`O(N)`$ model. There, almost all higher-spin currents that were conserved in the UV acquire anomalous dimensions. In the AdS dual, this means that almost all massless fields of the HS theory become massive. To interpret this effect as a Higgs phenomenon, one has to explain how to reconcile it with the fact that the (double trace) perturbation of the UV theory flowing into the IR fixed point does not change the AdS background, to leading order in $`1/N`$. In this paper, we showed that a radiative Higgs effect, where the Goldstone particle is composite, can solve this puzzle. We performed a group theoretical analysis showing that only particles with spin $`s>2`$ can become massive, and only at the IR fixed point. It would be interesting and important to explicitly compute the one-loop self-energy diagram for all particles in the dual HS theory , to check this phenomenon explicitly and quantitatively. It may also be possible to extend our analysis to a model that contains some (or all) the non-singlet currents of $`O(N)`$, or to other examples of RG flows in 3d, like those discussed in .

### Acknowledgements

We would like to thank D. Anselmi for fruitful conversations. A.Z. would like to thank the Scuola Normale Superiore in Pisa for its kind hospitality while this work was done. L.G. and A.Z. are partially supported by INFN and MURST under contract 2001-025492, and by the European Commission TMR program HPRN-CT-2000-00131. M.P. is supported in part by NSF grant PHY-0070787.


text:
# Black hole production via quantum tunneling

## Abstract

Particles colliding at impact parameter much larger than the effective gravitational radius can not classically form a black hole and just scatter off the radial potential barrier separating the particles. We show that the process of the black hole production can still go quantum-mechanically via familiar mechanism of the under-barrier tunneling. The mechanism is illustrated for collision of a trans-Planckian particle and a lighter particle. Our analysis reveals instability of trans-Planckian particles against transition to the phase of black hole.

It has been for long time an intriguing problem to study in detail the possibility to create black holes in collision of particles. Many attempts  were done in the past to attack this problem although the technical difficulties are such that exact solutions of General Relativity describing this process are still not available. (Although a considerable progress in this direction has been recently made in ). This problem however became of a practical interest recently due to increasing popularity of the models predicting higher-dimensional Planckian scale at 1 TeV. If these models are correct the trans-Planckian energy should be available already in the next generation of colliders or in cosmic rays. The black hole production then should be a typical event the experimentalists are going to detect .

Although a detailed theoretical description of the black hole production in trans-Planckian collisions is not yet known some basic principles are available. Mostly, it is based on the picture of the gravitational collapse as we know it in General Relativity. In particular, applying Thorne’s hoop conjecture  to the present situation we arrive at a conclusion that two particles with energy $`𝙴_1`$ and $`𝙴_2`$ respectively should form a black hole if they collide at impact parameter $`b`$ less than the effective gravitational radius of the system, $`r_g=2GM`$, $`M=𝙴_1+𝙴_2`$ being the total energy of the particles. Indeed, they approach each other in the spacetime region sufficiently small to turn on the strong gravitational interaction. On the other hand, for particles approaching each other at shortest distance larger than $`r_g`$ the gravitational force is not strong enough and particles just scatter. The reason for that is simple: the gravitational attraction between the particles should compensate the centrifugal repulsion in order to particles could come close to each other. The fight of two forces manifests in the radial potential barrier separating the particles. Low energy particles or particles falling towards each other at large impact parameter $`b`$ come close to the bottom of the barrier and thus get reflected not forming a black hole. This situation is however the most typical one: the wave length of particles normally available in experiments is much bigger than the corresponding gravitational radius. Such particles can not produce black hole in the classical theory. In this note we demonstrate that the process can still go quantum-mechanically via the mechanism of quantum tunneling through the barrier. Throughout, the standard four-dimensional gravity is understood, generalizations to higher dimensions being either straightforward or trivial.

To set the stage we need a simple model in which the analysis of the black hole production could be done. An appropriate model was suggested in  and consists in replacing the original picture of two colliding particles by an approximate one in which a test particle with energy $`\omega =\frac{𝙴_1𝙴_2}{𝙴_1+𝙴_2}`$ falls onto the gravitating center of mass $`M=𝙴_1+𝙴_2`$ from infinity at the impact parameter $`b`$. In the Newtonian mechanics the second picture is completely equivalent to the original. It is not the case in General Relativity. A good approximation however is expected, at least in the case when one of the particles is much heavier than another. The total gravitational field is modelled by the field of the gravitating center and is described by the Schwarzschild metric. It has horizon at $`r=r_g`$. We consider it to be a fictitious horizon until it gets crossed by the test particle. The test particle then inevitably falls to the center. This signals for the formation of the black hole (with the actual event horizon being formed) in the original picture. The study of black hole production in this model thus reduces to the analysis of the gravitational capture of the test particle by the gravitating center.

First, let us analyse the process classically. The classical radial motion of the test particle is determined by the geodesic equation (we put $`c=1`$)

$`({\displaystyle \frac{dr}{dt}})^2=(1{\displaystyle \frac{r_g}{r}})^2b^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{b^2}}V(r)\right),V(r)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{r_g}{r}}),`$ (1)
where we used the fact that for a ultra-relativistic particle, its energy $`\omega `$ and angle momentum $`L`$ (computed with respect to the gravitating center) are related as $`L/\omega =b`$. The potential $`V(r)`$ in (1) plays the role of the effective radial potential between the gravitating center and the test particle. Its form is a result of the interplay of two forces acting in the opposite directions: the gravitational attraction and the centrifugal repulsion. This potential vanishes at horizon, $`r=r_g`$, and at infinity, $`r\mathrm{}`$, and develops a maximum in between at $`r_m=\frac{3}{2}r_g`$. For a particle coming from infinity at the impact parameter $`b`$ the crucial relation is the relation between $`1/b^2`$ and the maximal value $`V(r_m)=\frac{4}{27r_g^2}`$ of the effective radial potential. Particle coming from infinity with the impact parameter $`b<b_{\mathrm{𝚌𝚛}}=3\sqrt{3}/2r_g`$ goes above the maximum of the potential and gets captured by the gravitating center. Having in mind the original picture of the colliding particles we say that there forms a black hole with size $`r_g`$. As a side remark note that in the Newtonian mechanics the radial potential monotonically grows to infinity when particles approach each other so that the gravitational capture is never possible. The latter thus is an important feature of General Relativity and is absent in the Newtonian case.

If the test particle falls below the maximal value of the potential, this happens for large impact parameter $`b>b_{\mathrm{𝚌𝚛}}`$ , the particle just scatters off the center and the gravitational capture does not happen. In the original picture, this would correspond to particles passing each other at far distance without actually forming a black hole. Thus, this model predicts that, classically, two colliding particles form a black hole if they pass each other at the shortest distance $`b<b_{\mathrm{𝚌𝚛}}=3\sqrt{3}/2r_g`$ (where $`r_g`$ is the gravitational radius for the system of these two particles). The particle with $`b>b_{\mathrm{𝚌𝚛}}`$ comes close to the bottom of the potential barrier and gets reflected. Thus, the classical cross-section for the black hole formation is given by

$`\sigma _{\mathrm{𝚌𝚕}}=\pi b_{\mathrm{𝚌𝚛}}^2={\displaystyle \frac{27}{4}}\pi r_g^2=27\pi G^2M^2.`$ (2)
This picture can be also analysed quantum mechanically. The relevant processes, the black hole scattering and absorption, were well studied in the past. With new interpretation according to our picture of the black hole production this study appears in a new light. Decomposing quantum fields in the spherical harmonics, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{lm}\frac{u_l(r,\omega )}{r}e^{i\omega t}Y_{lm}(\theta ,\varphi )`$, one arrives at the radial wave equation

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dr_{}^2}}+\omega ^2U_l(r)\right)u_l(r,\omega )=0,`$ (3)
which is a quantum mechanical analog of the classical equation (1). We denote $`\frac{d}{dr_{}}=(1\frac{r_g}{r})\frac{d}{dr}`$ and

$`U_l(r)=(1{\displaystyle \frac{r_g}{r}})\left({\displaystyle \frac{l(l+1)}{r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{r_g(1s^2)}{r^3}}\right),`$ (4)
where $`s`$ is spin of the test particle (below we put $`s=0`$), is the effective potential similar to the potential in eq.(1). The equation (3) describes the scattering by the potential (4). The relevant modes are defined to be in- and out-going at infinity $`r_{}\mathrm{}`$, $`u_l(r,\omega )A_{\mathrm{𝚘𝚞𝚝}}(\omega )e^{i\omega r_{}}+A_{\mathrm{𝚒𝚗}}(\omega )e^{i\omega r_{}}`$, and only out-going at horizon $`u_l(r,\omega )e^{i\omega r_{}}`$, $`r_{}\mathrm{}`$. Again, we say that the black hole production takes place in the original picture if the wave gets absorbed by the fictitious horizon surrounding the gravitating center of mass $`M`$. The probability of a wave to penetrate through the potential barrier is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{l,\omega }=1|\frac{A_{\mathrm{𝚘𝚞𝚝}}}{A_{\mathrm{𝚒𝚗}}}|^2.$$

Note, that it is probability for a spherical wave. Since the actual wave at infinity looks more like a plane wave the latter should be decomposed in the spherical modes

$`e^{i\omega z}={\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}K_l(\omega )Y_{l0}(\theta ,\varphi ),K_l(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{i^l}{2\omega }}[4\pi (2l+1)]^{1/2}.`$ (5)
The cross-section to capture the test particle is then defined as follows

$`\sigma _{\mathrm{𝚚𝚞𝚊𝚗𝚝}}={\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}|K_l|^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{l,\omega }.`$ (6)
It is also convenient to consider each partial wave characterized by angular momentum $`l`$ as falling on the gravitating center at impact parameter $`b`$,

$$b=(l+\frac{1}{2})\frac{1}{\omega }.$$

The potential (4) is quite similar to the potential $`V(r)`$ in the classical problem (1). Analyzing the scattering of a partial wave by this potential it is important to find relation between the energy $`\omega `$ of the in-falling particle and the height of the radial potential barrier. For small $`b`$ (large energy $`\omega `$ at fixed $`l`$), one finds that the height of the barrier is the same as in the classical case and corresponds to the same impact parameter $`b=b_{\mathrm{𝚌𝚛}}`$. This is what we could have expected: in the high energy limit the geometrical optics analysis based on equation (1) becomes a good approximation. In this limit the horizon absorbs partial waves which go above the potential barrier, i.e. with the impact parameter $`b\frac{3}{2}r_g`$, so that the cross-section (6) should approach the classical value (2).

We are however more interested in the opposite limit of small $`\omega `$. It can be also viewed as limit of small $`\omega r_g1`$ or, equivalently, of large impact parameter $`br_g`$. In this case the test particle falls very close to the bottom of the potential barrier and, classically, can not penetrate through the barrier. The quantum mechanical picture however is more intriguing. The quantum particle can tunnel through the barrier. Note that in the present case we do not expect exponentially small factors, usually accompanying the semiclassical analysis of the quantum tunneling, to appear. The semiclassical picture fails to describe the tunneling of small energy quantum particle. Rather, we have to rely on exact analysis. Indeed, it is well known from standard courses of Quantum Mechanics (see for example ) that the probability to tunnel through the barrier grows as some power of the energy when energy is close to zero. Specifically, for the problem at hand, the transmission probability $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{l,\omega }`$ grows as $`\omega ^{2l+2}`$ for small $`\omega `$ and thus dominates for s-wave. On the other hand, the contribution of s-wave in the in-falling plane wave diverges $`|K_l|^2\frac{1}{\omega ^2}`$, as is seen from (5). The two tendencies compensate each other in the cross-section (6) for the s-wave. As a result, in the regime of small $`\omega `$ the cross-section (6) approaches a finite number equal to the horizon area

$`\sigma _{\mathrm{𝚚𝚞𝚊𝚗𝚝}}\pi r_g^2=4\pi G^2M^2.`$ (7)
Since only the wave that approaches horizon radially is absorbed it is not surprising that the cross-section becomes equal to the horizon area. Thus, despite the fact that the process is forbidden classically it still can go via the mechanism of the quantum tunneling through the potential barrier, the cross section (7) being entirely due to the quantum tunneling effect.

The discussed mechanism should play an important role in the collision of a trans-Planckian particle with a lighter particle. In this case the total energy is trans-Planckian, $`𝙴_1+𝙴_2𝙴_{\mathrm{𝚙𝚕}}`$, while the size of the system given by the wave length of the lighter particle is much bigger than the effective gravitational radius of the system, i.e. we have that $`\omega r_g𝙴_1𝙴_2/𝙴_{\mathrm{𝚙𝚕}}^21`$. Classically, the black hole formation is forbidden in this case. The black hole can nevertheless be produced via the tunneling mechanism discussed above. Our consideration also sheds light on the nature of the trans-Planckian particles . Indeed, such a particle is characterized by a wave length $`\lambda 1/𝙴`$ which is much smaller than the corresponding gravitational radius $`r_g𝙴/𝙴_{\mathrm{𝚙𝚕}}^2`$. So it is an example of a system which lies within its gravitational radius. However, we can not call it black hole since the whole effect is purely kinematic: one can go to another, boosted, reference frame in which the massive particle is at rest and clearly not a black hole. Our consideration suggests that trans-Planckian particles are unstable against the black hole formation. Indeed, the collision with any low energy particle, it meets on its way, sets the frame invariant energy scale. The low-energy particle then gets absorbed via the tunneling mechanism just described and the black hole forms. Due to this process a trans-Planckian particle which happens to move in a medium filled with lower-energy particles makes transition to the essence of completely different nature. Atmosphere of Earth might be such a medium to initiate this transition for the ultra high-energy intruders.

This work is supported by the grant DFG-SPP 1096.


text:
# Bragg-Bose glass phase in vortex states of high-𝑇_c superconductors with sparse and weak columnar defects

Also at \]Lyman Lab. of Physics, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138

## Abstract

Phase diagram of vortex states of high-$`T_\mathrm{c}`$ superconductors with sparse and weak columnar defects is obtained by large-scale Monte Carlo simulations of the three-dimensional anisotropic, frustrated XY model. The Bragg-Bose glass phase characterized by hexagonal Bragg spots and the diverging tilt modulus is observed numerically for the first time at low density of columnar defects. As the density of defects increases, the melting temperature increases owing to “selected pinning” of flux lines. When the density of defects further increases, the transition to the Bose glass phase occurs. The interstitial liquid region is observed between these two glass phases and the vortex liquid phase.

In vortex states of high-$`T_\mathrm{c}`$ superconductors, columnar defects introduced by heavy-ion irradiation are strong pinning centers of flux lines, and dramatically enhance the critical current. Civale  Nelson and Vinokur Nelson  analyzed these defects and derived a phase transition between the Bose glass (BG) and vortex liquid (VL) phases. They also showed that this system can be mapped to two-dimensional interacting bosons in a random potential and that this phase transition corresponds to a localization transition of interacting bosons. In the case of dense and strong columnar defects, every flux line is trapped by randomly-distributed columnar defects at low temperatures, and the BG phase naturally appears. Many numerical studies Wengel ; Lidmar ; Vestergren  have been made in this case.

In the case of sparse and strong columnar defects, part of flux lines are not trapped by defects, and physical properties are more complicated. At low temperatures untrapped flux lines are also frozen owing to interactions with trapped flux lines, and the BG phase is stable. At intermediate temperatures the defects still trap some flux lines but other interstitial ones are freely moving around, and the resistivity becomes finite. This region is called as the interstitial liquid (IL). Radzihovsky  At high temperatures all flux lines are depinned and the VL phase appears. It is not clarified yet whether there exists a phase transition or merely a crossover between the IL and VL. A numerical simulation was attempted Sen  in this case, and the existence of the BG phase was confirmed. Two kinds of BG phases for dense or sparse columnar defects are divided by the Mott insulator phase at the matching field. Recently the transition between these two (strong and weak) BG phases was observed numerically. Nandgaonkar

In pure systems, the triangular flux-line lattice (FLL) is formed below the melting temperature $`T_\mathrm{m}`$. Is such order completely destroyed by introducing infinitesimal columnar defects? In vortex states with point defects, the long-range order of vortex positions is destroyed by infinitesimal defects, but the Bragg glass phase Nattermann ; Giamarchi1 ; Giamarchi2  characterized by the quasi long-range order of vortex positions and Bragg spots of the structure factor is stable up to a considerable density of point defects. In the present Letter, we numerically show that a similar phase with Bragg spots associated with hexagonal symmetry is also observed in the case of sparse and weak columnar defects. Since the tilt modulus shows a diverging behavior in this phase, it corresponds to the Bragg-Bose glass (BBG) phase. Giamarchi2  When the density of columnar defects increases, a phase transition to the BG phase takes place. We also find that the IL region exists above the BBG or BG phases. These results are summarized in Fig. 1.

In this study we perform large-scale Monte Carlo simulations based on the three-dimensional anisotropic, frustrated XY model on a simple cubic lattice Li ; Hu :

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,jab\mathrm{plane}}{}}J_{ij}\mathrm{cos}\left(\varphi _i\varphi _jA_{ij}\right)`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{J}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{m,nc\mathrm{axis}}{}}\mathrm{cos}\left(\varphi _m\varphi _n\right),`$
$`A_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}}{\displaystyle _i^j}𝐀^{(2)}d𝐫^{(2)},𝐁=\times 𝐀,`$ (2)
where the magnetic field is applied along the $`c`$ axis. The periodic boundary condition is applied in all directions. A columnar defect is defined as a set of four weak interactions $`J_{ij}=(1ϵ)J`$ surrounding a plaquette in the $`ab`$ plane. Such defects distribute randomly in the $`ab`$ plane with probability $`p`$, and take the same position along the $`c`$ axis. Other interactions in the $`ab`$ plane are given by $`J_{ij}=J`$. This modeling of columnar defects is a variant of our previous study on point defects. Nonomura1  Here we concentrate on the model with the anisotropy $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=5`$, the density of flux lines $`f=1/25`$, the strength of defects $`ϵ=0.1`$, and the system size $`L_a=L_b=50`$ and $`L_c=80`$. CPU time is $`16\times 10^7`$ Monte Carlo steps (MCS) for equilibration, and $`13\times 10^7`$ MCS for measurements. Since such long simulation time is required for taking equilibrium data, the present results are based on one typical configuration of columnar defects for each $`p`$.

First, we fix the density of columnar defects for $`p=0.01`$ ($`p/f=0.25`$) and vary the temperature. From now on, this density is expressed in terms of the number of defects per flux line $`p/f`$ with $`f=1/25`$ in order to clarify the physical situation. The specific heat $`C`$ shows a sharp peak around $`T0.37J/k_\mathrm{B}`$ (marked in Fig. 2(a)), and the maximum value of the structure factor drops at the same temperature (Fig. 2(b)). These facts indicate that the melting transition occurs at $`T_\mathrm{m}0.37J/k_\mathrm{B}`$. The structure factor shows sharp hexagonal Bragg spots below $`T_\mathrm{m}`$ as displayed in Fig. 2(c). Coexistence of two phases is observed between $`T=0.368J/k_\mathrm{B}`$ and $`0.374J/k_\mathrm{B}`$ owing to finite-size effects. These findings suggest that the transition at $`T_\mathrm{m}`$ is of first order. Similar results are obtained for $`p/f=0.075`$, $`0.125`$ and $`0.30`$.

Since the helicity modulus along the $`c`$ axis $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_c`$ takes a finite value when flux lines are frozen along the $`c`$ axis, the vanishing point of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_c`$ corresponds to the boundary between the IL and VL. As shown in Fig. 2(a), temperature dependence of this quantity changes around $`T_\mathrm{m}`$, and it vanishes at $`T_{\mathrm{IL}}0.392J/k_\mathrm{B}`$, which is close to the broad peak of $`C`$. Simulations for $`p/f=0.075`$, $`0.125`$, $`0.50`$ and $`1.00`$ show similar temperature dependence of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_c`$ except for monotonic increase of $`T_{\mathrm{IL}}`$ as $`p`$ increases. Size dependence of $`T_\mathrm{m}`$ and $`T_{\mathrm{IL}}`$ is checked for $`p/f=0.075`$ and $`0.25`$ using data with $`L_c=54`$, $`80`$ and $`160`$, and found to be smaller than that of $`T_\mathrm{m}`$ of the pure system. Nonomura2

As displayed in Fig. 2(b), the ratio of entangled flux lines to total flux lines $`N_{\mathrm{ent}}/N_{\mathrm{flux}}`$ rapidly increases from $`0.3`$ to $`0.5`$ around $`T_\mathrm{m}`$ as in the pure system. Nonomura2  Gradual increase of $`N_{\mathrm{ent}}/N_{\mathrm{flux}}`$ in the IL region indicates the process that untrapped flux lines are freed from trapped ones. $`N_{\mathrm{ent}}/N_{\mathrm{flux}}0.85`$ at $`T_{\mathrm{IL}}`$ is comparable to the value at the onset of the VL phase in the pure system. Nonomura2

Second, we vary the density of columnar defects for $`T=0.300J/k_\mathrm{B}`$. As shown in Fig. 3, the maximum value of the structure factor drops at the BBG-BG phase boundary. Although anomalies of thermodynamic quantities such as the internal energy are too weak to observe numerically in the present study, the change of the symmetry of Bragg spots is quite apparent as depicted explicitly in Fig. 3. The hexagonal symmetry of Bragg spots at $`p/f=0.35`$ (BBG phase) is lost at $`p/f=0.375`$ (BG phase) and a glassy ring-like pattern appears. Similar results are obtained for $`T=0.330J/k_\mathrm{B}`$ and $`0.360J/k_\mathrm{B}`$.

Third, in order to evaluate the BG transition temperature $`T_\mathrm{g}`$, the tilt modulus $`c_{44}`$ is measured. The inverse of this quantity is proportional to the zero-field susceptibility of the transverse magnetization $`m^{}`$ for the transverse field $`H^{}`$, namely $`c_{44}^1m^{}/H^{}|_{H^{}=0}`$. The Hamiltonian under the transverse field is given by $`=_0H^{}m^{}`$, where $`_0`$ stands for the Hamiltonian without the transverse field given in eq. (1), and the transverse magnetization $`m^{}`$ is defined from the sum of the difference of positions of flux lines along the direction of $`H^{}`$ at the top and bottom $`ab`$ planes. Explicitly, $`c_{44}`$ is given, aside from the coefficient, by Lidmar

$$c_{44}\frac{N_{\mathrm{flux}}k_\mathrm{B}T}{\left(m^{}\right)^2|_{H^{}=0}}.$$
(3)
Temperature dependence of $`c_{44}`$ for $`p/f=0.125`$ to $`0.30`$ (BBG-IL boundary) and for $`p/f=0.35`$ to $`1.00`$ (BG-IL boundary) is displayed in Figs. 4(a) and 4(b), respectively. In both cases, $`c_{44}`$ shows a large jump (note that these figures are drawn in semi-log scale) at $`T_\mathrm{g}`$. This jump is expected to be infinite in the thermodynamic limit. Since $`T_\mathrm{g}`$ coincides with $`T_\mathrm{m}`$ for $`p/f0.30`$ (see Figs. 1 and 4(a)), the diverging behavior of $`c_{44}`$ is observed in the whole region of the BBG phase.

Next, real-space images of flux lines are shown in Fig. 5. Positions of flux lines are averaged in all $`ab`$ planes and during $`10^6`$ MCS (measured for every $`500`$ MCS). Details of these rainbow-color figures are explained in the caption. At $`p/f=0.25`$ and $`T=0.360J/k_\mathrm{B}`$ (Fig. 5(a)), all flux lines are localized and seem to form a triangular lattice, which characterizes the BBG phase. At $`p/f=0.25`$ and $`T=0.380J/k_\mathrm{B}`$ (Fig. 5(b)), the overall order does not exist any more, though columnar defects still trap flux lines. These properties are consistent with those of the IL region. At $`p/f=0.40`$ and $`T=0.360J/k_\mathrm{B}`$ (Fig. 5(c)), although all flux lines are localized, the FLL structure seen in Fig. 5(a) is totally destroyed. Since most columnar defects are occupied by flux lines unless other occupied ones are nearby, many dislocations inevitably appear. These properties signal the BG phase.

Finally, interesting points of the phase diagram given in Fig. 1 are discussed. The most important feature is the existence of the BBG phase, which has not been observed experimentally or numerically until present. Giamarchi and Le Doussal Giamarchi3  argued that nature of the glass order of the three-dimensional vortex states with columnar defects is equivalent to that of the two-dimensional vortex states with point defects, and pointed out Giamarchi2  the possibility of the BBG phase. Stability of the quasi long-range order against topological dislocations was discussed by D. S. Fisher, Fisher  and he showed that this order is destroyed in $`d=2`$ but stable in $`d=3`$. Our finding is consistent with these analytic studies.

The melting temperature $`T_\mathrm{m}`$ of the BBG phase increases as the density of columnar defects $`p`$ increases up to $`p/f=0.30`$. This behavior may look strange at a glance because the FLL order is enhanced by introducing randomness. The key to understand this exotic behavior is the real-space image of flux lines in the BBG phase given in Fig. 5(a). There exists some unoccupied columnar defects (yellow dots) even though no occupied defects are nearby. This fact suggests that the elastic repulsion between flux lines is dominant in the BBG phase and makes the columnar defects far from stable positions of FLL remain unoccupied. Owing to this “selected pinning” mechanism, increase of $`p`$ does not seriously affect energy cost for FLL distortion, but bring energy gain from pinning of flux lines by the columnar defects close to stable positions of FLL. In this case, $`T_\mathrm{m}`$ increases as $`p`$ increases. As temperature increases, the BBG melts into the IL and the number of occupied flux lines increases as shown in Fig. 5(b). This behavior can also be explained naturally by the above mechanism.

When $`p`$ further increases, energy gain from pinning of flux lines by many columnar defects exceeds that from FLL formation, and the transition to the BG phase takes place. The position of the BBG-BG phase boundary thus depends on the strength of columnar defects $`ϵ`$. When $`ϵ`$ increases, this phase boundary shifts toward smaller $`p`$. Actually, simulations for $`ϵ=0.5`$ at $`p/f=0.25`$ results in the BG phase at low temperatures, where the BBG phase exists for $`ϵ=0.1`$ (Fig. 1). There might be a critical value $`ϵ_\mathrm{c}`$ above which no BBG phase exists for any $`p`$.

The boundary between the BBG or BG and IL phases (on which $`c_{44}`$ jumps) is not monotonic in the vicinity of the BBG-BG phase boundary. This result shows a sharp contrast to the cage-model analysis, Goldschmidt  where the “melting temperature” monotonically increases as the strength of columnar defects increases. In the cage model, the system is reduced to a single flux line in a mean-field potential, and the BBG and BG phases cannot be distinguished any more. We consider that the monotonic melting line obtained from the cage model corresponds to the BG-IL phase boundary above $`p/f=0.40`$. When this smooth curve is extrapolated to $`p=0`$, it seems to meet the melting temperature of the pure system, $`T_\mathrm{m}^{\mathrm{pure}}`$. The excess superconducting region below $`p/f=0.40`$ is due to a nontrivial interplay between columnar defects and FLL structure, which is the origin of the BBG phase.

In the melting transition of FLL in pure systems, sudden entanglement of flux lines and increase of dislocations in the $`ab`$ plane occur simultaneously, and dominance of these two contributions has been discussed. Random columnar defects along the $`c`$ axis suppress entanglement of flux lines while enhance dislocations in the $`ab`$ plane. The relation $`T_\mathrm{m}>T_\mathrm{m}^{\mathrm{pure}}`$ might suggest that proliferation of entanglement of flux lines rather than that of dislocations in the $`ab`$ plane is the main driving force of the melting transition.

Three-dimensional vortex systems with columnar defects can be mapped to the two-dimensional interacting bosons in a random potential in the ground state. Nelson  Then, the present result indicates that the quasi long-range order of interacting bosons in two dimensions is stable in the presence of sparse and weak randomness.

In conclusion, the phase diagram of vortex states of high-$`T_\mathrm{c}`$ superconductors with sparse and weak columnar defects is obtained by large-scale Monte Carlo simulations as shown in Fig. 1. The Bragg-Bose glass phase characterized by Bragg spots with hexagonal symmetry and the diverging tilt modulus is observed for the first time. The melting temperature to the interstitial liquid region increases as the density of columnar defects increases owing to a “selected pinning” mechanism. When the density of defects further increases, a transition to the Bose glass phase takes place. The interstitial liquid region lies between the Bragg-Bose glass or Bose glass phases and the vortex liquid phase.

The authors thank D. R. Nelson, L. Radzihovsky, B. Halperin, E. Zeldov, U. C. Täuber, L. Balents, R. Ikeda and A. Tanaka for helpful comments. Numerical calculations were performed on Numerical Materials Simulator (NEC SX-5) at Computational Materials Science Center, National Institute for Materials Science, Japan. This study is partially supported by the Priority Grant No. 14038240 from Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan. One of the authors (Y. N.) was supported by the Atomic Energy Research Fund from the same Ministry.