text:
# Temperature correction to the Casimir force in cryogenic range and anomalous skin effect

## I Introduction

Attraction between parallel metallic plates predicted by Casimir in 1948  (see  for a recent review) has been measured in recent experiments  with high precision. To calculate the force with the same precision, one has to take into account different corrections to the original Casimir force . The corrections due to finite conductivity of the plates and roughness of their surfaces can be large but there is no principal problems with them and the discussion is going around the material properties . However, the correction connected with the finite temperature raised debate in the literature . The agreement between different authors has not been reached yet.

In the early period the temperature correction was found for ideal metal. It has been discovered that the correction following from the Lifshitz theory  of electromagnetic fluctuations in nonhomogeneous media did not agree with that found with different methods . The problem originates from the $`n=0`$ term in the Lifshitz formula giving the classical contribution in the Casimir force from long wavelength fluctuations. Special prescription for this term was proposed by Schwinger, DeRaad, and Milton  to reconcile different approaches. Namely, one has to take the limit of infinite permittivity before allowing the frequency go to zero.

The problem arose again when researches tried to find this correction for real metals. It has been realized that the plasma and the Drude models for the metal dielectric function gave different corrections, which did not coincide when the Drude relaxation frequency $`\omega _\tau `$ is going to zero. Direct application of the Lifshitz formula with the Drude dielectric function gives large linear in temperature correction , which contradicts to the torsion pendulum experiment . Negligible for the experiments correction was found using the plasma model . However, the Drude model works much better for real metals and there is no a satisfactory reason to justify the use of the plasma model.

It became obvious that something wrong with the $`n=0`$ term in the Lifshitz formula and while a solid theoretical reason for modification of this term is not found one has to use a reasonable prescription to define the $`n=0`$ term. It was proposed  to apply for real metals the same prescription as for ideal metal . It was motivated by the fact that in the static limit the boundary conditions on the metal surface did not depend on any material property. Later it has been shown  that the classical term can be constructed from very general principles using the dimensional analysis, low frequency limit for the permittivity, and the known result for ideal metal. The same conclusion was made in a recent paper , where the authors stressed difference between boundary conditions on dielectrics and metals in the zero frequency limit. In this case the linear in temperature correction survives but it is suppressed by small additional factor. The correction is unobservable  in the conditions of torsion pendulum experiment  but 3 times larger  than the experimental errors in the atomic force microscope (AFM) experiment . Note that it makes agreement between theory and experiment better.

Quite different prescription was proposed for real metals by Klimchitskaya and Mostepanenko . The driving idea was to modify the reflection coefficients in the $`n=0`$ term in such a way to make them coincide with that of plasma model in the limit $`\omega _\tau 0`$. The reason for that was based on the property of the reflection coefficient for perpendicular polarization $`r_1(\zeta ,q)`$ considered as a function of two variables: continuous imaginary frequency $`\zeta `$ and the absolute value of the momentum along the plate $`q`$. It has integrated discontinuity in the point $`\zeta =0,q=0`$ which authors  consider as unacceptable. The resulting temperature dependence does not include the linear in temperature term and negligible in conditions of the torsion pendulum and AFM experiments.

Thus, at the moment there are three different approaches to the problem of temperature dependence of the Casimir force. Recently an interesting proposition  to check the Nernst heat theorem for different prescriptions discussed in the literature was made. According to the third law of thermodynamics the entropy $`S`$ of the closed system in equilibrium must go to zero in the limit $`T0`$. Based on the analytical result for the plasma model and numerical calculations for the Drude model a conclusion was made that the prescription of Schwinger, Deraad, and Milton cannot be applied to real metals because the entropy still finite in the $`T0`$ limit. On the contrary, it was concluded that for the prescription proposed by Klimchitskaya and Mostepanenko $`S0`$ when $`T0`$.

In this paper we intended to demonstrate that the real situation in the low temperature limit is different. The reason for this is that with the temperature decrease the mean free path for electrons $`l`$ increases and at some temperature it inevitably becomes larger than the field penetration depth $`\delta `$. It is the range of anomalous skin effect when the space dispersion becomes important. Taking this effect into account modifies the temperature correction, which does not coincide with that found in Ref.. Independent interest to the correction at low temperatures is stimulated by the progress in experiments which are going to cryogenic temperatures to improve the precision .

The paper is organized as follows. In Section II we give definition of the Casimir free energy and explain the problem with the $`n=0`$ term. This term is written out for all prescriptions discussed in the literature. In Section III it is demonstrated that neither plasma nor Drude models can be used for real metals at low temperatures. The way to calculate the temperature correction using the impedance of anomalous skin effect is described. In Section IV the actual calculations are presented. The results are applied to analyse the entropy behavior at $`T0`$ and to find the value of temperature correction in cryogenic range in Section V. Our conclusions are collected in the last section.

## II Casimir free energy

We start from the Lifshitz expression for the force per unit area between two parallel plates separated by the distance $`a`$ at temperature $`T`$ . Simple transformation of this formula allows to write the free energy in the form

$$(a,T)=\frac{kT}{8\pi a^2}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}^{}\underset{\xi _n}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑yy\left[\mathrm{ln}(1r_1^2(\xi _n,y)e^y)+r_1r_2\right],$$
(1)
where the prime over the summation sign indicates that the first $`n=0`$ term has to be taken with the factor $`1/2`$ and

$$\xi _n=n\tau ,\tau =\frac{2\pi T}{T_{eff}},kT_{eff}=\frac{\mathrm{}c}{2a}\mathrm{}\omega _a.$$
(2)
Here $`\xi _n`$ are the dimensionless Matsubara frequencies $`\xi _n=\zeta _n/\omega _a`$, where $`\zeta _n=2\pi kTn/\mathrm{}`$. In Eq.(1) $`r_{1,2}^2(\zeta _n,q)`$ are the reflection coefficients for orthogonal ($`r_1`$) or parallel ($`r_2`$) polarizations. These coefficients depend on the material via the dielectric function $`\epsilon \left(i\zeta _n\right)`$ at imaginary frequencies. In the Drude model $`\epsilon \left(i\zeta _n\right)`$ has the form

$$\epsilon \left(i\zeta \right)=1+\frac{\omega _p^2}{\zeta \left(\zeta +\omega _\tau \right)}$$
(3)
and is defined by two parameters which are the plasma frequency $`\omega _p`$ and the relaxation frequency $`\omega _\tau `$. This model nicely fits good metals in the whole frequency range excluding the interband absorption region $`\omega \omega _p`$, which does not give considerable contribution especially at low temperatures.

Consider first the problematic $`n=0`$ term. Expression (1) was found by solving the equation for the Green function in nonhomogeneous media at finite temperature . The explicit form of the reflection coefficients $`r_{1,2}^2`$ depends on the boundary conditions for the Green function at the metal-vacuum interface. Note that these conditions one can put separately for any Matsubara components. Typically the continuity of tangential components of electric and magnetic fields at the interface is demanded. The Drude model gives for the amplitudes $`r_{1,2}`$

$$r_1(\xi ,y)=\frac{\sqrt{R^2+y^2}y}{\sqrt{R^2+y^2}+y},r_2(\xi ,y)=\frac{\sqrt{R^2+y^2}\left(1+R^2/\xi ^2\right)y}{\sqrt{R^2+y^2}+\left(1+R^2/\xi ^2\right)y},$$
(4)
where the function $`R(\xi )`$ is defined as

$$R\left(\xi \right)=\frac{\omega _p}{\omega _a}\sqrt{\frac{\xi }{\xi +\omega _\tau /\omega _a}}.$$
(5)
In the $`n=0`$ term we have to put $`\xi _0=0`$ and the reflection coefficients are

$$r_1^2(0,y)=0,r_2^2(0,y)=1.$$
(6)
while for ideal metal both of these coefficients are equal to unit $`r_1^2=r_2^2=1`$. There is no way to reconcile the value of $`r_1`$ with that of ideal metal since it does not depend on any parameters. This is why one needs to introduce a prescription for the $`n=0`$ term. The coefficients (6) were used to calculate the temperature correction to the Casimir force in Ref..

It was proposed  to use the extension of the Schwinger, DeRaad, and Milton prescription to real metals. Since in the static field limit the boundary condition on the metal surface does not depend on the characteristics of a particular metal, the reflection coefficients were changed with that of ideal metal

$$r_1^2(0,y)1,r_2^2(0,y)=1.$$
(7)
Different prescription was introduced by Klimchitskaya and Mostepanenko  who proposed to modify $`r_1^2`$ in such a way that in the limit $`\omega _\tau 0`$ it coincided with the plasma model result

$$r_1^2(0,y)r_1^2(y,y)=\left(\frac{\sqrt{R^2\left(y\right)+y^2}y}{\sqrt{R^2\left(y\right)+y^2}+y}\right)^2,r_2^2(0,q)=1.$$
(8)
The motivation of (7) and (8) was briefly described above and we are not going to the details referring to the original papers .

Let us denote the $`n=0`$ term in (1) as $`_0(a,T)`$. Calculating the corresponding integral with the reflection coefficients (6-8) one gets

$$_0(a,T)=\alpha \frac{kT}{8\pi a^2}\zeta \left(3\right),$$
(9)
where $`\zeta \left(x\right)`$ is the zeta function. The coefficient $`\alpha `$ has the following values for the prescriptions (6), (7), and (8), respectively:

$$\alpha ^{\left(i\right)}=\frac{1}{2},\alpha ^{\left(ii\right)}=1,$$

$$\alpha ^{\left(iii\right)}=14\frac{\omega _a}{\omega _p}\frac{\omega _\tau }{\omega _p}\frac{2}{\zeta \left(3\right)}I_2\left(\frac{\omega _\tau }{\omega _a}\right)+O\left(\frac{\omega _a^2}{\omega _p^2}\right).$$
(10)
The function $`I_2\left(x\right)`$ varies slowly with $`x`$ and is given by Eq.(68) .

## III Anomalous skin effect

Let us consider now the $`n1`$ terms in (1) when the temperature is going down. The plasma frequency $`\omega _p`$ is defined by the electron density in metal and practically does not depend on temperature. On the contrary, the relaxation frequency $`\omega _\tau `$ changes with $`T`$ significantly. If $`T<T_D`$, where $`T_D`$ is the Debye temperature for a given metal, then the dependence $`\omega _\tau \left(T\right)`$ can be presented as (see, for example, )

$$\omega _\tau \left(T\right)=\omega _\tau \left(0\right)+C_eT^2+C_{ph}T^5$$
(11)
with the parameters $`\omega _\tau (0),C_e,`$ and $`C_{ph}`$. Here the first term is connected with the scattering on lattice irregularities and impurities, the second one describes scattering on electrons, and the third term corresponds to the scattering on phonons. The first and second terms can dominate only at very low temperatures. The first term needs special discussion. The relaxation frequency is proportional to the material resistivity which disappears at $`T0`$ for perfect monocrystals. If we are going to check the third law of thermodynamics for our system, we have to take this equilibrium state and choose $`\omega _\tau (0)=0`$. To describe the temperature behavior of real material used in the experiment, it can be wrong. For evaporated metallic films the residual resistivity can be significant due to large density of defects but it is much smaller than the resistivity at room temperature.

One can easily see the result of Ref. without any calculations. At low temperature $`\omega _\tau /\omega _a`$ in (5) is going to zero faster than $`\xi _nT`$. Therefore, for all $`n0`$ terms one can use the plasma model. The reflection coefficients in the $`n=0`$ term (8) were prescribed to reproduce the plasma model at $`\omega _\tau 0`$. Therefore, the plasma model completely describes the situation at low temperatures. It is well known  that the leading temperature correction in this model behaves as $`T^3`$ and the entropy will go to zero as $`ST^2`$. Any other prescription will not agree with the Nernst theorem since the $`n=0`$ term does not coincide with that for the plasma model. For (6) the entropy becomes negative and for (7) it is positive but both of them are finite at $`T=0`$. No doubt that at low temperature and for equilibrium state the relaxation frequency becomes negligible. However, it is wrong to think that the reflection coefficients (4) for $`n0`$ will be the same at low temperatures. This is because the mean free path for electrons increases with the temperature decrease according to the relation $`l=v_F/\omega _\tau (T)`$, where $`v_F`$ is the Fermi velocity. At some small temperature inevitably the relation $`l\delta `$ will be fulfilled, where $`\delta =c/\omega _p`$ is the field penetration depth***Strictly speaking $`\delta `$ depends on frequency. We assumed that $`\omega =\zeta _n\omega _\tau \left(T\right)`$ ($`n0`$). If it is not the case, we have to take $`\delta =(c/\omega _p)\sqrt{2\omega _\tau /\omega }`$ but the qualitative conclusion will not change.. Then the condition $`l\delta `$ is equivalent to the following

$$\omega _\tau \left(T\right)\frac{v_F}{c}\omega _p\mathrm{\Omega }.$$
(12)
The frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }=(v_F/c)\omega _p`$ is often used as a characteristic frequency of anomalous skin effect.

Thus, the local connection between the current and electric field, which is true for $`l<\delta `$, is broken at low temperature and space dispersion becomes important. This is the range of anomalous skin effect , when the dielectric function $`\epsilon (\omega )`$ cannot be used any more for description of the metal. Instead the interaction with the field is defined by the surface impedance $`Z(\omega )`$ . The relation $`Z(\omega )\epsilon ^{1/2}(\omega )`$, which holds for the normal skin effect, is broken.

When the metal is described by the impedance the boundary condition on its surface will be

$$𝐄_t=Z\left(\omega \right)\left(𝐇_t\times 𝐧\right),$$
(13)
where $`𝐄_t,𝐇_t`$ are the tangential components of electric and magnetic fields, $`𝐧`$ is the unit vector normal to the surface and directed inside of the metal. It holds true while the impedance is small. If this boundary condition is used for the Matsubara components ($`n1`$) of the Green function, then the reflection coefficients can be written as follows

$$r_1=\frac{\xi _nyZ\left(i\zeta _n\right)}{\xi _n+yZ\left(i\zeta _n\right)},r_2=\frac{y\xi _nZ\left(i\zeta _n\right)}{y+\xi _nZ\left(i\zeta _n\right)}.$$
(14)
Impedance in the range of anomalous skin effect one can find solving the kinetic equation for not in equilibrium distribution function of electrons in the electromagnetic wave  or using simple qualitative analysis .

In the frequency range $`\omega <\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (strong anomalous skin effect) the impedance is

$$Z\left(\omega \right)=e^{i\pi /3}\left(\frac{v}{c}\frac{\omega ^2}{\omega _p^2}\right)^{1/3}.$$
(15)
Here $`v=\beta v_F`$, where $`\beta `$ is a factor $`1`$, which is defined by the structure of the Fermi surface. Note that the relaxation frequency falls out from the impedance at all. This is because the field interacts mainly with electrons, which are moving in the surface layer of thickness $`\delta `$. For this reason significant is the effective conductivity $`\sigma _{eff}=\sigma \delta /l`$, which does not depend on $`\omega _\tau `$. Actually we are interesting in the impedance at imaginary frequencies. For the strong anomalous skin effect it will be

$$Z\left(i\zeta _n\right)=\left(\frac{v}{c}\frac{\omega _a^2}{\omega _p^2}\xi _n^2\right)^{1/3}.$$
(16)
This expression is true for $`\xi _n<\mathrm{\Omega }/\omega _a`$ while the range of important $`n`$ in the sum (1) is given by the condition $`\xi _n1`$. For small $`\mathrm{\Omega }/\omega _a`$ the relation (16) cannot be used for all important $`n`$. However, as we will see below the temperature dependent part of free energy always can be described by (16).

The anomalous skin effect will change not only the temperature correction but the main temperature independent part of the Casimir force or free energy. To find this change one has to know the impedance in the whole range of $`\xi _n`$. It is very important for comparison with the experimental data in cryogenic range but out of the scope of this paper and will be discussed elsewhere.

## IV Calculation of the free energy

Now we are ready to find the sum of all $`n1`$ terms in (1). This sum can be transformed using the Abel-Plana formula . To avoid inconvenient integrals we first change the summation index to $`m=n1`$. In this way the problematic coefficient $`r_1(0,y)`$ will not appear in the formula as it usually happens . The resulting expression is longer than usual but simpler for calculations. Separating the temperature independent part one finds

$$(a,T)_0(a,T)=(a,0)+\frac{kT}{8\pi a^2}\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(I_1^{(1)}+I_1^{(2)}\right)\left(I_2^{(1)}+I_2^{(2)}\right)+\left(I_3^{(1)}+I_3^{(2)}\right)\right].$$
(17)
Here the temperature independent term $`(a,0)`$ is

$$(a,0)=\frac{\mathrm{}c}{16\pi a^3}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑\xi \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑y\left[\left(\xi +y\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(1r_1^2(\xi ,y+\xi )e^{y\xi }\right)+r_1r_2\right]$$
(18)
and the integrals $`I_k^{(j)}(j=1,2;k=1,2,3)`$ are defined as

$$I_1^{(j)}=\underset{\tau }{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑yy\mathrm{ln}\left[1r_j^2(\tau ,y)e^y\right],$$

$$I_2^{(j)}=\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}𝑑t\underset{\tau t}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑yy\mathrm{ln}\left[1r_j^2(\tau t,y)e^y\right],$$

$$I_3^{(j)}=2Im\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{dt}{e^{2\pi t}1}\underset{\tau }{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑y\left(y+i\tau t\right)\mathrm{ln}\left[1r_j^2(\tau +i\tau t,y+i\tau t)e^{yi\tau t}\right].$$
(19)
In the temperature independent term (18) the important range of continuous variable $`\xi `$ is $`\xi 1`$ and, as was mentioned above, the impedance (16) cannot be used to cover all the range of $`\xi `$. But this term is not interesting for us. In the temperature dependent terms $`\xi =\tau t\tau `$ as one can see from (19). We can use (16) in the integrals (19) if $`\tau <\mathrm{\Omega }/\omega _a`$ or equivalently $`2\pi kT<\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$. This relation together with $`T<T_D`$ will be supposed to be true.

In all the integrals (19) the lower limit in $`y`$ can be changed into zero. Really, the error connected with such a replacement will be of the order of $`\tau ^2\mathrm{ln}\tau `$. It will be considered as small for analytical calculations but will be taken into account in the numerical procedure. Then the integrals $`I_k^{(1)}`$ depending on the reflection coefficient $`r_1^2`$ (14) will be defined only by the parameter

$$A=\left(\frac{c}{v}\frac{\omega _p^2}{\omega _a^2}\tau \right)^{1/3}.$$
(20)
Even for small $`\tau `$ the typical value of this parameter is large $`A1`$. Only for very low temperature $`kT(\omega _a/\omega _p)^3\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }/2\pi `$ it becomes small ($`A1`$). It is in contrast with the parameter $`B`$ which defines the integrals $`I_k^{(2)}`$

$$B=\left(\frac{v}{c}\frac{\omega _a^2}{\omega _p^2}\tau ^5\right)^{1/3}.$$
(21)
This parameter is always small in the range of interest $`\tau 1`$.

### A Free energy in the limit $`A1`$

Let us analyse now the analytical dependence of the integrals (19) from the parameters $`A,B`$ at very low temperatures when $`A1`$. We start from $`I_1^{(1)}`$. Neglecting the correction $`\tau ^2\mathrm{ln}\tau `$ this integral can be written

$$I_1^{(1)}=\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑yy\mathrm{ln}\left(1e^y\right)+\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑yy\mathrm{ln}\left[1+\frac{4Ay}{\left(y+A\right)^2}\left(e^y1\right)^1\right].$$
(22)
The first integral here is equal $`\zeta \left(3\right)`$. It describes contribution of the ideal metal. For the second integral one can find the leading terms in the limit $`A0`$. The important contribution gives the range $`y\stackrel{<}{}1`$ but the main one is collected near $`y\sqrt{A}`$. Then $`I_1^{(1)}`$ can be presented as

$$I_1^{(1)}\zeta \left(3\right)+\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}𝑑yy\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\frac{4A_1}{y^2}\right).$$

The result is the following

$$I_1^{(1)}=\zeta \left(3\right)2A\left(\mathrm{ln}A+2\mathrm{ln}21\right)+O\left(A^2\right).$$
(23)
The integral $`I_2^{(1)}`$ can be estimated in the same way but one has to change $`AAt^{1/3}`$ and then integrate it over $`t`$. It gives

$$I_2^{(1)}=\zeta \left(3\right)\frac{3}{2}A\left(\mathrm{ln}A+2\mathrm{ln}2\frac{5}{4}\right)+O\left(A^2\right).$$
(24)
The same procedure can be applied for $`I_3^{(1)}`$ but realization is more complicated. Contribution of the ideal metal (zero impedance) is negligible in our approximation since the leading term is known  to be $`\tau ^2`$. Correction due to nonzero impedance depends on $`A`$. In the same approximation as for (23) and (24) one has

$$I_3^{(1)}=2Im\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{dt}{e^{2\pi t}1}\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}𝑑y\left(y+i\tau t\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\frac{4A\left(1+it\right)^{1/3}}{y^2}\right).$$

The inner integral is calculated analytically. The contribution from the term proportional to $`i\tau t`$ will be of the order of $`\tau \sqrt{A}`$ which is small in comparison with the leading terms. All the rest can be written as

$$I_3^{(1)}=4A(q_1\mathrm{ln}A+q_2)+O\left(\tau \sqrt{A}\right).$$
(25)
The constants $`q_{1,2}`$ here are

$$q_1=\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{dt\left(1+t^2\right)^{1/6}\mathrm{sin}\vartheta }{e^{2\pi t}1},q_2=\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{dt\left(1+t^2\right)^{1/6}}{e^{2\pi t}1}\left[\mathrm{sin}\vartheta \left(\mathrm{ln}4\left(1+t^2\right)^{1/6}1\right)+\vartheta \mathrm{cos}\vartheta \right],$$
(26)
where $`\mathrm{tan}3\vartheta =t`$. Numerically these constants are $`q_1=0.0137`$, $`q_2=0.0191`$.

The integrals $`I_k^{(2)}`$ can be calculated quite similar. Since $`B`$ is always much smaller than $`A`$ one can completely neglect the terms containing $`B`$ and for $`I_k^{(2)}`$ one has

$$I_1^{(2)}=\zeta \left(3\right),I_2^{(2)}=\zeta \left(3\right),I_3^{(2)}=0.$$
(27)
Substituting (23-25, 27) into (17) and taking into account explicit expression (9) for $`_0(a,T)`$ one finds the temperature correction to the free energy in the limit $`A0`$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(a,T)=(a,T)(a,0)=\frac{kT}{8\pi a^2}\left[\left(1\alpha \right)\zeta \left(3\right)+A\left(\left(\frac{1}{2}+4q_1\right)\mathrm{ln}A+\mathrm{ln}2\frac{7}{8}+4q_2\right)\right].$$
(28)
This expression is true for very low temperature (see Eq.(20)) and is appropriate only to check the Nerst theorem. It will be discussed in the next section. For realistic low temperatures, which will be explored in the near future experiments, the typical value of $`A`$ is large even for small $`\tau `$ and we have to analyse the opposite limit $`A1`$.

### B Free energy in the limit $`A1`$

To calculate the integrals $`I_k^{(1)}`$ in the temperature range when the parameter $`A`$ is large but the temperature still small ($`\tau 1`$), it will be convenient again to separate the contribution of ideal metal and neglect the correction $`\tau ^2\mathrm{ln}\tau `$ due to change of the low limit in integrals into zero. Then for $`I_1^{(1)}`$ one has the same representation (22) and similar for the other integrals. Because $`A`$ is large one can expand the logarithm in series and collect the coefficient at different powers of $`1/A`$. For $`I_1^{(1)}`$ this procedure can be done straightforward and we find for the first two terms

$$I_1^{(1)}=\zeta \left(3\right)+8\zeta \left(3\right)\left(\frac{1}{A}\frac{6}{A^2}\right).$$
(29)
In case of $`I_2^{(1)}`$ the role of $`A`$ plays $`At^{1/3}`$. In this integral after logarithm expansion one has to make first the integration over $`t`$ not to run onto divergencies. The result is the following

$$I_2^{(1)}=\zeta \left(3\right)+12\zeta \left(3\right)\left(\frac{1}{A}\frac{12}{A^2}\right).$$
(30)
In the third integral instead of $`A`$ appears $`A(1+it)^{1/3}`$. In our approximation one can completely neglect $`i\tau t`$ in comparison with $`A`$ or with $`y`$. Making the same procedures one gets

$$I_3^{(1)}=16\zeta \left(3\right)\left(\frac{p_1}{A}\frac{6p_2}{A^2}\right),$$
(31)
where the coefficients are defined as

$$p_1=\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑t\frac{\mathrm{sin}\vartheta }{\left(e^{2\pi t}1\right)\left(1+t^2\right)^{1/6}},p_2=\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑t\frac{\mathrm{sin}2\vartheta }{\left(e^{2\pi t}1\right)\left(1+t^2\right)^{1/3}}.$$
(32)
Here the angle $`\vartheta `$ is defined as in (26). Numerically the coefficients are $`p_1=0.0133,p_2=0.0262`$.

The integrals $`I_k^{(2)}`$giving the contribution of parallel ($`r_2`$) polarization depends on the parameter $`B`$ which is small while $`\tau 1`$. Therefore, they give the same result (27) as in the case of small $`A`$. Collecting all together one finds the temperature correction to the free energy in the limit $`A1`$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(a,T)=\frac{kT}{8\pi a^2}\zeta \left(3\right)\left[\left(1\alpha \right)8\left(\frac{12p_1}{A}\frac{1512p_2}{A^2}\right)\right].$$
(33)
The temperature correction to the Casimir force can be easily found via $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Correction to the force between sphere and plate $`\mathrm{\Delta }F_{sp}`$ is directly proportional to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ if we adopt the proximity force theorem

$$\mathrm{\Delta }F_{sp}(a,T)=2\pi R\mathrm{\Delta }(a,T),$$
(34)
where $`R`$ is the sphere radius. The temperature correction for the force between two plates $`\mathrm{\Delta }F_{pp}`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }F_{pp}(a,T)=\frac{}{a}\mathrm{\Delta }(a,T)=\frac{kT}{4\pi a^3}\zeta \left(3\right)\left[\left(1\alpha \right)8\left(\frac{3}{2}\frac{12p_1}{A}2\frac{1512p_2}{A^2}\right)\right]$$
(35)
Thus, we found the asymptotics for $`\mathrm{\Delta }(a,T)`$ in the limits $`A0`$ (28) and $`A\mathrm{}`$ (33). Now let us calculate numerically this function in the transition region.

### C Numerical calculation of the free energy

For numerical calculation we parametrize the temperature correction to the free energy in the following way

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(a,T)=\frac{kT}{8\pi a^2}\left[\left(1\alpha \right)\zeta \left(3\right)G(A,\tau )\right].$$
(36)
The absolute scale of the correction is given by the factor $`kT/8\pi a^2`$ then $`G(A,\tau )`$ can be treated as the relative temperature correction if $`\alpha =1`$. The function $`G(A,\tau )`$ is calculated numerically as a function of $`A`$ for a few given values of $`\tau `$. There is no need to separate $`B`$ as an independent parameter since it is connected with the other two as $`B=\tau ^2/A`$. Alternatively at fixed material parameters $`\omega _p`$ and $`v`$ it can be found as a function of $`T`$ at a fixed $`a`$. Actual calculation has been done using the relation

$$G(A,\tau )=\frac{1}{2}\left(I_1^{(1)}+I_1^{(2)}2\zeta \left(3\right)\right)+\left(I_2^{(1)}+I_2^{(2)}2\zeta \left(3\right)\right)\left(I_3^{(1)}+I_3^{(2)}\right).$$

The integrals were calculated according to (19) with the absolute precision of $`10^6`$. Fig.1 shows the function $`G(A,0)`$ and its asymptotics at $`A0`$ and $`A\mathrm{}`$, which can be extracted from (28) and (33). One can see that there is good agreement of numerical calculation and analytical asymptotics. If we consider nonzero but small $`\tau `$, the result will change only slightly due to correction $`\tau ^2\mathrm{ln}\tau `$. For $`\omega _p=1.3710^{16}rad/s`$ and $`v=1.510^8cm/s`$ (gold) $`G(a,T)`$ as a function of $`T`$ is shown in Fig.2 at a few values of $`a`$. This figure shows that the temperature correction is always significant in the interesting range of temperatures and distances between plates.

## V Discussion of the results

### A Entropy in the limit $`T0`$

We already saw that the anomalous skin effect changes behavior of the free energy at low temperatures. Now we are able to answer the question which of the prescriptions (6), (7) or (8) agrees with the third law of thermodynamics. In the low temperature limit entropy can be calculated from (28)

$$S=\frac{}{T}=\frac{k}{8\pi a^2}\left[\left(\alpha 1\right)\zeta \left(3\right)\frac{4}{3}A\left(\left(\frac{1}{2}+4q_1\right)\mathrm{ln}A+\mathrm{ln}2\frac{3}{4}+4q_2+q_1\right)\right].$$
(37)
Parameter $`\alpha `$ corresponding to different prescriptions used for the $`n=0`$ term in the Lifshitz formula is given by Eq.(10). If this term is calculated as it appears in the Lifshitz formula  without any modification, then $`\alpha =\alpha ^{\left(i\right)}=1/2`$. In this case the entropy is finite at $`T=0`$ ($`A=0`$) and, moreover, it is negative. This conclusion coincides with that made in Ref., where at low temperatures the authors described the plate material with the plasma model. It can be considered as an additional physical argument that unmodified Lifshitz formula cannot be used to get temperature behavior of the Casimir force. The previous argument  was that in this approach the $`n=0`$ term in (1) does not depend on any material parameter (see (9) with $`\alpha =\alpha ^{\left(i\right)}`$ ) and for this reason it cannot be reconciled with the ideal metal result, which is two times larger. These arguments show that the Lifshitz formula is really in trouble. It obviously has to be modified but after a few years of active discussion still there is no solid theoretical understanding what is wrong and how one can do this.

Prescription proposed by Klimchitskaya and Mostepanenko  was designed to reproduce the plasma model result for the $`n=0`$ term in the limit $`\omega _\tau 0`$. This limit was supposed to be realized at low temperatures but, as was explained above, the material has to be described in this case by the impedance of anomalous skin effect rather than the plasma model permittivity. For this reason the entropy for $`\alpha =\alpha ^{\left(iii\right)}`$ is not going to zero when $`T0`$. It is easy to see from (37) and (10) that $`S`$ is finite and negative at $`T=0`$. Therefore, this prescription is also does not obey the Nernst theorem. At higher temperatures, when the Drude model is valid, the $`n=0`$ term given by (9,10) depends separately from $`\omega _p`$ and $`\omega _\tau `$. Physically it is unacceptable since at low frequencies the only parameter characterizing a metal in respect to electromagnetic field is the conductivity $`\sigma \omega _p^2/\omega _\tau `$ .

If we use the prescription (7)  then $`\alpha =\alpha ^{\left(ii\right)}=1`$. In this case the temperature independent term in (37) is canceled completely and entropy is going to zero with the temperature as $`T^{1/3}\mathrm{ln}T`$. It is the only prescription which is in agreement with the third law of thermodynamics. This prescription was criticized  on the basis that the $`n=0`$ term does not depend on any material parameter (see (9)). We already explained  that in the static (long wavelength) limit the boundary condition for metals do not include a particular metal parameters. More specifically, from dimensional analysis it follows that $`\alpha `$ in (9) can be a function of the only variable

$$\alpha =\alpha \left(\frac{\omega _\tau \omega _a}{\omega _p^2}\right).$$
(38)
The characteristic frequency which appears here is huge $`\omega _p^2/\omega _\tau 10^{18}rad/s`$ (for good metals at room temperature). Of course, one can expand $`\alpha `$ in a series

$$\alpha \alpha \left(0\right)+\alpha ^{}\left(0\right)\left(\frac{\omega _\tau \omega _a}{\omega _p^2}\right)$$

but the correction to $`\alpha \left(0\right)`$ becomes important only at microscopic distances between the plates $`a10^8cm`$ where the macroscopic Casimir force is not defined. The value of $`\alpha (0)`$ should coincide with that for ideal metal which is known to be 1. In this way the prescription (7) is reproduced without direct reference to the Drude reflection coefficients (4).

### B Temperature correction to the Casimir force

The results of previous section for the temperature correction to the free energy or equivalently to the force (see (34) and (35)) show that for $`\alpha =1`$ the correction always increases the absolute value of the force (the correction is negative so as the attractive force). The correction is relatively large $`kT/8\pi a^2`$. It is unlike to the plasma model where additional small factors $`\tau ^2`$  or $`\omega _a/\omega _p`$  appear if one uses prescriptions (8) or (7), respectively. In this sense one can say that in the range of anomalous skin effect the temperature correction becomes large. The relative correction $`G(a,T)`$ in (36) is maximal ($`0.53`$) at the temperature

$$kT_m18\frac{\mathrm{}\omega _a}{2\pi }\left(\frac{v}{c}\frac{\omega _a^2}{\omega _p^2}\right).$$
(39)
In the ideal metal limit $`\omega _p\mathrm{}`$ this temperature is going to zero and instead of large correction appears usual ideal metal correction  given by

$$G(a,T)=\zeta \left(3\right)\left(\frac{\tau }{2\pi }\right)^2\frac{\pi ^3}{45}\left(\frac{\tau }{2\pi }\right)^3.$$
(40)
Let us describe the temperature range where the result of this work will be applicable. Consider first the condition $`l\delta `$ which guarantees that anomalous skin effect plays important role. It can give us the upper limit on the temperature. We approximate $`\omega _\tau (T)`$ with the Bloch-Grüneisen formula

$$\frac{\omega _\tau (T)}{\omega _\tau (T_0)}=\left(\frac{T}{T_0}\right)^5\frac{F_5\left(T/T_D\right)}{F_5\left(T_0/T_D\right)},F_5\left(T/T_D\right)=\underset{0}{\overset{T/T_D}{}}𝑑x\frac{x^5}{\left(e^x1\right)\left(1e^x\right)},$$
(41)
where $`T_0`$ is some fixed temperature, for example, $`T_0=0^{}C`$. This formula does not take into account scattering on the defects and electrons, which can be important at very low temperatures, but it is good to find the upper limit on $`T`$. The value of $`\omega _\tau (T_0)`$ can be fixed via the material resistivity $`\rho `$ using the relation $`\omega _\tau =\epsilon _0\omega _p^2\rho `$, where $`\epsilon _0`$ is the permittivity of vacuum. For gold parameters $`\omega _p=1.3710^{16}rad/s`$, $`v_F=1.410^8cm/s`$, $`\rho (T_0)=2.06\mu \mathrm{\Omega }cm`$ we found $`l/\delta >5`$ for $`T<113^{}K`$ and $`l/\delta >10`$ for $`T<67^{}K`$. The other condition $`2\pi kT<\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ ensures that a specific expression for the impedance (16) will be true. It restricts the temperature by the value $`T<77.5^{}K`$ (gold). Therefore, already for liquid nitrogen our result for the temperature correction is applicable.

## VI Conclusion

We considered the temperature correction to the Casimir free energy (force) in the low temperature range. The aims of this analysis were to investigate the behavior of entropy in the limit $`T0`$ and find out if it is possible to neglect the temperature correction in the future low temperature experiments. The main observation of this work is that at low temperature $`T<T_D`$ (Debye temperature) neither plasma nor Drude models for material permittivity are good for real metals. The reason is that with the temperature decrease the mean free path for electrons becomes larger than the penetration depth for electromagnetic field in metal. This relation between parameters is realized for the anomalous skin effect for which description of metals with impedance is more appropriate than with the dielectric function. This change in the description is important for the temperature correction.

It is known that the first $`n=0`$ term in the Lifshitz formula for the Casimir force is controversial. A lot of discussion in the literature is going on around this term. The problem is how one can define this term correctly. At the moment there are three different approaches corresponding to three different results for the correction. It was proposed to use the third law of thermodynamics to choose one of the approach . We analysed the entropy behavior in the limit $`T0`$ for discussed in the literature prescriptions and came to a conclusion that one has to define the reflection coefficients in the static field limit as for the ideal metal $`r_1^21,r_2^2=1`$ to get agreement with the third law of thermodynamics. It is in contrast with the conclusion of Ref. , where the plasma model was used for metals at low temperatures.

To reduce the noise, the future experiments on precise measurement of the Casimir force will explore the low temperature range. Previously metals at low temperatures were described by the plasma model because the Drude relaxation frequency decreases fast with temperature. The plasma model predicts a negligible temperature correction to the force. We demonstrated that the anomalous skin effect makes drastic change. In all interesting from the experimental point of view range of temperatures and distances between bodies the correction is not negligible on the precision level of modern experiments.

We do not consider our result as final solution of the problem with the temperature correction. This is because a real solution should not be based on any prescription. The problem indicates that something wrong with the Lifshitz formula and efforts have to be directed on the careful analysis of this formula. It becomes more and more clear that the essence of the problem lies in the boundary conditions on the metal surface. The impedance condition (13) applied to the $`n=0`$ term reproduced the right result for the reflection coefficients $`r_1^2=r_2^2=1`$ . However, it is not clear why there is no a smooth transition between continuity of tangential components of $`𝐄`$ and$`𝐇`$ and the impedance boundary condition.


format: text

text:
# Experimental f-value and isotopic structure for the Ni I line blended with [OI] at 6300Å

## 1 Introduction

Allende Prieto, Lambert & Asplund et al (2001, hereafter APLA) have recently reviewed the various ways to determine the oxygen abundance in the sun and other late-type stars and discussed the different problems connected with the spectral oxygen lines used. Stellar conditions limit the number of appropriate lines to a few allowed and forbidden lines of neutral oxygen (O I and \[O I\]) in the optical wavelength region and molecular OH in the UV and IR regions. A frequently used method to determine the oxygen abundance in cool stars and the sun is to use the forbidden \[O I\] line at 6300 Å, which is particularly studied and analysed in the solar spectrum by APLA. However, this line is associated with problems as it is blended with an Ni I in the solar spectrum. This was early pointed out by Lambert (1978). Since the \[OI\] line (6300.31 Å) and the blending Ni I line (6300.34 Å) appear as a totally unresolved feature in the solar spectrum APLA constructed a spectral profile from laboratory data (wavelengths and f-values) and compared with the observed solar feature. Three of four crucial atomic parameters are known to a satisfactory accuracy, viz. wavelength (Eriksson 1965) and f-value (Storey & Zeippen 2000) for the \[OI\] line and wavelength for the Ni I line (Litzén, Brault & Thorne 1993, hereafter LBT). APLA used a three- dimensional time-dependent hydrodynamical model to simulate the solar surface and applied the same technique as previously used by Asplund et al. (2000) in the determination of the solar iron abundance. They used three free parameters, the continuum level, the oxygen abundance and the product ” $`gf`$-value of the Ni I line x nickel abundance, $`gfϵ`$(Ni)” to match the predicted and observed profiles. By inserting the adopted solar abundance of nickel from Grevesse and Sauval (1998) APLA derived an ”astrophysical” log $`gf`$ value of -2.31 for the Ni I line from the fitted value of $`gfϵ`$(Ni). We quote from the APLA paper: ”The log $`gf`$ for the Ni I line is uncertain. There are seemingly no laboratory measurements for this line”.

We have now determined the $`gf`$-value of the Ni I line at 6300.34 Å by combining two-step laser-induced fluorescence (LIF) measurements of the radiative lifetime of the upper level with branching fraction measurements using Fourier Transform Spectroscopy (FTS). We have also fitted two isotopic line components (58Ni and 60Ni) to the laboratory Ni I line and derived wavelengths and absolute intensities for both components. These two Ni isotopes account for 94% of the solar nickel abundance. We have reexamined the LS composition of the upper energy level of the Ni I transition, as it is severly mixed and has no clear LS signature. The level was discussed and reassigned in the extensive work on the Ni I spectrum by Litzén, Brault & Thorne (1993), and its identity has been further discussed by APLA. Adopting one or another of the ”old” (4d e3P0) or the ”new” (4s2 1S0) assignment makes a difference in the $`f`$-value of a factor of 400 (a difference in log $`gf`$ of 2.6) if we consult the Kurucz database, which is often used in abundance work using the spectrum synthesis technique. Thus, an experimental value of the oscillator strength will help in understanding the real LS composition of the energy level.

## 2 Atomic physics background

Since the Ni I line studied in this paper has a great influence on the determination of the oxygen abundance it deserves a special attention. Because of the level mixing there is a need for an experimental $`gf`$-value as well as a detailed study of the isotopic composition of the line. The effect of level mixing that makes calculated oscillator strengths very uncertain is a frequent problem in complex spectra. Very drastic cases may occur in modelling stellar spectra where a calculated spectral line, predicted by means of theoretical atomic data, totally disagrees with the observed feature.

To illustrate the level mixing in the present Ni I case we have included a small part of the Ni I term diagram in Fig. 1, showing the relevant energy levels involved in the discussion as well as in the measurements. The upper level of the $`\lambda `$6300 Ni I line is located at 50276 cm-1 and the lower level is y3D$`{}_{}{}^{o}{}_{1}{}^{}`$, which belongs to the odd parity 3d84s4p configuration. In the first analysis of the Ni I spectrum, Russell (1929) assigned the 50276 level to e$`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ of the even parity 3d94d configuration, which seemingly makes the transition to y$`{}_{}{}^{3}D_{1}^{o}`$ a ”two-electron jump”. The appearance of such a transition can be explained by configuration interaction between 3d84s4p and 3d94p, making the line a participant of a regular 4p-4d transition. Theoretical calculations by Litzén et al. (1993) confirmed such a level mixing between y3D$`{}_{}{}^{o}{}_{1}{}^{}`$ and z3D$`{}_{}{}^{o}{}_{1}{}^{}`$ belonging to 3d84s4p and 3d94p, respectively.

In the NIST compilation of iron group elements (Corliss & Sugar 1981), issued before the LBT work, the 50276 level has been given the old label, 4d e$`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$, suggested by Russell. However, the label of another level located at 51457 cm-1 was changed from 4d 1S0 to 4s2 1S0. This change is supported by Kurucz’s calculations (2002) as the major eigenvector component is more than 90% of 4s2 1S0. The Kurucz calculation also confirms the ”old” label of the 50276 level, as it was found to contain more than 95% e3P0. Strangely enough, the Cowan code calculations performed by LBT gave completely opposite results concerning these levels. The 50276 level contained a 90% component of 4s2 1S0, and the 51457 level was reassigned to the 4d configuration. LBT give the 4d labels in jK coupling notation, which is clearly justified by the level structure (see Fig. 3 in their paper).

According to Kurucz’s calculations of log $`gf`$ values both levels (50276 and 51457) have their strongest decay to z3P$`{}_{}{}^{o}{}_{1}{}^{}`$ (see Fig. 1). However, the transitions to y3D$`{}_{}{}^{o}{}_{1}{}^{}`$ differ by a factor 400 in the log $`gf`$ values, which are -1.73 for the transition from 50276 and -4.38 from the 51457 level. The second strongest decay from the 51457 level is to z1P$`{}_{}{}^{o}{}_{1}{}^{}`$ according to Kurucz, but the corresponding line from 50276 should be very weak. However, the latter is observed in the laboratory spectrum by LBT. Thus, the 50276 level obviously has a significant singlet character, which might be difficult to predict with sufficient accuracy in the calculations. Therefore, we have measured the lifetime and the log $`gf`$-values, and analysed the isotopic structure.

## 3 Lifetime measurements

In the measurements of the radiative lifetime the 50276 level was populated by applying a two-step pulsed laser excitation with z3P$`{}_{}{}^{o}{}_{1}{}^{}`$ as the intermediate level according to the scheme in Fig. 1. The radiative lifetime was derived by time-resolved observation of the fluorescence light released when the 50276 level decays to the lower odd levels. The experimental set-up was similar to the one described and illustrated in a recent paper by Nilsson et al. (2000). Free nickel atoms were created by laser ablation and excited to the level investigated by laser pulses from two Nd:YAG laser pumped dye lasers operating in the red spectral region. The wavelength of the first step excitation (3664 Å) was reached after frequency doubling and of the second step excitation (4811 Å) after Raman shifting in hydrogen gas. The two 10 ns pulses coincided in time and space during the interaction with the nickel atoms. Fluorescent light was detected using a monochromator and a fast photomultiplier. A digital transient recorder performed the data acquisition. The monochromator was set on one of the decay channels shown in Fig. 1. Most of the recordings were taken on the strong 4811 Å line. An average of 1000 single decay events was typically necessary for obtaining a good signal-to-noise ratio in the exponential decay curves. Thirty curves were recorded and the result for the lifetime of the 50276 level is 77$`\pm 7`$ ns. The uncertainty of the lifetime is a combination of statistical and, although carefully checked, possible systematic errors. The standard deviation of the 30 different measurements is less than 20% of the uncertainty.

## 4 Branching fractions and oscillator strengths

We have recorded the Ni I spectrum with the Lund UV Fourier Transform Spectrometer (FTS) and also extracted spectra from the Kitt Peak FTS database, previously used in the extensive study of the Ni spectrum by Litzén et al. (1993). All spectra are from hollow cathode lamps at various running conditions (pressure and DC current). The spectra have been intensity calibrated by means of branching ratios for internal argon lines (Whaling 1993), i.e. argon lines produced by the carrier gas in the nickel hollow cathode lamp. The branching fractions have been derived from the calibrated intensities of the spectral lines corresponding to the four decay channels indicated in Fig. 1.

Since the lower levels in all transitions studied have short radiative lifetimes there is no need for any corrections for self absorption in the light source. According to predictions and observations the transitions measured account for more than 99% of the decay from the 50276 level, and no residual branching fraction has to be considered. The total decay rate, given by the inverse value of the measured lifetime, has therefore been distributed among the four transitions in accordance with the experimental branching fractions. The results are given in Table 1. The uncertainties in the f-values are determined according to a procedure suggested by Sikström et al. (2002), and they include estimated errors in lifetime measurements, intensity measurements and the instrumental response function.

## 5 Discussion

There are some conclusions that can be drawn from Table I. Firstly, the ”astrophysical” log $`gf`$ value of the $`\lambda `$6300 line derived by ALPA in the fitting of the synthesized profile of the combined \[OI\] and Ni I lines to the observed solar line is closer to the present measurement than to the value given in the Kurucz database. The ”astrophysical” log $`gf`$-value differs by 0.20 dex ($``$ 60%) from the new laboratory value, which has an uncertainty of about 0.05 dex (15%). Secondly, the triplet content of the level 50276 is overestimated in the calculations by Kurucz and perhaps underestimated in the calculations in LBT. Another strong evidence for a substantial contribution of the 4s2 1S0 state to the 50276 level is the isotope shift observed by LBT for the two strong lines $`\lambda \lambda `$4811,5780 in Table I, for which the the lower level belongs to the 4p configuration. Using Fabry-Perot interferometry Schroeder and Mack (1961) made a detailed study of the isotope shift in the lower configurations of Ni I. They found appreciable line shifts in transitions where the upper and lower configurations differ in the number of d-electrons. By calculating the normal mass shift and estimating the field shift they attributed the major part of these large shifts to specific mass shift. The absence of a significant isotopic shift in the 6300 Å line is thus consistent with a major contribution of 3d84s2 1S0 to the 50276 level, as the configuration of the lower level, 3d84s4p, contains the same number of d-electrons. However, the observed profile of the laboratory 6300 Å line shows an asymmetry that could be due to isotopic structure. A small isotope shift would indicate a mixing of the upper state with a 3d94d level or a mixing of the lower state with a 3d94p level or a combination of the two. We have therefore examined the line more closely.

In Figure 2 we show the 6300 Å line as observed in the laboratory Fourier transform spectrum. We have fitted two isotopic line components to the observed feature, by assuming a solar ratio of 0.38 for the abundances of the 60Ni and 58Ni isotopes. We have neglected the other stable isotopes 61Ni, 62Ni, and 64Ni as they contribute only 1.1 %, 3.6 % and 0.9 %, respectively. Furthermore, 61Ni is smeared out by hyperfine structure. The wavelengths of the two isotopic components in the Ni I $`\lambda `$6300 line are 6300.335(1) for58Ni and 6300.355(2) for60Ni. The uncertainties of 1 and 2 mÅ respectively, include errors in the fitting of the line profile and calibration of the laboratory spectrum. The isotope shift of 20 mÅ is about the same as the distance of 25 mÅ between the \[OI\] line and the center of gravity (c.g.) wavelength for the Ni I line. Based on the present analysis we have derived new data for the c.g. of the line (previous values in parentheses are from LBT): $`\sigma `$= 15867.769 (.773) and $`\lambda `$=6300.341 (.339), and inserted the new c.g. wavelength in Table 1. The log gf value (-2.11) is the same for each isotopic line component.

The choice of LS label on the 50276 level is not evident, but it is quite clear that the 51457 level belongs to the 4d configuration. This level does not show any isotope shift in the transitions to 4p, which is characteristic for all transitions measured by LBT where there is no change in the number of d-electrons. Considering the apparent labeling of the 51457 level and the observed isotope shift in the lines from the 50276 level the most appropriate label for the 50276 level is 4s2 1S0, as suggested by LBT. The observed isotope shift, which is of about the same size as for both 3d94p-3d84s2 and 3d84s4p-3d94d transitions, indicates level mixing but not the size of it. As pointed out by LBT an additional part of the problem may be caused by interaction with the unknown p2 configuration, which contains both a 1S0 and a 3P0 level. Anyhow, the fact that the 50276 level contains a substantial amount of triplet character illustrates clearly the non-physical meaning and sometimes excessive ambition to assign an LS label to every energy level. However, it may be practical for book-keeping purposes to have a symbolic name on all energy levels.

## 6 Conclusion

The $`\lambda `$6300 \[O I\] line is one of the very few spectral features from which the oxygen abundance in the sun and cool stars (Allende Prieto et al. 2001) can be determined. The line is blended with an Ni I line, and a detailed study of the Ni I line at 6300.34 Å reveals an unresolved isotope structure. At least two isotopic line components, separated by 20 mÅ, have to be included when calculating a line profile to match the $`\lambda `$6300 feature in high resolution stellar and solar spectra. The log $`gf`$-values for the individual components should then be weighted by the relative abundances of the two isotopes.

We report in this paper on the wavelengths and log $`gf`$-values for the two major isotopic components of the Ni I line. We have measured the radiative lifetime of the upper level of the Ni I line using laser techniques and combined it with branching fractions to get the absolute transition probabilities. The branching fractions are derived from calibrated line intensities in a Fourier transform spectrum, which is also used to disentangle the isotopic structure. The new experimental log $`gf`$ value differ by 0.2 dex from the ”astrophysical log $`gf`$ value” derived by Allende Prieto et al (2001).

An apprporiate labelling of the upper level of the Ni I line has previously been discussed by Litzén et al. (1993). The additional information obtained in the present work, lifetime and isotopic structure, supports the label suggested in that paper.


text:
# Observational tests of the GAIA expected harvest on eclipsing binaries

## 1. Introduction

GAIA observations of eclipsing binary stars will be of utmost importance to advances in stellar astrophysics. For no other class of objects one could determine fundamental stellar parameters, i.e. absolute mass, size and surface temperature distribution with a comparable accuracy. Solutions of wide detached binaries can be used to accurately position them on the absolute H-R diagram. Identical age of both components places useful constraints on the theoretical isochrones for the given metallicity and rotational velocity which will also be derived from GAIA observations. Components in short period systems are closer and mutually disturbed, so their evolution is different from that of single stars. But accurate surface temperatures and sizes derived from binary solutions fix their luminosity and are useful to gauge their distance even for objects that are too far for the astrometric capabilities of the satellite (see Wythe & Wilson 2002).

Availability of on-board spectroscopy is vital to the study of eclipsing binaries. Semi-major axis and stellar masses could not be determined in any other way, and additional information on metallicity and rotational velocity helps in physical interpretation. One might argue that this information could be obtained by ground-based follow-up observations. In our experience this is not feasible. In Asiago we launched an intensive campaign to spectroscopically observe eclipsing binaries discovered by Hipparcos (Munari et al. 2001 \[hereafter M2001\], Zwitter et al. 2003). After three years we barely finished the spectroscopic coverage of the first 18 systems. Hipparcos discovered nearly 1000 systems, GAIA will see hundred thousands. These objects are distributed over the whole sky, so fiber optic spectroscopy cannot reduce the required observing time significantly.

The strength of the GAIA mission is in the numbers. GAIA will observe $`4\times 10^5`$ eclipsing binaries brighter than $`V=15`$, $`10^5`$ of these will be double-lined systems (M2001). Even if the stellar parameters will be determined at 1% accuracy only for 1% of them this is still 25-times more than what has been obtained from all ground-based observations in the past (cf. Andersen 1991). Moreover most of the GAIA binaries will be of G-K spectral type (cf. Zwitter & Henden 2003) where there exists only a small number of systems with accurate solutions.

Astrophysical importance of eclipsing binaries is discussed in other contributions (Milone 2003, Wilson 2003, Van Hamme 2003). Here we focus on our experience obtained from real stars that were observed in the GAIA-like mode. We start with discussion of how an object is recognized to be a binary and a determination of its orbital period. Next we discuss the accuracy of derivation of its fundamental parameters and the possibility to detect intrinsic variability of stars in binaries. We close with some general remarks on the types of binaries that will be discovered. We stress that huge numbers of objects call for completely automated reduction and possibly even interpretation techniques.

## 2. Orbital period from multi-epoch observations

A large fraction of binary stars with orbital periods over a month that are closer than 1 kpc will be discovered astrometrically. Systems with periods of up to 10 years will be recognized due to their non-linear proper motion and those with periods of over a century will be resolved (ESA SP-2000-4, Arenou 2003). Systems with orbital periods of less than a month will be mainly discovered by their photometric and spectroscopic variability.

GAIA is unique because it will re-observe the same region of the sky many times over. The number of transits for the spectroscopic focal plane will be around 100 with extremes a factor 2 higher or lower. The transits are not distributed evenly in time (see Fig. 1). This should pose no problems in analysis of binary stars if the satellite rotation and precession periods are kept incommensurable. The sampling permits a good phase coverage of all orbital periods that are shorter than the mission lifetime. Also the duration of individual focal plane passages is just 100 seconds, so orbital motion smearing is negligible.

Photometric variability does not need to be a consequence of the binarity of the source: pulsations, rotating and time-dependent stellar spots, as well as different types of semi-regular variables will be common among the G and K stars that will be the most frequent type of objects observed. The best way to recognize that the detected photometric variability is indeed due to binarity is by establishing its repeatability and light curve shape; so the orbital period needs to be determined. The same is true for spectroscopic observations. The exceptions are of course double-lined binaries where a quarter-phase spectrum with well separated lines immediately points to the binary nature of the source.

Potentials of photometry and spectroscopy for determination of orbital period are different, with spectroscopy being always preferable. As an example let us examine a detached system GK Dra (Fig. 2). It was discovered by the Hipparcos satellite. But a search for orbital period from the 124 Hipparcos observations proved unsuccessful. There are several possible periods with the most likely solution of 16.96-days (Fig. 2, top). This value, which is also quoted in the Hipparcos catalogue, is immediately shown to be wrong by only 35 spectroscopic observations in the GAIA spectral window obtained by our GAIA-like ground-based observing campaign (Zwitter et al. 2003; Fig. 2, middle). The advantage of spectroscopic monitoring is in the fact that radial velocities are constantly changing with orbital phase. So every point contributes to the orbital period search. In the case of photometry the light curve out of eclipses is flat, so determination of orbital period is based only on a couple of points within the eclipses. An extensive photometry can of course resolve this problem, but note how a periodogram from over 1300 photometric observations (Fig. 2, bottom) is still more ambiguous than the one obtained from only 35 spectroscopic observations in the GAIA spectral window. The strength of spectroscopy for the orbital period determination can also be seen from the light curves in Figure 3.

Photometric information obtained by the GAIA satellite will be far superior to that of Hipparcos. GAIA will reach much fainter magnitudes and observe in many broad and narrow photometric bands. But the number of epoch observations will be similar to that of Hipparcos. The coverage of GK Dra to be obtained by GAIA is given in Figure 4. Note that only a single observation in broad band filters falls within eclipses. The eclipse coverage in intermediate passband filters is better. Broad- and narrow-band photometry can be used to measure orbital inclination as well as relative sizes and absolute temperatures of both stars. But the orbital period itself will be much easier to determine from spectroscopy. A total of 81 spectra are well distributed over orbital cycle, so the orbital period, semi-major axis, and both masses will be unambiguously measured from spectroscopic radial velocity measurements.

## 3. Accuracy of fundamental parameters

As mentioned in the Introduction we are observing 18 Hipparcos binaries in the GAIA-like mode. This means we are trying determine their orbital solution and fundamental parameters using only Hipparcos ($`H_P`$, $`B_T`$, $`V_T`$) photometry and ground based spectroscopy in the GAIA spectral range. Spectroscopic data are extracted from a single Echelle order observation with the 1.8-m telescope of the Asiago observatory. It turns out that such an approach is realistic as the accuracy of the solution is limited by a rather small ($`100`$) number of Hipparcos photometric measurements resulting in a poor coverage of eclipses. This will be also the case with GAIA. The results we obtain should present a lower limit to the expected GAIA accuracy, as we are using only rather noisy Hipparcos photometry, while GAIA photometry will have excellent precision and a much larger number of photometric bands. Figure 5 presents the light curve shapes of the overcontact binary V781 Tau obtained in different narrow and broad passbands. Note that the photometric accuracy for objects brighter than $`V18`$ will be better than 0.01 mag, so even rather subtle differences in the light curve shape and magnitude level for this binary with $`T_1T_2=170`$ K will be easily discernible.

In Table 1 we quote accuracies of fundamental parameters for 6 systems published so far (M2001, Zwitter et al. 2003). We note that relative errors in most parameters are 2% or lower. The exceptions are individual radii which are not well determined due to a scarce photometric coverage of eclipses. Solutions of UV Leo and GK Dra also have large uncertainties. This is due to their intrinsic variability (see below). V781 Tau is a binary which fills its Roche lobe up to the L2 point. Temperatures and sizes of such binaries can be accurately determined. So the distance can also be calculated with a remarkable accuracy.

## 4. Intrinsic variability

Many stars of G and K spectral types are intrinsic variables. This is true also for binary members. With this goal in mind the observations in that GAIA-like mode that use only Hipparcos photometry with $`100`$ observations of each star were supplemented by devoted ground-based photometric campaigns (Dallaporta et al. 2000, 2002, 2002a, Mikuz et al. 2002, Frigo et al. 2002).

UV Leo is a detached system with surface spots which cause a variation of system brightness by $`0.04`$ mag (Mikuz et al. 2002). The system also showed a sudden change in the orbital period in Feb. 1981, possibly due to a passage of a low-mass third body. Devoted photometry of GK Dra (Fig. 3, bottom right) shows unusually large scatter. It turns out that the differences between the binary solution and observations are not due to noise but point to an intrinsic variability of $`\delta `$-Sct type (Figure 6).

A limited number of photometric and spectroscopic observations obtained by GAIA will make it difficult to study intrinsic variability of the binary components. Still a large number of photometric bands will easily point to temperature changes that do not repeat with orbital cycle and are so due to intrinsic variability of the binary components. Interesting cases could be picked for detailed follow-up observations. These include new interacting binaries (Cropper 2003).

## 5. Non-eclipsing and non-spectroscopic binaries

So far we discussed eclipsing double-lined spectroscopic binaries. In majority of cases we will be less fortunate. The systems could be too faint to obtain any useful spectroscopy, non-eclipsing or single-lined. We discuss these in turn.

For systems fainter than $`V=15`$ spectroscopic radial velocities will be difficult to measure even in double-lined cases. These faint objects will far outnumber the bright spectroscopic binaries. Binarity will have to be established from eclipses or a reflection effect, both measured with a large number of photometric passbands but in a limited number of epochs. Some problems with the determination of orbital period of such systems have been discussed in Section 2. Here we only note that the binarity of these sources could be in general easily established due to a large photometric accuracy. In many cases the orbital ephemeris could also be derived, therefore permitting ground-based spectroscopic follow-up observations at quarter phases establishing absolute masses and dimensions of the binary components. The easiest to recognize will be systems close to contact, where much of the system information could be recovered from photometry alone.

Eclipses will be rather uncommon, especially in the wide detached cases. But for a double-lined non-eclipsing spectroscopic binary the mass ratio can still be easily calculated. And in not too wide binaries the reflection effect can be measured from accurate photometry. This constrains the temperatures and inclination of the system. The inferred spectral classification can be finally checked against the properties of the spectra obtained close to quadratures where the spectral lines are well separated.

Most binaries with the mass ratio below 0.3 will be single-lined, permitting to derive only a spectroscopic mass function.

## 6. Some remarks on reduction and interpretation procedures

GAIA will discover huge numbers of spectroscopic and eclipsing binaries. The numbers are orders of magnitude larger than everything collected in the last century from the ground. In many cases the observations obtained by GAIA will be good enough to determine system parameters at 1-2% accuracy level. They will have an immense impact on theories of stellar structure and evolution.

Such a large data set requires an automation of all stages of reduction and interpretation. No-one could recognize photometric eclipses or winging radial velocity curves in hundred-thousands or even millions of systems by eye. But even interpretation and classification has to be completely automatic with only the most unusual cases to be marked for human inspection. Wythe & Wilson (2001, 2002) successfully classified some photometric eclipsing binaries from the OGLE database with semi-automatic procedures. Prsa (2003) obtained some encouraging results for double-lined eclipsing binaries. Clearly development of reliable classification and analysis procedures is one of the major tasks facing the scientific community before the launch of GAIA.
Acknowledgement. Generous allocation of observing time by Osservatorio astronomico di Padova and financial support from the Ministry of Education, Science and Sport of Slovenia are acknowledged.

## References

Andersen J. 1991, A&ARv, 3, 91

Arenou F. 2003, this volume

Cropper M. 2003, this volume

Dallaporta S., Tomov T. Zwitter T., Munari U. 2000, IBVS, 4990, 1

Dallaporta S., Tomov T., Zwitter T., Munari U. 2002, IBVS, 5312, 1

Dallaporta S., Tomov T., Zwitter T., Munari U. 2002a, IBVS, 5319, 1

Frigo A., Piccoli P., Setti A., Tomasoni S., Tomov T., Munari U., Marrese P.M., Zwitter T. 2002, IBVS, 5359, 1

Mikuz H., Dintinjana B., Prsa A., Munari U., Zwitter T. 2002, IBVS, 5338, 1

Milone E.F. 2003, this volume

Munari U. 1999, Balt. A., 8, 73

Munari U., Tomov T., Zwitter T., Milone E.F., Kallrath J., Marrese P.M., Boschi F., Prsa A., Tomasella L., Moro D. 2001, AA, 378, 477 \[M2001\]

Prsa A. 2003, this volume

Stellingwerf R.F. 1978, ApJ, 224, 953

Van Hamme W. 2003, this volume

Wythe J.S.B., Wilson R.E. 2001, ApJ, 559, 260

Wythe J.S.B., Wilson R.E. 2002, ApJ, 571, 293

Wilson R.E. 2003, this volume

Zwitter T., Munari U., Marrese P.M., Prsa A., Milone E.F., Boschi F., Tomov T. 2003, AA, submitted

Zwitter T., Henden A. 2003, this volume


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

### 1.1 Why do we like supersymmetry?

You certainly often have heard about what supersymmetry (SUSY) is good for. Let me mention few reasons for SUSY .

The first one is the no-go theorem, which was conjectured by Coleman and Mandula . The theorem states: No other bosonic symmetries of the S-matrix than the Poincaré invariance and internal symmetries are possible in relativistic massive quantum field theories. SUSY is the unique, nontrivial extension of the Poincaré invariance. This is why we would like that the super Poincaré invariance is realized in nature. SUSY is a symmetry between bosons and fermions, and predicts the existence of superpartners with different spins. Since however no superpartners have been observed yet, the super Poincaré invariance should be badly broken at energies presently accessible to us, while the Poincaré invariance is exact so far. 222A tinny violation was discussed by G. Ramirez in this meeting, which might explain the AGASA observation of the high-energy extragalactic cosmic rays .

The second reason for SUSY is that SUSY can stabilize the different mass scales. In the Standard Model (SM), for instance, there is a typical scale, which is the mass of the Z boson. In the SM, there exists an yet undiscovered particle, the Higgs particle, whose mass is expected of the order of the weak scale, too.

It is also bounded from above due to the triviality constraint, which was estimated to be about 0.6 TeV. Then, assume that the SM is embedded to a more fundamental theory whose typical scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is higher than the weak scale. In the fundamental theory, there will be heavy particles with mass of $`O(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, and they will contribute to the correction of the SM Higgs mass. The correction $`\delta m_H^2`$ will be typically proportional to $`(\alpha /\pi )\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$, where $`\alpha `$ is a generic coupling of the fundamental theory. It would be “unnatural”, if the correction $`\delta m_H^2`$ is larger than the mass itself $`m_H^2`$ . Since $`m_H`$ is bounded from above, we obtain the maximal natural scale of the SM, which is about few TeV, where we assumed $`\alpha `$ could be at most $`O(1)`$.

This means, there will be no natural extension of the SM for energies larger than few TeV, and consequently, there are no natural grand unified theories (GUTs) .

SUSY can help a lot in this regard, thanks to the non-renormalization theorem . The theorem states: There are only wave function renormalizations. So, there is no extra renormalization for mass parameters. In other words, there are no quadratic divergences. Therefore, the correction $`\delta m_H^2`$ will be proportional to $`(\alpha /\pi )m_H^2\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }/m_H`$ in a SUSY extension of the SM. The requirement $`\delta m_H^2<m_H^2`$ is satisfied, even if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }M_{\mathrm{PL}}`$ ( the Planck scale) .

The third reason for SUSY is experimental. If the SM is unified to a SUSY GUT, it predicts the unification of gauge couplings of the SM. According to the report of Raby , the gauge unification in SUSY GUTS fits to within $`3\sigma `$ of the present precise experimental data. There are other experimental indications: Jens Erler and Wolgang Hollik reported in this meeting that the experimental values of the W mass and $`g2`$ of the muon are in favor of SUSY. There are other reasons for SUSY, but they are often more subjective.

### 1.2 How do we like SUSY to be broken?

There are various mechanisms to break SUSY. 333See for instance . Although we do not know which mechanism is realized in nature, we would like SUSY to be broken in such a way that it still can allow a natural extension of the SM to a higher energy. It has been studied how this requirement can be met, and found that SUSY has to be only softly broken . The soft-supersymmetry breaking (SSB) terms are those which do not change the infinity structure of the parameters of the symmetric theory, and do not produce quadratic divergences. So they are additional terms in the Lagrangian that do not change the RG functions such as the $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ functions of the symmetric theory. There exist four types of such terms : $`(m^2)_i^j\varphi _j\varphi ^i`$ (soft scalar mass terms), $`B^{ij}\varphi _i\varphi _j`$ ($`B`$-terms), $`M\lambda \lambda `$ (gaugino mass terms), $`h^{ijk}\varphi _i\varphi _j\varphi _k`$ (trilinear scalar couplings), where $`\varphi _j`$ and $`\lambda `$ denote the scalar component in a chiral supermultiplet and the gaugino in a gauge supermultiplet, respectively.

The SSB parameters are massive parameters. Although it depends on the model, we expect that the SSB parameters are more than less in the same order, which we call the SUSY breaking scale $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$. To make compatible supersymmetry breaking with the naturalness notion of ’t Hooft and Veltman, we have to impose the constraint on $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$. A simple calculation yields that $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ should be less than few TeV.

### 1.3 What is the SUSY flavor problem?

If we do not specify the SUSY breaking mechanism, because we do not know which one is realized, and rely only on renormalizability of the minimal extension of the SM, the minimal supersymmetric SM (MSSM), it is possible to introduce ciento cinco new parameters . 444 The mass and mixing of neutrinos are not taken into account. So, all together we have ciento veinticuatro parameters! These 105 new parameters, of which 43 parameters are CP violating phases, produce a lot of FCNC and CP violating processes .

For instance, there exist diagrams due to the SSB term $`(m_{RL}^2)^{e\mu }\stackrel{~}{e}_R\stackrel{~}{\mu }_L`$ or $`(m_{LL}^2)^{e\mu }(\stackrel{~}{e}_L)^{}\stackrel{~}{\mu }_L`$, which allow the decay $`\mu e\gamma `$ , where $`\stackrel{~}{e}(\stackrel{~}{\mu })`$ denotes the scalarpartner of the electron (muon). The decay has not been observed yet. A similar FCNC process is also possible in the hadronic sector, which allows the decay $`bs\gamma `$ . Its branching ratio ($`=(3.3\pm 0.4)\times 10^4`$) has been measured at CLEO and BELLE , which agrees well with the SM calculation ($`=(3.29\pm 0.33)\times 10^4`$) . Renormalizability cannot explain why these SSB parameters should be so small. One of the most stringent constraint on the CP-violation phases is the electric dipole moment (EDM) of the neutron: $`d_N/e0(10^{26})cm`$ . The SSB term of the form $`(m_{LR}^2)^{uu}\stackrel{~}{u}_L\stackrel{~}{u}_R`$ can induce $`d_N`$, for instance, if $`(m_{LR}^2)^{uu}`$ is a complex parameter . There exist a number of FCNC and CP-violating processes, which give severe constraints on the SSB parameters .

Fortunately, the experimental constraints are not random: They suggest that the soft scalar masses $`(m^2)_j^i`$ are diagonal in the space of generations and the trilinear couplings $`h^{jik}`$ are proportional to the Yukawa couplings $`Y^{ijk}`$. Although these experimental constraints hint a flavor symmetry in the SSB sector, flavor symmetry is broken in nature and is not good enough to overcome the SUSY flavor problem. (Non-Abelian discrete symmetries such as $`A_4`$ could be used to overcome the problem.)

## 2  What the RG approaches to the SUSY Flavor Problem are based on.

There exist various approaches to the SUSY Flavor Problem. The popular one is the hidden sector scenario. In the so-called minimal supergravity model  it is simply assumed that the SSB parameters have a universal form, say, at the GUT scale. In this model, supersymmetry breaking occurs in a sector that is hidden to the MSSM sector, and supersymmetry breaking is mediated to the MSSM sector by gravity. There exist other ideas of mediation: gauge mediation , anomaly mediation  and gaugino mediation .

Another possibility is that certain superparticles are so heavy that FCNC and CP-violating processes may be sufficiently suppressed . But this scenario could lead to problems, because, as we heard from Maria Herrero and Maria Krawczyk

in this meeting, the heavy superparticles in the MSSM do not necessarily decouple at low energies. The approach that I am going to discuss below is based on the renormalization group (RG).

### 2.1 Renormalizability and Infrared Attractiveness

The main idea to solve the SUSY flavor problem in the RG approach is to use the infrared (IR) attractive behavior of the SSB terms, which can restrict the huge number of the degrees of the freedom and then to increase the predictive power. The basic idea goes back to Wilson , who succeeded to relate IR and ultraviolet (UV) physics to understand universality of critical phenomena. Let me illustrate in a simple example how renormalizability and IR attractiveness are closely related in the Wilsonian RG. The example is the scalar theory in three Euclidean dimension. In the Wilsonian RG, a set of infinite number of independent couplings are allowed. A RG flow is a trajectory in this infinite dimensional space of couplings. However, all the trajectories converge to a single trajectory, called the renormalized trajectory (RT), in the IR limit for this example .

The RT trajectory intersects the critical surface at the Wilson-Fisher fixed point. The RT, on one hand, defines the single coupling that survives in the IR limit, which is identified with temperature in statistical physics. The critical exponent expresses how fast a point on the RT goes way from the fixed point. To define a non-trivial relativistic field theory, that is, nonperturbative renormalizability, the couplings, on the other hand, have to lie on the RT. So, all the couplings have to be functions of this single independent coupling. Of infinite number of couplings, there exists only one independent coupling, the same one in the IR as well as in the UV limit.

### 2.2 Perturbative Renormalizability and Infrared Attractiveness

The next question is: Can one understand perturbative renormalizability in terms of the Wilsonian RG? This question was addressed by Polchinski , who investigated RG trajectories in the scalar theory in four dimensions. His observation, assuming that the mass parameter can be neglected, is that there exists a trajectory, which is attractive in the IR limit. That is, whatever the initial values of the unrenormalizable couplings at some UV scale are, they become definite functions of renormalizable couplings in the IR limit. This is then interpreted as perturbative renormalizability. Therefore, in the class of theories, in which Polchinski’s criterion  on perturbative renormalizability can be applied, the UV cutoff should be sufficiently large so that physics in the infrared regime has less dependence of their initial values in the UV regime.

### 2.3 Pendleton-Ross fixed point and Zimmermann’s reduction of couplings

There exists a further extension; extension to relations among renormalizable couplings. The Pendleton-Ross IR fixed points  are IR fixed points that one finds in various theory models in the lower order in perturbation theory. The IR fixed points have been used in phenomenological approaches to various problems in particle physics . The approach emphasizes the IR attractiveness of certain couplings. The reduction of couplings of Zimmermann  is to actively reduce the number of renormalizable couplings so that it does not destroy perturbative renormalizability. So, this approach emphasizes the UV behavior of a theory. But as I have shown you in the Wilsonian RG, UV and IR physics are closely related. In fact, they give similar results.

The well known example is the SM. If we neglect all the couplings except the QCD gauge coupling $`g_3`$, the top Yukawa coupling $`Y_t`$ and the Higgs self coupling $`\lambda _H`$, one finds at the one-loop level that the ratios of the couplings $`(Y_t/g_3)^2`$ and $`(\lambda _H/g_3)^2`$ approach to $`2/9`$ and $`(\sqrt{689}25)/18`$ in the IR limit, respectively . In fact these numbers are exactly the first coefficients in the power series expansions $`(Y_t/g_3)^2=2/9+_{n=1}\rho _n^t(g_3)^{2n}`$ and $`(\lambda _H/g_3)^2=(\sqrt{689}25)/18+_{n=1}\rho _n^H(g_3)^{2n},`$ which are the power series solutions to the so-called reduction equations, and ensure perturbative renormalizability to all orders in perturbation theory in the reduced system of the SM .

### 2.4 Problems

So, it is the obvious thing to try to apply these approaches to softly broken SUSY theories . 555There exist also works based on the reduction of couplings . The question is whether one can reduce the huge number of the independent SSB parameters of the MSSM in such a way that they do not cause problems with the strong experimental constraints. The IR attractiveness results from asymptotically free gauge interactions, and fortunately, gauge interactions of the MSSM are flavor independent. It was found  in fact that they are attracted to certain points in the IR limit, and the points do not depend very much on the flavor. But it turned out that the IR attractiveness is not very strong.

To summarize, the IR attractiveness of the SSB parameters in $`4D`$ dimensional softly broken Yang-Mills (YM) theories is not strong enough that we can satisfactory overcome the SUSY flavor problem. The weakness of the IR attractiveness of the SSB parameters in four dimension originates from the fact that the scaling violation in four dimension are generally only logarithmic. So, to achieve a stronger IR attractiveness of the SSB parameters, we have to have a situation in which the dimension is effectively or really more than four. There are so far two ideas as far as I know. The first one is based on a strongly coupled super YM theory which has an IR fixed point. The second one is to simply go to higher dimensions.

## 3  Two viable solutions

### 3.1 Coupling to a superconformal gauge theory

The first idea, proposed by Nelson and Strassler , is to use a superconformal force in a supersymmetric YM theory and rely on the Seiberg conjecture . The conjecture states that a SUSY QCD-like YM with has an IR fixed point in the so-called conformal window . As a result, the anomalous dimensions for the matter supermultiplets become large of $`O(1)`$ near the IR fixed point. Consequently, the parameters near the IR fixed point run according to a power-law, rather than a logarithmic law. In a QCD-like theory we can not introduce the MSSM matter multiplets. Fortunately, the conjecture says that the QCD-like theory can be described by another YM theory, which contains gauge singlet mesons. These mesons couples to the quark-like matter multiplets though the Yukawa coupling. The conjecture implies that in the plane of the Yukawa and gauge couplings there exists a nontrivial IR fixed point. Nelson and Strassler  identified the gauge singlet mesons with the MSSM matter multiplets. In this way, a large (in fact negative) anomalous dimensions are transferred to the MSSM sector. The hierarchy of the generations at low energies could be achieved in this way.

What happens now with the SSB parameters? In , it was shown that the SSB parameters approach zero in the IR limit both in the original and dual theories. What about the SSB parameters of the MSSM? Since the matter and Higgs supermultiplets directly couple to the (dual) superconformal sector, the corresponding SSB parameters, i.e., $`m^2`$’s and $`h`$’s, will approach zero, while the gaugino masses remain as they are. Then the scenario to solve the SUSY flavor problem is: There are two scales $`M_>`$ and $`M_<`$ in addition to $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$. Above $`M_>`$ (which may be between $`10^{14}`$ to $`10^{19}`$ GeV) the strong sector is perturbative. Between$`M_>`$ and $`M_<`$, the theory is in the conformal regime, and the SSB parameters should obey the power law running, and become almost zero at $`M_<`$. Below $`M_<`$ (which may be between $`10^{10}`$ to $`10^{16}`$ GeV), the superconformal sector escapes by some mechanism, that is, the MSSM sector decouples from the superconformal sector, the MSSM interactions, especially the gauge interactions, generate $`m^2`$’s and $`h`$’s of the MSSM at $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$. Remember, the MSSM gauge interactions are flavor independent. Therefore, they can generate flavor independent SSB parameters at low energies , although the flavor independence is not perfect and it could be a problem . There are further extensions and applications of the idea of Nelson and Strassler .

### 3.2 Going to higher dimensions

The next idea is to really go to higher dimensions . In higher dimensions, due to the power-law running of couplings , stronger infrared attractiveness  of the SSB parameters is expected . In  we considered the simplest case in which only the gauge supermultiplet propagates in the $`(4+\delta )`$-dimensional bulk and the supermultiplets containing the matter and Higgs fields are localized at our 3-brane . The gaugino mass $`M`$, which is assumed to be generated at the fundamental scale $`M_{\mathrm{PL}}`$ by some SUSY breaking mechanism, receives a correction proportional to $`(M_{\mathrm{PL}}/M_{\mathrm{GUT}})^\delta `$ at the grand unification scale $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$, and more importantly it can induce flavor-blind corrections to other SSB parameters. We found  that the soft scalar masses $`(m^2)_j^i`$ and the soft-trilinear couplings $`h^{ijk}`$ become so aligned at $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$ that FCNC processes and dangerous CP-violating phases are sufficiently suppressed (see also ):

$`h^{ijk}/MY^{ijk}=\eta _Y^{ijk}+O(10^6),(m^2)_j^i/|M|^2=C(i)/C(G)\delta _j^i+O(10^3),`$
at $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$, if we take into account only power law corrections, where $`Y^{ijk}`$ are Yukawa couplings, $`C`$’s and $`\eta `$’s are grouptheoretic constants, and we assumed that $`M_{\mathrm{PL}}/M_{\mathrm{GUT}}=10^2`$ and $`\delta =2`$.

As a concrete example, we  considered the minimal supersymmetric SU(5) GUT model in six dimensions including logarithmic corrections, and found that all the A-parameters $`h`$’s, B-parameter $`B`$ and soft-scalar masses $`m^2`$’s for the MSSM are fixed once the unified gaugino mass $`M`$ is given. For instance, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 19.5`$ for $`M=0.5`$ TeV.

Nevertheless, the stringent constraints coming from the $`K_SK_L`$ mass difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_K`$, $`ϵ^{}/ϵ`$ in the $`K^0\overline{K^0}`$ mixing, the decay $`\mu e\gamma `$, and the electric dipole moments (EDMs) of the neutron and the electron  are satisfied in this model.

The suppression mechanism of the FCNC and CP-phases presented above does not work in four dimensions. Therefore, the smallness of FCNC as well as of EDM is a possible hint of the existence of extra dimensions.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the organizers of the X Mexican School of Particles and Fields for offering me a chance to give a talk in such a beautiful conference location in a very special occasion which is devoted to two important Latin American physicists, Augusto García and Arnulfo Zepeda.


text:
# The Effects of Stellar Yields with Rotation on Chemical Evolution Models

## References

Kroupa, P., Tout, C.A., Gilmore, G. 1993, MNRAS, 262, 545

Meynet, G., Maeder, A. 2002, A&A, 390, 561

Pettini, M., 2001, in Gaseous Matter in Galaxies and Intergalactic Space, ed. R. Ferlet et al., (Frontier Group), 315

Pettini, M., Ellison, S.L., Bergeron, J., Petitjean, P. 2002, A&A, 391, 21

Shapley, A.E., Steidel, C.C., Pettini, M., Adelberger, K.L. 2003, ApJ, in press