text:
# What can the quantum liquid say on the brane black hole, the entropy of extremal black hole and the vacuum energy?

## 1 Introduction

In general relativity the event horizon is a rather fragile construction: small deviations from Einstein theory leads to the catastrophical consequence for the event horizon. In particular, the horizon is destroyed: (i) after inclusion of arbitrarily small mass terms for graviton ; (ii) after inclusion of higher order curvature terms ; (iii) in the models allowing varying speed of light ; etc. Thus there is an open question whether the horizon can be really formed.

The condensed matter analogs of gravity also indicate that the event horizon for quasiparticles is a subtle issue: in most systems it cannot be formed. The characteristic example is the black-hole horizon for sound waves generated by a moving liquid as suggested by Unruh . The horizon for sound waves can be formed when the local velocity of the liquid exceeds the speed of sound. In liquids, however, the effective metric experienced by sound waves obeys the hydrodynamic equations which thus play the role of Einstein equations, and these hydrodynamic equations prohibit the existence of the spherically symmetric event horizon . The horizon can be formed only in the vessels of special geometry such as the so-called Laval nozzle . However, even in this case the horizon will be spoiled by the formation of shock waves.

The constraints dictated by the hydrodynamic equations can be avoided if one constructs the horizon for such quasiparticles whose maximum attainable speed $`c`$, which plays the role of the ‘speed of light’, is smaller than the speed of sound. In this case the speed of sound is not reached at the quasiparticle horizon, and thus the horizon is not accompanied by the hydrodynamic instability. Such situation can occur, for example, in superfluids 3He-A where the superfluid ground state plays the role of the quantum vacuum, while some low-frequency bosonic collective modes of the superfluid vacuum mimic the effective gravitational field experienced by the ‘relativistic’ quasiparticles – the Weyl fermions . In this superfluid liquid the effective gravity is very similar to the Sakharov gravity  induced by quantum fluctuations of the vacuum.

In 3He-A the ‘speed of light’ $`c`$ is about three order of magnitude smaller than the speed of sound. Nevertheless the other instability becomes important – the instability of the superfluid quantum vacuum when it moves with supercritical velocity, $`v>c`$. This brings us to the problem of the stability of the quantum vacuum in the presence of the non-trivial metric field. After the first proposal by Unruh there were many projects in condensed matter and optics to simulate the event horizon (see the book ). Till now we were not able to construct, even in the gedanken experiment, the condensed matter system whose vacuum state remains stable in the presence of the horizon. Who knows, maybe this is an indication that the real quantum vacuum – the ether – is also highly sensitive to the presence of the horizon or ergoregion.

However, recently it was found that there exists a real and experimentally accessible system where the vacuum instability will be developed rather slowly, so that we can investigate the behavior of the vacuum in the presence of the horizon. This is the horizon constructed for quasiparticles living in the analog of the brane – the 2+1 world of the interface between two bulk superfluid vacua, superfluid 3He-A and superfluid 3He-B, which we refer to as the AB-brane. In this situation the hydrodynamic equations determine the flow of two superfluids in bulk, and the velocities of this flow near the AB-brane dictate the effective metric for quasiparticles living on the brane – the ripplons – which play the role of the brane matter. The maximum attainable velocity $`c`$ for the ripplons is typically much smaller than any critical velocity for the instability of the bulk superfluids. As a result, the ergoregion and the event horizon can be easily constructed without any instability in the bulk liquids.

While the bulk vacuum remains stable, the brane vacuum is nevertheless unstable beyond the horizon. This instability occurs due to the interaction of quasiparticles living on the brane with that living in the bulk liquid (i.e. in the higher-dimensional space outside the brane) which leads to the decay of the brane vacuum in the region behind the horizon. The weaker is the interaction the longer the black hole lives. This mechanism of the vacuum decay can be applicable for the astronomical black holes, if we really live on brane of the higher-dimensional world. If the matter fields on the brane are properly coupled to, say, gravitons in the bulk, this may lead to the collapse of the black hole which is fast as compared to the popular mechanism of the black-hole evaporation by the Hawking radiation . This is another example of the fragility of the horizon, now due to the interaction with the higher-dimensional world. We shall consider this example in Section 2.

If the time of the collapse of the black-hole horizon is long enough, we can study the thermodynamics related to the horizon: its temperature and the Bekenstein entropy. In condensed matter systems, as well as in quantum vacuum, the low-temperature thermodynamic properties of the system is determined by zero modes, fermionic or/and bosonic. If the condensed matter system has no zero modes, the gapless (massless) modes necessarily appear in the presence of the ergoregion or event horizon. In such systems, all the entropy comes from the microstates in the black hole interior or in the vocinity of the horizon, where the fermion zero modes provide the source of the Bekenstein entropy . In Section 3 we consider here the simplest example of the entropy produced by the condensed-matter analog of the extremal black hole.

The condensed matter examples demonstrate that the effective gravity can essentially differ from the fundamental gravity even in principles. For example, in the effective gravity the effective spacetime can be geodesically incomplete. This is simply because the description of the quasiparticle motion in terms of the metric field is incomplete. The effective gravity appears only in the low-energy corner: the general covariance and Einstein equations even if they were valid at low energy, are violated at high energy. The quasiparticle thus can simply leave the low-energy world and enter the non-symmetric high-energy world where the quasiparticle trajectories are governed by the non-relativistic and non-covariant laws.

Since in the effective gravity the general covariance is lost at high energy, the metrics which for the low-energy observers look as equivalent, since they can be transformed to each other by coordinate transformation, are not equivalent physically. Moreover, the vacuum can be essentially different for different metrics which are formally equivalent. If our gravity is also effective, we can in principle resolve between the formally equivalent metrics if we will be able to reach the high enough energy. For example, the Painlevé-Gullstrand , Schwarzschild and other metrics used for description of the black hole could be discriminated on physical ground. It is interesting that in the moving superfluids the effective metric which describes the event horizon is of the Painlevé-Gullstrand type where the time reversal symmetry is violated. That is why we shall also use such a type of the metric field for calculations of the Bekenstein entropy related to a horizon. The event horizon which emerge in stationary superfluids and which simulates the Schwarzschild black hole is discussed in .

We will be interested here mainly in the entropy of the extremal black hole, in particular because there is a contradiction between different approaches to the calculations of the entropy of such a hole. While the Bekenstein entropy of the Reissner-Nordström black hole in the limit of the extreme hole is proportional to the area of the horizon, $`𝒮=\pi r_+^2p_0^2/\mathrm{}^2`$, where $`p_0`$ is the Planck momentum, the entropy of the exactly extremal black hole is zero according to . Such a huge jump under any small change of the extremal hole towards the non-extremal one is rather problematic (see discussion in ). We consider this problem using the effective gravity and the natural regularization which comes from the non-relativistic Planckian physics of quantum liquids at high energy. We find that the Planckian physics modifies the black hole entropy and smoothens the discontinuity occuring in the limit of the extremal black hole. It happens that for the calculations of the entropy of the extremal or nearly extremal black holes it is not necessary to know the quasiparticle spectrum in the trans-Planckian region: the regularization occurs already at low energy where it is enough to use only the first (cubic) correction to the linear relativistic spectrum: $`E(p)cp(1+p^2/p_0^2+\mathrm{})`$.

The thermodynamic approach is also useful for discussion of the condensed matter analogs of the cosmological constant problems (the detailed discussion can be found in the book ). In quantum liquids these problems are essentially the same as in our quantum vacuum, with probably the only difference that in the quantum liquids the structure of the quantum vacuum is well known even in the trans-Planckian region. In Section 4 we discuss how the cosmological constant problems (why it is not huge, why it is not zero and why it is on the order of the energy density of matter) are solved in quantum liquids. The solution does not depend on the details of the structure of the quantum liquid and follows from the thermodynamic relation – the Gibbs-Duhem relation – applied to the quantum vacuum as a medium.

## 2 Black hole on brane

### 2.1 Simulation of Painlevé-Gullstrand metric

Let us start with the modification of the Unruh dumb hole  to superfluids. The effective metric experienced by bosonic or fermionic quasiparticles moving in the background of the superfluid vacuum which flows with the velocity $`𝐯(𝐫)`$ is

$$ds^2=dt^2+\frac{1}{c^2}\left(d𝐫𝐯(𝐫)dt\right)^2+\frac{1}{c^2}r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2.$$
(1)
Here $`c`$ is the maximum attainable speed of the low-energy quasiparticle. If one considers the radial flow of the superfluid vacuum with the following velocity field

$$𝐯(𝐫)=\pm \widehat{𝐫}c\sqrt{\frac{r_h}{r}},r_h=\frac{2MG}{c^2},$$
(2)
one obtains the metric corresponding to the Painlevé-Gullstrand spacetime describing the gravitational field produced by the point source of mass $`M`$. At $`r=r_h`$ where the flow velocity reaches $`c`$ one has the black hole horizon in the case of the vacuum flowing inward (sign -) and the white hole horizon in the case of the flow outward (sign +) ). In superfluids, a flow of the superfluid vacuum violates the time-reversal symmetry: the time reversal operation reverses the direction of flow, $`T𝐯=𝐯`$, and thus transforms the black hole into the white one.

The Painlevé-Gullstrand type metric describes the space-time both in exterior and interior regions, and this spacetime, though not static, is stationary. That is why it has many advantages (see ), and in particular these properties of the Painlevé-Gullstrand metric allow us to discuss the behavior of the quantum vacuum in the interior of the black hole.

For many reason the radial flow with horizon cannot be realized in normal liquids and also in superfluids, as well as many other flow field configurations suggested for the condensed matter simulation of horizons. Here we discuss the most realistic situation, when the pair of white-hole and black-hole horizons can be formed in quantum liquids and they can live for reasonably long time. This scenario of formation of horizons is based on recent experiments with two superfluids sliding along each other .

### 2.2 Simulation of horizons and physical singularities on brane

In an applied gradient of magnetic field two superfluids, 3He-A and 3He-B, are separated by the AB-brane. They can move without any dissipation along the brane with different velocities $`𝐯_1`$ and $`𝐯_2`$. Thes velocities are determined in the container frame where the flow field is stationary. From the hydrodynamic equations it follows that that the quasiparticles living on AB-brane – the surface waves called ripplons – have the following dispersion relation if the container has the form of a thin slab

$`\alpha _1(\omega 𝐩𝐯_1)^2+\alpha _2(\omega 𝐩𝐯_2)^2=`$
$`=c^2p^2\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{p_0^2}}\right)2i\mathrm{\Gamma }(p)\omega ,`$ (3)
where

$`\alpha _1={\displaystyle \frac{h_2\rho _1}{h_2\rho _1+h_1\rho _2}},\alpha _2={\displaystyle \frac{h_1\rho _2}{h_2\rho _1+h_1\rho _2}},\alpha _1+\alpha _2=1,`$ (4)
$$p_0^2=\frac{F}{\sigma },c^2=F\frac{h_1h_2}{\rho _1h_2+\rho _2h_1}.$$
(5)
Here $`\sigma `$ is the surface tension of the AB-brane; $`F`$ is the force stabilizing the position of the brane – an applied magnetic-field gradient (see Ref. ); $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ are mass densities of the liquids; $`h_1`$ and $`h_2`$ are thiknesses of the layeres of A and B phases, and we assume the ‘shallow water’ condition $`ph_11`$ and $`ph_21`$; finally $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(p)`$ is the coefficient in front of the friction force experienced by the AB-brane when it moves with respect to the 3D environment along the normal. This friction term which couples the 2D brane with the 3D environment violates Galilean invariance in the 2D world of the AB-brane. In the low-energy effective theory this term is responsible for the violation of the Lorentz invariance in the brane world caused by the interaction with the higher dimensional environment.

For $`pp_0`$ the main part of Eq. (3) can be rewritten in the Lorentzian form

$`g^{\mu \nu }p_\mu p_\nu =2i\omega \mathrm{\Gamma }(p)c^2p^4/p_0^2,`$ (6)
$`p_\mu =(\omega ,p_x,p_y),p=\sqrt{p_x^2+p_y^2},`$ (7)
while the right-hand side of Eq.(6) contains the remaining small terms violating Lorentz invariance – attenuation of ripplons due to the friction and their nonlinear dispersion. Both terms come from the physics which is ‘trans- Planckian’ for the ripplons. The quantities $`p_0`$ and $`cp_0`$ play the role of the Planck momentum and Planck energy within the brane: they determine the scales where the Lorentz symmetry is violated. The Planck scales of the 2D physics in brane are actually much smaller than the ‘Planck momentum’ and ‘Planck energy’ in the 3D superfluids outside the brane. The function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(p)`$ is determined by the physics of quasiparticles living in bulk which scatter on the brane.

At sufficiently small $`p`$ both non-Lorentzian terms – attenuation and nonlinear dispersion on the right-hand side of Eq.(6) – can be ignored, and the dynamics of ripplons living on the AB-brane is described by the following effective contravariant metric $`g^{\mu \nu }`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}g^{00}=1,g^{0i}=\alpha _1v_1^i\alpha _2v_2^i,\\ g^{ij}=c^2\delta ^{ij}\alpha _1v_1^iv_1^j\alpha _2v_2^iv_2^j.\end{array}$$
(8)
Introducing relative velocity $`𝐔`$ and the mean velocity $`𝐯`$ of two superfluids:

$$𝐯=\alpha _1𝐯_1+\alpha _2𝐯_2,𝐔=\sqrt{\alpha _1\alpha _2}\left(𝐯_1𝐯_2\right),$$
(9)
one obtains the following expression for the effective contravariant metric

$$g^{00}=1,g^{0i}=v^i,g^{ij}=c^2\delta ^{ij}v^iv^jU^iU^j.$$
(10)
The interval of the effective 2+1 spacetime where ripplons move along geodesic curves is

$`ds^2=g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu =`$
$`dt^2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{c^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(𝐔𝐯)^2}{c^2(c^2U^2)}}\right)2dt\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐯d𝐫}{c^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(𝐔d𝐫)(𝐔𝐯)}{c^2(c^2U^2)}}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐫^2}{c^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(𝐔d𝐫)^2}{c^2(c^2U^2)}}.`$ (11)
If $`U=0`$, the two superfluids move with the same velocity and thus can be represented as a single liquid, as a result the Eq.(1) is restored. But in the general case (11) the system is richer than in the case of a single liquid. In principle all the interesting 2+1 metrics can be constructed using two velocity fields. In particular, the ergosurface (which is the ergoline in the 2+1 system) is obtained when

$$g_{00}=0,\mathrm{or}\frac{v^2}{c^2}+\frac{(𝐔𝐯)^2}{c^2(c^2U^2)}=1,$$
(12)
and the physical singularity is obtained at $`U=c`$ where the determinant of the metric

$$g=\frac{1}{c^2(c^2U^2)}$$
(13)
changes sign. In the particular case when $`𝐔𝐯`$ and $`v<U`$, the singularity at $`U=c`$ is naked violating the ‘cosmic censorship’ in quantum liquids.

The arrangement of the planned experiment will be similar to that suggested by Schützhold and Unruh . The A and B vacua with the AB-brane between them are confined in the channel. The shape of the cross-section of the channel is such that in the rotating cryostat the superflluid velocities are inhomeheneous as is shown in the Figure 1. In the typical situation the A-phase is at rest in the container frame, while the B-phase is at rest in the inertial frame, which means that $`𝐔=𝐯=\widehat{\varphi }v(\varphi )`$ and the interval of the effective 2+1 spacetime in which ripplons move along the geodesic curves is given by

$`ds^2=d\stackrel{~}{t}^2{\displaystyle \frac{c^22v^2(\varphi )}{c^2v^2(\varphi )}}+{\displaystyle \frac{r^2d\varphi ^2}{c^22v^2(\varphi )}}+dr^2,`$ (14)
$`d\stackrel{~}{t}=dt+{\displaystyle \frac{v(\varphi )rd\varphi }{c^22v^2(\varphi )}}.`$ (15)
In this geometry there are two horizons, the black-hole and white-hole, at points where $`v_{\mathrm{hor}}^2=c^2/2`$ and thus $`g_{00}=0`$. The physical singularities occur at points where $`v_{\mathrm{singularity}}^2=c^2`$ and thus $`g_{00}=\mathrm{}`$ (see Figure 1).

### 2.3 Vacuum instability due to interaction with bulk

The important feature of the brane physics is the interaction of the brane matter (ripplons) with the bulk world. In the superfluid 3He this interaction gives rise to the imaginary part of the spectrum of brane quasiparticles in Eq.(6): the energy of ripplons has a finite dissipation rate. In the presence of a horizon the situation changes drastically: When the horizon is crossed and the real part of the quasiparticle energy changes sign according to Eq.(6), the imaginary part of the spectrum also changes sign (see Figure 1 bottom left). This means that the attenuation of perturbations which occurs outside the horizon transforms to the amplification of perturbations beyond the horizon, i.e. due to the interaction with the bulk environment the quantum vacuum of the brane becomes unstable in the interior region of the black hole. This instability finally leads to the shrinking of the interior region.

In superfluid 3He the rate of the brane vacuum decay is determined both by the brane and bulk parameters:

$$\frac{1}{\tau }\mathrm{\Gamma }(p)p^2\frac{c_{\mathrm{bulk}}T^3}{p_{\mathrm{brane}}E_{\mathrm{bulk}}^3},$$
(16)
where $`T`$ is the temperature in the bulk; $`c_{\mathrm{bulk}}`$ is the maximum attainable speed for quasiparticles living in bulk; $`E_{\mathrm{bulk}}`$ is the Planck energy scale in bulk; and $`p_{\mathrm{brane}}=p_0`$ is the brane Planck momentum. Typically the bulk parameters are much larger than that on the brane: $`c_{\mathrm{bulk}}c_{\mathrm{brane}}`$; $`p_{\mathrm{bulk}}p_{\mathrm{brane}}`$; and $`E_{\mathrm{bulk}}E_{\mathrm{brane}}c_{\mathrm{brane}}p_{\mathrm{brane}}=cp_0`$.

In the current experiments with the AB-brane , the shallow water conditions are not satisfied, and thus the ripplons are non-relativistic and are not described by the effective metric. That is why the horizon was not simulated in these experiments. However, the notion of the ergoregion – the region where the ripplons have negative energy in the container frame – is well defined even for the non-relativistic case. The Figure 1 bottom left properly describes the spectrum of the non-relativistic ripplons too, if one substitutes the horizons by the ergosurfaces. The physical singularity corresponds to the points where the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability takes place. The vacuum decay in the ergoregion occurs essentially in the same way as beyond the horizon, and the experimental data for the threshold of the ergoregion instability are in an excelent agreement with the theory. Thus the non-relativistic analog of the discussed mechanism of the brane vacuum decay due to the interaction with the higher-dimensional environment has been experimentally confirmed.

Something similar can occur for the astronomical black holes if we live on the brane of the multidimensional world. The interaction of our brane matter with the bulk environment can lead to the decay of the quantum vacuum beyond the black hole horizon. The time of $`\tau `$ of the decay depends on the ratio of the bulk and brane parameters, and in principle, this time can be shorter that the quantum process of the black hole evaporation introduced by Hawking. The goal of the future experiments with the AB-brane is to study the vacuum decay in the relativistic regime when the horizon is developed, and at low temperature where the decay time is long, so that the other processes of the vacuum decay become relevant, such as the Corley–Jacobson lasing scenario  which occurs in the presence of the pair of horizons.

## 3 Entropy of extremal black hole

### 3.1 Simulation of extremal and nearly extremal black holes

In previous Section it was shown that the event horizon for the relativistic quasiparticles can be constructed in quantum liquids at least in principle. Since the microstates of the quantum liquids are well known we can study the problem of the thermodynamics in the presence of the horizon.

When the two horizons are close to each other (Figure 2 right) the quasiparticle interval in Eq.(14) becomes

$$ds^2=d\stackrel{~}{t}^2(\varphi ^2\varphi _{\mathrm{hor}}^2)+\frac{r^2d\varphi ^2}{\varphi ^2\varphi _{\mathrm{hor}}^2}+dr^2.$$
(17)
When the two horizons merge (Figure 2 left) one has $`\varphi _{\mathrm{hor}}^2=0`$, and the interval becomes

$$ds^2=d\stackrel{~}{t}^2\varphi ^2+\frac{r^2d\varphi ^2}{\varphi ^2}+dr^2,$$
(18)
One can compare this with the interval for matter in the presence of the Reissner-Nordström black hole of mass $`M`$ and electric charge $`Q`$

$`ds^2=d\stackrel{~}{t}^2{\displaystyle \frac{(rr_+)(rr_{})}{r^2}}+dr^2{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{(rr_+)(rr_{})}}+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega },`$ (19)
$`r_+r_{}=Q^2,r_++r_{}=2MG,`$ (20)
where $`r_+`$ and $`r_{}`$ are external and inner horizons. For the nearly extremal black hole, the two horizons are close to each other, $`r_+r_{}r_++r_{}2r_h`$. Introducing the coordinate $`\stackrel{~}{r}=r(r_++r_{})/2`$ in the vicinity of horizons and the quantity $`\stackrel{~}{r}_h^2=(r_+r_{})^2/4`$ one obtains

$$ds^2d\stackrel{~}{t}^2\frac{\stackrel{~}{r}^2\stackrel{~}{r}_h^2}{r_h^2}+d\stackrel{~}{r}^2\frac{r_h^2}{\stackrel{~}{r}^2\stackrel{~}{r}_h^2}+r_h^2d\mathrm{\Omega },$$
(21)
Thus close to the horizons the radial part of the Reissner-Nordström metric is similar to the azimuthal part of the quasiparticle metric in Eq. (17). When the two horizons merge, i.e. when $`\stackrel{~}{r}_h=0`$, one obtains the metric of the extremal hole

$$ds^2d\stackrel{~}{t}^2\frac{\stackrel{~}{r}^2}{r_h^2}+d\stackrel{~}{r}^2\frac{r_h^2}{\stackrel{~}{r}^2}+r_h^2d\mathrm{\Omega },$$
(22)
which is thus simulated by the quasiparticle interval in Eq.(18). Since the thermodynamics of the nearly extremal and the extremal holes are determined by the microstates in the vicinity of the horizons, the difference between the metrics in Eqs.(2122) and their quasiparticle counterparts in Eqs.(1718) is not important.

The above examples demonstrate that in principle it is possible to simulate different types of horizons in quantum liquids. Let us now assume that we can construct in a quantum liquid the following effective metric for the ‘relativistic’ quasiparticles:

$`ds^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{b(r)}}\left[c^2(r)dt^2+\left(drv(r)dt\right)^2\right]+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2=`$ (23)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{b(r)}}\left[(c^2(r)v^2(r))d\stackrel{~}{t}^2+dr^2{\displaystyle \frac{c^2(r)}{c^2(r)v^2(r)}}\right]+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2,`$ (24)
$`d\stackrel{~}{t}=dt+{\displaystyle \frac{v(r)dr}{c^2(r)v^2(r)}}.`$ (25)
Here $`v(r)`$ is the velocity of the radial flow of the liquid; $`c(r)`$ is the local maximum attainable speed of the relativistic quasiparticle in the reference frame comoving with the liquid; and $`b(r)`$ is some function related to the local density of the liquid. One can check that the metric in Eq.(24) coincides with the metric of Reissner-Nordström black hole of mass $`M`$ and electric charge $`Q`$ in Eq.(19) if one chooses

$$b(r)=\frac{c(r)}{c}=1+\frac{Q^2}{r^2},v(r)=\sqrt{\frac{2GMb(r)}{r}},c=c(r=\mathrm{}).$$
(26)
The quasiparticle metric in Eq.(23) is thus the analog of the Painlevé-Gullstrand metric describing the spacetime both in exterior and interior regions of the Reissner-Nordström black hole.

### 3.2 Fermi surface in the interior of nearly extremal black hole

The spacetime in Eq.(23), though not static, is stationary. That is why the quasiparticle energy spectrum in the interior region is well determined. It has the form of Eq.(6)

$$g^{\mu \nu }p_\mu p_\nu +m^2+c^2p^4/p_0^2=0,$$
(27)
where the effective Painlevé-Gullstrand metric $`g^{\mu \nu }`$ is given by Eq.(23), and we neglected the possible interaction of quasiparticles with the environment which leads to the broadening of the spectrum. The dispersion relation (27) contains only the first non-linear correction to the relativistic spectrum which violates the Lorentz symmetry. Though the main contribution to the thermodynamics of the black hole comes from the short wave length, where the Planck physics intervenes, it happens that for the nearly extremal and extremal holes only this first correction is important, while the higher-order terms can be neglected. Thus one has the following quasiclassical energy spectrum $`E(𝐩)`$ in the background of the Reissner-Nordström black hole:

$$\frac{1}{b(r)}\left(Ep_rv(r)\right)^2=b(r)c^2p_r^2+c^2p_{}^2+m^2+\frac{p^4}{p_0^2}.$$
(28)
where $`p_r`$ is the radial momentum of the (quasi)particle and $`p_{}`$ is its transverse momentum.

We are interested in the spectrum of fermionic quasiparticles, since according to the quantum liquid analogy for the quantum vacuum only the fermions are fundamental while the bosons appear as collective modes of the quantum vacuum . In the Standard Model these quasiparticles correspond to $`N_F=16N_g`$ chiral fermionic species where $`N_g`$ is the number of generations. The most important property of the fermionic spectrum in the presence of the horizons is the existence of the Fermi surface, which appears even for fermions with nonzero mass $`m`$: the Fermi surface appears at large momentum $`p`$ where the mass term can be neglected. Fermi surface is the 2D surface in the 3D momentum space, where the energy of the particle is zero: $`E(𝐩)=0`$. For the spectrum in Eq.(28) this 2D manifold of fermion zero modes is given by equation, which expresses the radial momentum in terms of the transverse momentum $`p_{}`$ (we put $`c=1`$):

$$p_r^2(p_{})=\frac{1}{2}p_0^2\left(\frac{v^2}{b}b\right)p_{}^2\pm \sqrt{\frac{1}{4}p_0^4\left(\frac{v^2}{b}b\right)^2+p_0^2p_{}^2\left(b1\frac{v^2}{b}\right)}.$$
(29)
This surface exists at each point $`𝐫`$ between the horizons, where $`v^2>b^2`$. It exists only in the restricted range of the transverse momenta, with the restriction provided by the parameter $`p_0`$ which plays the role of the Planck momentum:

$$p_{}^2<\frac{1}{4}p_0^2\frac{(v^2b^2)^2}{b^2b^3+bv^2}.$$
(30)
This means that the Fermi surface is a closed surface in the 3D momentum space $`𝐩`$.

### 3.3 Entropy of nearly extremal black hole

The main thermodynamic property of the fermion zero modes with the Fermi surface is that its vacuum is characterized by a finite density of fermionic states (DOS) $`N(E=0)`$. For each of $`N_F=16N_g`$ fermionic species the DOS is:

$`N(E)={\displaystyle \underset{𝐩,𝐫}{}}\delta (E(𝐩)E),`$ (31)
$`N(E=0)={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle _r_{}^{r_+}}r^2𝑑r{\displaystyle d^3p\delta (E(𝐩))}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _r_{}^{r_+}}r^2𝑑r{\displaystyle _0^{p_{}^2(r)}}{\displaystyle \frac{d(p_{}^2)}{|v_G|}},`$ (32)
where $`v_G`$ is the radial component of the group velocity of (quasi)particles at the Fermi surface:

$$v_G(E=0,p_{},r)=\frac{dE}{dp_r}|_{E=0}=\frac{1}{v}\sqrt{(v^2b^2)^2+4\frac{p_{}^2}{p_0^2}(b^3b^2bv^2)}.$$
(33)
Integration over $`p_{}^2`$ in Eq.(32) gives for the DOS

$$N(E=0)=\frac{p_0^2}{\pi }_r_{}^{r_+}r^2𝑑r\frac{|v|(v^2b^2)}{bv^2+b^2b^3}.$$
(34)
In the extreme limit $`QM`$ one obtains

$$N(E=0)\frac{4}{3\pi }p_0^2r_+^3\left(1\frac{Q^2}{M^2}\right)^{3/2}.$$
(35)
Let us emphasize that the (quasi)particles contributing to this DOS live between the two horizons, i.e. $`r_{}<r<r_+`$. The characterisic momenta of these (quasi)particles are $`pp_0\sqrt{1\frac{Q^2}{M^2}}`$. In the extreme-hole limit these momenta, though much larger than any fermionic mass, are still much smaller than the Planck momentum $`p_0`$. This is the reason why in this limit only the first non-linear correction to the relativistic spectrum in Eq.(27) is relevant.

At non-zero temperature the fermionic microstates forming the Fermi surface give the following Bekenstein entropy:

$$𝒮(T,M,Q)=\frac{\pi ^2}{3}N(E=0)T=4\pi N_F\frac{p_0^2r_+^3T}{\mathrm{}^3c}\left(1\frac{Q^2}{M^2}\right)^{3/2},$$
(36)
which is linear in $`T`$.

### 3.4 Entropy of extremal black hole

For the extremal black hole ($`Q=M`$) the two horizons merge and the Fermi surface disappears. As a result the linear in $`T`$ term in Eq.(36) for the Bekenstein entropy becomes zero. This means that the entropy of the extremal black hole must be of higher order in $`T`$. Let us calculate this entropy. It can be obtained directly from the thermal energy

$$=𝑑EEN(E)f(E/T)=\underset{𝐩,𝐫}{}E(𝐩,𝐫)f(E(𝐩,𝐫)/T),$$
(37)
where $`f`$ is the Fermi distribution function. For the extremal hole one has $`b^2(r)v^2(r)2(rr_+)^2/r_+^2`$, and after the change of variables

$$\frac{p_r(rr_+)^2}{2r_+^2}=x^2,\frac{p_{}^2}{2p_r}=y^2,\frac{p_r^3}{2p_0^2}=z^2,E=x^2+y^2+z^2=u^2,$$
(38)
one obtains the following dependence of the DOS on $`E`$

$$N(E)dE=\frac{d^3rd^3p}{(2\pi )^3}=\frac{2}{\pi }dp_rd(p_{}^2)r^2dr=\frac{1}{3\pi }p_0r_+^3|u|d^3u=\frac{2}{3c^2}p_0r_+^3EdE.$$
(39)
Thus the DOS of fermion zero modes living at the extremal black hole is equivalent to the DOS of the 2D relativistic gas of massless fermions with zero chemical potential, whose density of states is $`N(E)=(2/3)p_0r_+^3E`$. The entropy of such gas and thus the entropy of extremal black hole is

$$𝒮_{\mathrm{extremal}\mathrm{hole}}=3\zeta (3)N_F\frac{p_0r_+^3}{c^2\mathrm{}^3}T^2.$$
(40)
The entropy in Eq.(36) for the nearly extremal black hole which is valid for

$$11\frac{Q^2}{M^2}\left(\frac{T}{cp_0}\right)^{2/3},$$
(41)
smoothly transforms to the entropy in Eq.(40) for the extremal black hole, when the parameter $`1\frac{Q^2}{M^2}`$ approaches $`(T/cp_0)^{2/3}`$.

Let us stress again that for the extremal black hole the main contribution to DOS and thus to the thermodynamics comes from the momenta much smaller than the cut-off momentum $`p_0`$:

$$\frac{p_r}{p_0}\left(\frac{T}{cp_0}\right)^{1/3}1,\frac{p_{}}{p_0}\left(\frac{T}{cp_0}\right)^{2/3}1.$$
(42)
That is why we do not need to know the trans-Planckian physics, since only the first nonlinear correction to the relativistic particle spectrum is important. The region in the vicinity of the horizon which gives the main contribution to the thermodynamics has the size

$$\mathrm{\Delta }r=|rr_+|r_+\left(\frac{T}{cp_0}\right)^{1/3}.$$
(43)
For all reasonable temperatures the thickness of this shell is much bigger than the Planck length $`\mathrm{}/p_0`$. The quasiclassical approximation which we used is valid when $`p_r\mathrm{\Delta }r1`$, i.e. when the temperature $`T(cp_0)^{5/2}M^{3/2}`$, where $`M`$ is the mass of the black hole. The quantum limit, when the quantum properties of the black hole become important, is approached at temperature $`T_{\mathrm{quantum}}=(cp_0)^{5/2}M^{3/2}`$. This $`T_{\mathrm{quantum}}`$ is by factor $`(cp_0/M)^{1/2}`$ smaller than the characteristic Hawking scale $`T_\mathrm{H}(cp_0)^2/M`$, which demonstrates that the non-linear dispersion of the energy spectrum drastically changes the black-hole thermodynamics.

## 4 Thermodynamics of the quantum vacuum

Recent cosmological observations indicate that the cosmological constant in the present Universe is non-zero and its magnitude is by 123 orders of magnitude smaller than its natural scale dictated by the Planck energy cut-off (see the recent review paper )

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{nat}}\frac{cp_0^4}{\mathrm{}^3}.$$
(44)
Such a huge disparity between the theoretically expected and experimentally observed values suggests that there must be some fundamental principle which requires $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to vanish almost completely. The quantum-liquid analogs of the quantum vacuum give some hint how this almost complete cancellation can occur without any fine tuning. In quantum liquids such a cancellation does occur, it follows from the thermodynamics of the quantum liquid and does not depend on the details of the microscopic (trans-Planckian) physics. That is why one can expect that considering the thermodynamics of the vacuum as an effective medium one obtains the same cancellation.

Let us consider such quantum liquids, whose low-frequency dynamics of collective modes is similar to that of the quantum fields of our vacuum. An example is provided by the superfluid 3He-A whose fermionic and bosonic quasiparticles have the same structure as chiral fermions, and gauge and gravitational fields. The reason for such an analogy is the momentum space topology which is common for the ground state of 3He-A and for the quantum vacuum of the Standard Model .

Let us suppose that the quantum liquid is perfect in a sense that in the low-energy corner it fully reproduces the Standard Model. Then from the point of view of the low-energy observers living in this liquid the cosmological constant must have the natural value in Eq.(44). Here $`p_0`$ is the corresponding Planck momentum cut-off, which in 3He-A is on the order of Fermi momentum; $`c`$ is the maximum attainable speed for the low-energy quasiparticles, which changes from 3 cm/s to 100 m/s depending on the direction of propagation; and the sign $`\pm `$ depends on the fermionic and bosonic content of the effective theory.

As distinct from our vacuum, in the quantum liquids we know not only the effective theory, but also the microscopic (trans-Planckian) physics, and thus we can exactly calculate the vacuum energy – the energy of the ground state of the liquid – and thus to find the cosmological constant exactly. If one calculates the energy density $`ϵ`$ of the liquid, one obtains the same estimate for its magnitude as in Eq.(44). But does the energy $`ϵ`$ of the liquid really correspond to the cosmological constant? The further inspection indicates that the role of the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is played by the thermodynamic potential $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}=ϵ\mu n`$, where $`n=N/V`$ is the density of particles of the liquid and $`\mu `$ is their chemical potential. One should not confuse particles which comprise the vacuum (say, the 3He atoms) and quasiparticles which are the excitations above the vacuum and which form the analog of matter in quantum liquids.

The reason for the identification of the cosmological constant with the thermodynamic potential, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\stackrel{~}{ϵ}`$, is that in the quantum liquids it is just the gradient expansion of $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}`$ (not of $`ϵ`$) which gives rise to the effective Hamiltonian $`_{\mathrm{effective}}`$ for the effective gravity and effective matter fields (bosonic and fermionic quasiparticles):

$$\mu 𝒩=V\stackrel{~}{ϵ}+_{\mathrm{effective}},\stackrel{~}{ϵ}=\frac{1}{V}vac|\mu 𝒩|vac.$$
(45)
Thus $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}`$ is the proper energy of the vacuum for the effective theory. That this is the correct choice also follows from the Gibbs-Duhem relation applied to the equilibrium quantum liquid

$$P=TS+\mu nϵ,$$
(46)
where $`P`$ is the pressure and $`S`$ is the entropy density. From this relation one obtains that the vacuum, i.e. an equilibrium liquid at $`T=0`$, has the following equation of state

$$P_{\mathrm{vac}}=\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{\mathrm{vac}}.$$
(47)
This is just the equation of state for the vacuum in general relativity, which follows from the cosmological term in the Einstein action. This confirms our identification of the cosmological constant emerging in the quantum liquid.

Let us find $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{\mathrm{vac}}`$ for the liquid in its ground state in the situation when the liquid is isolated from the environment, for example, for a droplet of the liquid in space. Since in the absence of the interaction with the environment the pressure of the liquid is zero, from Eq.(47) it follows that in complete equilibrium and in the absence of any external perturbations disturbing the ground state of the liquid, the energy $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{\mathrm{vac}}`$ of the ground state is always zero. Thus the thermodynamics of the quantum vacuum demonstrates that, if the gravity is effective, the big energy of the vacuum (and thus the big cosmological constant) is cancelled without any fine tuning.

The next step is to demonstrate that in the perturbed vacuum the relevant vacuum energy density $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{\mathrm{vac}}`$ is slightly non-zero being proportional to the energy density of perturbations. This can be seen on the simplest example of non-zero temperature if it is small compared to the Planck energy scale, $`Tcp_0`$ (this condition is probably satisfied even during the Big Bang, which would mean that even at the highest density of matter the quantum vacuum is still close to its equilibrium state). At $`T0`$ the thermal quasiparticles are excited, and they represent the matter living in the quantum vacuum of the liquid. From the Gibbs-Duhem relation for matter (the system of thermal quasiparticles)

$$P_{\mathrm{matter}}=TS\frac{1}{V}E_{\mathrm{matter}},$$
(48)
and from the condition that in an isolated liquid the total pressure must be zero

$$P_{\mathrm{matter}}+P_{\mathrm{vac}}=0,$$
(49)
one obtains the response of the cosmological constant to the thermally excited matter:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{\mathrm{vac}}=P_{\mathrm{vac}}=P_{\mathrm{matter}}=TS\frac{1}{V}E_{\mathrm{matter}}.$$
(50)
Thus in this example the cosmological constant is on the order of the free energy of matter, which is what the cosmological observations suggest.

The other perturbations which disturb the zero value of the cosmological constant are the space curvature, the time-dependent processes such as an expansion of the Universe, Casimir effect, etc. (see ). Thus from the quantum-liquid analog of the quantum vacuum it follows that the cosmological constant is not a constant but is the evolving physical parameter, which responds to the combined action of different perturbations of the vacuum state. Our goal is to find the laws of its evolution, and probably the further exploitation of the condensed-matter analogies will help us to solve this cosmological ‘constant’ problem.


format: text

text:
# Rationale for the use of color information on Eddington

## 1 Introduction

The purpose of this research note is to calculate the gain in detectability of extrasolar planets brought by the use of color information instead of the white flux alone, in the case of the Eddington mission (Favata et al. favata (2000)).

The monitoring of the solar variability performed by SOHO/SPM in three bands (Fröhlich et al. frohlich (1997)) shows that there is a strong correlation between the different colors, the variation in the blue being significantly larger than in the red. On the contrary, a transit is essentially perceived as an achromatic variation of the stellar flux. Thus, a properly weighted linear combination of the colored lightcurves can provide a composite lightcurve almost free of stellar variability. Unfortunately, this has to be traded off against an increase of quantum noise. The following calculation evaluates the variability threshold above which the signal to noise ratio (S/N) is increased by the variability subtraction.

## 2 White detection S/N

Let us consider the problem from the standpoint of pure detection. Then, the highest S/N is achieved when the lightcurve is averaged over the transit duration, that is to say transits are reduced to one point. The noise figure for Eddington is expected to be dominated by the quantum noise with an additional contribution of the stellar variability noise. If $`N_e`$ is the total number of photoelectrons collected during a transit, $`\sigma _{}N_e`$ the standard deviation of the stellar variability, and considering that these two noises as uncorrelated, the white light S/N on a single transit is

$$(S/N)_\mathrm{w}=\left(\frac{R_\mathrm{p}}{R_{}}\right)^2\sqrt{\frac{N_e}{1+\sigma _{}^2N_e}},$$
(1)
where $`R_\mathrm{p}`$ and $`R_{}`$ are the radii of the planet and of its star, respectively.

## 3 Colored detection S/N

Let us assume now that the stellar flux is observed in two colored channels, denoted B (blue) and R (red), collecting the fractions $`x_B`$ and $`x_R`$ of the total number of photoelectrons. As the stellar variations are highly correlated at the timescale of a few hours (Fig. 1), one can remove most of the stellar variability noise by combining the relative colored flux variations:

$$S=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }B}{B}k\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }R}{R},$$
(2)
where $`k`$ is a constant adjusted to minimize $`S`$ when $`\mathrm{\Delta }B`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }R`$ are due to the stellar variability alone. Now, we assume that $`S`$ is due to the transit of a planet in front of a star producing a total of $`N_e`$ photoelectrons. Denoting by $`N`$ the new quantum noise, the S/N in colored light is

$$(S/N)_\mathrm{c}=(k1)\left(\frac{R_\mathrm{p}}{R_{}}\right)^2\sqrt{\frac{N_e}{x_B^1+k^2x_R^1}}.$$
(3)
Using the SOHO/SPM data and the transmission curve of COROT (Eddington’s precursor, Rouan et al. rouan (2000)), one computes $`k=1.62`$, $`x_B=32\%`$ and $`x_R=42\%`$, as being the optimum values for the Sun.

## 4 Magnitude and spectral type histograms of stars with expected detection

By using a simple transit detection algorithm (Bordé et al. borde01 (2001), borde02 (2002)), we estimate, in the stellar field envisioned for Eddington ($`l_{\mathrm{II}}=70\mathrm{°}`$, $`b_{\mathrm{II}}=5\mathrm{°}`$, 7.1 deg2), the number of stars with expected planet detections, as a function of their spectral type (Fig. 2) and magnitude (Fig. 3). These computations assume that every star is orbited by a planet with the given radius at 278 K blackbody temperature (1 AU for a G2V star).

We conclude that for Earth-size planets most detections occur around K stars with 15–16th magnitude. For larger planets, the detection peak shifts toward G stars still with 15–16th magnitude.

## 5 Variability threshold

The variability threshold $`\sigma _{}^{\mathrm{min}}`$ above which one benefits from the colored detection is given by the condition

$`(S/N)_\mathrm{c}`$ $``$ $`(S/N)_\mathrm{w}`$ (4)
$`\sigma _{}^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_e}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{x_B^1+k^2x_R^1}{(k1)^2}}1\right\}`$ (5)
$`\text{i.e.}\sigma _{}^{\mathrm{min}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4.8}{\sqrt{N_e}}}.`$ (6)
Thus, the colored detection becomes more efficient than the white one when the stellar variability noise overcomes the quantum noise by a factor of $`5`$.

Now, let us adopt the Astrium concept for Eddington: 4 Schmidt telescopes with $`D=0.6`$ m pupils pointing at the same direction. We assume that all telescopes are equiped with dichroic plates allowing the simultaneous measure of blue and red signals. Instead of dichroic plates, one may use a dispersive device, for instance derived from that by Chao & Chi (chao (1998)). For a G2 star and a planet at 1 AU, Table 1 lists the values obtained for $`\sigma _{}^{\mathrm{min}}`$ as a function of the star visual magnitude, $`m_V`$. These values are converted into solar variability levels using high-pass filtered SOHO/SPM data. At the time scale of a transit, 11.2 h for an Earth-like planet, $`\sigma _{}\mathrm{6.3\hspace{0.17em}10}^5`$.

## 6 Estimate of stellar variability on a 10 hour timescale

To address the question of stellar variability on a 10 hour timescale, the *only star* for which we have data with sufficient precision is the Sun, as observed by SOHO. Work by the St Andrews group and co-workers (see for instance http:\\capella.st-and.ac.uk\$``$acc4\corot\_ao\_bid.pdf) as well as Carpano, Aigrain & Favata (2002) indicates that:

(i) the amplitude of variability on timescales less than one day does not vary strongly during the solar cycle;

(ii) the color signature of the variability on these short timescales (from high-pass filtered VIRGO/SPM data) is indistinguishable from that of either spots or faculae.

This leads to the conclusion that whatever phenomenon produces the 10 hour timescale variability, it does *not* scale with the overall coverage of active regions (solar spots) and therefore variability on a 10 day timescale.

SOHO/MDI continuum images taken around solar minimum have been examined, searching for low-contrast features that might be responsible for this variability. The only features that showed up were the bright network elements dotted around the edges of supergranules (see http:\\capella.st-and.ac.uk\$``$jrb3\sunmovie3.gif). They are limb-brightened in the same way as faculae, showing up strongly only when they are near the limb. If they are the source of the hour timescale variability, this explains the color signature very nicely. Since the network elements appear to be a “magnetic carpet” phenomenon, this would also explain why the amount of variability on these timescales does not vary much during the solar cycle, a distinct physical process.

Now, how can these preliminary conclusions be extrapolated to other stars? One would predict that if the hour timescale variability is a granulation/network phenomenon, its amplitude would not change much from year to year, even for more active stars.

*The estimate of the variability amplitude is much more uncertain*, especially for latter type stars where the contrast of the filament network to quiet photosphere can be higher. In fact, *there is no qualified proxy for the 10 hour stellar activity*. For any star, the luminosity 10 hour variability depends upon the total number of filaments, $`n`$, and their individual brightness, $`\delta `$, as a function $`f(n,\delta )`$. For instance, if most of the variation comes from Poissonian fluctuations of $`n`$, $`f(n,\delta )=\sqrt{n}\delta `$.

Let us consider two estimates:

1. One can assume that the number and brightness of network elements is independent of spectral type, i.e. $`n=n_{}`$, $`\delta =\delta _{}`$ and $`f=f_{}`$. Then the standard deviation of the relative change of the stellar luminosity is

$$\sigma _{,1}=\frac{f(n_{},\delta _{})}{L_{}}=\sigma _{}\frac{L_{}}{L_{}}.$$
(7)
The corresponding values for different spectral types are given in Table 2, second column;
2. Alternatively, one can assume that a proxy indicator for the total luminosity of the network elements is the lowest Ca II HK fluxes seen in main-sequence stars as a function of their spectral type. Noyes et al. (1984) show in their Fig. 2 that $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{R}^{}(\mathrm{HK})`$, i.e. the chromospheric Ca II HK emission flux as a fraction of the bolometric luminosity, has a lower envelope ranging from $`5.2`$ for solar spectral type to $`4.9`$ for M0V spectral type.

If all network elements have comparable brightness, the basal R’(HK) implies that there must be twice as many of them per unit bolometric luminosity on an M0 star as on the Sun. But the M0 star has $`1/16`$ the solar bolometric luminosity, so the total number of elements on the M0 star would be 8 times fewer than on the Sun. The Poissonian fluctuations in their contribution to the stellar flux would be $`\sqrt{8}`$ times less than on the Sun, but the stellar luminosity on which they are superimposed is 16 times less. Overall, the fluctuations ($`\mathrm{\Delta }f/f`$) on the M0 star could be $`16/\sqrt{16/2}6`$ times greater than $`\mathrm{\Delta }f/f`$ for the Sun. The estimates for other spectral types proceed in a similar way and are reported in Table 2, third column.

## 7 Conclusion and discussion

For the Sun, the 10 hour variability and 10 day one are decoupled indicating different physical origins. For other stars, the same decoupling is expected. The fact that a significant fraction of them are much more active than the Sun on long periods does not imply a similar variability on 10 hour timescale. Estimating the latter is presently *quite uncertain*, as well from the theoretical point of view (very little is known about its physical origin) as from the observational one (amplitudes are too small to be observed from the ground). One can only conjecture about it. We have considered two such “guess-estimates”. For spectral type and magnitude around which most telluric planet detections are expected, G and K stars with $`m_V=1516`$, the 10 hour variability would be 2–6 times that of the Sun, whereas the threshold where the photometry in different colors is more efficient is 7–12 times it. *If these estimates are relevant*, the colored photometry would not provide a significant advantage.

On the other hand, if the colored information is obtained thanks to an instrument that does not loose many photons, as a dichroic and two CCD sets or a dispersive system (e.g. derived from the proposal by Chao & Chi (chao (1998))) and a single CCD, photometry in white is still possible and as efficient as in the absence of color information. Then, *the Precaution Imperative stresses the advantage of having the capability of photometry in different colors* in case our present estimates of the 10 hour variability are incorrect, and stars are significantly more variable than expected. The main possible disadvantage of the corresponding instrument would be cost and complexity, at a level that has to be estimated.

In conclusion, it is our opinion that it is worth studying practical implementations of photometry in different colors for the Eddington mission before taking irreversible decisions.


text:
# First Principles Calculations of Fe on GaAs (100).

## I Introduction

In the context of magnetoelectronics it is important to understand the structural and electronic properties of the interface between Fe and GaAs general (1, 2). Several experimental investigations have been performed on this interface krebs (3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17). Under As-rich conditions the Fe film growing on top of GaAs is found to have a reduced magnetic moment, or even a zero magnetic moment close to the interface krebs (3, 4, 5). Moreover, structural investigations of the Fe film lead to the conclusion that between a bcc Fe film and the GaAs substrate there exists an intermediate phase, $`Fe_xGa_yAs_z`$ rahmoune (6, 7). Under Ga-rich conditions no traces of an intermediate phase are found and the magnetic moment is found to be bulk-like even close to the interface bensch (8, 9).

Other theoretical investigations of the Fe/GaAs(100) interface theory (18, 19, 20, 21) have been performed. Except of the calculations by Erwin et al erwin (20), all other calculations considered only an ideal Fe/GaAs interface. Erwin focused on Fe adatom growth and magnetic properties of the interface and allowed for ionic relaxations only perpendicular to the surface (i.e along the z-direction). In general their results agree with our calculations. In this paper we present an investigation of the (completely) relaxed Fe/GaAs interface structure. We study the Fe magnetic moment as a function of the Fe film thickness and the relaxed structure of the Fe film. In addition we study As and Ga segregation. We discuss the origin of the so called magnetically dead layers on top of GaAs and why Fe growth differs on As terminated and Ga terminated interfaces.

## II Computational details

We have performed self-consistent first-principles density functional calculations employing a plane wave pseudopotential code (VASP ) vasp (22). PAW pseudopotentials paw (23) with an energy cutoff of 24.61 Ryd were used. Exchange correlation was treated within the generalized gradient approximation (GGA) gga (24). We used a (4x4x4) folding of special k-points monkhorst (25). We used a unit cell having 6 semiconducting layers (3 Ga and 3 As) as the substrate and 1 to 10 Fe atoms (0.5 monolayer to 5 monolayers) on top of the GaAs substrate. A vacuum of 10 Å thickness or more was kept to avoid interactions between neighboring unit cells in the (001) direction. To simulate a bulk semiconductor, the lowermost Ga/As layer was passivated with pseudohydrogen atoms pseudohyrdo (26). Volume and shape relaxations were allowed along with the relaxation of the atoms. All atoms were relaxed except the 2 bulk semiconducting atoms. It is worth mentioning that the bcc Fe is perfectly lattice matched to the GaAs substrate (zinc-blende lattice). The GaAs lattice constant (5.65 Å ) is almost twice of the lattice constant of bcc Fe (2.87 Å ). Thus the GaAs unit cell is equivalent to two bcc unit cells. We used a lattice constant of $`5.735`$ Å which corresponds to the calculated GaAs bulk equilibrium lattice constant within GGA. The lattice constant of bulk Fe is calculated to be only $`0.05\%`$ smaller. The energies were converged with an accuracy of $`10^4`$ eV. The Pulay stress we find to be negligible, being of the order of 0.1 kB.

Local magnetic moments were obtained by projecting wave functions onto spherical harmonics within spheres centered on the atoms eichler (27). We used $`1.302`$ Å $`1.402`$ Å and $`1.355`$ Å for Fe, Ga, and As spheres, respectively. In order to compare energies of different interface geometries with a non-equivalent number of atoms, we used the following definition of the formation energy:

$$E_{form}=E_{total}\underset{i}{}N_i\mu _i.$$
(1)
$`N_i`$ is the number of non equivalent atoms of species $`i`$, and $`\mu _i`$ is the chemical potential. We estimated the chemical potential by calculating the total energy of species $`i`$ in its bulk form.

## III GaAs surface

The GaAs (100) surface structure depends on the growth environment. Under As rich conditions the GaAs (100) surface shows a c(4x4) c4x4 (28) reconstruction, whereas under Ga rich conditions the GaAs (100) surface shows an $`ϵ`$(4x2) epsilon (29) reconstruction. All these reconstructions differ from an ideally terminated surface -where either only Ga or only As exists at the surface- by the existence of Ga-Ga and (or) As-As dimers.

In a first attempt to understand the interface between Fe and GaAs we neglect any surface reconstructions and assume an ideal Ga(As) terminated surface. In order to justify this approximation, let us assume we would grow Fe on top of some reconstructed GaAs surface. The interaction of Fe with the dangling bonds of As or Ga is already included in our calculation assuming an ideal cut. The question is now what happens with the As-As (Ga-Ga) dimers, when Fe is present at the surface? In a recent paper Erwin et al. erwin (20) calculate that Ga and As surface dimers become unstable under Fe adsorption and Fe-Ga resp. Fe-As bonds form instead. This implies that our calculation assuming an ideal cut surface covers most of the physics at the Fe-GaAs interface. Moreover, experimental results by Kneedler et al. kneedler (16) warrant our approximation to ignore the surface reconstruction details. They investigated the influence of the GaAs surface reconstructions on the properties of the growing Fe film. They compared two As-rich terminations, the 2x4 and the c(4x4). In summary they find, although the Fe island morphology is different, the growth mode, interfacial structure, magnetic behaviour, and the uniaxial anisotropy to be independent on the chosen As-rich surface reconstruction.

The difference in Fe growth between a Ga-terminated and an As-terminated surface can be explained largely by kinetic arguments. In Fig.1 we show the cohesive energy as a function of the Fe-Ga (Fe-As) distance for bulk FeGa (FeAs) in a zincblende structure. (These artificial structures only serve as a tool to understand the FeAs and FeGa interaction.) The cohesive energy of zincblende FeAs is about $`4`$ eV lower than of FeGa. Thus the interaction between Ga and Fe is much weaker than between As and Fe, because As has three $`p`$-electrons and Ga only one $`p`$-electron, which gives rise to a larger $`pd`$-hybridization between As and Fe. According to Eq.2, energy is gained, when Fe replaces a Ga atom. Therefore, if it is kinetically possible, Fe replaces a Ga atom in the interface region independent of the surface termination. In addition, energy is gained, -independently of the termination-, if As segregates to the surface (see section VI). The experimentally observable physical properties of the Fe on GaAs(100) system are thus governed by extrinsic effects like growth conditions and in addition the surface termination governs the kinetic conditions for the Fe growth, i.e the height of involved barriers, diffusion probability, probability distribution of As atoms versus Ga atoms within the Fe film.

In this paper we discuss the physical properties of an Fe film on an As-terminated surface, but our conclusions are valid independent of the termination, since we do not calculate any kinetic properties.

## IV Structural properties

In GaAs bulk an Fe impurity is most likely found in a Ga-substitutional position, i.e Fe replaces a Ga atom. For 0.5 ML Fe on top of a (100) GaAs surface, we compare here four different Fe configurations (Fig.2). We show the four different Fe configurations in the order of decreasing formation energy: $`Fe_s^{ideal}`$ corresponds to one Fe atom (i.e. 0.5 ML) sitting on top of GaAs at the position of a Ga atom, that is Fe sits substitutionally (s) following the ideal stacking (no lattice relaxations). $`Fe_s`$ corresponds to one Fe atom having replaced the Ga atom closest to the surface, that is the Fe atom becomes buried under the surface. $`Fe_i`$ corresponds to one Fe atom sitting in a buried position but at an interstitial (i) position of the ideal GaAs lattice. $`Fe_s+Ga_i`$ finally corresponds to one Fe atom sitting in a substitutionally buried position, but in addition a Ga atom is now sitting in an interstitial position.

In Fig.3 we show the formation energy relative to the formation energy of the $`Fe_s+Ga_i`$ configuration. Let us now discuss these results: The four configurations differ by the number of vacant neighbours that each Fe atom has: In the $`Fe_s^{ideal}`$ configuration, Fe has four vacant neighbours, in the $`Fe_s`$, Fe has three vacant neighbours, and in the other two configurations, Fe has only two vacant neighbours. The more neighbours the Fe atom has, the more energy is gained due to increased wavefunction overlap. Thus the $`Fe_s^{ideal}`$ configuration is highest in energy, because the wavefunction overlap between Fe and its surrounding is minimal. Next we consider the $`Fe_s`$ configuration, which is already $`1`$ eV lower than $`Fe_s^{ideal}`$. Besides having one more neighbour than $`Fe_s^{ideal}`$, in the $`Fe_s`$ configuration two Fe-As bonds have formed. For this configuration the Fe magnetic moment is totally quenched. This will be further discussed in the next section. The $`Fe_i`$ and $`Fe_s+Ga_i`$ configurations are lower than $`Fe_s`$ because they only have two vacant neighbours. These two configurations are similar except that the topmost Ga and Fe positions have been interchanged. We find from our calculation

$$E_{GaAs}+E_{Fe_i}>E_{FeAs}+E_{Ga_i},$$
(2)
where $`E_{GaAs}`$ ($`E_{FeAs}`$) is the formation energy of a Ga-As (Fe-As) surface bond and $`E_{Fe_i}`$ ($`E_{Ga_i}`$) is the formation energy of an interstitial surface defect $`Fe_i(Ga_i)`$ .

We compared the charge density and performed an (unrelaxed) calculation without the respective interstitial atom. In both configurations, the top Ga atom forms together with the Fe atom a metallic layer. The difference is the bonding: For $`Fe_i`$ we have mainly two Ga-As bonds and one Ga-Fe metallic bond, whereas for $`Fe_s+Ga_i`$ we have two Fe-As bonds and again one Ga-Fe metallic bond, but in addition the interstitial Ga atom bonds to it’s As neighbours. This $`Ga_i`$-As interaction reduces the Fe-As interaction, whereby the Fe magnetic moment is close to it’s bulk value. It is thus the $`Ga_i`$ that lowers the energy of the $`Fe_s+Ga_i`$ configuration. In summary, a dilute (sub-monolayer) Fe film on top of GaAs (100) will break the top GaAs bonds and create Fe-As bonds and Gai instead.

Even for thicker Fe films this is in principle still valid. But an Fe interface atom bounded to an Fe film will have a reduced mobility compared to an Fe adatom. This might prevent Fe from dissolving GaAs. This kinetic issue we have not studied any further. We calculate an $`Fe_s^{ideal}`$ IC to be preferred if As and Ga segregation is neglected. This result is in agreement with a calculation by Erwin et al erwin (20). But including As surface segregation (still neglecting Ga segregation) we find the $`Fe_s+Ga_i`$ IC to have the lowest energy almost independent of the Fe film thickness. In Fig.4 we show the energy difference between the $`Fe_i`$ and $`Fe_s+Ga_i`$ interface configurations (IC) for a varying number of Fe thickness. For $`0.5,1`$ and $`5`$ ML of Fe we calculate the $`Fe_s+Ga_i`$ IC to be lower in energy. On the other hand, for $`1.5`$ and $`2`$ ML of Fe we calculate the $`Fe_i`$ IC to be lower in energy. It is the exchange energy that stabilizes the $`Fe_i`$ configuration, since in a non-spin polarized calculation we find again $`Fe_s+Ga_i`$ to be lower. (This will be further discussed in the next section.) If both As and Ga segregation are included (section VI), we find Fe to dissolve GaAs independent of thickness.

In a recent x-ray absorption fine structure spectroscopy (XAFS) study Gordon et al gordon (11) found the Fe film on GaAs(100) to be tetragonal distorted relative to bulk bcc Fe. The measured distortion involved an in-plane contraction and an expansion perpendicular to the GaAs surface to give a $`c/a`$ ratio of $`1.03`$. In tab.1 we have collected the calculated $`c/a`$ ratio as a function of the Fe film thickness and As coverage. Our results agree rather good with experiment. We find in agreement with experiment for our energetically lowest interface configurations an in-plane contraction and an expansion perpendicular to the GaAs surface. In addition we find a rather large asymmetry in the in-plane contraction. In general the contraction along the $`<110>`$ direction is larger than along the $`<1\overline{1}0>`$ direction. We even find an expansion along the $`<1\overline{1}0>`$ direction for all studied Fe coverages which are covered by a complete As monolayer.

The expansion perpendicular to the GaAs surface is connected to the Ga-content within the Fe-film, because for our calculations without any Ga atoms within the Fe-film we find instead a contraction perpendicular to the GaAs surface. The in-plane asymmetry is caused by the directional bonds of the GaAs substrate. On the As-terminated surface, the As dangling bonds are oriented along the $`<1\overline{1}0>`$ direction. Because of the Fe-As interaction and the $`Fe_s+Ga_i`$ IC, an expansion/contraction along the $`<1\overline{1}0>`$ direction has to optimize the Fe-As interaction. In contrast, an expansion/contraction along the $`<110>`$ direction is a reaction on the expansion/contraction along the other two directions in order to optimize the overall volume. Therefore, the $`<1\overline{1}0>`$ and $`<110>`$ direction are asymmetric. For a Ga-terminated surface the same is valid, but the $`<110>`$ and $`<1\overline{1}0>`$ directions are interchanged. Note, that this in-plane asymmetry explains the in-plane uniaxial magnetocrystaline anisotropy brockmann (17, 30).

## V Magnetic Properties

In Fig.5 we show the average Fe magnetic moment as a function of the Fe thickness for the $`Fe_i`$ and $`Fe_s+Ga_i`$ IC. Surprisingly, we calculate for the thickness of $`1`$ ML of $`Fe`$ the Fe magnetic moment to be zero. In Fig.6 we show the atomic

configuration for $`Fe_i`$ and $`Fe_s+Ga_i`$ for the Fe thickness of 1 ML. It can be seen by comparing the starting and final positions, that for $`Fe_s+Ga_i`$ the Fe-As bond distance has decreased (tab.2). In addition the ’vertical’ Ga-As bonds are broken and the three top layers became shifted along the $`<1\overline{1}0>`$ direction. This suggests that the three top layers now form a separate 2-dimensional phase.

In order to understand the decreased magnetic moment, we plot in Fig.7 the Fe magnetic moment as a function of the Fe-anion distance , $`D`$, (i.e. the Fe-As distance) for all different configurations that we have calculated. It can be seen that for $`D=2.36`$ Å, the Fe magnetic moment disappears. We interpret this to be caused by $`pd`$-hybridization: The Fe spin-polarization is driven by the on-site exchange interaction. Therefore the Fe magnetic moment decreases with increasing delocalization of the Fe $`d`$-states. Because, the delocalization of the Fe $`d`$-states increases with increased overlap between the Fe $`d`$-states and As $`p`$-states, we find that the Fe magnetic moment is quenched for small Fe-As bond distances. The spread in magnetic moments for bond lengths above $`2.36`$ Å is due to the other factors influencing the Fe magnetic moment, like number of Fe neighbours and number of vacant neighbours.

Our interpretation is supported by the behaviour of the Fe magnetic moment in the bulk FeAs zincblend compound (circles in Fig.8). We show the Fe magnetic moment as a function of the Fe-anion distance ($`D`$) in the zincblend lattice. The same trend as before is observed, namely the Fe magnetic moment becomes smaller at a critical $`D`$. In contrast to Fe on GaAs, the Fe magnetic moment is not quenched on ZnSe sanyal (31). In order to understand the difference between GaAs and ZnSe we also calculated zincblende FeSe and for comparison zincblende FeTe. In all three cases, i.e. FeAs, FeSe, and FeTe, the Fe $`d`$-electrons hybridize with the respective anion’s $`p`$-electrons. Therefore there exists a bond distance at which the Fe magnetic moment becomes quenched (Fig.8). The exact value of the critical $`D`$ depends on the system in question. For a given lattice constant (set by for example the semiconductor host), the anion will occupy a certain fraction of the unit cell volume that depends on its atomic radius. GaAs and ZnSe have about the same lattice constant. The As atomic radius (1.14 Å) is larger than the Se radius (1.03 Å). The $`pd`$-overlap between Fe and Se is therefore (for the same lattice constant) smaller than between Fe and As and the Fe magnetic moment starts to become quenched for a smaller $`D`$. On the other hand the Te radius (1.23 Å) is larger and the magnetic moment becomes quenched already for a larger $`D`$.

As clearly visible from Fig.8 there exist high-spin, low spin, and zero moment phases as a function of $`D`$. The energy difference between these phases becomes rather small for a given $`D`$. This will be further investigated in the future. We conclude that the magnetic configuration of Fe on GaAs will be determined by $`pd`$-hybridization, but that the specific magnetic phase of the Fe-As complex depends on small variations of the Fe-As bonding. For example, in earlier publications erwin (20, 19) an antiferromagnetic (AFM) solution of the Fe film has been discussed and calculated. Especially for the $`1`$ ML thick Fe film an AFM solution was found. We also investigated the possibility of an AFM solution. For a $`1`$ ML Fe film covered with a complete ML of As we find an AFM solution for a $`Fe_s`$ interface configuration ($`0.22\mu _B`$, $`0.22\mu _B`$). The involved magnetic moments are so small because of the Fe-As $`pd`$-hybridization as discussed above. The total energy is $`3`$ meV higher than a solution with a zero magnetic moment on both Fe sites, i.e the AFM solution is almost degenerate with the zero moment per Fe atom solution. For the $`Fe_s+Ga_i`$ interface configuration we again find an AFM solution ($`0.05\mu _B`$, -$`0.05\mu _B`$) being $`10`$ meV higher than a solution having a total magnetic moment of $`0.5\mu _B`$. Another example we find from our calculations is a ferrimagnetic solution. The structure consists of a $`5`$ ML thick Fe film on top of GaAs covered with $`0.5`$ ML As and an additional $`0.5`$ ML As within the Fe film. The top Fe atom has a magnetic moment of $`2.1\mu _B`$, whereas the two Fe atoms/cell in the next layer beneath have a magnetic moment of $`0.95\mu _B`$ and $`1.2\mu _B`$, respectively. Below this layer the additional $`0.5`$ ML As is located. The rest of the Fe atoms have a magnetic moment close to or larger than the bulk value. The average magnetic moment for this ferrimagnetic solution is $`1.55\mu _B`$ per Fe atom.

Since the magnetic phase diagram of the Fe-As interaction is rather complex, it very much depends on small details of the Fe film configuration which magnetic moment will be measured. But the physical mechanism behind the reduction of the Fe magnetic moment on top of GaAs is without any doubt the Fe-As $`pd`$-hybridization.

As can be seen from Fig.5, the Fe magnetic moment is larger for $`Fe_i`$ than for $`Fe_s+Ga_i`$. In general the $`Fe_s+Ga_i`$ configuration has a smaller Fe-As bond distance than $`Fe_i`$, which explains the smaller magnetic moment for the $`Fe_s+Ga_i`$ configuration. For $`1.5`$ and $`2`$ ML of $`Fe`$, the energy gain due to increased Fe-As binding is smaller than the energy gain due to the increased spin-polarization of the Fe atoms. This explains why $`Fe_i`$ is lower than $`Fe_s+Ga_i`$ for $`1.5`$ and $`2`$ ML of $`Fe`$ (see discussion above and Fig.4)

In Figs.9 and 10 we show the structure and magnetic profile of a 5ML Fe film on top of GaAs(100) with one Ga atom within the Fe film for two segregation profiles: In Fig.9 for $`0.5`$ ML As (i.e one As surface atom per cell) on top of the Fe film; in Fig.10 for 1 ML As (i.e two As atoms per cell) on top of the Fe film. The Ga atom does not influence the Fe magnetic moment, i.e the Ga-Fe interaction is very weak. On the other hand, the Fe-As interaction quenches the magnetic moment (as discussed before). For the 1ML As coverage, the Fe magnetic moment of the top Fe layer is thus almost zero (Fig.10). If Fe is covered with only 0.5 ML As, the Fe-Fe interaction is stronger than the Fe-As interaction and the Fe magnetic moment is not reduced (Fig.9).

From our calculations we can conclude:

$$E_{Fe}^{xc}>E_{FeAs}.$$
(3)
$$E_{FeAs}>E_{Fe}^{xc}+E_{FeFe}.$$
(4)
$$E_{Fe}^{xc}+E_{FeFe}>E_{AsFeAs}.$$
(5)
Here $`E_{FeAs}`$ is the Fe-As surface bond formation energy, $`E_{Fe}^{xc}`$ is the energy gain due to the spin-polarization of the Fe atom, $`E_{FeFe}`$ is the Fe-Fe surface bond formation energy, and $`E_{AsFeAs}`$ is the bond formation energy between a Fe surface atom bonded to two As atoms. These three equations explain the calculated magnetic properties.
Equation 3:
This equation states that the Fe magnetic moment will be quenched if Fe only has one or more As neighbours. For example, the Fe magnetic moment becomes zero for 0.5 ML Fe with a $`Fe_s`$ IC (Fig.3). Here the Fe atom has no other Fe around it but an As atom.
Equation 4:
This equation states that the Fe magnetic moment is not quenched if the Fe atom is close to one As atom and at least one Fe atom. This is the case for the $`Fe_i`$ IC of 1ML Fe on top of GaAs (Fig.6 and tab.2).
Equation 5:
The Fe magnetic moment becomes quenched again, if Fe is bonded to two As atoms (Fig.10, Fig.6), independent on the number of Fe neighbours.

For completeness, we show in Fig.11 the spin-polarization of the GaAs host. The Fe magnetic moment is not shown here (see Fig.10). The induced spin-polarization is mostly antiparallel and rather small.

In a recent X-ray absorption study freeland (12), the number of Fe $`3d`$-holes was determined as a function of the Fe film thickness on $`n`$-doped GaAs. Freeland et al find the number of holes to increase with decreasing Fe film thickness. They explain this due to charge transfer from Fe to As which they also believe to be the cause for the reduced Fe magnetic moment.

Our calculation describes the charge transfer between Fe and $`p`$-doped GaAs, because due to numerical reasons the Fermi energy of bulk GaAs is fixed at the top of the valence band edge. From our calculations we directly get the number of Fe $`3d`$-holes as a function of the Fe film thickness (Fig.12). Our absoult number of the Fe $`3d`$-holes depends of course on the chosen Wigner-Seitz radius for Fe, but the trend we find to be independent on the chosen Wigner-Seitz radius. In contrast to experiment we find an increase of the holes with increasing Fe film thickness.

Our explanation is the following: The Fe-As $`pd`$-hybridization determines the Fe magnetic moment, not a charge transfer between Fe and As. The electron transfer between Fe and GaAs is different for $`n`$-type and $`p`$-type conditions, because for $`n`$-type ($`p`$-type) GaAs, the Fermi level of Fe has to align with the conduction (valence) band of GaAs. Under $`p`$-type conditions, a consequence of the hybridization is that on average there are slightly more delocalized electrons on the Fe site, i.e. the number of $`3d`$-holes decreases. The thicker the Fe film becomes, the more Fe atoms are without an As neighbour , which is why the number of $`d`$-electrons (holes) decreases (increases) with increasing Fe thickness. Under $`n`$-type conditions it is plausible to assume vice versa that on average there are slightly less delocalized electrons on the Fe site. We therefore predict that the experimentally observed charge transfer differs between $`p`$-doped GaAs and $`n`$-doped GaAs and that similar experiments performed instead on $`p`$-doped GaAs should find an increase of the $`3d`$-holes with increasing thickness in agreement with our calculations.

## VI Surface Segregation

It is well known that at metal-semiconductor interfaces the semiconductor constitutents segregate towards the surface. For example, for Fe on GaAs it is known that As segregates to the surface, whereas Ga is not found at the surface but within the metal film chambers (14, 15, 16). It is found that the segregation of As is independent of temperature, but the segregation of Ga is dependent on temperature. A quantitative understanding of segregation is obtained with a simple model put forward by Weaver et al. weaver (32). The free energy of segregation is determined by the strain energy and surface energy, the latter of which they estimated with the cohesive energy. There model predicts for Fe on GaAs both Ga and As to segregate to the surface, whereas in experiment only As surface segregation is observed. In the following we resolve this discrepancy.

In Figs.13 and 14, we show the Ga (respective As) segregation energy relative to the energetically lowest configuration. For Ga we have to consider two cases separately: (i) no As has segregated to the surface and (ii) As has segregated to the surface. In case (i) (insert of Fig.13), Ga prefers to segregate to the surface (1ML GaSurface). The segregation energy of 1ML Ga amounts to 2.4 eV. In case (ii) where As already has segregated to the surface (Fig.13), Ga prefers to leave the interface (GaInterface) and stay somewhere within the Fe film (GainFe-film). It is more costly (280 meV) for the Ga to be in the surface layer together with an As atom (GaSurface). Therefore, if As has segregated to the surface, no Ga will be found at the surface.

The As segregation energy (Fig.14) shows the same trend as the Ga segregation energy (inset of Fig.13), but the segregation energy of one As atom to the surface is 1.5 eV larger than for one Ga atom. Notice, that both Ga and As prefer to be within the Fe film rather than at the interface. In summary, this suggests the following: On top of the Fe film always As will be found independent of the GaAs surface termination. The segregation profiles should more or less be independent on the GaAs surface termination, because the Fe-As interaction is much stronger than the Fe-Ga interaction.

The As segregation path is a result of the lattice relaxation due to the chemical interaction between the Fe and As, which implies that As segregates already at $`T=0`$ K. The segregation is thus not diffusion controlled, but only controlled by chemical bonding, which is in agreement with experiment. We find Ga to leave the interface, but only to segregate to the surface, if no As already has segregated. In contrast to As, the segregation of Ga, does not take place at $`T=0`$ K. There exists an activation barrier for the segregation, i.e. the segregation is diffusion controlled. The amount of Ga on top of or within the Fe film is therefore strongly dependent on temperature, whereas the amount of As on top of the Fe film is only weakly dependent on temperature. This is in agreement with an experimental study of the Fe/GaAs interface interdiffusion rahmoune (6).

Regarding the Weaver model, we find that Ga segregates to the surface (in agreement with the Weaver model), if no As has segregated. If As has segregated, Ga will stay within the Fe-film ( in agreement with experiment).

## VII Discussion and Summary

We find As to segregate to the surface on top of the Fe film independent of termination, which is in agreement with experiments. The Fe/GaAs interface is not stable against further segregation. An As atom within the Fe film has a lower energy than at the interface. In an experiment one will thus always find As within the Fe film, where the Fe-As $`pd`$-hybridization will quench the Fe magnetic moment. Since Ga also has a lower energy within the Fe film than at the interface, one will also always find Ga within the Fe film. Ga itself does not influence the magnetic moment (Fig.9), but probably Ga in the Fe film will prevent further As segregation. This would explain the much lower thickness of the magnetically quenched Fe layers for Ga terminated samples. The thickness of the magnetically quenched Fe layers is then determined by the probability of finding As and Ga within the Fe film. This probability depends on the termination and the Fe growth conditions. Our results presented here for Fe on GaAs are most likely also valid for other semiconductor substrates. For example, we find more or less the same structures for Fe on ZnSe sanyal (31) and the segregation behaviour is the same, but the Fe-Se hybridization is much weaker.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to the Swedish foundation for strategic research (SFS), the Swedish Research Council (VR), the Göran Gustafsson foundation, and the European RTN network on ”computational spintronics” for financial support. We thank the Swedish supercomputer center (SNAC) for providing us with supercomputer time.


text:
# 1 (a) The propagator 𝑝²𝐷 and its contributions, as well as the (vanishing) propagator 𝐹 vs. 𝑝² at 𝛽=1.8. (b) Fitted 𝛼 and 𝑚 vs. 𝛽 for 𝐷.

LU-ITP 2003/001
KANAZAWA-03-03
ITEP-LAT/2003-01
HU-EP-02-61
January 10, 2003

Confinement, deconfinement and the photon propagator in 3D cQED on the lattice

M. N. Chernoduba,b,111Work supported by JSPS Fellowship P01023., E.–M. Ilgenfritzc and A. Schillerd,222 Talk presented by A.S. at Confinement 5, Gargnano, September 2002

a ITEP, B. Cheremushkinskaya 25, Moscow, 117259, Russia

b Institute for Theoretical Physics, Kanazawa University,
Kanazawa 920-1192, Japan

c Institut für Physik, Humboldt–Universität zu Berlin, D-10115 Berlin, Germany

d Institut für Theoretische Physik and NTZ, Universität Leipzig,
D-04109 Leipzig, Germany

## Abstract

We report on a lattice study of the gauge boson propagator of $`3D`$ compact QED in Landau gauge at zero and finite temperature. Non-perturbative effects are reflected by the generation of a mass $`m`$ and by an anomalous dimension $`\alpha `$. These effects can be attributed to monopoles and are absent in the propagator of the regular part of the gauge field.

Three–dimensional compact electrodynamics (cQED3) shares two features with QCD, confinement and chiral symmetry breaking. Confinement of electrically charged particles is caused by a plasma of monopoles . In this contribution we report how confinement is manifest in the gauge boson propagator of $`3D`$ cQED at zero and finite temperature.

For our lattice study we have adopted the Wilson action, $`S[\theta ]=\beta _p\left(1\mathrm{cos}\theta _p\right)`$, where $`\theta _p`$ is the field strength corresponding to the $`U(1)`$ link field $`\theta _l`$. The coupling $`\beta `$ is related to the lattice spacing $`a`$ and the coupling $`g_3`$ of the $`3D`$ continuum theory, $`\beta =1/(ag_3^2)`$. The photon propagator is measured in Landau gauge. This gauge is defined as a global maximum of the functional $`_l\mathrm{cos}\theta _l^G`$ with respect to gauge transformations $`G`$. To select the best gauge realization, we have evaluated $`N_G`$ local maxima of that functional and studied the dependence of the propagator on $`N_G`$. Simulations for $`T=0`$ have been performed on a $`32^3`$ lattice, those for $`T>0`$ on a $`32^2\times 8`$ lattice. For the Monte Carlo algorithm and the gauge fixing procedure see Ref.

The gauge field in lattice position space is taken as $`A_{\stackrel{}{n}+\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{}{\mu },\mu }=\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{}{n},\mu }/(g_3a)`$. Then we define the gauge boson propagator in lattice momentum space by $`D_{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{}{p})=\stackrel{~}{A}_{\stackrel{}{k},\mu }\stackrel{~}{A}_{\stackrel{}{k},\nu }`$ in terms of the Fourier transformed gauge potential for $`p_\nu =(2/a)\mathrm{sin}(2\pi k_\nu /L_\nu )`$. The most general tensor structure of $`D_{\mu \nu }`$ at $`T=0`$ is given by

$$D_{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{}{p})=P_{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{}{p})D(p^2)+p_\mu p_\nu F(p^2)/(p^2)^2$$

with the $`3D`$ transverse projection operator $`P_{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{}{p})=\delta _{\mu \nu }(p_\mu p_\nu )/p^2`$. The transverse and longitudinal propagators, $`D`$ and $`F`$, are extracted by projection and are found approximately rotationally invariant or vanishing. For $`T>0`$ we have to consider two scalar functions $`D_{T/L}`$ using $`2D`$ transverse/longitudinal projection operators $`P_{\mu \nu }^{T/L}`$ (in $`2+1`$ dimensions both are transverse):

$$D_{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{}{p})=P_{\mu \nu }^TD_T+P_{\mu \nu }^LD_L+p_\mu p_\nu F/(p^2)^2.$$

To discuss the propagators from the monopole plasma point of view, we have decomposed the gauge fields links into singular (monopole) and regular (photon) contributions $`\theta _l=\theta _l^{phot}+\theta _l^{mono}`$. Once that decomposition is achieved, one is in the position to study monopole, photon and mixed contributions of $`D`$ or $`D_{L/T}`$ (and $`F`$), separately.

As an example, we show in Fig. 1 (a)

at $`T=0`$ the transverse and longitudinal propagators (multiplied by $`p^2`$) together with the decomposition of $`D`$. The monopole part $`D^{mono}`$ reaches a maximum in the low momentum region before it drops towards $`p^2=0`$. In contrast to the total $`D`$, the regular (photon) part is singular at $`p^2=0`$, and $`p^2D^{phot}`$ is flat vs. $`p^2`$.

Following Ref. we describe $`D`$ by the function

$`D(p^2)=(Z/\beta )m^{2\alpha }/[p^{2(1+\alpha )}+m^{2(1+\alpha )}]+C.`$ (1)
The photon part $`D^{phot}`$ is fitted using (1) with $`\alpha =m=0`$. At finite $`T`$, the propagator data for $`D_L`$ and $`D_T`$ are analyzed for $`p_3=0`$, as a function of $`𝐩^2`$ using the same fit function (1).

The fit parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`m`$ of the propagators $`D`$, $`D_L`$ and $`D_T`$ are presented in Figs. 1 (b) and 2

as functions of $`\beta `$. The mass $`m`$ for $`T=0`$ is in good agreement with the theoretical prediction valid for a dilute monopole gas. In the confinement phase, the anomalous dimensions $`\alpha 0`$ for all propagators. They are functions not only of the monopole density (which is monotonously decreasing with growing $`\beta `$). The cluster structure of the monopole configurations seems to play a significant rôle. The fit parameters $`\alpha _L`$ and $`m_L`$ of $`D_L`$ vanish at $`\beta _c`$ and beyond, a clear signal of the finite temperature phase transition caused by dipole formation. Due to multiple Dirac strings wrapping around the temporal direction the behavior of $`D_T`$ in the deconfined phase (at larger $`\beta `$) is different from $`D_L`$. We carefully studied the Gribov copy dependence of the propagators. The asymptotic behaviors of $`D`$ and $`D_L`$ are reached quickly, contrary to the $`D_T`$ propagator in the deconfinement. Further details can be found in Ref.