text:
# Supercurrent in Long SFFS Junctions with Antiparallel Domain Configuration

## I Introduction

Hybrid systems containing superconducting and ferromagnetic elements gained recently a lot of attention due to experimental progress as well as possible applications in magnetoelectronics and quantum information. Theoretical studies are revealing a variety of new features, making these system generators of novel theoretical concepts.

It is a common knowledge that current in hybrid normal metal – superconductor (NS) systems flows by means of Andreev reflections: an electron in N is reflected from the NS interface as a hole with the opposite charge and velocity. Imagine first that the piece of normal metal is ballistic. An electron at the Fermi surface is reflected as a hole at the Fermi surface, and they propagate in the normal metal with the same phase. If the electron is taken at a finite energy $`E`$ (counted from the Fermi surface), a momentum mismatch $`\delta p=2E/v_F`$ between this electron and the reflected hole appears, $`v_F`$ being the Fermi velocity.

Consider now an interface between an ($`s`$-wave) superconductor and a ferromagnet. Electron and hole have opposite spin directions, and the exchange field $`h`$ in the ferromagnet leads to a Zeeman splitting of energies of the two different spin projections. Thus, even an electron and a hole at the Fermi surface acquire the momentum mismatch $`2h/v_F`$; hence their relative phase grows as $`\delta \phi =2hx/(\mathrm{}v_F)`$, where $`x`$ is the distance from the interface. This affects phase-sensitive physical quantities like the supercurrent in superconductor – ferromagnet – superconductor (SFS) junctions: It becomes an oscillating function of the thickness $`d`$ of the ferromagnetic layer, with a period $`\mathrm{}v_F/2h`$. If, furthermore, the ferromagnet is diffusive, the oscillating behavior is accompanied by an exponential decay $`\mathrm{exp}((h/\mathrm{}D)^{1/2}d)`$, where $`D`$ is the diffusion coefficient. Typically, $`h`$ is much larger than the superconducting gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and thus the length scales related to the magnetic field are much shorter than the superconducting coherence length $`\xi `$, $`\mathrm{}v_F/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`(\mathrm{}D/\mathrm{\Delta })^{1/2}`$ in the clean and diffusive case, respectively. In other words, the proximity effect is suppressed in the ferromagnet.

This qualitative discussion suggests that the main effect observed in SFS contacts is oscillations of the supercurrent with the thickness of the ferromagnetic layer — the transition from a so-called $`0`$-state (energy of the contact is minimum for zero phase difference between the superconductors) to a $`\pi `$-state (energy is minimum for a phase difference $`\pi `$). This topic was at the focus of attention since the early exploration of the field Bulaevskii77 . Theoretically, the $`\pi `$-state was predicted in a variety of SFS junctions: Ballistic Bulaevskii ; Radovic00 ; Chtchelkatchev ; Bergeret2 , short diffusive Buzdin ; Demler , long diffusive Buzdin ; Heikkila ; Bergeret2 , ferromagnetic insulating barrier Bulaevskii77 ; Tanaka ; Fogelstrom , ballistic Bergeret1 ; Barash1 ; Barash2  and diffusive Koshina1 ; Bergeret2 ; Koshina2 ; Krivoruchko ; Golubov1 ; Golubov2  junctions with a barrier separating two ferromagnetic layers, and ballistic Radovic03  and diffusive Golubov2  with two tunnel barriers. The transition to the $`\pi `$-state was recently observed experimentally in SFS junctions Ryazanov ; Kontos ; Guichard ; Blum . All these observations are limited to small thickness of ferromagnetic layer(s), $`d(\mathrm{}D/h)^{1/2}`$. For thicker layers, supercurrent does not exist.

In this situation, it is useful to understand how one can enhance the proximity effect. Several options have been recently discussed in the literature. First, the above qualitative argument assumes that the pairing between an electron and a hole participating in the Andreev reflection is singlet – they have opposite spin projections. Obviously, if the superconductor allows for a non-trivial symmetry of the order parameter, this needs not be the case, and triplet pairing between an electron and a hole with the same spin projection can arise. Since triplet-paired electron and hole at the Fermi surface have no momentum difference, they can propagate with the same phase and enhance the proximity effect. Coupling of two $`d`$-wave superconductors via a ferromagnetic layer has been considered in Ref. Radovic99, . Moreover, triplet pairing can even appear in a contact of an $`s`$-wave superconductor and a ferromagnet, provided the magnetization in the latter is non-uniform Larkin ; Bergeret3 ; Kadigrobov . In this case, the proximity effect survives at the same distance $`\xi `$ from the interface as in non-magnetic metals. Indeed, the supercurrent in SFS junctions with non-uniform magnetization is considerably enhanced Bergeret2 . We also mention that the supercurrent in a long diffusive SFS junction is exponentially suppressed only on average; phenomena related to the proximity effect still occur in such a junction as a result of mesoscopic fluctuations around average quantities Spivak . Finally, if the ferromagnetic layer is split into domains, the coherence can be preserved if an electron and a hole propagate between the superconducting electrodes along the two sides of a domain wall Melin .

In this Article, we explore a different way to enhance the supercurrent in SFS junctions. Imagine first that the junction is ballistic and the ferromagnetic layer consists of two domains with opposite directions of the magnetization, as shown in Fig. 1. Triplet pairing is not generated in this geometry. Consider an electron and an Andreev-reflected hole propagating from left to right between the superconducting electrodes. They first acquire the relative phase $`\delta \phi _1=2hx_1/(\mathrm{}v_F)`$, $`x_1`$ being the distance traversed in the first ferromagnetic layer. However, in the second layer the exchange field has the opposite sign, and the phase gain $`\delta \phi _2=2hx_2/(\mathrm{}v_F)`$ partially compensates $`\delta \phi _1`$. For $`x_1=x_2`$ we have full compensation: The ferromagnetic bilayer behaves as a piece of normal (not ferromagnetic) metal, and the proximity effect is fully restored. Indeed, previous studies of SFS contacts where the two ferromagnetic domains were separated by a barrier, found that the supercurrent in the antiparallel domain configuration is enhanced with respect to the parallel one Bergeret1 ; Koshina2 ; Barash2 ; Golubov2 . If the domains are identical, there is no transition to the $`\pi `$-sate in the antiparallel configuration.

Below, we consider such a situation quantitatively. Section II treats a ballistic SFFS junction with two ferromagnetic domains parallel to the superconducting interfaces. We show that this system behaves as a ballistic SFS junction with an effective exchange field. If the widths of the two domains are the same, this effective field vanishes. In the next two Sections, we study the effect of disorder in the same system and show that supercurrent in diffusive SFFS junctions decays exponentially with their width, similarly to SFS contacts without domains. We consider long junctions, $`d\xi `$, and assume that the superconducting electrodes do not influence the magnetic structure of the contact.

## II Clean SFFS contact

We consider first a system of two clean ferromagnetic strips foot1  with the thicknesses $`d_1`$ and $`d_2`$ and antiparallel orientations located between two superconductors (Fig. 1). The dynamics of quasiparticles in this system are described by the Eilenberger equation,

$$iv_F𝒏\mathbf{}\stackrel{˘}{g}_\sigma (𝒓,𝒏)=[(i\omega h\sigma )\stackrel{˘}{\tau }_3+\stackrel{˘}{\mathrm{\Delta }},\stackrel{˘}{g}_\sigma (𝒓,𝒏)]_{}.$$
(1)
Here the semi-classical Green’s function $`\stackrel{˘}{g}_\sigma `$ is a matrix in Nambu space,

$$\stackrel{˘}{g}_\sigma =\left(\begin{array}{cc}g_\sigma \hfill & \hfill f_\sigma \\ f_\sigma ^+\hfill & \hfill g_\sigma \end{array}\right),$$

which describes the singlet pairing (the triplet component is not generated in our geometry), and the spin index $`\sigma =\pm 1`$. The exchange field $`h`$ is zero in the superconducting banks, and has antiparallel orientations in the ferromagnets: The upper/lower signs in Eq. (1) corresponds to the left/right ferromagnet ($`h>0`$). To stay in the framework of the semi-classical consideration, we have assumed that the Zeeman splitting $`h`$ is much weaker than the Fermi energy, but can be arbitrary in comparison with the superconducting gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. We put $`\mathrm{}=1`$; it will be restored in the final results.

In this Article, we consider the case of a long contact: The thicknesses of both ferromagnetic layers are much larger than the superconducting coherence length, $`d_{1,2}\mathrm{}v_F/\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Then the matrix $`\stackrel{˘}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ can be taken in a piecewise approximation: It is zero in both ferromagnets, and

$$\stackrel{˘}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \hfill \mathrm{\Delta }e^{i\chi }\\ \mathrm{\Delta }e^{i\chi }\hfill & \hfill 0\end{array}\right)$$

in the superconductors. Here $`\chi =\phi /2`$ and $`\chi =\phi /2`$ in the left and the right superconducting bank, respectively.

In the bulk superconductor far from the contacts the Green’s function is isotropic and equals for $`|\omega |<\mathrm{\Delta }`$

$`\stackrel{˘}{g}_\sigma ^{bulk}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }^2+\omega ^2}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\omega \hfill & \hfill i\mathrm{\Delta }e^{i\chi }\\ i\mathrm{\Delta }e^{i\chi }\hfill & \hfill \omega \end{array}\right).`$ (4)
In addition, the Green’s function and its derivative must be continuous at each interface.

We introduce the coordinate $`x`$ parallel to $`𝒏`$ and directed from left to right. Let us choose $`x=0`$ at the boundary of the left superconductor; then $`x=d_1/\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ at the interface of the two ferromagnets, and $`x=(d_1+d_2)/\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ at the boundary of the right superconductor. The quasiparticles in the clean system move along a straight line (Fig. 1). It follows from Eq. (1) that the normal component $`g_\sigma (𝒓,𝒏)`$ is constant along the trajectory inside the ferromagnets. The calculation gives

$$g_\sigma (𝒏)=\frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }^2+\omega ^2}\mathrm{sin}\alpha +i\omega (1+\mathrm{cos}\alpha )}{\omega \mathrm{sin}\alpha +i\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }^2+\omega ^2}(1+\mathrm{cos}\alpha )},$$
(5)
where the phase $`\alpha `$ accumulated along the trajectory is

$$\alpha =\frac{2i\omega }{v_F}\frac{d_1+d_2}{\mathrm{cos}\theta }+\frac{2h\sigma }{v_F}\frac{d_1d_2}{\mathrm{cos}\theta }n_x\phi ,n_x=\pm 1.$$
(6)
The supercurrent density is expressed as follows,

$$j=i\pi ev_F\nu \underset{\sigma }{}T\underset{\omega }{}𝑑𝒏g_𝒏𝒏,$$
(7)
where $`\nu `$ is the density of states. For $`h=0`$ Eq. (7) gives the supercurrent of a long clean SNS (non-ferromagnetic) junction, as considered in Ref. Svidzinsky, , which we follow in the general case. The expression is even in $`\omega `$; for zero temperature (case of interest here) the summation can be replaced by an integration over frequencies. We subsequently introduce a new integration variable $`\omega =\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sinh}u`$ and arrive at the intermediate expression

$`j=2ev_F\nu \mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑u\mathrm{cosh}u{\displaystyle _0^{\pi /2}}𝑑\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta `$ (8)
$`\times \text{Im}\mathrm{tanh}\left[u+\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sinh}u{\displaystyle \frac{d_1+d_2}{v_F\mathrm{cos}\theta }}+ih\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{d_1d_2}{v_F\mathrm{cos}\theta }}+i{\displaystyle \frac{\phi }{2}}\right].`$
For long contacts, $`\mathrm{\Delta }d_{1,2}\mathrm{}v_F`$, the first term in the argument of the hyperbolic tangent can be disregarded. Using the identity

$$\text{Im}\mathrm{tanh}y=2\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^k\text{Im}e^{2ky},$$

we obtain the final expression for the supercurrent,

$`j`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4ev_F^2\nu \mathrm{}}{d_1+d_2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{k+1}}{k}}\mathrm{sin}k\phi `$ (9)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x^3\sqrt{x^21}}}\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{2kh(d_1d_2)x}{v_F\mathrm{}}}.`$
For $`h=0`$, we return to the clean long SNS contact,

$$j=j_0\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^{k+1}}{k}\mathrm{sin}k\phi ,$$
(10)
where $`j_0=\pi ev_F^2\nu \mathrm{}/(d_1+d_2)`$. This describes the well-known sawtooth current-phase relation found earlier in Ref. Ishii, .

For strong magnetic fields, $`h\mathrm{}v_F/|d_1d_2|`$, the integral over $`dx`$ in Eq. (9), which corresponds to summing over all possible trajectories in the ferromagnets can be calculated in the saddle-point approximation. As a result we find the current-phase relation

$`j`$ $`=`$ $`2j_0\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{v_F\mathrm{}}{\pi h|d_1d_2|}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{k+1}}{k^{3/2}}}`$ (11)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2kh|d_1d_2|}{v_F\mathrm{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4}}\right)\mathrm{sin}k\phi .`$
We note, first of all, that the amplitude of the supercurrent oscillations as a function of $`\phi `$ decreases algebraically with the exchange field, as $`\sqrt{\mathrm{}v_F/h|d_1d_2|}`$. This is a direct consequence of the fact that we summed over all possible trajectories, and hence averaged over the different phases acquired during propagation in the ferromagnetic domains along these trajectories. Secondly, as far as the phase-dependence of the supercurrent is concerned, it is in general neither sinusoidal, nor saw-tooth-like. In Fig. 2, we plot $`j(\phi )`$ for various values of $`h|d_1d_2|/\mathrm{}v_F`$ 10, such that the saddle-point approximation is reasonable. We see that, as a function of the exchange field, the supercurrent changes sign at a given phase difference. Thus, depending on the parameter $`h|d_1d_2|/\mathrm{}v_F`$, the junction either favors a 0-state or a $`\pi `$-state. We finally note that for $`d_2=0`$, Eqs. (9) and (11) give the supercurrent for a (single-domain) clean long SFS junction. This is, to our knowledge, a new result as well. It implies in particular that a clean SFS junction can also be a $`\pi `$-junction, in accordance with previous results for different types of SFS hybrid structures.

The important conclusion for the general case is that for a two-domain contact the result is exactly the same as for a SFS junction with the thickness $`d_1+d_2`$ and the effective exchange field $`h_{ef}=h|d_1d_2|/(d_1+d_2)`$. In particular, if the thicknesses are the same, $`d_1=d_2`$, the magnetic field drops out – we obtain the sawtooth current-phase relation (10) like for a SNS contact. In the language of Eilenberger equations, this statement is obvious: Indeed, the only quantity sensitive to the magnetic field is the phase $`\alpha `$ accumulated along the trajectory. Since each trajectory is a straight line, each layer contributes with a weight proportional to its thickness and with the sign depending on the direction of the exchange field. This result is readily generalized to the case of many ferromagnetic layers in the antiparallel configuration foot2 .

## III Disorder averaging

Now we discuss how our two main observations for the supercurrent — power-law decay with magnetic field and the independence on the magnetic field in the symmetric case $`d_1=d_2`$ — react to the presence of disorder. Before performing this difficult task in Section IV by solving the Usadel equations, we try to use an easy way to understand the effect of impurities in this Section. We introduce randomness in the thicknesses of the layers (surface randomness). This simple and transparent calculation provides us with results which are clear qualitative predictions to be compared with the conclusions extracted from a more complicated analysis of the Usadel equations.

We start from Eq. (9), and imagine that the interfaces as presented in Fig. 1 are not straight, but exhibit small fluctuations in position. Since there is no scattering at the interfaces, the only effect of such fluctuations is that the thicknesses of the layers become random variables, and the supercurrent (9) must be averaged with respect to this randomness. Let us take a Gaussian distribution for the difference $`d_1d_2`$,

$$P(d_1d_2)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi a}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{(d_1d_2\overline{d}_1+\overline{d}_2)^2}{a^2}\right),$$
(12)
where $`a\overline{d}_1,\overline{d}_2`$ has the meaning of a typical scale of the interface fluctuations, and $`\overline{d}_i`$ are the averaged values both thicknesses. Averaging Eq. (9), we obtain

$`\overline{j}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\overline{j}_0}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{k+1}}{k}}\mathrm{sin}k\phi {\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x^3\sqrt{x^21}}}`$ (13)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k^2h^2a^2x^2}{v_F^2\mathrm{}^2}}\right)\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{2kh(\overline{d}_1\overline{d}_2)x}{v_F\mathrm{}}},`$
where $`\overline{j}_0=\pi ev_F^2\nu \mathrm{}/(\overline{d}_1+\overline{d}_2)`$. In strong fields, $`h\mathrm{}v_F/a\mathrm{}v_F/(\overline{d}_1\overline{d}_2)`$, the integral is calculated in the saddle-point approximation, and only the term with $`k=1`$ survives,

$`\overline{j}`$ $`=`$ $`2\overline{j}_0\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{v_F\mathrm{}}{\pi h|\overline{d}_1\overline{d}_2|}}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{h^2a^2}{v_F^2\mathrm{}^2}}\right)`$ (14)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2h(\overline{d}_1\overline{d}_2)}{v_F\mathrm{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4}}\right)\mathrm{sin}\phi .`$
Thus, the averaging procedure brings out two, qualitatively new features: (i) at high fields, the current-phase relation becomes sinusoidal; (ii) the amplitude of the supercurrent oscillations decays exponentially, rather than algebraically with $`h`$. In addition, the exchange field still modulates the phase of the oscillations, and can drive the contact to a $`\pi `$-state. The property (i) stems from phase-averaging over diffusive trajectories and is a common feature of all long disordered SNS junctions (cf Ref. Svidzinsky2, ).

Eq. (14) does not apply to the symmetric case $`\overline{d}_1=\overline{d}_2`$. In this situation, for $`hv_F/a`$, we have

$$\overline{j}=\frac{2\overline{j}_0}{\sqrt{\pi }}\frac{v_F\mathrm{}}{ha}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{h^2a^2}{v_F^2\mathrm{}^2}\right)\mathrm{sin}\phi .$$
(15)
We see that even for the symmetric case the exponential dependence on magnetic field persists. It reflects the fact that a quasiparticle moving along a single trajectory spends in general unequal times in both layers, and thus the contribution of each trajectory is magnetic field dependent. However, there is no additional oscillating factor due to the magnetic field: a symmetric junction is never in the $`\pi `$-state. These features are confirmed qualitatively in the next Section, where we analyze the behavior of a symmetric diffusive SFFS junction, using the Usadel equations.

## IV Disordered SFFS contact from Usadel equations

We now consider a diffusive SFFS junction in the symmetric case $`d_1=d_2=d/2`$. The junction is again assumed to be long, $`d(\mathrm{}D/\mathrm{\Delta })^{1/2}`$, with $`D`$ being the diffusion coefficient.

If the exchange magnetic energy does not exceed the inverse elastic scattering time, $`h\mathrm{}/\tau `$, the Green’s function is almost isotropic, and the system can be described by Usadel equations,

$`D_z\left[F_\sigma _zF_\sigma ^+F_\sigma ^+_zF_\sigma \right]=2(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}F_\sigma ^+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}F_\sigma ),`$ (16)
$`D_z\left[G_\sigma _zF_\sigma F_\sigma _zG_\sigma \right]=2(\omega \pm ih\sigma )F_\sigma 2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}G_\sigma ,`$
with the constraint $`G_\sigma ^2+F_\sigma F_\sigma ^+=1`$. Here, as usual Svidzinsky2 ,

$$\stackrel{˘}{G}_\sigma (𝒓)=𝑑𝒏\stackrel{˘}{g}_\sigma (𝒓,𝒏),$$

and it actually only depends on the distance $`z`$ from the ferromagnet-ferromagnet interface (Fig. 1). The upper/lower signs describe the regions $`d/2<z<0`$ and $`0<z<d/2`$, respectively, and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=i\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{exp}(i\chi )`$ in the superconductors. In the following, we suppress the spin index $`\sigma `$ where it does not lead to ambiguities.

Following Ref. Svidzinsky, , we solve the constraint by introducing two complex-valued fields $`\theta `$ and $`\eta `$,

$$G=\mathrm{cos}\theta ,F=\mathrm{sin}\theta e^{i\eta },F^+=\mathrm{sin}\theta e^{i\eta }.$$
(17)
The equation for $`\eta `$ in the ferromagnets becomes

$$_z(\eta ^{}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta )=0,$$
(18)
with the boundary conditions $`\eta (\pm d/2)=\phi /2`$. The first integral yields

$$\eta ^{}=\frac{I}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }.$$
(19)
where $`I`$ is an unknown constant. The current is expressed via this constant,

$`j`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\pi eD\nu }{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}T{\displaystyle \underset{\omega }{}}\left[F_\sigma _zF_\sigma ^+F_\sigma ^+_zF_\sigma \right]`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`\pi eD\nu {\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}T{\displaystyle \underset{\omega }{}}I_\sigma .`$
To ensure the current conservation, $`I`$ must be the same in both ferromagnetic layers. It is important, however, that we do not assume that the current is conserving – it follows naturally from the consistency of our solution.

Using Eq. (18), we also write the equation for $`\theta `$ in ferromagnets,

$$D\theta ^{\prime \prime }=DI^2\frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta }{\mathrm{sin}^3\theta }+2(\omega \pm ih\sigma )\mathrm{sin}\theta ,$$
(21)
with the first integral

$$D\theta ^2=\frac{DI^2}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }4(\omega \pm ih\sigma )\mathrm{sin}\theta +\text{const}.$$
(22)
Now, for the long junctions, the boundary conditions for $`\theta `$ at $`z=\pm d/2`$ are essentially the same they would be at the interface between a semi-infinite superconductor and a semi-infinite ferromagnet. To find these boundary conditions, we write the corresponding equation for the superconductors,

$$D\theta ^2=4\omega \mathrm{sin}\theta 4\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cos}\theta +\text{const},$$

Taking into account that in the bulk superconductor $`\theta =\pi /2`$, in the bulk ferromagnet $`\theta =0`$, and requiring the continuity of $`\theta `$ and $`\theta ^{}`$ at the interface, we obtain the following boundary conditions,

$$\omega \pm ih\sigma (1\mathrm{cos}\theta )+\mathrm{\Delta }(1\mathrm{sin}\theta )+\frac{I^2}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }=0,$$

at $`z=d/2`$. Although our equations describe the behavior of an SFFS junction for an arbitrary relation between $`h`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, we concentrate in the following on the case $`T,h\mathrm{\Delta }`$. As we show below, in this situation the current $`I`$ is exponentially small, and the boundary condition for $`\theta `$ reduce to $`\theta (z=\pm d/2)=\pi /2`$.

Since the Usadel equations posses obvious symmetries $`\theta _\sigma (\omega )=\theta _\sigma (\omega )+\pi `$, $`\eta _\sigma (\omega )=\eta _\sigma (\omega )+\pi `$, in the sequel we only consider $`\omega >0`$.

The field $`\theta `$ must rapidly decay away from superconductors and stay exponentially small within the ferromagnets. We start first solving Eq. (22) at $`zd`$, where $`\theta 1`$, and the trigonometric functions can be expanded. Then Eq. (22) can be integrated. The solution is too cumbersome to be written down here, its asymptotics for $`|z|\mathrm{}`$ are

$`\theta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{\left[\theta _0+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{D\gamma ^2}{2(\omega \pm ih\sigma )}}}\right]^2+{\displaystyle \frac{DI^2}{2\theta _0^2(\omega \pm ih\sigma )}}}`$ (23)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left(\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{D}}}(\alpha +i\beta \sigma )|z|\right),`$
with the notations $`\theta _0=\theta (z=0)`$, $`\gamma =\theta ^{}(z=0)`$, and

$$\alpha =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\sqrt{\sqrt{\omega ^2+h^2}+\omega };\beta =\pm \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\sqrt{\sqrt{\omega ^2+h^2}\omega }.$$

Next, we solve Eq. (22) close to the interfaces, $`|zd/2|d`$. We assume that $`I/\theta _0`$, $`\gamma `$ are both exponentially small (to be checked later) and obtain

$$\mathrm{tan}\frac{\theta }{4}=\mathrm{tan}\frac{\pi }{8}\mathrm{exp}\left(\sqrt{\frac{2}{D}}(\alpha +i\beta \sigma )(|z|\frac{d}{2})\right).$$
(24)
Far from the interface, $`\theta 1`$, the solution becomes exponential. Matching the exponential asymptotics of Eqs. (23) and (24), we find the condition

$`\left[\theta _0^2\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{D\gamma ^2}{2(\omega \pm ih\sigma )}}}\right]^2+{\displaystyle \frac{DI^2}{2\theta _0^2(\omega \pm ih\sigma )}}`$
$`=64\mathrm{tan}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{8}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{D}}}(\alpha +i\beta \sigma )d\right).`$ (25)
We now integrate Eq. (19). Since $`\theta (x)`$ grows exponentially away from $`x=0`$, the sine in the denominator can be replaced by its argument. We then find

$$\sqrt{\frac{DI^2}{2(\omega \pm ih\sigma )}}=\theta _0\left(\theta _0\sqrt{\frac{D\gamma ^2}{2(\omega +ih\sigma )}}\right)\mathrm{tan}\left(\frac{\phi }{2}\pm \eta _0\right),$$
(26)
with $`\eta _0=\eta (0)`$. We proceed by calculating the four quantities $`I`$, $`\theta _0`$, $`\eta _0`$, and $`\gamma `$. The result is

$`I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{64(\sqrt{2}1)^2}{\sqrt{D}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2+h^2}{\sqrt{\omega ^2+h^2}+\omega }}}`$ (27)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left(\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{D}}}\alpha d\right)\mathrm{sin}\phi .`$
Note that $`I`$ does not depend on $`\sigma `$. It can be easily checked that $`I/\theta _0`$ and $`\gamma `$ are exponentially small, which justifies the approximations we have made to arrive at Eq. (27).

Now we calculate the supercurrent according to Eq. (20). For high temperatures $`T\mathrm{}D/d^2,h`$ only the term with $`\omega =\pi T`$ is important, and we obtain

$`j`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}j_{0,\mathrm{diff}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi k_BTd^2}{\mathrm{}D}}\right)^{3/2}`$ (28)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d}{\sqrt{\mathrm{}D}}}\sqrt{\pi T+\sqrt{h^2+\pi ^2T^2}}\right)\mathrm{sin}\phi ,`$
where we introduced $`j_{0,\mathrm{diff}}=128(\sqrt{2}1)^2e\nu \mathrm{}D^2/d^3`$. In high magnetic fields $`hT,\mathrm{}D/d^2`$ the terms with $`\omega <h`$ contribute,

$$j=j_{0,\mathrm{diff}}\left(\frac{hd^2}{\mathrm{}D}\right)^{3/2}\mathrm{exp}\left(\sqrt{\frac{h}{\mathrm{}D}}d\right)\mathrm{sin}\phi .$$
(29)
We note the two main features of the solution in the diffusive case. First, the current-phase relation is sinusoidal. This corresponds to the result for the long diffusive SNS contact Svidzinsky2 . Then, the supercurrent decays exponentially with magnetic field, in contrast to the power-law decay in the clean case.

Similarly, we can treat a single-layer SFS junction of a thickness $`d`$. The result for $`h\mathrm{}D/d^2,T`$ reads

$`j`$ $`=`$ $`j_{0,\mathrm{diff}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{hd^2}{\mathrm{}D}}\right)^{3/2}`$ (30)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left(\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{h}{\mathrm{}D}}}d\right)\mathrm{sin}\left(\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{h}{\mathrm{}D}}}d\right)\mathrm{sin}\phi .`$
Thus, comparing Eq. (30) with Eq. (29) we see that a long diffusive SFS contact can be a $`\pi `$-junction, depending on the thickness of the ferromagnet, whereas a similar symmetric SFFS contact with anti-parallel configuration of the domains is not a $`\pi `$-junction.

## V Discussion

We considered the behavior of the supercurrent in long SFS junctions. We obtained new expressions for single-domain ballistic and diffusive contacts and confirmed that the $`0`$ to $`\pi `$ transition can be induced in these systems. However, our main focus is on the situation when the ferromagnetic region is split into two ferromagnetic domains with equal but opposite magnetization. In the ballistic case, this system behaves as a single-domain SFS junction, with the effective exchange field $`h_{ef}=h|d_1d_2|/(d_1+d_2)`$. Such a system exhibits a non-sinusoidal current-phase relation, and a power-law decay of the supercurrent with thickness and exchange field. If the thicknesses of the both domains are the same, the effective field vanishes. Disorder, considered both as geometrical fluctuations of the thickness, or randomly positioned impurities, restores exponential decay and sinusoidal phase dependence of the supercurrent. A system with two domains of the same width is never in the $`\pi `$-state.

To obtain these results, we made a number of simplifying assumptions. The superconductor-ferromagnet interfaces, as well as the boundary between the two ferromagnetic domains, are assumed to be ideal (no scattering) and sharp. This can be realized in multilayered structures, where the ferromagnetic layers can be artificially constructed and kept very clean. Another, more attractive option, is real ferromagnetic domains. A domain wall has a finite width, typically of order of the mean free path, or wider. This induces reflection of electrons from the domain wall, and additionally generates the triplet pairing between electrons and holes. These factors need to be taken into account for a quantitative comparison between theory and experiment. However, we do not expect them to add qualitatively new features into the picture we presented.

## Acknowledgments

We thank J. Aarts, E. V. Bezuglyi, Yu. M. Galperin, A. A. Golubov, W. Guichard, and Yu. V. Nazarov for useful discussions. FH acknowledges the hospitality of Delft University of Technology. This work was supported by the Netherlands Foundation for Fundamental Research on Matter (FOM) and by Institut Universitaire de France.


format: text

text:
# Cosmic Black Holes

## Abstract

Production of high-energy gravitational objects is a common feature of gravitational theories. The primordial universe is a natural setting for the creation of black holes and other nonperturbative gravitational entities. Cosmic black holes can be used to probe physical properties of the very early universe which would usually require the knowledge of the theory of quantum gravity. They may be the only tool to explore thermalisation of the early universe. Whereas the creation of cosmic black holes was active in the past, it seems to be negligible at the present epoch.

This essay received an “honorable mention” in the 2003 Essay Competition of the Gravity Research Foundation – Ed.

The physics of the very early universe is one of the unsolved questions in cosmology: How did the universe begin? Standard cosmology  speculates that the universe has a history of continuous expansion. If we believe in the standard cosmological model, the universe began some 10-15 billions of years ago from a singularity in a superhot and superdense state, where temperature and energy density reached and maybe surpassed Planck values. The very early universe is quantum and its understanding requires a quantum theory of gravity. This conclusion is not unique to the standard cosmological scenario. We know that the theory of general relativity breaks down at high energies. No matter what may be the theory of quantum gravity, if we define the Planck scale $`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ as the energy scale where general relativity breaks down, we may conclude that the early universe requires a Planck scale. Although the physics of the Planck state depends on the details of the quantum theory, the conclusion that the universe has passed through a Planckian stage, as previously defined, cannot be avoided. For instance, standard cosmology and the “new” string  and brane-world  cosmologies predict the existence of this phase. However, almost nothing is known of the Planckian era. We do not even know whether the primordial universe began in a thermal equilibrium state.

Can we say anything about the very early universe without any knowledge of Planckian physics? Surprisingly, the answer to this question is in the affirmative. There is indeed a physical phenomenon which is common to all theories of gravity and that can be used to gain information about the Planckian regime of gravity: Black holes (BHs). BH solutions, or more generally solutions with trapped surfaces, are a common feature of gravitational theories. The details of the solution depend on the theory under consideration but the existence of trapped surfaces cannot be avoided. We may hope to obtain general information on the Planckian era of the universe using general properties of BHs. In this essay we present a simple, though completely general, example of this technique.

Apart from gravitational collapse of matter , BHs may be created from Planckian particle collisions . The geometry of these BHs depends on the geometry of the spacetime. In $`D`$ dimensions the simplest BH has spatial spherical topology. Solutions with spatial topology $`R^p\times SO(Dp1)`$ are usually called (black) branes . Nonperturbative creation of BHs , branes , and other gravitational extended objects is expected to dominate hard-scattering processes at Planckian scales. (For a review, see, e.g., Ref. .) If the Planck scale happens to be very low, as in gravitational theories with large extra dimensions, formation and decay of BHs and branes would soon be detectable in hadron colliders  and high-energy cosmic ray detectors . The very early universe is a natural arena for Planckian BH production: Creation of nonperturbative gravitational objects could have been a common event in the early universe.

Primordial creation of nonperturbative gravitational objects by particle collision may give some information on the initial conditions of the universe. We have already mentioned that we do not know whether the universe was in thermal equilibrium during its earliest epoch. All perturbative interactions are frozen out at very high energy and are “\[…\] ineffective in maintaining or establishing thermal equilibrium” . In the standard scenario, the energy threshold for thermalisation is $`10^{16}`$ GeV, where Grand Unification Theory processes freeze out. A rough estimate of the thermalisation threshold for a given process can be obtained by comparing the interaction rate per particle $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to the expansion rate of the universe:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }>H.$$
(1)
Here $`H`$ is the Hubble parameter, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=n\sigma |v|`$, where $`n`$ is the number density of the species, $`\sigma `$ is the cross section of the process, and $`v`$ is the relative velocity. Assuming a standard radiation-dominated epoch for the early universe and interactions mediated by massless gauge bosons, Eq. (1) reads

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }/H\alpha ^2T^1>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},$$
(2)
where $`T`$ is the temperature in Planck units and $`\alpha O(10^1)`$ is the gauge coupling constant. Therefore, for temperatures smaller than $`10^{16}`$ GeV the interactions occur rapidly and the universe thermalises, whereas at temperatures above $`10^{16}`$ GeV the interactions cannot maintain thermal equilibrium. Hence thermal equilibrium of the very early universe cannot be achieved with perturbative processes.

At temperatures about (and above) the Planck scale the energy per particle is sufficient to trigger nonperturbative gravitational processes. Therefore, we expect BHs and other gravitational objects to be in thermal equilibrium with the primordial bath. Once formed, the BHs accrete and evaporate by quantum Hawking radiation  until they reach equilibrium, thus thermalising the universe. Thermalisation is possible because BH formation is a nonperturbative process. Furthermore, thermalisation does not depend on the details of the process such as the geometry of the BH. At temperatures of order of the Planck scale we expect the gravitational object to decouple from the thermal plasma. After decoupling, the remaining BHs either evaporate completely and disappear or leave some stable remnants . We will briefly come back to this point later on.

Let us make the previous statements quantitative. Although the physics of nonperturbative gravitational interactions in the primordial universe requires a careful study, a simple argument shows how gravitational effects may indeed thermalise the universe. Consider the formation of a gravitational object with event horizon of size $`r_h`$. The mass of this object increases with increasing $`r_h`$ and increasing spacetime dimension, i.e.,

$$Mr_h^a,$$
(3)
where $`a1`$ is a constant parameter which depends on the number of spacetime dimensions. The formation of the gravitational object can be modelled as a semiclassical process if the entropy of the process is sufficiently large, i.e., if the fluctuations of the number of (micro) canonical degrees of freedom are small . Gravitational objects with mass equal to a few Planck masses usually satisfy this condition. In this case, the cross-section is approximated by the geometrical cross section of the object. Assuming that the colliding particle lives in a $`(k+4)`$-dimensional submanifold of the $`D`$-dimensional spacetime ($`kD4`$), the cross section in Planckian units is

$$\sigma (s)M^{\frac{k+2}{a}}s^{\frac{k+2}{2a}},$$
(4)
where $`\sqrt{s}`$ is the centre-of-mass energy of the colliding particles. For instance, the cross section of a nonrotating spherically symmetric BH

$$ds^2=R(r)dt^2+R(r)^1dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{D2}^2,R(r)=1\left(\frac{r_s}{r}\right)^{D3},$$
(5)
is

$$\sigma _{BH}A_{k,D}s^{\frac{k+2}{2(D3)}},$$
(6)
where $`A_{k,D}`$ is a geometrical factor of order $`O(1)`$. Since we want to discuss the thermal equilibrium of BHs, we need to write the cross section as a function of the temperature. This is simply Eq. (4) with the substitution $`sT^2`$:

$$\sigma (T)T^{\frac{2+k}{a}}.$$
(7)
As is expected, the cross-section (7) increases as the temperature increases. BHs thermalise the universe at high temperatures. This statement is independent from the geometry of the gravitational object and is completely general. The interaction rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is easily estimated assuming for simplicity that the $`(k+4)`$-dimensional space is homogeneous and isotropic. In this case the number density and the interaction rate are $`nT^{k+3}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }T^{1+(1+1/a)(k+2)}`$, respectively. Comparing the interaction rate to the the expansion rate $`HT^{k/2+2}`$, the condition for thermal equilibrium (1) reads

$$T^{(1+2/a)(1+k/2)}>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}.$$
(8)
Therefore, the universe is thermalised by nonperturbative gravitational interactions at temperatures $`>M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$. If the primordial universe is Planckian, it is also thermal. When the temperature drops below the Planck scale, the nonperturbative gravitational interactions freeze out and BH accretion essentially stops. The “last” gravitational objects which have been produced in the Planckian era are expected to decay and disappear after a time scale of the order of $`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^1`$. BHs, for instance, evaporate with emission of Hawking radiation. However, the possibility that some of the Planckian gravitational objects are stable and survive as stable relics should not be discarded .

Does cosmic production of gravitational objects play a role at the present epoch as well? The answer to this question depends obviously on the value of the fundamental Planck scale. If the Planck scale is as low as a few TeV, it is in principle possible to observe cosmic creation of BHs and other gravitational objects. These events could be produced by the collision of a high energy relativistic particle, e.g. an ultra-high energy cosmic ray, with a massive particle such as a dark matter particle. Since the cross section grows as a function of the centre-of-mass-energy of the collision, the highest rate of formation is obtained when the energy of the relativistic particle $`E`$ is large and the Planck scale is small. In order to produce a gravitational object, the mass $`m`$ of the massive particle must be larger than $`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2/2E`$. The best scenario is obtained by setting $`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ 1 TeV and choosing the highest-energy cosmic rays with energy $`E_\nu 10^{21}`$ eV. In this case, the minimum particle mass required to create gravitational objects is $`m1`$ keV. Warm and cold dark matter such as WIMPs  would be good candidates. The number of events, however, decreases drastically with the mass of the particle . The interaction rate in Planckian units is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }<\rho _c(2E)^{1/a}m^{1/a1},$$
(9)
where $`\rho _c`$ is the critical density. Therefore, the interaction rate decreases with increasing mass $`m`$. BHs, for instance, have $`a=D3`$ and at least five dimensions are needed to lower the Planck scale to TeV values. If cosmic BHs are created today, collision of high-energy cosmic rays with warm dark matter maximizes BH formation. The interaction length $`\lambda `$ for cosmic creation of spherical BHs in Planckian units is given by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$:

$$\lambda >\rho _c^1(2E)^{1/a}m^{11/a}.$$
(10)
Choosing $`E=10^9`$ $`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$, $`m=10^8`$ $`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$, $`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}=1`$ TeV and five dimensions, we find $`\lambda 10^{33}`$ cm $``$ Hubble distance. Therefore, cosmic production of BHs is negligible at the present epoch.

To conclude, cosmic creation of gravitational objects is a general feature of any gravitational theory. The formation of gravitational objects is a nonperturbative phenomenon which takes place when the energy of the process is of the order of the Planck scale or higher. Cosmic creation of BHs and other objects happens during the primordial phases of the universe, when the temperature is expected to have reached Planckian values. A striking effect of the formation of gravitational objects is the thermalisation of the universe at very high energies, which cannot be achieved by perturbative processes. BH formation in the very early universe allows to get some information about the initial conditions of the universe without making any assumption on the quantum theory of gravity. Cosmic BH formation triggered by particle collisions at very high energy cannot occur today, even if the Planck scale is as low as a TeV. However, the merging BH physics and cosmology is a field full of promises and may be well bring further surprises.

Acknowledgements

We thank José Blanco-Pillado for interesting discussions. M. C. thanks the University of Chicago for the kind hospitality.


text:
# First Look XMM-Newton EPIC Observations of the Prototypical Starburst Galaxy M82

## 1 Introduction

Starburst events in galaxies represent an important phase in the evolution of galaxies and ultimately in the generation of cosmic structure (Heckman 2002). Starbursts affect galactic structure and evolution by heating and metal-enriching the ISM via material outflowing from the starburst, and if the event is strong enough, removing some of the ISM via a galactic superwind. Indeed, if the starburst event is strong enough (or the galaxy small enough) a starburst can remove the majority of the ISM, with major implications for future star-formation (Mac Low & Ferrara 1999). Superwinds can have a major impact on their environments, enriching the IGM, suppressing galaxy formation and so on. The impact of these events may have been particularly important at high redshift (Mori, Ferrara & Madau 2002).

In order to study in detail the impact of superwinds on galactic evolution and the IGM it is necessary to look at nearby objects, where we have better spatial resolution and photon statistics. Nearby superwind galaxies, such as NGC 253, NGC 1569 and M82, are key objects and because superwinds are driven by hot shocked gas, originating from supernovae or fast stellar winds, then X-rays are probably the most important waveband to study superwinds. While Chandra is a superb instrument for disentangling point sources in galaxies, the large collecting area of XMM-Newton makes it better for studying extended low surface brightness features. Some important Chandra and XMM-Newton results on starbursts and superwinds have already been presented (eg Pietsch et al. 2001; Strickland et al. 2000; Martin, Kobulnicky & Heckman 2002). In this paper we present the first XMM-Newton European Photon Imaging Camera (EPIC) results for M82. The first M82 results from the XMM-Newton Reflection Grating Spectrograph (RGS) have been presented in Read & Stevens (2002).

M82 is a much studied, nearby starburst and superwind galaxy ($`D=3.63`$ Mpc, Freedman et al. 1994, so that $`1^{}=1.06`$ kpc). M82 is very IR luminous (Rieke et al. 1980), contains a substantial population of young supernova remnants and luminous HII regions (Pedlar et al. 1999), and many luminous super star clusters (de Grijs, O’Connell & Gallagher 2001), all indicating a strong and ongoing starburst, probably triggered by a close encounter with M81.

As regards the M82 superwind, extended, extraplanar emission is seen at several wavelengths. H$`\alpha `$ observations show a filamentary structure consistent with a roughly conical bipolar outflow (Shopbell & Bland-Hawthorn 1998), with implied gas velocities along the cone surface of $`600\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. The implied H$`\alpha `$ morphology is roughly cylindrical for a height above the disk of $`z<350`$ pc, flaring out at larger $`z`$ with an opening angle of $`30^{}`$ (McKeith et al. 1995). An additional structure, termed the H$`\alpha `$ ‘cap’ lies at a distance of $`1112`$ kpc to the NW of M82 and is probably associated with the superwind (Devine & Bally 1999).

M82 has been observed by virtually all X-ray satellites and only a selective overview is given here. EINSTEIN first detected extended X-ray emission associated with M82, extending for several kpc above the plane and being well correlated with the optical filamentary structure (Watson, Stanger & Griffiths 1984; Fabbiano 1988). Strickland, Ponman & Stevens (1997), using ROSAT, also studied the extraplanar emission, extending to $`z6`$ kpc, with asymmetric morphology and brightness. Fitting spectra to subregions in the wind, they found that the fitted temperature of superwind emission drops from $`kT0.6\mathrm{keV}\text{ }`$ near the nucleus to $`0.4\mathrm{keV}\text{ }`$ in the outer wind. Strickland et al. (1997) concluded that the superwind X-ray emission was most likely coming from shocked clouds within the superwind rather than the superwind itself. Lehnert, Heckman & Weaver (1999) discussed an X-ray feature seen by ROSAT lying about $`11^{}`$ N of M82, coincident with the H$`\alpha `$ ‘cap’ emission, and concluded that this emission was likely produced by shock heating, as the superwind encounters a cloud in the halo of M82. This highlights a major unresolved issue – the origin of the X-ray emission from the superwind – is it due to the wind itself or shocked dense clumps within the wind, and how much of the superwind material is from the starburst and how much is entrained by the outflow? As highlighted by Strickland & Stevens (2000) understanding the origin of the X-ray emission is important to understanding the mass and energy contained in the wind, which in turn is crucial to understanding the impact of superwinds on their host galaxies and environments. High resolution Chandra observations of M82 have provided insight into the behaviour of point sources in the central region. The brightest source is located away from the galaxy centre and may be an intermediate mass black-hole or a beamed X-ray binary (Kaaret et al. 2001).

Here we focus on an initial look at the morphology and spectra of the superwind. A more detailed analysis will be presented in a later paper.

## 2 The XMM-Newton Observations of M82

M82 was observed with XMM-Newton on 2001 May 6 (revolution 258) for 30.9ksec, with the EPIC MOS and PN cameras in full frame mode with the medium filter. The following are preliminary results from the EPIC MOS1, MOS2 and PN data. Details of XMM-Newton and the EPIC MOS and PN instruments can be found in Jansen et al. (2001), Turner et al. (2001) and Strüder et al. (2001) respectively.

The data from the 3 EPIC instruments have been processed with standard procedures in the XMM-Newton SAS (Science Analysis System V5.2). Periods of high background were filtered out (leaving 30.0ksec of usable data). Only events with a pattern number $`12`$ and flag selection for good events were retained, and photons with an energy in the range $`0.210\mathrm{keV}\text{ }`$. For the PN detector, ‘out-of-time’ events were screened out. The pipeline processing has identified over 330 point sources within the EPIC field, though many are spurious and associated with the “out of time” events. We defer a detailed study of the M82 point source population and the associated field to a later paper.

## 3 Results: Imaging the Superwind

In Fig. 1 (left panel) we show a combined MOS1, MOS2 and PN image of M82. The data for each instrument has been corrected for periods of high background and out-of-time events, mosaiced together and adaptively smoothed. In addition to the large number of point sources in the field, the main features to note are the bright nuclear region and the extended extraplanar emission, predominantly bipolar in nature. The superwind emission is asymmetric, extending to a greater distance in the N ($`13^{}`$) than the S ($`7^{}`$). For the northern wind the emission extends nearly to the edge of the field of view. The emission is also clearly highly structured.

There are a few more additional features to note; the enhanced emission in the N, coincident with the H$`\alpha `$ ‘cap’, and a clear X-ray bridge connecting this emission to the main superwind emission. The X-ray emission associated with the H$`\alpha `$ ‘cap’ also seems to be structured and contains a point source (which could well be a background object). As had been suspected, this X-ray emission is now clearly seen to be part of the superwind.

In Fig. 1 (right) we show a three colour image of the emission from M82. The 3 colour bands (red: $`0.20.5\mathrm{keV}\text{ }`$, green: $`0.50.9\mathrm{keV}\text{ }`$, blue: $`0.92.0\mathrm{keV}\text{ }`$) have been chosen to highlight the softer superwind emission. In addition to some harder point sources in the field, much of the superwind emission is of a fairly consistent colour, implying little temperature change outside the inner region. There does appear to be a softening towards the edge of the superwind. As can be seen from the spectral fits discussed later we see a reduction in both the fitted temperatures and in the level of absorption suffered. Both these effects are responsible for the softening of the wind emission.

The X-ray emission associated with the H$`\alpha `$ ‘cap’ is concentrated in the $`0.50.9\mathrm{keV}\text{ }`$ (green) waveband. Another interesting morphological feature is a ridge of emission in the SE portion of the wind (and which is indicated in Fig. 1). Similar ridge like features in the X-ray emission from superwinds have been seen in NGC 253 for example (Strickland et al. 2000). In the N wind there is a region with a deficit of emission, which we term the ‘dark lane’, which is well correlated with HI emission (see later).

In Fig. 2 we show X-ray contours from the combined EPIC MOS1, MOS2 and PN image, superimposed on a H$`\alpha `$ image of M82. Note that this H$`\alpha `$ image does not extend out to the H$`\alpha `$ ‘cap’. There is a good general tie-up in the superwind, between the filamentary H$`\alpha `$ and the X-ray emission. In the northern wind there are indications of the X-ray emission more closely following the filamentary structure, with H$`\alpha `$ emission associated with the tongue of X-ray material connecting to the H$`\alpha `$ ‘cap’ emission.

Fig. 2 also shows how the relative intensities of the X-ray and the H$`\alpha `$ emission vary with distance, in a NW-to-SE slice (at a position angle of 25) through the nucleus of the galaxy. Both profiles have been background-subtracted. Though the H$`\alpha `$ emission appears more centrally concentrated than the X-ray, several similarities in the profiles are evident. Both profiles show, that within the inner wind (up to $`100^{\prime \prime }`$) the southern side is brighter. This is likely due to the fact that, due to the orientation of the system, we are able to see the southern side of the inner wind far more clearly than the obscured northern side. Beyond this however, the situation reverses; both the X-ray and the H$`\alpha `$ profiles show a flattening of the intensity distribution to the N, whereas to the S, both profiles fall more rapidly, and disappear into the background. The northern wind is larger and extends further than the southern wind.

There are some striking correlations (and anti-correlations) between the X-ray emission and HI features. Contours of HI emission, constructed using the HI data of Yun, Ho & Lo (1994), are shown superimposed on the XMM-Newton image of M82 in Fig. 3. An apparent ‘hole’ in the HI emission is visible to the NW, coincident with the northern X-ray wind. It is likely that the hot X-ray wind, in travelling out into the IGM, has blown this hole in the intervening cold neutral material. Note though, that the HI features have masses comparable to those implied for the superwind, and so could provide a substantial obstacle for the outflow (Yun et al. 1993). The large HI feature to the east of the northern wind appears to be sharply bordered by X-ray emission from the superwind, and may be collimating the flow. The ’dark lane’ in the X-ray emission in the N wind seems also to be associated with enhanced HI emission. The ‘dark lane’ structure seen in the X-ray image could be due to either absorption by foreground HI emission or due to an interaction is not clear. The fact that we do not see a hardening of the spectra in this region in the 3 colour diagram (Fig. 1) suggests that it is not simply foreground absorption.

The southern wind does not show such an obvious HI ‘hole’ as the northern wind, but the X-ray ridge is interesting, lying at the southern edge of the large HI streamer extending to the east. The HI streamers to the southwest (in the direction of M81) do not show any significantly enhanced X-ray emission. Also, the H$`\alpha `$ ‘cap’ does not show any associated HI emission, and hence has been assumed to be due to an ionized cloud.

The large effective area of the EPIC instruments on XMM-Newton allows the generation of narrow band images, centred on particular lines, which gives further information on the thermal and (potentially) the abundance structure of superwinds. In Fig. 4 we show 4 such images, with each image centred in energy space on 4 lines, from low energy lines (OVIII, 0.65 $`\mathrm{keV}`$) up to higher energy lines (SiXIII, 1.85 $`\mathrm{keV}`$). The differences in morphology are marked, with the spatial extent of the higher energy lines being much smaller than the lower energy lines. There is also a systematic shift in the peak of the emission, with the emission peak of the lower energy lines being shifted to the S and SE by up to $`0.5^{}`$. The orientation of the M82 disk is such that the NW edge of the disk lies nearest to us (McKeith et al. 1995). As such, we are able to see the central regions of the X-ray outflow much more easily in the S than in the N. The energy shift in peak emission is very likely due to a combination of two effects $``$ the central plume of the very inner starburst wind (visible only in the south) above (i.e. to the SE of) the nucleus is visible in the lower energy band images, whereas the actual starburst nucleus is completely absorbed by the intervening disk of M82. As we move towards higher energies, the contribution of the central plume of the very inner wind emission decreases, whilst the starburst nucleus becomes progressively less absorbed, and more visible. An almost identical situation is seen in the other famous nearby starburst galaxy NGC 253 (Pietsch et al. 2001). Note also, that the X-ray spatial structure in the central regions of M82 has also been studied by analysing the dispersion and cross-dispersion profiles of the X-ray spectral lines observed with the RGS (Read & Stevens 2002). These results agree very well with the results presented here.

## 4 Results: X-ray Spectra

Previous X-ray spectral analyses of M82 have shown that multiple spectral components are needed (for instance, Moran & Lehnert 1997; Ptak et al. 1997), indicating the presence of multi-phase X-ray emitting material. In the light of these results we adopt a spectral model with two thermal and one power-law components (though we do note the ambiguities in results and physical interpretation that can result from such models - see for example, Dahlem et al. 2000). In addition, we find that one and two component models give substantially inferior fits.

In this first EPIC paper we present a limited number of results for a few regions of M82 and its superwind. More comprehensive results, dealing with the spectral variations in the superwind are deferred to a later paper. We have extracted spectra from all instruments, defining two concentric source regions, a nuclear region of radius $`0.5^{}`$ and an annular inner wind region around the nuclear region, extending from an inner radius of $`0.5^{}`$ to an outer radius of $`1.3^{}`$. The background has been taken from a circular region reasonably close to these regions but away from the diffuse emission. We have used a three component model to fit the PN and MOS1 and MOS2 spectra simultaneously, two thermal (mekal) components with the abundance parameter tied together and one power-law component, with each of the 3 components having an independent column. The physical justification for this model is that in the nuclear region, in addition to hot multi-phase superwind gas, we expect harder emission from the point source population and also possibly inverse Compton emission (Moran & Lehnert 1997). In the inner wind region, again in addition to the hot gas, we expect to detect emission from unresolved point sources (background AGN as well as sources associated with M82). The best-fit model results, absorbed luminosities etc of each component are given in Table 1 and shown in Fig. 5. The approximate number of counts in each of the spectra are: nuclear region – PN: 99000, each MOS: 47000; inner wind region – PN: 65000, each MOS: 28000 and H$`\alpha `$ cap region – PN:4650, each MOS:1800. The power-law component in both regions is highly absorbed (though the values are not inconsistent with the HI values for absorption in front of SNRs in M82 quoted by Wills, Pedlar & Muxlow 1998) and has a slope broadly comparable to that of X-ray binaries and AGN. Both thermal components are relatively soft, with values broadly comparable to those seen with previous instruments. The single metallicity value is (apparently) reasonably well constrained at $`0.3Z_{}`$, though the reliability of this must be questioned (see below). The X-ray emission spectrum of the H$`\alpha `$ ‘cap’ region is also shown in Fig. 5. On account of the relatively low count statistics the spectra are fitted with a single temperature mekal model (see Table 1), with $`kT0.6\mathrm{keV}\text{ }`$. No firm constraints can be placed on the metallicity of this region.

From these fits we can estimate masses of the X-ray emitting gas in these regions (assuming spherical symmetry). Summing the masses in the two thermal components, we find wind masses of $`1.5\times 10^7\eta ^{1/2}M_{}`$ for the nuclear region and $`1.7\times 10^7\eta ^{1/2}M_{}`$ for the inner wind region, where $`\eta `$ is the volume filling factor of the X-ray emitting material (see Strickland & Stevens 2000 for a discussion of $`\eta `$). These values are broadly comparable with those of Strickland et al. (1997), given the different assumed geometries.

We expect the thermal emission from the superwind to come from both nuclear processed material expelled from the starburst and material entrained into the superwind from the galactic halo. The measured wind abundances can then, in principle, be an important constraint on superwind ejection processes, and be used to estimate the level of heavy element pollution of the IGM by the starburst. We can investigate the abundances of the nuclear and inner wind region by grouping elements into 3 groups: (1) He, C, and N (abundance set to solar), (2) Fe group – Fe and Ni (associated with SNe I), and (3) $`\alpha `$ elements – O, Ne, Mg, Si, S, Ar and Ca (associated with SNeII). Fitting again with a two temperature plus power-law model, we find that (with the abundances tied between the two models) that the Fe group abundance is fitted to be $`0.43_{0.40}^{0.48}Z_{(Fe,)}`$ and for the $`\alpha `$ group $`0.37_{0.35}^{0.40}Z_{(\alpha ,)}`$, implying a slightly subsolar $`\alpha `$/Fe ratio. For the inner wind region the corresponding values are $`0.29_{0.26}^{0.31}Z_{(Fe,)}`$ and $`0.54_{0.50}^{0.57}Z_{(\alpha ,)}`$, implying a supersolar ratio (cf. Martin et al. 2002 results for NGC 1569).

The presence of an Fe line at $`6.5\mathrm{keV}\text{ }`$ in the M82 spectrum has been suggested by BeppoSAX observations (Cappi et al. 1999). To verify this we have fitted a power-law+Gaussian model to the $`510\mathrm{keV}\text{ }`$ spectra of the nuclear and inner wind regions. For the nuclear region, we find a line at $`6.61_{6.54}^{6.68}\mathrm{keV}\text{ }`$, width $`\sigma =0.15_{0.08}^{0.25}\mathrm{keV}\text{ }`$ and a line flux of $`2.2_{1.4}^{3.7}\times 10^5`$ ph cm-2 s-1. For the inner wind region, we find a line at $`6.43_{6.53}^{6.31}\mathrm{keV}\text{ }`$ and a line flux of $`6.8_{3.0}^{18.9}\times 10^6`$ ph cm-2 s-1, with $`\sigma `$ poorly constrained. These values are broadly consistent with Cappi et al. (1999).

## 5 Summary and Conclusions

In this paper we have presented initial results from XMM-Newton EPIC observations of M82, which show the extraplanar X-ray emission associated with the superwind of M82 in greater clarity than has been seen before. The main features are that the superwind emission extends out to a height of at least 14 kpc in the N and 7.5 kpc in the S and is highly structured. The superwind is continuous out to the X-ray emission associated with the H$`\alpha `$ ‘cap’. The X-ray and H$`\alpha `$ profiles are similar, with the S wind brighter but overall less extended. The are several interesting X-ray/HI correlations. In the N wind the superwind appears to have blown a hole in the HI gas, as revealed by a depression in the HI emission coincident with a region of X-ray emission. This penetration may explain why the N wind is more extended. The is also some evidence of the superwind being collimated by HI gas. An X-ray ridge-like feature towards the SE edge of the wind may be due to an interaction with an HI streamer.

The X-ray spectra from the central regions of M82 can be fitted with a three component model (2 thermal+power-law) with thermal components with $`kT=0.5\mathrm{keV}\text{ }`$ and $`0.9\mathrm{keV}\text{ }`$ (nuclear region), and $`kT=0.4\mathrm{keV}\text{ }`$ and $`0.7\mathrm{keV}\text{ }`$ (inner wind region). The emission is consistent with a model with multiphase thermal emission from the superwind, along with power-low emission from compact sources either in the galaxy or background AGN.

In summary, we have presented only a short overview of the XMM-Newton EPIC data on M82. More thorough work, which would include dealing with the point source contamination of the superwind, is needed for a detailed analysis of the superwind. The X-ray emission from the superwind is extremely complex and these observations have revealed new evidence of interactions of the superwind with circumgalactic material. Future work will concentrate on different aspects, such as the bright central point sources, the spatial and thermal structure of the superwind and the relationship to the observed H$`\alpha `$ emission and the overall energetics of the starburst and the superwind.

## Acknowledgements

The HI data used to produce Fig. 3 was kindly supplied to us by M.S. Yun.


text:
# Design of realistic switches for coupling superconducting solid-state qubits

## Abstract

Superconducting flux qubits are a promising candidate for solid-state quantum computation. One of the reasons is that implementing a controlled coupling between the qubits appears to be relatively easy, if one uses tunable Josephson junctions. We evaluate possible coupling strengths and show, how much extra decoherence is induced by the subgap conductance of a tunable junction. In the light of these results, we evaluate several options of using intrinsically shunted junctions and show that based on available technology, Josephson field effect transistors and high-Tc junctions used as $`\pi `$-shifters would be a good option, whereas the use of magnetic junctions as $`\pi `$-shifters severely limits quantum coherence.

Quantum computation promises qualitative improvement of computational power as compared to today’s classical computers. An important candidate for the implementation of a scalable quantum computer are superconducting qubits Makhlin ; orlando . After experimental demonstration of basic features e.g. in flux qubits Caspar ; Chiorescu , the improvement of the properties of such setups involves engineering of couplings and decoherence, see e.g. EPJB .

To perform universal quantum computation with a system of coupled qubits it is very much desirable to be able to switch the couplings (although there are in principle workarounds untunable ). It has already been described that for flux qubits, this can be achieved by using a superconducting flux transformer interrupted by a tunable Josephson junction orlando , i.e. a superconducting switch, as shown in Fig. 1. The primary and most straightforward proposal for the implementation of this switch is to use an unshunted DC-SQUID based on tunnel junctions utilizing the same technology as for the qubit junctions. Although this holds the promise of inducing very little extra decoherence, it suffers from two practical restrictions: i) the SQUID loop has to be biased by exactly half a flux quantum in the off-state and ii) the external control parameter is a magnetic flux, which introduces the possibility of flux cross-talk between the qubits and the switch. The combination of i) and ii) implies that even small flux cross-talk will severely perturb the off-state of the switch.

This can be avoided by using different switches: A voltage-controlled device such as a Josephson Field Effect Transistor (JoFET) richter  or an SNS-Transistor completely avoids the cross-talk problem. As an intermediate step Blatter , one can improve the SQUID by using a large $`\pi `$-Junction, in order to fix the off-state at zero field. Such $`\pi `$-junctions can be found in high-Tc systems hightc  or in systems with a magnetic barrier sfs . All these junctions are damped by a large subgap conductance because they contain a large number of low-energy quasiparticles.

In this letter, we quantitatively evaluate the coupling strength between two qubits coupled by a switchable flux transformer. We evaluate the strength of the decoherence induced by the subgap current modeled in terms of the RSJ model. Based on this result, we assess available technologies for the implementation of the switch.

We start by calculating the strength $`K`$ of the coupling between the two qubits without a switch and then show how it is modified by the presence of the switch. From Fig. 1 and the law of magnetic induction we find the following equations for the flux through qubit 1 and 2 induced by currents in the qubits and the flux transformer

$`\delta \left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Phi }_S\\ \mathrm{\Phi }_1\\ \mathrm{\Phi }_2\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}M_{TT}& M_{TQ}& M_{TQ}\\ M_{TQ}& M_{QQ}& 0\\ M_{TQ}& 0& M_{QQ}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}I_S\\ I_1\\ I_2\end{array}\right)\text{.}`$ (10)
where $`M_{QQ}`$ is the self-inductance of the qubits (assumed to be identical), $`M_{TQ}`$ is the mutual inductance between the transformer and the qubits and the mutual inductance between the qubits is assumed to be negligible. The fluxes $`\delta \mathrm{\Phi }`$ in Eq. (10) are the screening fluxes in the transformer and the two qubits, i.e. the deviations from the externally applied values. Henceforth, we abbreviate Eq. (10) as $`\delta \stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}=𝐌\stackrel{}{I}`$. These formulas are general and can be applied for any flux through the transformer loop. It is most desirable to couple zero net flux through the device, which can be achieved by using a gradiometer configuration tinkham . For this gradiometer case, we get $`I_S=(M_{TQ}/M_{TT})(I_1+I_2)`$, which we might insert into (10) and find for the inductive energy

$$E_{\mathrm{ind}}=\left(M_{QQ}\frac{M_{TQ}^2}{M_{TT}}\right)(I_1^2+I_2^2)2\frac{M_{TQ}^2}{M_{TT}}I_1I_2\text{.}$$
(11)
The terms resulting from the off-diagonal elements of (10) can directly be identified as the interqubit coupling strength $`K=2(M_{TQ}^2/M_{TT})I_1I_2`$ which enters the $`\widehat{\sigma }_z\widehat{\sigma }_z`$ Ising-coupling described in Refs. orlando ; PRA . Note, that the dynamics of the qubit flux is dominated by the Josephson energies orlando , to which the diagonal term is only a minor correction.

We now introduce the tunable Josephson junction into the loop. Using fluxoid quantization, we rewrite the Josephson relation tinkham  $`I_S=I_c\mathrm{sin}\left(2\pi (\mathrm{\Phi }_S/\mathrm{\Phi }_0)\right)`$ and insert it into eq. (10). The resulting nonlinear equation can be solved in the following cases: i) If $`|I_S/I_c|1`$ (“on” state of the switch) we find $`K=2(M_{TQ}^2/M_{TT}^{})I_1I_2`$ with $`M_{TT}^{}:=M_{TT}+(\mathrm{\Phi }_0/2\pi I_c)=M_{TT}+L_{\mathrm{kin}}(0)\text{.}`$ This can be understood as an effective increase of the self-inductance of the loop by the kinetic inductance of the Josephson junction at zero bias. ii) In the case $`|I_S/I_c|1`$, “off” state, the circulating current is close to the critical current of the switch, hence the phase drop is $`\pm \pi /2`$ and we find an analogous form $`K=2(M_{TQ}^2/M_{TT}^{})I_1I_2`$ with $`M_{TT}^{}=M_{TT}+(\mathrm{\Phi }_0/4|I_c|)`$, i.e. at low $`I_c`$ the coupling can be arbitrarily weak due to the enormous kinetic inductance of the junction close to the critical current.

We now turn to the discussion of the decoherence induced by the subgap conductance of the tunable junction. The decoherence occurs due to the flux noise generated through the current noise from the quasiparticle shunt. Hence, both qubits experience the same level of noise. The decoherence of such a setup has been extensively studied in Ref. PRA  as a function of the environment parameters. In this letter, we evaluate these environment parameters for our specific setup.

We model the junction by the RSJ-model for a sound quantitative estimate of the time scales even though the physics of the subgap conductance is usually by far more subtle than that. We evaluate the fluctuations of the current between two points of the flux transformer loop sketched in figure 1. $`L`$ is the geometric inductance of the loop, $`L_J`$ is the Josephson inductance characterizing the Josephson contact and $`R`$ is the shunt resistance. The correlation is given by the fluctuation-dissipation theorem $`\delta I\delta I_\omega =\text{coth}(\beta \mathrm{}\omega /2)\mathrm{}\omega \mathrm{Re}Y(\omega )\text{,}`$ where $`Y(\omega )`$ is the admittance of the effective circuit depicted in Fig. 2. Following the lines of Ref. EPJB , this translates into a spectral function of the energy fluctuations of the qubit of the shape $`\delta ϵ(t)\delta ϵ(0)_\omega =J(\omega )\mathrm{coth}(\mathrm{}\omega /2k_BT)`$ with $`J(\omega )=\alpha \omega ^2/(\omega ^2+\omega _c^2)`$ with the important result that the dimensionless dissipation parameter here reads

$$\alpha =\frac{4I_{\mathrm{circ}}^2M_{TQ}^2L_J^2}{hR(L+L_J)^2}$$
(12)
and a cutoff $`\omega _c=R(L+L_J)/LL_J`$. Here, $`L_J=\mathrm{\Phi }_0/2\pi I_c`$ is the kinetic inductance of the junction. From (12) we receive in the limit $`LL_J`$ the expression $`\alpha 1/RI_c^2`$ and for $`LL_J`$, $`LL_J`$ it follows that $`\alpha 1/R`$. From the results of Ref. PRA , we can conclude that $`\alpha 10^6`$ poses an upper bound for gate operations to be compatible with quantum error correction. In the following sections we will evaluate $`\alpha `$ for different types of junctions in the switch, a JoFET, an SFS junction and a high-$`T_c`$ junction by inserting typical parameters. We use the normal resistance $`R_N`$ to estimate the shunt resistance in the RSJ model. Here, it is important to note that the parameters $`I_c`$ and $`R_N`$ of the junction determine the suitability of the device as a (low-noise) switch, which are given by a combination of material and geometry properties. In the following we exemplify the calculation of the dissipative effects with several experimental parameter sets.

For present day qubit technology Bhuwan  we can assume $`L1`$ nH, $`I_{\mathrm{circ}}100`$ nA $`M_{TQ}100`$ pH. In the following, we estimate $`\alpha `$ for a number of junction realizations, adjusting the junction area for sufficient critical current.

A Josephson field-effect transistor (JoFET) can be understood as an SNS junction where the role of the normal metal is played by a doped semiconductor. By applying a gate voltage, it is possible to tune the electron density of the semiconductor.

The critical current of such a junction containing $`N_{\mathrm{ch}}`$ channels can be found using the formula of Kulik and Omel’yanchuk $`I_c=(\pi \mathrm{\Delta })/(R_Ne)`$ tinkham ; kulik\_omelyanchuk . $`R_N=h/(2e^2N_{\mathrm{ch}})`$ is the point-contact resistance. In a JoFET, the back gate essentially controls $`N_{\mathrm{ch}}`$. The typical normal resistance is around $`R_N10`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. For a JoFET the critical current of the Josephson junction is $`I_c30`$ $`\mu `$A and the Josephson inductance is $`L_J11`$ pH richter .

Inserting the above estimates we get $`\alpha 710^6\text{.}`$ This means that the dissipative effects are weak and a JoFET should be a reasonable switch that poses no new constraints. Besides the obvious technological challenge richter , one drawback of JoFETs is that due to wide junctions with dimensions of around $`w=500`$ nm they are likely to trap vortices, which can cause 1/f noise by hopping between different pinning sites. However, this can be reduced by pinning e.g. by perforating the junction.

If we go away from the “on” state with the JoFET, we reduce both $`I_c`$ and $`G_N`$ linearily by depleting the density of states. Fig. 3 shows that we find that the dissipative effects are strongest during the switching process when $`L_J(\rho _e/\rho _e^{on})L_{J,0}`$, and not in the “on” state of the switch. In the “off” state of the switch (for $`\rho _e(0)0`$) also $`\alpha `$ goes to zero. If the switch is tuned from the “off” state to the “on” state, $`\alpha `$ reaches a local maximum and then decreases again. This makes the JoFET a very attractive switch: It induces an acceptably low level decoherence in the “on” state and can be made completely silent in the “off” state.

An SFS junction in the $`\pi `$-state is based on a metallic material, thus the estimate of the shunt resistance in the RSJ model yields a much smaller result than in the case of the JoFET, $`R10^5`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ sfs . The critical current of the SFS junction is $`I_c0.2`$ mA. Thus, leaving the transformer properties unchanged, we find $`L_J1.7`$ pH. Using these estimates the strength of the dissipative effects is of the order of $`\alpha 0.16`$. This makes such a device unsuitable at the present level of technology, however, it appears that SIFS junctions kontos  are by far closer to the desired values, see Fig. 4.

High-$`T_c`$ junctions can be realized in different ways. Here, we take from Ref. hightc  parameters for a typical noble metal (Au)-bridge junction with a film thickness of about $`w100`$ nm. The product $`I_cR_N1`$ mV and $`\rho _N=8.3`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ nm. We assume that in principle $`I_c`$ for the $`\pi `$-state and the 0-state are the same. For a contact area of around $`30`$x$`30`$ nm2, $`I_c1`$ mA and $`R_N1`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Now the strength of the dissipative effects is easily evaluated to be $`\alpha 6.510^8`$, which is way better than SFS $`\pi `$-junctions and even better than the JoFET.

We estimated the strength of the dissipative effects that will occur due to the switch for several possible switches. These results are summarized in figure 4 for typical parameters of the analyzed systems. We find that the noise properties of a JoFET and $`\pi `$-shifters based on High-Tc-materials introduce no important noise source. On the other hand, the parameters found from $`\pi `$-shifters based on magnetic materials are much less encouraging.

We would like to thank T.P. Orlando, P. Baars and A. Marx for useful discussions. Work supported by ARO through Contract-No. P-43385-PH-QC.