text:
# Trapping and manipulating neutral atoms with electrostatic fields

Website: \]http://www.atomchip.net

## Abstract

We report on experiments with cold thermal 7Li atoms confined in combined magnetic and electric potentials. A novel type of three-dimensional trap was formed by modulating a magnetic guide using electrostatic fields. We observed atoms trapped in a string of up to six individual such traps, a controlled transport of an atomic cloud over a distance of 400$`\mu `$m, and a dynamic splitting of a single trap into a double well potential. Applications for quantum information processing are discussed.

The controlled manipulation of cold neutral atoms in potentials created by substrate mounted microstructures has been progressing rapidly during the recent years Folman et al. (2002). A variety of atom optical devices, e.g. tightly confining traps and guides Reichel et al. (1999); Folman et al. (2000), beam splitters Cassettari et al. (2000), and mirrors Hinds and Hughes (1999) have been realized on such atom chips. Issues of current investigations include the behavior of Bose-Einstein condensates in atom chip potentials Hänsel et al. (2001), the coherent quantum dynamics and decoherence processes in traps and guides near surfaces Henkel et al. (2003), and the integration of new components for the preparation, manipulation, and detection of atomic quantum states Horak et al. (2003).

In this letter, we present the integration of charge carrying structures into atom chips. Utilizing electric fields in addition to the so far exclusively used magnetic fields enhances the functionality of atom chips by introducing an independent degree of freedom to the potentials. In our experiments, we have used electrostatic fields to form a novel type of combined electro-magnetic trap where the confinement in two dimensions is magnetic while the movement in the third dimension is controlled by electric fields. In a string of up to six such traps we could arbitrarily switch the individual traps on and off, or split a single trap dynamically into two, thereby demonstrating a new type of atom chip beam splitter. We employed dynamic electric fields to transport a cloud of trapped atoms along a magnetic guide in a new type of atom ‘motor’.

The interaction of electrostatic fields and neutral but polarizable atoms (polarizability $`\alpha `$) is given by the interaction energy $`U_{\mathrm{el}}`$ of the field $`E`$ and the induced dipole:

$$U_{\mathrm{el}}=\frac{\alpha }{2}E^2$$
(1)
Eq. 1 shows that atoms in the ground state are drawn towards higher electric fields since the interaction of the induced dipole with the field is always attractive. As a consequence, the minimum of a purely electrostatic trapping potential will be located at a (local) maximum of $`E`$. According to the Earnshaw theorem, however, such a maximum cannot exist in free space. Any trap utilizing electric fields therefore has to compensate for the attraction of the trapped atoms towards the charged objects creating the electric fields 111The motion of atoms near an attractive $`1/r^2`$ singularity has been studied both theoretically Denschlag and Schmiedmayer (1997) and experimentally Denschlag et al. (1998). It has been shown that there are no stable orbits for the atoms in such a potential..

Stabilizing such a trap is possible either by adding (static) repulsive potentials, e.g. by introducing inhomogeneous magnetic fields or light fields, or by dynamically changing the electric fields Hau et al. (1992). For example, it has been suggested to realize the former by mounting charged structures onto magnetic or optical atom mirrors Schmiedmayer (1998); Hinds and Hughes (1999).

In our experiment we combine the electric and magnetic interactions to realize stable trapping configurations on atom chips. We produce electric fields by charging a set of electrodes distributed along a current carrying wire (Fig. 1). The wire produces, together with a homogenous external bias field, a two-dimensionally confining side guide potential Folman et al. (2002). Charging the electrodes results in an inhomogeneous electric field that is modulated in strength along the guide. Such a modulation can lead to a full three-dimensional confinement given by the potential

$$U_{\mathrm{mag}+\mathrm{el}}=\mu _Bg_Fm_FB\frac{\alpha }{2}E^2$$
(2)
with the magnetic field modulus $`B`$, the Bohr magneton $`\mu _B`$, the Landé factor $`g_F`$, and the magnetic quantum number $`m_F`$ of the trapped atomic state. Fig. 1 shows our design and typical equipotential surfaces of the magnetic side guide and a string of combined traps that is formed when a moderate voltage is applied to the six electrodes along the guiding wire. We have numerically investigated the parameter ranges needed to form combined electro-magnetic traps with this geometry and found that a few hundred volts are needed in order to form potential wells that are deep enough to trap thermal 7Li atoms of $`T100\mu `$K at a height of $`50\mu `$m above the chip surface. If the voltage is too low, the modulation of the guiding potential becomes weaker, if it is too high, the attractive electric interaction lowers the magnetic barrier to the chip, and the atoms can propagate onto the surface. However, the voltage range where traps are formed is large, and trap depths of up to $`k_B\times 500\mu `$K are possible. In this case, the barrier to the attractive potential near the electrodes is large enough to inhibit tunnelling to the surface completely.

The two atom chips we have used in our experiments are based on silicon and sapphire substrates with a thickness of 600$`\mu `$m. A patterned gold layer (thickness $`4.5\mu `$m) was evaporated onto the substrates by standard lithographic and lift-off techniques. After the fabrication, a highly reflecting gold mirror is obtained with the current and charge carrying structures defined by 10–50$`\mu `$m wide groves in the gold layer providing electrical isolation 222Both types of substrates tolerated voltage differences of a few hundred volts over spatial separations of 10$`\mu `$m. The Si substrate, however, exhibited a slow degradation at $`V_{\mathrm{elec}}>300`$V which was not encountered on the sapphire substrate at all tested voltages, i.e. up to 400V..

In our experiment, we accumulate typically $`10^8`$ 7Li atoms in a reflection MOT where the chip serves as a mirror. With the intermediate support of a U-shaped silver wire mounted directly underneath the chip, the atoms are loaded into a Z-shaped wire trap on the chip. These magnetic traps and the loading procedure are described in Folman et al. (2000); Cassettari et al. (2000). Fluorescence images are taken by exposing the atoms to a near resonant light pulse of 100$`\mu `$s duration from two counterpropagating light beams that enter the vacuum chamber parallel to the chip surface. This configuration suppresses all artifacts on the images stemming from features on the chip surface. Even if electric fields are present at the time of the imaging light pulse, the resonance shift due to the differential Stark effect is much smaller than the line width of the atomic transition (at a typical field of 10kV/cm, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _{\mathrm{Stark}}=450`$kHz $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/2\pi =5.8`$MHz Windholz et al. (1992)). Therefore, the modulation of the fluorescence signal can only be attributed to an actual modulation in the atomic density.

After loading, the atoms hover 50–100$`\mu `$m above the chip surface in an elongated trap of approximately 1mm in length. In the next step, the trapping potential is opened on one side by switching the current so that it now runs along an L-shaped path. If no voltage is applied to the electrodes along the central piece of the Z-shaped wire, all atoms are lost within approximately 50ms after they are released to the guide (Fig. 2 left). If, however, at the time of the opening of the guide the voltage on the electrodes is switched on non-adiabatically (within 5$`\mu `$s) to 250–350V, a sizeable fraction of the cloud, i.e. those (sufficiently cold) atoms that are located above the electrodes where the potential minima appear, remains trapped (Fig. 2 right). A comparison of the two experiments described above clearly shows the trapping effect of the electric field introduced by the high voltage. All six electrodes could be switched separately so that an arbitrary subset of traps could be operated.

The experimental results agree quantitatively with the numerical predictions presented above regarding size and position of the traps, while the exact voltages leading to a maximal number of trapped atoms differ by up to 50%. We attribute this deviation to the fact that the calculations were idealized, i.e. the dielectric properties of the involved materials were neglected and only the central region of the chip was taken into account. The anticipated behavior of weaker modulation in the atom density for lower electric fields was observed as well as the loss of atoms to the chip surface at voltages that were too high. The measured lifetimes of the combined electro-magnetic traps are in agreement with those of the purely magnetic Z-trap.

In order to demonstrate some of the new capabilities of the atom chip introduced by the integration of electric fields, we carried out two further experiments. In the first experiment we showed the controlled transfer of an atom cloud along a magnetic guide by means of electric fields (see Reichel et al. (1999) for a purely magnetic transfer).

The geometry of the chip structures necessary for this ‘motor’ experiment and the timing sequence is illustrated in Fig. 3. A single trap was loaded initially by repeating the above described procedure, but only switching on the voltage on one of the electrodes. After a short trapping time, a voltage of reversed polarity was ramped up on a neighboring electrode on the opposite side of the guiding wire while the voltage on the first electrode was ramped down to zero. At the intermediate stage where the voltages on both electrodes are on, the electric field strength along the guide is maximal in the middle between the two electrode centers. The different polarity is essential for a smooth, barrier-free transfer of the cloud. To maintain a nearly constant trap depth throughout the transfer, the voltage ramps were run in two steps: During the first 7.5ms the voltage on the first electrode was ramped from $`+280`$V to $`+200`$V, while the voltage on the second electrode was ramped from 0 to $`200`$V. Within the following 7.5ms, the first voltage was ramped down to 0, while the second voltage was ramped up completely to $`280`$V. This process was subsequently replicated between the second electrode and a third electrode, again located on the opposite side of the guiding wire. After the complete sequence of 30ms duration, the whole atomic cloud had been transported over a distance of 400$`\mu `$m. The measured loss of atoms during the transfer is equal to that observed in a static trap, proving that losses induced by the transfer process are negligible with respect to the trap lifetime.

In the second experiment we observed a dynamic splitting and recombination of an atom cloud into two separate clouds. Again, the experiment was initiated by loading a single trap. While the voltage on the first electrode is ramped down to 0, voltages of equal magnitude but different polarity ($`200`$V) are gradually (within 15ms) ramped up on the two neighboring electrodes on the opposite side of the guiding wire in a fashion similar to the one used for the ‘motor’. The results of this experiment and the calculated potentials during the different stages of the experiment are shown in Fig. 4. For the recombination of the two clouds, the process is reversed. Also in these experiments, no additional loss with respect to the lifetimes in the static traps could be detected.

Finally, we give examples of important future applications of electric fields on atom chips. The first relies on the fact that the magnetic part of the combined electro-magnetic potential (eq. 2) depends on the magnetic quantum number $`m_F`$ while the electric part does not. This gives rise to possibilities of state-selective operations which are essential for quantum information processing (QIP). In Calarco et al. (2000) it has been shown that a two-qubit phase gate based on controlled collisions can be realized by storing two atoms in the two minima of a double well potential in which the separating barrier can be conditionally removed for one qubit state but not for the other. If the qubit is encoded in atomic hyperfine states with different $`m_F`$, a combination of electric and magnetic potentials will allow such a configuration: The central barrier in a magnetic double well potential is of different height for the different $`m_F`$, and can therefore be removed state-selectively by an electric field since the electric potential does not depend on $`m_F`$ (eq. 1).

The second application, again of significance especially for prospects of QIP on atom chips, actually exploits the differential Stark effect which does not play a role in the current experiments: Atom chips offer the possibility to design trapping structures with a sub-micron spatial resolution. An array of traps with inter-trap distances of the same order will be desirable in scaled QIP-experiments. However, individual addressability of the trapping sites by laser light beams would be limited by the achievable beam waist. This problem could be overcome by introducing switchable electric fields at each trap site that would be used to shift the atoms in and out of resonance with the light frequency. In contrast to the current experiments where the goal was to trap atoms which requires large gradients in $`U_{\mathrm{el}}`$ at relatively low field strengths, the charged structures used here should produce strong (for sufficiently large detuning) and more locally homogeneous fields in order to keep the potential shape unaltered.

A third application of potentials derived from electric fields is to independently alter the phase evolution of atoms (qubits) in magnetic traps and guides in a controlled way. This is of particular interest for various types of atom chip based interferometers Folman et al. (2002).

To conclude, we have demonstrated for the first time the trapping and manipulation of atoms using electrostatic fields. This adds a new degree of freedom to quantum optics on atom chips and paves the way to a variety of novel experiments and applications.

This work was supported by the European Union, contract numbers IST-2001-38863 (ACQP) and HPRI-CT-1999-00069 (LSF) and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Schwerpunktprogramm ‘Quanteninformationsverarbeitung’.


format: text

text:
# Critical Issues in Linear Colliders Talk at Workshop on Quantum Aspects of Beam Physics and Other Critical Issues of Beams in Physics and Astrophysics, January 7–11, 2003, Hiroshima University, Higashi-Hiroshima, Japan

## 1 Introduction: next steps in particle physics

Progress in particles physics in the last several decades was connected with the increase of accelerator energies. Historically, two types of colliders co-existed and gave main results, $`pp(p\overline{p})`$ and e+e-. Proton colliders give access to higher energies, but e+e- colliders have simple initial state, smaller background and allow much better precision. At proton colliders $`c,b,t`$ quarks and $`W,Z`$ bosons have been discovered, while at e+e- colliders $`c`$-quark, $`\tau `$-lepton, gluon. In addition, at e+e- colliders $`c,b,W,Z,\tau `$ physics has been studied with a high accuracy providing a precision test of the Standard Model.

The next proton collider LHC with the energy $`2E_0=14`$ TeV will start operation in about 2007. It will certainly bring new discoveries. But, as before, for detail study of new physics and it’s understanding a e+e- collider is very desirable. Such projects on the energy $`2E_0=`$0.5–1.5 TeV already exist, but, unfortunately, approval is delayed due to a high cost and necessity of international cooperation. According to present understanding the construction can start in about 2007.

As for long-term perspectives of particle physics, the future is even less clear. Three kind of facilities are under discussion: Very Large Hadronic Collider (VLHC) with $`pp`$ beams on the energy up to 200 TeV, Compact e+e- Linear Collider CLIC on the energy $`2E_0=`$ 3–5 TeV and muon colliders which potentially can reach a c.m.s. energy even higher than in $`pp`$ collisions.

Physics motivation for next generation of colliders (LHC, LC) is very strong, two examples are given below.

If the Standard Model is valid a new particle, the Higgs boson, should exist. Direct search at LEP and measurements of loop corrections indicate that the Higgs boson mass lays in the region 115–200 GeV. Such a particle should have very special properties, their coupling constants with other particles are proportional to particle masses. Linear colliders allow us to measure Higgs branchings with a high accuracy, So, experiments at LHC and LC can shed a light on the origin of particle masses.

The second physics goal is a search of a supersymmetry which assumes the existence of a new class of particles, superpartners of known particles but with different spins: particles with the spin 1/2 have partners with the spin 0 and vice versa. It is possible that the dark matter in the universe consists of the lightest neutral supersymetrical particles. At colliders, one could produce any kind of such particles, charged and neutral. A discovery of a “parallel” world (which according to astronomical data has a density even higher than that of the barionic matter) would mean a new revolution in physics.

Below we consider existing projects of linear colliders, their problems, energy and luminosity limitations, prospects of advanced accelerator methods.

## 2 Projects of linear colliders

It was realized already 30 years ago that the energy of circular e+e- linear colliders is limited by synchrotron radiation losses at a level of 100–200 GeV and further progress is only possible using linear e+e- colliders . At the end of 1980-th the 2-mile electron linac at SLAC has been transformed into a (semi)linear collider SLC with the c.m.s. energy of 90 GeV. It gave nice physics results and a great experience of work at the first linear collider.

At the same time an international study on linear collider lead by SLAC, KEK, DESY, CERN and BINP has been launched with ambitious goal to develop a linear collider with an energy about one TeV and a luminosity by a factor of $`10^3`$$`10^4`$ higher than it was at the SLC. Since that time a lot of developments have been done and now three projects TESLA (Europe) , NLC (US) , JLC (Japan)  are almost ready for construction. A fourth project CLIC(CERN)  is focused on multi-TeV energies and is considered as the next-to-next linear collider. Schemes of colliders are shown in Fig. 1, main parameters are presented in Table 1.

Each project has some distinctive features:
$``$ TESLA: L band, 1.4 GHz, superconducting, $`G_{max}35`$ MeV/m, a good efficiency, a low wakefield, a relaxed alignment tolerances, a large distance between bunches;
$``$ NLC/JLC: X-band, 11.4. GHz, warm cavities, a high gradient (55 MeV/m loaded);
$``$ CLIC: 30 GHz, a two-beam accelerator (one of beams produces RF power), a very high gradient, 150 MeV/m, cost effective at multi-TeV energies.

So, there are three main technologies for LC developed by large teams, each project have certain advantages. It would be good to built two colliders almost simultaneously: TESLA for energies below 0.5 TeV, NLC/JLC for the energy region up to 1.5 TeV and a third collider, CLIC, on the energy 3–5 TeV one decade later. However, due to a high cost only one global linear collider is seen in the visible future.

## 3 General features of linear colliders

At storage rings, each bunch collides many times, the RF power is spent mainly for compensation of synchrotron radiation losses. At linear colliders, each bunch is used only once, radiation losses during the acceleration are negligible, but a lot of energy is needed for production and acceleration of bunches with a high rate. The total RF power consumption at LEP and at 0.5 TeV linear colliders are comparable, of the order of 100 MW from the wall plug.

The number of accelerated particles is limited by total AC power which is proportional to the beam power $`P`$. Due to the dependence of cross sections on the energy as $`\sigma 1/E^2`$ the luminosity should increase as $`E^2`$, as a result the required transverse beam sizes at TeV energies should be very small.

Beams with small sizes have very strong fields that lead to large radiation losses during beam collisions (beamstrahlung). This effect does not allow us to use beams with simultaneously small horizontal and vertical beam sizes ($`\sigma _x,\sigma _y`$) (only very flat beams) and to get the required luminosity the beam power should be additionally increased. This leads to the “energy crisis” at the beam energy of about $`2E_05\text{TeV}`$, see Sec. 4. In the $`\gamma \gamma `$ mode of operation (Sec. 5) only somewhat higher energies are possible due to conversion of high energy photons to e+e- pairs in the field of the opposing beam (coherent pair creation).

Beside traditional linear accelerators, there are ideas of using plasma and laser high gradient accelerator techniques for linear colliders. There are some speculations about colliders with 100 TeV and even PeV energies. Certainly, development of these techniques will lead to some practical applications, but obtaining colliding beams is very problematic due to required quality of beams and collision effects. Some considerations and critical remarks on plasma and laser acceleration are given Sec. 6.

## 4 Collision effects restricting luminosity and energy of linear colliders

In order to obtain a sufficient luminosity at linear colliders the beam sizes should be very small. This causes two sorts of problems: a) generation and acceleration of beams with very small emittances and focusing to a tiny spot, b) beam-beam collision effects which lead to degradation of the beam quality.

The first problem is very difficult but not fundamental, in principle, one can obtain emittance smaller than give damping rings using, for example, laser cooling. The second problem is even more severe: beam collision effects put restrictions on attainable luminosity and, correspondently, on the maximum energy of linear colliders.

In the absence of collision effects the luminosity of a collider

$$L\frac{N^2f}{4\pi \sigma _x\sigma _y}=\frac{P}{4\pi E_0}\times \frac{N}{\sigma _x\sigma _y}.$$
(1)
For $`2P=20`$ MW (200 MW AC power), $`N=2\times 10^{10},\sigma _x=\sigma _y=1`$ nm it gives $`L=10^{37}/E_0[\text{TeV}],\text{cm}\text{-2}\text{s}\text{-1},`$ this luminosity is sufficient for production of $`10^3`$ lepton pairs per $`10^7`$ sec up to $`2E_0=25`$ TeV. Below we consider several limitations due to collisions effects.

### 4.1 Pinch effect and instability of beam collisions

During the collision beams attract (e+e-) or repulse (e-e-) each other. The characteristic disruption parameter

$$D_y=\frac{2Nr_e\sigma _z}{\gamma \sigma _x\sigma _y}.$$
(2)
For flat beam and $`D_y10`$, the attraction leads to increase of the e+e- luminosity by a factor of $`H_D2`$. At $`D_y25`$ beams become unstable, the corresponding luminosity

$$L\frac{P}{mc^2r_e\sigma _z}.$$
(3)
For $`P=10`$ MW and $`\sigma _z=100\mu \text{m}`$ $`L5\times 10^{34}\text{cm}\text{-2}\text{s}\text{-1}`$. So, this put limit on the luminosity for a given beam power and bunch length.

### 4.2 Beamstrahlung

A strength of a beam field is characterized by the parameter $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$

$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=\frac{2}{3}\frac{\mathrm{}\omega _c}{E}=\gamma \frac{B}{B_0},B_0=\frac{\alpha e}{r_e^2}=4.4\times 10^{13}\text{G}.$$
(4)
For flat beams

$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{av}\frac{5Nr_e^2\gamma }{6\alpha \sigma _x\sigma _z}.$$
(5)
The maximum value of $`\sigma _z`$ is determined by disruption. Ideally, increasing $`\sigma _x`$ to infinity and simultaneously decreasing $`\sigma _y`$ to zero one can get arbitrary small $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ for any luminosity. However, if $`\sigma _y`$ has some minimum value (there are many reasons), then $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}L^2\gamma ^2\sigma _y/P^2D_y`$. As $`P`$ is always limited, $`D_y<25`$ and the required $`L`$ increases with the energy as $`\gamma ^2`$, the value of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ increases rapidly with the energy. In the current LC projects at 1 TeV $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=𝒪(1)`$, at higher energies inevitably $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}1`$.

Synchrotron radiation of electrons in the field of the opposing beam (beamstrahlung) put severe limitations on performance of linear colliders. Energy losses are given by approximate formulae :

$$\frac{dN_\gamma }{dt}=\frac{5}{2\sqrt{3}}\frac{\alpha ^2c\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}{r_e\gamma }U_0(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}),U_0\frac{1}{(1+\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{2/3})^{1/2}},$$
(6)
$$\frac{dE}{Edt}=\frac{2}{3}\frac{\alpha ^2c\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^2}{r_e\gamma }U_1(\mathrm{{\rm Y}})U_1\frac{1}{(1+(1.5\mathrm{{\rm Y}})^{2/3})^2},$$
(7)
$$\frac{<\omega >}{E}=\frac{4\sqrt{3}}{15}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\frac{U_1(\mathrm{{\rm Y}})}{U_0(\mathrm{{\rm Y}})}=0.462\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}0),\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0.254}(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\mathrm{}),$$
(8)
$$\delta _E=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E}{E}=1.24\left[\frac{\alpha ^2\sigma _z\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}{r_e\gamma }\right]\mathrm{{\rm Y}}U_1(\mathrm{{\rm Y}});$$
(9)
$`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}1`$ is the “classic” regime; $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ 0.2–200 the “transition” regime ($`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}U_1(\mathrm{{\rm Y}})`$ 0.1–0.2 $`0.15`$); $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}200`$ the “quantum” regime. Colliders in the TeV region belong to the transition regime, multi-TeV LC with dense short bunches can reach the quantum regime.

The luminosity (1) can be expressed via $`\delta _E`$. In the transition regime it does not depend on the bunch length $`\sigma _z`$:

$$L\frac{6.45\delta _E}{4\pi \alpha r_e\gamma \sigma _y}\left(\frac{P}{mc^2}\right)=1.5\times 10^{34}\frac{P[\text{MW}]\delta _E}{E_0[\text{TeV}]\sigma _y[\text{nm}]}\text{cm}\text{-2}\text{s}\text{-1};$$
(10)
In the quantum regime

$$L\frac{1.95}{4\pi \alpha ^2\sigma _y}\sqrt{\frac{\delta _E^3}{r_e\sigma _z\gamma }}\left(\frac{P}{mc^2}\right)=5\times 10^{34}\frac{P[\text{MW}]}{\sigma _y[\text{nm}]}\sqrt{\frac{\delta _E^3}{E_0[\text{TeV}]\sigma _z[\mu \text{m}]}}.$$
(11)
For example, for $`P=10`$ MW per beam (about 200 MW from wall plug) $`\sigma _y=1`$ nm, $`2E_0=5`$ TeV, $`\delta _E=0.2`$ we get (accuracy is about factor of 2–3) $`L=1.2\times 10^{34}`$ cm-2s-1 in the transition regime (does not depend on $`\sigma _z`$) and $`L=3\times 10^{34}`$ cm-2s-1 in the quantum regime (for $`\sigma _z=1\mu \text{m}`$), an additional factor of $`1.5`$ can give the pinch effect. We see that the quantum regime (short bunches) helps but not too much.

In order to produce $`10^3`$ characteristic reactions $`\text{e}\text{+}\text{e}\text{-}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ per $`10^7`$ sec at the energy $`2E_0=5`$ TeV the required luminosity is $`3\times 10^{34}`$, that is close to the above limit due to beamstrahlung. So, if $`\sigma _{y,min}1`$ nm (see Sec. 4.5), the maximum reasonable energy of linear colliders is about $`2E_05`$ TeV.

In principle, there is a possibility to cancel beam fields by colliding four beams (e+e- from each side), then beamstrahlung is absent. The beams instability threshold remains at the same level of luminosity or may be only somewhat higher. This scheme can give some gain in luminosity, but technically it looks unrealistic.

### 4.3 Coherent e+e- pair creation

At $`\kappa =(\omega /E_0)\mathrm{{\rm Y}}>1`$ a beamstrahlung photon can convert into e+e- pairs in the field of the opposing beam . At $`\kappa 1`$ the ratio of beamstrahlung/pair creation probabilities is about 3.8. The number of beamstrahlung photons at linear colliders $`N_\gamma N_\text{e}`$ (in order to increse luminosity the horizontal size is decreased until each electron emit about one photon). Therefore the number of e+e- pairs at $`\kappa 1`$ (or $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}1`$), $`N_{\text{e}\text{+}\text{e}\text{-}}/N_\text{e}=𝒪(0.1).`$ For example, at CLIC(3000) $`N_{\text{e}\text{+}\text{e}\text{-}}/N_\text{e}0.085`$. The minimum energy of produce particles (important from a background point of view) $`E_{min}0.05E_0/\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$.

### 4.4 Deflection of soft particles

The lowest energy charged particles produced in process of coherent pair creation with the same sign of the charge as that of the opposing beam are deflected by the opposing beam on the angle

$$\theta \left(\frac{4\pi Ne^2}{\sigma _zE_{min}}\right)^{1/2}170\frac{N}{\sigma _z}\left(\frac{r_e^3}{\sigma _x}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(12)
For example, at CLIC $`\theta 15`$ mrad. To avoid background from these large angle particles one should use the crab-crossing scheme . Below we will see that crab-crossing angles below 20–30 mrad are acceptable, but larger angles lead to the increase of the vertical beam size.

So, deflection of soft particles put an additional constraint on the beam parameters. Beamstrahlung and instabilities may be OK (in case of very short bunches), but disruption angles are too large.

### 4.5 Minimum value of $`\sigma _y`$

The minimum vertical beam size at the interaction point (at $`\beta _y\sigma _z`$) $`\sigma _y=\sqrt{\epsilon _{ny}\sigma _z/\gamma }`$. Limitations:

* Attainable value of the normalized vertical emittance from an injector;
* Radiation in final quadrupoles (Oide effect) . Minimum achievable beam size $`\sigma _{min}[\text{m}]1.7\times 10^4\epsilon _{ny}[\text{m}]^{5/7}.`$ For $`\epsilon _{ny}`$ considered in the current LC projects $`\sigma _{min}0.5`$ nm;
* Radiation in the detector solenoid field due to the crab crossing

$$\sigma _y^2=\frac{55r_e^2}{480\sqrt{3}\alpha }\left(\frac{eB_s\theta _cL}{2mc^2}\right)^5.$$
(13)
For $`B_s=4`$ T, $`L=4`$ m $`\sigma _y=0.74`$ nm for $`\theta _c=20`$ mrad and 2 nm for $`\theta _c=30`$ mrad. More accurate simulation of this effect (the number of emitted photon is about one) was done in Refs . As a linear collider without a detector has no sense this effect put a limit on a minimum vertical beam size at the interaction point at the level of 0.5 nm at $`\theta _c=20`$ mrad.

### 4.6 Resume on maximum energies of linear colliders

For a reasonable wall plug AC power 100–300 MW the maximum energy of linear e+e- colliders with a luminosity sufficient for experiments, according to present understanding, is limited by collision effects at the level of $`2E_0=`$ 5–10 TeV.

## 5 Photon colliders

In addition to e+e- physics, linear colliders provide a unique opportunity to study $`\gamma \gamma `$ and $`\gamma `$e interactions at high energies and luminosities . High energy photons can be obtained using Compton backscattering of laser light off high energy electrons. This option is foreseen in all other project of linear colliders . The maximum energy of photons after Compton scattering

$$\omega _m=\frac{x}{x+1}E_0;x\frac{4E_0\omega _0}{m^2c^4}15.3\left[\frac{E_0}{\text{TeV}}\right]\left[\frac{\omega _0}{\text{eV}}\right].$$
(14)
For example: $`E_0=250`$ GeV, $`\omega _0=1.17`$ eV ($`\lambda =1.06`$ $`\mu `$m) $``$ $`x=4.5`$ and $`\omega _m=0.82E_0=205`$ GeV. The value $`x=4.8`$ is the threshold for the process $`\gamma \gamma _L\text{e}\text{+}\text{e}\text{-}`$ in the conversion region. This determine the optimum laser wavelength: $`\lambda _{opt}4E_0[\text{TeV}]\mu \text{m}`$ . Nonlinear effects in Compton scattering increase the threshold value of $`x`$ by a factor of $`(1+\xi ^2)`$, where a parameter of nonlinearity $`\xi ^20.5`$ is acceptable . Most powerful solid state laser with $`\lambda 1.05`$ $`\mu `$m can be used upto the energies $`2E_0800`$ GeV. Detailed discussion of physics, and technical problem of photon colliders can be found elsewhere . Below we consider only the most critical issues: luminosity, energy, laser system.

### 5.1 Current projects of photon colliders

Parameters of the photon colliders at TESLA  (as an example) are presented in Table 2, for comparison the luminosity in e+e- collisions is also given. Other parameters, constant for all energies, are: $`\lambda =1.06\mu \text{m},N=2\times 10^{10},\sigma _z=0.3\text{mm},f_{rep}\times n_b=14.1\text{kHz},\epsilon _{nx}/\epsilon _{ny}=2.5/0.03\times 10^6\text{m}\text{rad},\beta _x/\beta _y=1.5/0.3\text{mm}`$.

For the same energy the $`\gamma \gamma `$ luminosity in the high energy peak of the luminosity spectrum

$$L_{\gamma \gamma }(z>0.8z_{max})(1/3)L_{\text{e}\text{+}\text{e}\text{-}},$$
(15)
where $`z=W_{\gamma \gamma }/2E_0`$. Note, that cross sections in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions are typically larger then in e+e- by one order of magnitude. A more universal relation $`L_{\gamma \gamma }(z>0.8z_m)0.1L_{ee}(geom)`$ (for $`k^2=0.4`$). Expected $`\gamma \gamma `$, $`\gamma `$e luminosity spectra at TESLA can be found elsewhere .

The $`\gamma \gamma `$ luminosity at TESLA is limited by attainable electron beam sizes. Having beams with smaller emittances (especially the horizontal one) one would get a higher luminosity. In order to increase the geometric luminosity one should decrease the $`\beta `$-functions as much as possible, down to about a bunch length. In the current scheme of the final focus it was not possible to make $`\beta _x`$ below 1.5 mm due to chromo-geometric abberations . It is not clear whether this is a fundamental or just a temporary technical problem.

### 5.2 Ultimate luminosity of photon colliders

Though photons are neutral, $`\gamma \gamma `$ and $`\gamma `$e collisions are not free of collision effects. Electrons and photons are influenced by the field of the opposite electron beam that leads to the following effects :
$``$ in $`\gamma \gamma `$: conversion of photons into e+e- pairs (coherent pair creation);
$``$ in $`\gamma `$e: coherent pair creation; beamstrahlung; beam displacement.

Beam collision effects in e+e- and $`\gamma \gamma `$, $`\gamma `$e collisions are different. In particular, in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions there are no beamstrahlung and beam instabilities which limit the horizontal beam size in e+e- collisions on the level 550 (350) nm for TESLA (NLC/JLC). A simulation, which includes all collision effects has shown that in $`\gamma \gamma `$ mode at TESLA one can use beams with the horizontal size down to $`\sigma _x=10`$ nm (at smaller $`\sigma _x`$ may be problems with the crab–crossing scheme) and influence of collision effects will be rather small . The $`\gamma \gamma `$ luminosity (in the high energy part) can reach $`10^{35}`$ cm-2s-1. Note that now in TESLA project $`\sigma _x500`$ nm in e+e- collisions and about 100 nm in the $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions. Having electron beams with much smaller emittances one could build a photon collider factory with production rate of new particles by a factor of 10–50 higher than at e+e- colliders. A laser cooling of electron beams is one of the possible methods of reducting beam emittances at photon colliders , but this method is not easy.

Note that small rate of coherent e+e- pair production at TESLA energies is partially explained by the beam repulsion which reduces the field acting on the photons. For multi-TeV energies and short bunches such suppression is absent and photon colliders reach their energy limit (with adequate luminosity) approximately at the same energies as e+e- colliders .

### 5.3 Technical aspects of photon colliders

A key element of photon colliders is a powerful laser system which is used for the $`e\gamma `$ conversion. Required parameters are: a few Joules flash energy, a few picosecond duration and 10–20 kHz repetition rate.

To overcome the “repetition rate” problem it is quite natural to consider a laser system where one laser bunch is used for the $`e\gamma `$ conversion many times. At the TESLA, the electron bunch train contains 3000 bunches with 337 ns spacing, here two schemes are feasible: an optical storage ring and an external optical cavity . With the optical cavity a required laser power can be lower than in the case of a one-pass laser by factor of 50–100. There is no detailed scheme of such laser system yet.

At NLC, the electron bunch train consists of 96 bunches with 2.8 sec spacing therefore exploiting of the optical cavity is not effective. A current solution is a one-pass laser scheme based on the Mercury laser developed for the fusion program. The laser produces 100–200 J pulses which after splitting to 96 pulses can be used for $`e\gamma `$ conversion of one train .

A laser system for a photon collider can certainly be built though it is not easy and not cheap.

## 6 Advanced accelerator schemes

Conventional RF linear colliders have accelerating gradients up to 150 MeV/m, corresponding lengths about 30–40 km and attainable energies up to 5 TeV (Sec.2). On the other hands, people working on plasma and laser methods of acceleration have obtained gradients of 100 GeV/m! Some people are thinking already about 100 TeV and even 1 PeV linear colliders or about 1–5 TeV LC with less than one km length.

Certainly, new methods of acceleration will make further progress and find certain applications, but it is less clear about possibility of super high energy colliders based on these technologies.

First of all, collision effects restrict the energy of linear colliders at about 10 TeV (Sec.4); secondly, the quality of electron beams should be very high; and thirdly, it is very likely that in considerations of very high acceleration gradients some important effects are just missed. Driven by my curiosity and for self-education I have spent some time for random check of these conceptions and some remarks are presented below. Situation in this field is not bad, but some of existing proposals are certainly wrong.

### 6.1 Plasma acceleration

Laser or particle beams can excite waves in plasma with a longitudinal electrical field . The accelerating gradient

$$Gmc\omega _p10^4\sqrt{n_p[\text{cm}^3]}\left(\frac{\text{MeV}}{\text{m}}\right).$$
(16)
Typical parameters considered: $`n_p10^{15}\text{cm}^3`$, $`G2`$ GeV/m.

#### 6.1.1 Multiple scattering

Let us consider the case $`n_bn_p`$ when all plasma electrons are pushed out from the accelerated beam. The beams travel through ions with density $`n_p`$ and experience a plasma focusing with the $`\beta `$-function  $`\beta \sqrt{2\pi \gamma /r_en_p}=\sqrt{2\gamma }\lambda _p`$. The r.m.s. angle due to multiple scattering

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\theta ^2\frac{8\pi Z^2r_e^2ndz}{\gamma ^2}\frac{d\rho }{\rho },\rho _{min}R_N,\rho _{max}R_D,$$
(17)
where $`R_D=(kT/4\pi ne^2)^{1/2}`$ is the Debai radius. The increase of the normalize emittance $`\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon _n^2=\gamma ^2r^2\mathrm{\Delta }\theta ^2=\epsilon _n\gamma \beta \mathrm{\Delta }\theta ^2`$. After integration on the energy we get the final normalized emittance

$$\epsilon _n8\pi \sqrt{2\pi }Z^2(n_pr_e^3\gamma _f)^{1/2}(mc^2/G)L,$$
(18)
where $`L=\mathrm{ln}\rho _{max}/\rho _{\mathrm{min}}20`$. Substituting $`n=10^{15}\text{cm}^3`$, $`G=2`$ GeV/m, $`Z=1`$, $`\gamma _f=5\times 10^6`$ ($`2E_0=5`$ TeV) we get $`\epsilon _n3\times 10^7`$ cm. Note that the result does not depend on the plasma density because $`G\sqrt{n_p}`$ (Eq.16). In present LC designs the minimum vertical emittance $`\epsilon _{ny}=2\times 10^6`$ cm, so multiple scattering in an ideal plasma accelerators look acceptable. It is assumed that sections with plasma have small holes for beams since any windows will give too large scattering angles.

#### 6.1.2 Synchrotron radiation

Due to a strong focusing by ions (plasma electrons are pushed out from the beam), beam electrons lose their energy to radiation, the radiation power $`P=(2/3)cr_e^2\gamma ^2E_{}^2`$, where $`E_{}=2\pi en_pZr`$ (as before we assume $`n_bn_p`$), $`r\sqrt{\epsilon _n\beta /\gamma }`$, $`\beta =\sqrt{2\pi \gamma /r_en_p}`$. After integration on the energy we find the difference of energies for the particle on the axis (no radiation) and one at the r.m.s distance form the axis

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E/E25r_e^{5/2}n_p^{3/2}Z^2\gamma _f^{3/2}(mc^2/G)\epsilon _n.$$
(19)
For $`G=2`$ GeV/m, $`n_p=10^{15}\text{cm}^3,\epsilon _{nx}10^4`$ cm (emittance from damping rings or from photo-guns), $`\gamma _f=5\times 10^6`$ ($`2E_0=5`$ TeV) we get $`\mathrm{\Delta }E/E10^3,`$ that is acceptable. For several times larger energy spreads there are chromaticity problems in final focus systems. Note, that $`G\sqrt{n_p}`$, therefore the energy spread is proportional to the plasma density. In Ref.  the case of the overdense plasma ($`n_b<n_p`$) was also investigated with the conclusion that it is not suited for TeV colliders.

So, synchrotron radiation puts a limit on a maximum plasma density (and acceleration gradient). A 10 TeV collider with a gradient 10 times larger that at CLIC is still possible.

#### 6.1.3 Some other remarks on plasma acceleration

Though plasma accelerators pass the simple criteria discussed above, there are many other question.

At $`E_0=1`$ TeV, $`n_p=10^{15}`$ cm-3, $`\epsilon _{ny}`$=$`10^6`$ cm the transverse electron beam size in plasma is about $`0.1`$ $`\mu `$m ! This means that the accelerating sections should have relative accuracy better than $`0.1\sigma _y10^6`$ cm !

The beam axis is determined in large extent by the drive beam. The transverse size of the drive beam (of it’s head which is focused by external quadrupoles) is of the order of $`10^2`$ cm. Small fluctuations in the beam profile will lead to dilution of the accelerated beam emittance.

To avoid radiation of the high energy accelerated beam in the field of kickers during the injection of the drive beam, the kickers should be very fast, in 100 GHz frequency range . Then the required stability of the horizontal angle is about $`0.1\sigma _x/L0.1\times 10^4/10010^7`$ rad. If the kick angle is $`10^2`$ rad, the required time stability is about $`\mathrm{\Delta }x/c\times 10^510^{16}`$ sec.

In summary: a plasma acceleration is a perspective technique, it can find certain applications, but technical feasibility of plasma based linear colliders is not clear now.

### 6.2 Laser acceleration in vacuum

There are many ideas on this subject. 111In Secs 6.2, 6.3 $``$ denotes an electron energy and $`E`$ is the strength of a laser field. In general, in a space with some boundaries the accelerating gradient is proportional to the electric field, $`GE`$, and $`GE^2`$ in an open space. This is because the charged particle extracts the energy from the field due to interference of the external and radiated field:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(E+E_{rad})^2𝑑VE^2dVEE_{rad}dV,$$
(20)
where $`E_{rad}const`$ when a particle radiates in a given structure without any field and in a free space the radiated field is proportional to a particle acceleration: $`E_{rad}E`$.

#### 6.2.1 $`𝐆𝐄`$

In this case, a particle is accelerated by the axial electrical field $`E_z`$ of a focused laser. For a radially polarized Gaussian beam $`E_zE(\lambda /\pi w_0)`$, where $`E`$ is the transverse laser field, $`w_0`$ is the radius of the focal spot.

The electron is in the accelerating phase of the wave on the length $`Z_R`$ (Rayleigh length). In order to get a net acceleration one has to put some screen with a small hole to restrict the interaction length. The damage threshold of the optical components is a limiting factor of the method. For the damage threshold $`5`$ TW/cm2 the maximum energy gain $`\mathrm{\Delta }E(\text{MeV})20[P(\text{TW})]^{1/2}`$, that is about 50 MeV for P = 10 TW . There is a proposal to study this method at SLAC .

One of the other approaches uses small cavities pumped by a laser . This method needs very small beam sizes (emittances) and severe tolerances.

There are many laser accelerating schemes of such kind under development.

#### 6.2.2  $`𝐆𝐄^\mathrm{𝟐}`$

There are many fantasies on this subject.
1. Light pressure. If an electron is in the rest, a plane electromagnetic wave pushes it with a force $`F=\sigma _T\times (E^2/4\pi )`$, where $`\sigma _T`$ is the Thomson cross section. This is because laser photons scatter isotropically and momenta of laser photons incident onto $`\sigma _T`$ are transfered to the electron. At $`I=10^{28}`$ W/cm2 (in Ref.), the accelerating gradient $`d/dx=1`$ TeV/cm.

Unfortunately, in a real wave, laser photons have the divergence $`\theta \sqrt{\lambda /4\pi Z_R}`$. Therefore, if the electron has $`/mc^2>1/\theta ,`$ then in the electron rest frame laser photons come from the forward hemisphere and therefore the electron is deaccelerated! For $`\lambda =1`$ $`\mu `$m and $`Z_R=100`$ $`\mu `$m, $`E_{max}15`$ MeV only!
2. Ponderomotive acceleration. In a strong laser field an electron experiences a collective force from the whole laser bunch, so called a ponderomotive force ,

$$F_i\frac{mc^2}{\gamma }\frac{d\xi ^2}{dx_i},\xi ^2=\frac{e^2\overline{E^2}}{m^2c^2\omega _0^2}=\frac{2n_\gamma r_e^2\lambda }{\alpha }.$$
(21)
This opens a way to transfer the energy from large body (laser beam) to one microscopic particle (electron). There is an idea  to collide the laser pulse propagating in a rare gas (to have $`v^{}<c`$, large effective $`\gamma ^{}`$) with the oncoming electron bunch with a relativistic factor $`\gamma _0`$, so that after elastic reflection the electron will have $`\gamma =(\gamma ^{})2/\gamma ^0`$. According to above Refs, for the laser power 4.3 EW (EW=$`10^{18}`$W) $`\gamma ^{}=1.6\times 10^6`$ and $`\gamma _0=1400`$, the energy of reflected electrons in the laboratory system is 1 PeV $``$ 1000 TeV! The length of the collider is the laser bunch length or almost ZERO!

Unfortunately, the idea is wrong due to many reasons:

* The interaction length is not the bunch length but $`L_{int}l_{laser}/(1v^{}/c)l_{laser}\times (\gamma ^{})^210^2\times 10^{12}10^5`$ km !
* Radiation of electrons (see below), and many other “NO”.

#### 6.2.3 Radiation during a ponderomotive acceleration

During the ponderomotive acceleration electrons radiate in the transverse laser field. This can be treated as Compton scattering. Radiated energy per unit length: $`d/dx\overline{ϵ}n(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )\sigma _T.`$ Substituting $`\theta ^2\lambda /(2\pi Z_R)`$, $`\overline{ϵ}\omega _0\gamma ^2\theta ^2`$, $`n=\alpha \xi ^2/(2r_e^2\lambda )`$ we get

$$\frac{d}{dx}\frac{\xi ^2\gamma ^2r_e}{Z_R^2}mc^2.$$
(22)
For example: $`_0=1`$ TeV, $`Z_R=100\mu \text{m},`$ and $`\xi ^2=100`$ (flash energy $`100`$ J), $`d/dx=200`$ GeV/cm. For the mentioned 1 PeV project with $`\xi ^2=2\times 10^6`$, $`d/dx=10^9`$ PeV/cm !

So, ponderomotive acceleration can be useful for low energy application, but not for linear colliders due to the decrease of the force with the increase of the energy and a huge radiation.

## 7 Conclusion

Linear e+e-, e-e-, $`\gamma \gamma `$, $`\gamma `$e colliders are ideal instrument for study of matter in the energy region $`2E_0`$ 100–1000 GeV. Three projects are almost ready for construction, a wise choice and political decision are needed.

A linear collider is not a simple machine, very high accuracies, stabilities and cleaver beam diagnostics are needed. Many critical elements have been tested experimentally.

According to present understanding a maximum attainable energy of linear colliders with adequate luminosity is about $`2E_05`$ TeV. There is technology for such “last” LC, that is CLIC.

Advance technologies (plasma, laser) can give higher accelerating gradients but their application for high energy linear colliders is under big question. Further complex studies of new accelerating methods in this context are needed.

## Acknowledgement

I am grateful to Pisin Chen for a great work on organization of series of workshops on Quantum Aspects of Beam Physics, which motivated people to look deeply in topics related to beam physics at Earth and Cosmos and to Atsushi Ogata for organization of the present workshop in Hiroshima.

This work was supported in part by INTAS (00-00679).


text:
# Simulations of experimental conductance spectra of 𝑌𝐵𝑎₂𝐶𝑢₃𝑂_𝑦 junctions: Role of a long d-wave decay length and a small 𝑖𝑠 component in the pair potential near the interface

PACS: 74.20.Rp, 74.50.+r, 74.72.Bk

Extended BTK-type theoretical methods were used for the calculation of conductance spectra of NS and NIS junctions, where S is either a d-wave or a d+is-wave superconductor, and N is a normal metal. We found that the length scale over which the bulk d-wave order parameter varies spatially near the interface (the ”decay length”) has a significant effect on the main features of the conductance spectra. A relatively large decay length of the order of 10-20$`\xi _0`$ together with a small $`is`$-wave component, can explain many peculiarities observed in the experimental conductance spectra of various junctions. We attribute the long decay length to either a reversed proximity effect in the high transparency junctions, or to the presence of a low $`T_c10`$K s-wave component with a much longer $`\xi _{0s}10\xi _{0d}`$ near the interface.

INTRODUCTION

Many investigations of the special properties of d-wave superconductors and their influence on the conductance spectra have been reported in recent years. A large number of them deal with NIS or SIS junctions in the tunneling limit where the effective BTK barrier strength

$$Z=\frac{mH}{\mathrm{}^2k_F}$$
(1)
is larger than $``$1 (strong barrier). Here $`H`$ is the amplitude of the $`\delta `$-function barrier at the interface. From a theoretical point of view, the tunneling limit is simpler to treat because in this limit of weak coupling between the electrodes, one can consider the electrodes as almost independent entities. More specifically, one can assume that the spatial changes of the superconducting order parameter, arising from the presence of a surface, occur only in a very small distance from the interface inside the superconductor. Thus, to a first order approximation these changes are often ignored. Conductance spectra of NIS junctions where S is a d-wave superconductor, are characterized by a zero bias conductance peak (ZBCP) in the node-direction, and by a gap in the anti-node (main axis) direction. Theoretical calculations of low transparency junctions reproduce these features quite well, also in the simpler case when a spatial independent pair potential is taken into account. The ZBCP is a manifestation of zero-energy bound states of quasi-particles near the interface. The appearance of these bound states along the node direction of a d-wave superconductor results from the sign change of the energy gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\phi _+)=\mathrm{\Delta }(\phi _{})`$, where $`\phi _\pm `$ are the angles between the wave-vector of the incoming or scattered quasi-particle and the normal to the interface, and $`\phi _+=\pi \phi _{}`$.

Theoretical calculations of the conductance spectra of junctions with a weak-barrier are more problematic. The problem arises from the strong mutual dependence of the pair potential on both sides of the NS interface. This is in contrast to the strong barrier case, where the two electrodes are almost decoupled. Thus, in order to obtain an explicit form of the spatial dependence of the pair potential (SDPP), a complete knowledge of the quasi-classical Green function is necessary, not only in the S side but also in the N side of the junction. Therefore, a proximity effect must be directly included in the calculations. There is no consensus on the peculiarities of the proximity effect in junctions with anisotropic superconductors at the present time. The penetration length of the order parameter into the N side and its symmetry there, depend sensitively on the specific properties of the normal metal. Recently, it was found, that even ferromagnetic or antiferromagnetic metals in NS junctions have a long-range proximity effect under certain conditions, and this is in contrast to the predictions of certain theories. For the 123-family of superconductors, the length scale of the proximity effect in the N side depends significantly on the oxygen-doping level of the S side. This results from the fact that in underdoped YBCO $`T_c`$ is reduced compared to optimal doping, and the value of the coherence length is increased. A-priori, the proximity interaction between the two electrodes should depend strongly on the barrier strength. But as was shown previously, the effect of the barrier is not always so evident, and even a barrier of finite strength is not always effective in reducing the conductance of the junctions. In particular, in NS junctions with similar materials and similar density of states (DOS) on both sides, the influence of a barrier is suppressed significantly. This occurs when both electrodes are made of differently doped cuprate compounds. According to Deutscher and De Gennes, in such cases the amplitude of the order parameter in the normal side near the interface can reach a value close to that in the superconductor, and there is almost no discontinuity or jump at the interface. Therefore, in this type of junctions the diffusion of pairs from the superconductor into the metal is almost unaffected by the barrier, and the decay distance of pairs in the normal phase may be anomalously large.

YBCO has a short coherence length $`\xi _0=\mathrm{}v_F/\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ of about $`1030\mathrm{\AA }`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ is the bulk value of the d-wave pair potential. In spite of this fact, it follows from the above discussion that in studies of NS-junctions with similar cuprates one should examine a wide range of decay lengths in S and proximity lengths in N. To clarify this different length scales dependence, we decided to calculate the corresponding conductance spectra in a phenomenological way. We didn’t develop a new model for self-consistent calculations of the pair potential in proximity systems. Instead, we assumed reasonable pair potential shapes (SDPP), and calculated the resulting conductance spectra. From the results we were able to identify which of the peculiarities of the SDPP had the most significant effect on the conductance spectra, and what form of SDPP leads to the best fit of the experimental data.

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

We have calculated numerically the conductance spectra of a normal metal (N) - d-wave superconductor (S) junction as a function of applied voltage using the basic model developed by Tanaka and Kashiwaya. According to their theory, the conductance is given by:

$$\sigma (eV)=\frac{\underset{\pi /2}{\overset{\pi /2}{}}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\sigma _S(E,\phi )(\frac{f(E+eV)}{E})\sigma _N(\phi )\mathrm{cos}\phi d\phi dE}{\underset{\pi /2}{\overset{\pi /2}{}}\sigma _N(\phi )\mathrm{cos}\phi d\phi },$$
(2)
where the integrations are over the angles between the trajectory of the incoming quasi-particle and the normal to the interface of the junction, and the energy. The normal metal conductance $`\sigma _N`$, characterizes the transparency of the junction and is given by:

$$\sigma _N=\frac{4\mathrm{cos}^2\phi }{4\mathrm{cos}^2\phi +Z^2}.$$
(3)
where Z is the effective barrier strength as given by Eq. (1). $`f(E)`$ in Eq. (2) is the Fermi distribution function at temperature T. The function $`\sigma _S`$ in Eq. (2) represents an extension of the standard BTK expression for the conductance

$$\sigma _S=1|b|^2+|a|^2,$$
(4)
to the case of spatial dependent order parameter. In Eq. (4), $`b`$ and $`a`$ are the coefficients of the normal and Andreev reflections, respectively. In the simple BTK model, the reflection coefficients are expressed in terms of the functions $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm (E,\phi )`$ in the following way:

$$\frac{\sigma _S}{\sigma _N}=\frac{1+\sigma _N|\mathrm{\Gamma }_+|^2+(\sigma _N1)|\mathrm{\Gamma }_+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}|^2}{|1+(\sigma _N1)\mathrm{\Gamma }_+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}|^2}.$$
(5)
The $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm `$ in this equation are functions of the energy $`E`$ and angle $`\phi `$ only, since the pair potential is assumed to be spatially constant. In the present study however, we use the extended BTK model which takes into account the spatial dependence of the superconducting pair potential. Following Kashiwaya and Tanaka, we calculated the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm `$ values at the interface by solving a set of Riccati type equations (Eqs. (3.50 - 3.52) in Ref.) in which the spatial dependent pair potentials $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm (\phi ,x)`$ appear as coefficients ($`x`$ is the distance from the interface in S).

In our simulations we have chosen the following functions to represent the spatial dependence of the pair potential of the dominant $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ and sub-dominant $`s`$ components of the order parameter:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{d_{x^2y^2}}(\zeta )}{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}=\mathrm{tanh}((\zeta +k_1)k_2),$$
(6)
and

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_s(\zeta )}{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}=k_3\mathrm{exp}(k_4\zeta ^2),$$
(7)
where $`\zeta =x/\xi _0`$ is a dimensionless length (see Fig.1). The superconductor occupies $`x0`$ and the interface is exactly at x=0. Here the $`k_i`$ ($`i=\mathrm{1..4}`$) are dimensionless parameters which depend on the junction orientation relative to the crystalline axis. The modelling functions in Eqs. (6) and (7), satisfy the main boundary conditions on both component of the pair potential ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_{d_{x^2y^2}}\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s0`$ as $`x\mathrm{}`$), and are consistent with the self consistent model results. Moreover, we note that the fine details of the shape of the SDPP is not essential, as it does not affect the resulting spectra in any major way. In order to confirm this statement, we examined different possible functions by replacing, for instance, $`\mathrm{tanh}(\zeta )`$ with $`1\mathrm{exp}(\zeta )`$. Results of these calculations show that such changes lead only to minor changes in the energies of the high-order bound states in the conductance spectra. We found out that the most important parameters of the SDPP shape which affect the conductance spectra, are the maximal amplitude of the sub-dominant component (the $`k_3`$ coefficient in Eq. (7)) and the quasi-particle decay length (QPDL), which represents the characteristic length scale over which the pair potential varies spatially near the interface (governed by $`k_1,k_2`$ and $`k_4`$ in Eqs. (6) and (7)).

In all our calculations we have taken into account the thermal smearing factor which is due to the finite (low) temperature, and the finite life time broadening of the quasi-particles at the Fermi surface. It is a well known fact from the theory of Fermi liquids, that the inverse lifetime of the quasi-particles is proportional to $`E^2`$. In real superconductors, there are some quasi-particle relaxation processes which include electron-electron and electron-phonon interactions, which modify this simple square low dependence. Kaplan et al. showed that the general dependence of such relaxation rates can have a very complicated dependence on energy which is unique for each material. Dynes et al. however, used successfully a constant lifetime broadening in the theoretical fits of their measured conductance spectra in low $`T_c`$ SIS junctions. Such approximation indeed works well for fitting of experimental spectra in isotropic superconductors and in the low transparency limit. In this case, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(x)constant`$, the conductance is proportional to the quasi-particle density of states, and this has strong sharp peaks at $`E=\pm \mathrm{\Delta }_0`$. The addition of lifetime broadening as a small imaginary part to the energy allows one to avoid divergence at the peak energies and does not produce any essential change in other regions. Our attempt however, to apply this method to high-transparency spectra was unsuccessful. We attribute this to the appearance of additional bound states due to a significant increase in the decay length (see below). It is thus clear that in such cases, taking into account the energy dependence of the lifetime broadening is essential. In our calculations we used a fourth degree polynomial approximation for this dependence:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(E)=\gamma _1E^2+\gamma _2E^3+\gamma _3E^4,$$
(8)
where the coefficients $`\gamma _i1`$ (in units of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$) were chosen in order to obtain the best fit to the experimental conductance spectra. Generally, the function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is added as an imaginary part to the energy in the expression for the DOS. In our calculations however, the equivalent of the DOS is the function $`\sigma _S`$ of Eq. (2). Since we obtain $`\sigma _S`$ by solving two coupled differential equations in which the energy is a parameter, we could not just add the $`i\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ term to E directly. The fact that the boundary conditions of these equations include nonlinear terms in E, complicates things further. We therefore calculated $`\sigma _S`$ first without any broadening term, and then added the broadening numerically by a convolution of the obtained $`\sigma _S(E)`$ function for each angle $`\phi `$, with a Lorentzian distribution function:

$$L(E)=\frac{1}{\pi }\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(E)}{(EE_0)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(E)},$$
(9)
of width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(E)`$.

We focus now on the case of a pure d-wave symmetry of the order parameter without any sub-dominant component. Two basically different cases of the node ($`\alpha =\pi /4`$) and anti-node ($`\alpha =0`$) orientations will be discussed. $`\alpha `$ is the angle between the lobe-direction of the $`d_{x^2y^2}`$-wave order parameter and the normal to the interface. In the node direction, a ZBCP exists independently of the values of the coefficients $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ in Eq. (6), and the effective barrier strength $`Z`$. Nevertheless, by varying $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ in Eq. (6), the shape of the calculated conductance spectra changes. Decreasing their values, leads to an increased suppression of the order parameter at the interface and an increased decay length. As a consequence, additional quasi-particle bound-states are created. These new bound-states are formed in a potential well defined by the interface on one side and the growing d-wave pair potential toward the bulk value on the other side. They manifest themselves as additional peaks in the function $`\sigma _S(E)`$ versus $`E`$. Their number and energies vary for different angles $`\phi `$, and according to Matsumoto and Shiba, their energies are given by

$$E_n=\pm \mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{sin}(2\phi )\sqrt{\frac{n}{r}(2\frac{n}{r})},$$
(10)
where $`n`$ is an integer,

$$r=\frac{2\mathrm{sin}(2\phi )}{k_2},$$
(11)
and $`0<n<r`$. $`k_2`$ in Eq. (11) is different from zero since a $`k_2`$=0 in Eq. (6) would yield $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$ which means that no superconductivity exists. The number of bound states is determined by $`r`$. The larger the value of $`r`$ the larger the number of these states. Eq. (11) does not give the dependence of $`r`$ on $`k_1`$, because in Ref.  only the special case of a superconductor-vacuum interface is considered ($`Z\mathrm{}`$). Therefore in Ref. , $`k_1`$ is always zero in the node direction. It is however clear from Eq. (6) that with increasing $`k_1`$ the potential well is filled up, the spatial dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ approaches that of a step function, and the bound-states disappear. Thus, in the general case of arbitrary $`Z`$ and $`\alpha `$, the number of bound-states is proportional to the depth of the potential well. This depends on both coefficients $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$, and yields a more general expression for $`r`$ as follows:

$$r=\frac{2\mathrm{sin}(2\phi )}{k_2}[1\mathrm{tanh}(k_1k_2)].$$
(12)
Eq. (12) shows that while we consider quasi-particles within a narrow cone around $`\phi =0`$ (like in SIN junctions), bound-states will play a less significant role in the conductance (if the cone angle $`\phi 0`$ then there are no bound states since $`r0`$). In the weak barrier limit though, a broad cone of about $`\pi /2<\phi <\pi /2`$ should be used, and the influence of bound-states on the conductance spectra becomes substantial as seen in Fig. 2. On each curve of this figure only two symmetrical maxima besides the ZBCP are present. The curves in Fig. 2 however, show the $`\sigma (eV)`$ dependence on V and not the $`\sigma _S(E)`$ dependence on E. In the later, for each value of $`\phi `$ a different number of additional maxima exist. After integration of $`\sigma _S`$ over all angles $`\phi `$, only two main peaks versus energy are left which contribute to the resulting maxima $`E_{pd}`$ in $`\sigma (eV)`$ as seen in Fig. 2. These side band peaks are the second most prominent features in the spectra. With increasing $`r`$, the voltage of these peaks shifts to low bias. Because of this, after the integration in Eq. (2) the ZBCP becomes somewhat smaller and its width decreases. It is important to note, that in spite of the shift of additional maxima towards zero bias with increasing decay length of the pair potential, they can’t annihilate the ZBCP, since the zero-energy bound state is robust and exists for all values of $`\phi `$, while the other bound-states are not. Therefore, by changing the parameters $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ we can’t obtain splitting of the ZBCP in the node direction in the pure d-wave case.

Splitting of the ZBCP along the node direction was however measured in SNS junctions. In order to fit this data, it was necessary to add a sub-dominant component to order parameter with a different symmetry. Because of previous results, we have choosen for this purpose to add an imaginary s-wave component to the pair potential. Now the form of the resulting order parameter depends on all four coefficient $`k_1,k_2,k_3`$ and $`k_4`$. Our calculation results along the node direction and with a small $`Z`$ value are shown in Fig. 3. The main conclusion from this figure is that the sub-dominant component can not essentially influence the conductance spectra as long as the decay length of the dominant d-wave component is $`\xi _0`$. This behavior is different from that observed in the strong barrier limit, where a small decay length for both components is enough for obtaining splitting of the ZBCP (not shown). Tanuma et al. have obtained no sub-dominant component for low values of $`Z`$ ($`Z1`$), even though their $`Z`$ value is defined as twice the BTK $`Z`$ value that we use here. In addition, the order parameter that they obtained, almost always had a decay length of order $`\xi _0`$. However, when we repeated their self consistent calculations for high transparency junctions, we could find cases (when $`T_{cs}=0.5T_{cd}`$ for instance) in which the s-component did exist and had a long penetration length of the order of 10$`\xi _0`$ into the bulk. Moreover, in their self-consistent calculations of the order parameter they did not take into account the proximity effect. Therefore, the absence of a sub-dominant component in the results of Tanuma et al. for weak barriers, is not contradictory to our results. As can be seen in Fig. 3, we obtain the splitting effect by the s-wave component only when d-wave decay lengths longer than a few $`\xi _0`$ are used.

A sub-dominant $`is`$ component splits the ZBCP into two peaks, whose energy $`|E_{ps}|`$ depends on the values of $`k_3`$ and $`k_4`$ in Eq. (7). There is no exact analytic formula for this dependence, but numerical calculations yield an approximate relation:

$$|E_{ps}|c_1k_3\mathrm{exp}(c_2k_4)fork_3<\mathrm{\Delta }_0,$$
(13)
where $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ are constants which depend on $`Z`$. When two components of the order parameter coexist, the conductance spectra is a superposition of contributions containing the bound-states of both. These bound-states can annihilate one another unless the value of $`E_{ps}`$ is close to the energy $`E_{pd}`$ of the bound-states of the dominant component. It thus follows that the smaller the s-wave component, the larger the required decay length of the d-component, which is needed in order to obtain a clear splitting.

A simulation of a the conductance spectra fitting our previous experimental data along the node direction is given in Fig. 4. The original data was obtained for SNS junctions. Since no theoretical model is available at the present time for the calculation of the conductance of SNS junctions which takes into account the finite decay length of the pair potential at the interface, we used as a first approximation the SN model discussed here, but with a re-normalized energy scale to fit the SNS data. This re-normalization was simply done by doubling the energy scale in the SN calculations (multiplying it by a factor of 2). We can thus compare the modified SN simulation results with the measured SNS data on the same energy scale of $`E/\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$. Coexistence of both $`d`$ and $`is`$ components of the order parameter near the interface had to be assumed in order to fit the data. The good agreement between theory and experiment indicates that large decay lengths of the d-wave pair potential are actually present near the interface of real junctions.

We now turn to junctions along the anti-node direction. This direction is characterized in the tunneling regime by a ”V” shaped conductance spectra with a minimum at zero bias whose depth is a function of the barrier strength $`Z`$. For a low transparency barrier $`\sigma (E=0)0`$, but as $`Z`$ decreases this value increases. For weak barriers (small $`Z`$) the conductance is controlled mostly by Andreev reflections, and $`\sigma (E=0)`$ reaches a value of 2 when $`b=0`$ and $`a=1`$ in Eq. (4). Again, we varied the values of the coefficients $`k_i`$ ($`i=\mathrm{1..4}`$) in order to study the influence of the order parameter near the interface on the conductance spectra. Qualitatively, all our previous reasoning remain valid. Decreasing $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ leads to the appearance of bound-states which are seen as new maxima in the simulated conductance curves. Similar to the results along the node direction, we find that with increasing decay length of the d-wave pair potential, the bound-states appear at lower bias. But they never occur at zero-bias, where the conductance minimum persists up to very low $`Z`$ values. Fig. 5 shows simulations of conductance spectra for a weak barrier of $`Z=0.5`$ along the (100) direction for different values of the coefficient $`k_2`$ while $`k_1=0`$. The main feature of these spectra is that the peaks at the sub-gap energies increase with decreasing $`k_2`$ (increasing decay length). Moreover, addition of a small sub-dominant s-wave component to the d-wave order parameter when a large decay length is used, does not practically change the form of the conductance spectra (The solid and dotted curves in Fig. 5 are almost indistinguishable). This leads to an important conclusion that the conductance along the (100) direction in high transparency junction with a long-range proximity effect, is basically insensitive to the presence of possible sub-dominant components of order parameter.

Fig. 6 shows experimental conductance spectra of a low-transparency junction along the (100) direction, together with a best fit simulation for this case. The energy scale of the SIN simulation was re-normalized to the equivalent SIS scale of the experiment as before (was multiplied by a factor of 2). The low transparency is a result of a large normal resistance $`R_N`$ which is found in the experiment for the (100) orientation. The roughness of the interface in this type of junction was found to be smaller than the coherence length $`\xi _0`$, thus no faceting can lead to the low transparency. Twinning however, can cause different $`R_N`$ values in different directions. We found out that a pure d-wave order parameter neither with a small nor with large decay length can fit our data well, especially not at low bias (see the dash and dotted curves in Fig. 6). It turned out that the contribution of bound states is essential in order to describe correctly the low energy dependence of the experimental conductance spectra. A typical contribution of bound states is shown in Fig. 6 by the dotted curve for a $`20\xi _0`$ decay length. For the best fit in this figure we used a superposition of mainly a constant d-wave component (76%), and the additional contributions from three longer decay lengths of $`3\xi _0`$, $`10\xi _0`$ and $`20\xi _0`$ (8% of each), and found a remarkable agreement between the simulation and the experimental data (the solid line in Fig. 6). The fact that we had to use such a superposition means that in reality, at least in the lobe direction, there is some non-uniformity in the values of the decay length over the junction cross section. This can be due to the twinning mentioned above, to a non-uniform oxygen distribution or to some other disturbances. We note that in grain boundary junctions a nonuniform distribution of different barrier width was found, which in a way is similar to the decay length distribution observed here.

In the following we summarize the main properties of SN and SIN junctions resulting from our simulations:
i)For a pure d-wave superconductor in the node-direction, large decay lengths of the order parameter near the interface lead to additional peaks in the conductance spectra at sub-gap biases. The peak energies shift to lower bias with increasing decay length of the order parameter, while the ZBCP amplitude and its width decrease.
ii)In order to obtain a well defined splitting of ZBCP in the conductance spectra along the node direction as seen in the experiment, one has to add a small sub-dominant $`is`$ component to the order parameter, and keep a long decay length.
iii)In contrast, using a pure d-wave with a large decay length in high transparency junctions along the lobe direction, the gap peaks in the conductance move to lower energies and this looks like splitting of the broad Andreev-enhanced conductance regime at $`E\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$.
iv)The energy dependence of the quasi-particles lifetime broadening has to be taken into account in the simulations of the conductance spectra.
v)The fact that a long decay length in the superconductor had to be used in order to obtain a good agreement between the theoretical simulations and the measured conductance spectra, gives further support to the notion that a long-range proximity effect exists in the cuprates.

CONCLUSIONS

In the present study we investigated how the spatial dependence of the order parameter near the interface of junctions affects the resulting conductance spectra. We found that the decay length of the d-wave pair potential is the most significant parameter affecting the spectra. More specifically, for high transparency junctions along the node direction, the use of a long decay length of the order of $`1020\xi _0`$ yields a splitting of the ZBCP, provided an additional small $`is`$ component exists near the interface. If in contrast a $`\xi _0`$ decay length is used, no such splitting develops in the simulations, and this is in contradiction to experimental observations. For low transparency junction along the main lobe direction, a small decay length of the order of $`\xi _0`$ could not describe the data neither with a pure d-wave nor with a d+is order parameter. Only when a distribution of decay lengths between $`0\xi _0`$ and $`20\xi _0`$ was assumed, contributions from additional bound states led to a good fit of the experimental data. Another important parameter that affects the conductance spectra strongly is the quasi-particles lifetime broadening and its non-trivial energy dependence ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }(E)`$). We actually modified its basic Fermi liquid $`E^2`$ dependence to fit the experimental data along the node direction, and then used it successfully without any further changes to fit the lobe data. Finally, we note that a long decay length in the S side is consistent with a reversed proximity effect in high transparency SN junctions, and the low $`T_c`$ of the $`is`$ component.

Acknowledgments: This research was supported in part by the Israel Science Foundation, the Heinrich Hertz Minerva Center for HTSC, the Karl Stoll Chair in advanced materials, the Fund for the Promotion of Research at the Technion, and by the Center for Absorption in Science, The Ministry of Immigrant Absorption of the State of Israel.

Figure Captions

Typical spatial dependencies of the d-wave and s-wave pair potentials near the interface, used in our simulations. The pair potential axis is normalize to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, the bulk value of the superconductor’s gap.

(color) Simulations of normalized conductance spectra of a high transparency SN junction with Z=0.5 along the node direction for a pure d-wave symmetry of the pair potential. Different curves correspond to different values of the the decay length.

(color). Theoretical curves of normalized conductance spectra of a high-transparency NS junction along the node direction using a d+is symmetry of the pair potential. In each curve the decay length of both components of the pair potential is the same, except for the dash double dotted line where the decay length of the d-wave component is $`\xi _0`$ while that of the s-wave component is 18$`\xi _0`$.

(color) Measured normalized conductance spectra of a high transparency $`YBa_2Cu_3O_{6+x}/YBa_2Fe_{0.45}Cu_{2.55}O_{6+x}/YBa_2Cu_3O_{6+x}`$ junction along the node direction (symbols) together with a best fit simulation (line). The broadening $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ versus E is given in the inset.

(color) Calculated normalized conductance spectra of a high-transparency SN junctions with Z=0.5 along the lobe direction. All curves were obtained by the use of a pure d-wave symmetry of the pair potential with various decay length, except for the dotted line where a d+is symmetry was used.

(color) Measured normalized conductance spectra along the lobe direction (symbols) of a low transparency junction of
$`YBa_2Cu_3O_{6+x}/YBa_2Fe_{0.45}Cu_{2.55}O_{6+x}/YBa_2Cu_3O_{6+x}`$ together with a best theoretical fit (solid line). The energy dependent lifetime broadening $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(E)`$ is the same as that in Fig. 4. Also shown are the conductance contributions of a constant d-wave (dash line) and a d-wave with 20$`\xi _0`$ decay length (dotted line).