text:
# Chiral effective field theory of Δ(1232) and Compton scattering

## Abstract

A new power-counting scheme for a chiral effective field theory that includes $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ degrees of freedom is briefly described and applied to the nucleon Compton scattering.

Chiral perturbation theory ($`\chi `$PT) is limited to a low-energy domain $`p\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, where $`p`$ is the momentum of the particles and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ stands for all the heavy scales such as the masses of the “integrated out” degrees of freedom. In a theory without explicit $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$ fields the limit is set by the excitation energy of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-resonance: $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_\mathrm{\Delta }M_N293`$ MeV. This limit is clearly seen in Compton scattering off the proton and deuteron, see, e.g., : $`\chi `$PT with pions but without Delta degrees of freedom is in very good agreement with experiment up to the photon energy $`\omega 100`$ MeV, but fails above 150 MeV.

Recently we have introduced a new power-counting scheme  which includes the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and thus extends $`\chi `$PT into the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-resonance region. The scheme is set up such that it is both closely connected to the usual $`\chi `$PT without $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$’s (which assumes $`m_\pi \mathrm{\Delta }`$) in the low-energy region $`\omega m_\pi `$ and applies in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-region $`\omega \mathrm{\Delta }`$. This is achieved by recognizing the hierarchy of scales:

$$m_\pi \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$
(1)
This differs dramatically from the older schemes  which regard $`m_\pi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ as similar, $`m_\pi \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

With the three-scale hierarchy, Eq. (1), one in principle has two small expansion parameters: $`m_\pi /\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Assuming the breaking-down scale is now set by the next excitation, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }600`$ MeV, we can regard both of them as roughly the same and introduce a single small parameter:

$$\delta =\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\frac{m_\pi }{\mathrm{\Delta }}.$$
(2)
Each graph can then be characterized by an overall $`\delta `$-counting index, $`\alpha `$, which simply tells us that the graph is of size $`\delta ^\alpha `$. The index $`\alpha `$ has two different expressions, depending on whether the photon energy $`\omega `$ is in the vicinity of $`m_\pi `$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. For a graph with $`L`$ loops, $`N_\pi `$ pion propagators, $`N_N`$ nucleon propagators, $`N_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ Delta propagators, and $`V_i`$ vertices of dimension $`i`$, the index is

$$\alpha =\{\begin{array}{cc}2\alpha _{\chi \mathrm{P}T}N_\mathrm{\Delta },& \omega m_\pi ;\\ \alpha _{\chi \mathrm{P}T}N_\mathrm{\Delta },& \omega \mathrm{\Delta },\end{array}$$
(3)
where $`\alpha _{\chi \mathrm{P}T}=_iiV_i2+4LN_N2N_\pi `$ is the index in $`\chi `$PT with no $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$’s.

In the region $`\omega \mathrm{\Delta }`$, there is an important exception to this scaling rule: graphs that are one-Delta-reducible (O$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$R), such as those in Fig. 1(c), scale as $`\delta ^\alpha /\left(\omega \mathrm{\Delta }\right)^{N_{O\mathrm{\Delta }R}},`$ where $`N_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in Eq. (3) now counts only the one-Delta-irreducible propagators, while $`N_{O\mathrm{\Delta }R}`$ is the number of O$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$R propagators. At $`\omega \mathrm{\Delta }`$ the O$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$R graphs all become large and hence need to resummed. This amounts to dressing the propagator of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, thus ameliorating the divergence which otherwise occurs at the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ pole. Once dressing is performed a O$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$R graph can have only one Delta propagator, and such a graph then scales as:

$$\delta ^\alpha \left(\frac{1}{\omega \mathrm{\Delta }\Sigma }\right),$$
(4)
where $`\Sigma `$ is the self-energy of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The expansion for $`\Sigma `$ begins at $`\delta ^3`$, and so the correct index of an O$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$R graph in the region $`\omega \mathrm{\Delta }`$ is

$$\alpha =\alpha _{\chi \mathrm{PT}}N_\mathrm{\Delta }2,$$
(5)
thus enhanced by two negative powers of $`\delta `$. As a result, the largest of the O$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$R graphs in Fig. 1(c) are promoted from next-next-to-leading order (NNLO) in the low-energy region to leading order (LO) in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ region.

For the case of Compton scattering on nucleons the complete next-to-leading order (NLO) result in both the low-energy and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ region is given by the graphs shown in Fig. 1. This calculation has three free parameters associated with the $`\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\gamma N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ vertices:

$`_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ih_A}{2f_\pi M_\mathrm{\Delta }}}\overline{N}T_a^{}\gamma ^{\mu \nu \lambda }(_\mu \mathrm{\Delta }_\nu )_\lambda \pi ^a+\text{H.c.},`$ (6)
$`_{\gamma N\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3e}{2M_N(M_N+M_\mathrm{\Delta })}}\overline{N}T_3^{}\left(ig_M\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }g_E\gamma _5F^{\mu \nu }\right)_\mu \mathrm{\Delta }_\nu +\text{H.c.}`$ (7)
where $`T_a`$ are the isospin 1/2 to 3/2 transition matrices, see Refs.  for further details. The relation of the $`\gamma N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ couplings $`g_M`$ and $`g_E`$ to the helicity and multipole amplitudes is given in the Appendix of Ref. .

The $`\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ coupling $`h_A`$ is fixed from the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ width ($`h_A2.8`$) while the two $`\gamma N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ couplings are adjusted ($`g_M=2.6`$, $`g_E=6`$) to reproduce the experimental data on proton Compton scattering in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ region. Our NLO result agrees with experiment in a broad energy range. Examples of this agreement are displayed in Fig. 2.

In conclusion, we have presented a new power-counting scheme which incorporates the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ degrees of freedom into $`\chi `$PT. The scheme is based on a three-scale hierarchy of a low- ($`m_\pi `$), intermediate- ($`\mathrm{\Delta }`$), and high- ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) energy scales. In this scheme the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-resonance width arises naturally as the result of the enhancement of the O$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$R graphs in the intermediate-energy regime. The resulting effective field theory has a significantly broader energy-range of applicability than $`\chi `$PT as has been demonstrated here on the example of Compton scattering.


format: text

text:
# The relation between the two-point and the three-point correlation functions in the non-linear gravitational clustering regime

## 1 Introduction

The formation of large-scale structures in the Universe is one of the most important and interesting problems in cosmology. It is generally believed that these structures have developed by a process of gravitational instability from small initial fluctuations in the density of a largely homogeneous early Universe. Hence it is very important to clarify the physical mechanism of the evolution of density fluctuations. Here we consider the density fluctuations of collisionless particles, such as dark matter, because our interest is concentrated on the effects of self-gravity.

The inflationary scenario predicts a random Gaussian field possessing the properties of statistical homogeneity and isotropy as the primordial fluctuations (Guth, 1981; Guth & Pi, 1982; Bardeen et.al., 1986). The statistical properties of the Gaussian field are completely characterized by the two-point correlation function (hereafter 2PCF) or the power spectrum, since higher order correlations vanish, while only the 2PCF has a certain value (Adler, 1981). However, non-linear gravitational clustering gives rise to non-zero values of the higher-order correlations, even if the primordial density fluctuations were set Gaussian. This is reasonable, since phases between Fourier modes in the bispectrum are considered to be distributed non-randomly but correlated in some ways in the non-linear regime, where galaxies or galaxy groups are strongly clustered around each other (Scherrer, Melott & Shandarin, 1991; Coles & Chiang, 2000; Chiang, 2001; Chiang, Naselsky & Coles, 2002; Watts & Coles, 2003; Watts, Coles & Melott, 2003; Matsubara, 2003). Hence the higher order statistics, like the three-point correlation function (hereafter 3PCF), become essential when the evolution of the density fields is governed by non-linear gravitational clustering. So it is quite important for understanding non-linear evolution to investigate the properties of the 3PCF.

Generally, it is hard to deal with the exact formula of the 3PCF both theoretically and numerically, since it is much more lengthy and complicated than 2PCF. Historically, however, Peebles & Groth (1975); Groth & Peebles (1977) had proposed a simple assumption: the 3PCF can be expressed by the product of the 2PCF as

$$\zeta _{abc}=Q[\xi _{ab}\xi _{bc}+\xi _{bc}\xi _{ca}+\xi _{ca}\xi _{ab}],$$
(1)
where $`\zeta `$, $`\xi `$, and $`Q`$ are the 3PCF, the 2PCF, and a certain constant, respectively. The expression (1) or $`\zeta \xi ^2`$ is often called the “hierarchical form” (Fry, 1984). The data from the Zwicky and Shane-Wirtanen catalogs are in good agreement with this assumption when we choose $`Q0.85`$ for Zwicky and $`Q1.24`$ for Shane-Wirtanen (Peebles & Groth, 1975; Groth & Peebles, 1977).

However, there is a serious fault with the proposal (1). It has no theoretical ground, although some observational or numerical data may be well-fitted. One explanation may be that Eq. (1) for $`\zeta `$ with $`Q=1`$ coincides with the Kirkwood superposition approximation which is familiar in liquid physics and turbulence theory, if $`\xi _{ab}\xi _{bc}\xi _{ca}1`$ (Davies & Peebles, 1977; Ichimaru, 1973). However, this approximation is not appropriate for the non-linear regime, since the distribution of the gravitational sources is strongly correlated, $`\xi 1`$, in such regimes. Hence this resemblance is helpless to compensate for the theoretical defect.

Indeed, there were many theoretical investigations of the 3PCF (Fry, 1984; Ruamsuwan & Fry, 1992). Nevertheless most of the analyses have been based on the “hierarchical form” assumption. The coefficient $`Q`$ under the “hierarchical form” was estimated by assuming self-similarity (Fry, 1984). The BBGKY hierarchy was analyzed by assuming the “hierarchical form” as well as self-similarity (Ruamsuwan & Fry, 1992). In the first place, however, there is no reason why the 3PCF should necessarily depend only on the second power of the 2PCF, even if we accept the self-similarity. Indeed, Yano & Gouda (1997) suggests the possible existence of solutions that do not satisfy the “hierarchical form” on the basis of the BBGKY equations. Therefore an investigation of the physical adequacy of the “hierarchical form” itself and more reliable and useful formulae for the 3PCF are pressingly required.

In this paper we study the connection between the 2PCF and the 3PCF in the non-linear gravitational clustering regime. We analyze these functions using a scaling hypothesis. It is expected that the time evolution of the statistics obeys also some self-similar rules fundamentally, since gravity is scale free (Davies & Peebles, 1977; Fry, 1984; Ruamsuwan & Fry, 1992; Yano & Gouda, 1998). Many authors have investigated the self-similarity of the 2PCF or the power spectrum. Recent works using N-body simulations (Colombi, Bouchet, & Hernquist, 1996; Couchman & Peebles, 1997; Jain, Mo & White, 1995) have shown that self-similar evolution of the power spectrum can be satisfied when the initial power spectrum is scale free, and the power spectrum in the non-linear regime obeys some scaling laws. The scaling hypothesis itself is very familiar. However, the unique proposition in this paper is that we apply the scaling hypothesis to the bispectrum as well as to the power spectrum, and we never assume the “hierarchical form”. Consequently, we succeed in deriving a new formula for the 3PCF, focusing on the power indices. The relevance to the “hierarchical form” is also discussed.

Our paper is organized as follows. In Sec.2 we introduce the general formula of the 2PCF and the 3PCF. We obtain in Sec.3 a new relationship between these functions the under the scaling hypothesis. In Sec.4 we calculate the 2PCF and the 3PCF in the non-linear regime in the one-dimensional Einstein-de Sitter model numerically, in order to confirm the analytical results. The final section is devoted to summary.

## 2 General formula for the correlation functions

In this section we consider the 2PCF and the 3PCF. Let us denote by $`\overline{\rho }`$ the mean density and take $`\rho (𝒙)`$ to be the density at a point specified by the position vector $`𝒙`$ with respect to some arbitrary origin. As usual, we define the fluctuation to be

$$\delta (𝒙)=\frac{\rho (𝒙)\overline{\rho }}{\overline{\rho }}.$$
(2)
We assume this to be expressible as a Fourier series:

$$\delta _𝒌=\frac{1}{L^w}\delta (𝒙)e^{i𝒌𝒙}d^wx,$$
(3)
and

$$\delta (𝒙)=\frac{L^w}{(2\pi )^w}\delta _𝒌e^{i𝒌𝒙}d^wk,$$
(4)
where $`\delta _𝒌`$, $`w`$ and $`L`$ are a Fourier amplitude, the number of the spatial dimensions, and the length of the side of the box, respectively. The 2PCF is defined in terms of the density fluctuation by

$`\xi (𝒓)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta (𝒙)\delta (𝒙+𝒓)_𝒙`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L^{2w}}{(2\pi )^{2w}}}{\displaystyle \delta _𝒌\delta _𝒌^{\mathbf{}}e^{i(𝒌+𝒌^{\mathbf{}})}𝒙e^{i𝒌𝒓}d^wkd^wk^{}}_𝒙,`$
where the angular brackets in Eq.(5) are expectation values, formally denoting an average over the probability distribution of $`\delta (𝒙)`$. The first average, $`_𝒙`$, means simply a volume normalization over a sufficiently large patch of the Universe. The second average, $``$, is interpreted as that across independent samples in many Universes. Applying this rule and performing the volume integration gives

$`\xi (𝒓)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L^w}{(2\pi )^w}}{\displaystyle \delta _𝒌\delta _𝒌^{\mathbf{}}\delta _D(𝒌+𝒌^{\mathbf{}})e^{i𝒌𝒓}d^wk^{}d^wk}`$ (6)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L^w}{(2\pi )^w}}{\displaystyle P(𝒌)e^{i𝒌𝒓}d^wk},`$
where $`\delta _D`$ is the Dirac delta-function and $`P(𝒌)`$ is the power spectrum. Similarly, it is possible to calculate the 3PCF, which is defined as

$`\zeta (𝒓,𝒔)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta (𝒙)\delta (𝒙+𝒓)\delta (𝒙+𝒔)_𝒙`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L^{3w}}{(2\pi )^{3w}}}{\displaystyle \delta _𝒌\delta _𝒌^{\mathbf{}}\delta _{𝒌^{\mathbf{\prime \prime }}}e^{i(𝒌+𝒌^{\mathbf{}}+𝒌^{\mathbf{\prime \prime }})𝒙}e^{i(𝒌𝒓+𝒌^{\mathbf{}}𝒔)}d^wkd^wk^{}d^wk^{\prime \prime }}_𝒙.`$
The volume integration gives

$`\zeta (𝒓,𝒔)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L^{2w}}{(2\pi )^{2w}}}{\displaystyle \delta _𝒌\delta _𝒌^{\mathbf{}}\delta _{𝒌^{\mathbf{\prime \prime }}}\delta _D(𝒌+𝒌^{\mathbf{}}+𝒌^{\mathbf{\prime \prime }})e^{i(𝒌𝒓+𝒌^{\mathbf{}}𝒔)}d^wkd^wk^{}d^wk^{\prime \prime }}`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L^{2w}}{(2\pi )^{2w}}}{\displaystyle \delta _𝒌\delta _𝒌^{\mathbf{}}\delta _{𝒌𝒌^{\mathbf{}}}e^{i(𝒌𝒓+𝒌^{\mathbf{}}𝒔)}d^wkd^wk^{}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L^{2w}}{(2\pi )^{2w}}}{\displaystyle B(𝒌,𝒌^{\mathbf{}})e^{i(𝒌𝒓+𝒌^{\mathbf{}}𝒔)}d^wkd^wk^{}},`$
where $`B(𝒌,𝒌^{\mathbf{}})`$ is the bispectrum (Fry, 1984). The volume integration gives rise to the triangular constraint by the Dirac delta-function, which is similar to Eq.(6) (see also Fry (1984); Watts & Coles (2003); Matsubara (2003)).

## 3 The connection between the 2PCF and the 3PCF under the scaling hypothesis

In this section we derive the connection between the 2PCF and the 3PCF, under the scaling hypothesis. This assumption is adequate, since we consider that fluctuations evolve purely due to gravity. First, we assume that the power spectrum in the non-linear regime obeys a power law as

$`P(k)`$ $`=`$ $`|\delta _k|^2`$ (9)
$``$ $`k^m,`$
where the index is a value in the non-linear regime. Substituting Eq.(9) into Eq.(6) gives

$`\xi (r)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle k^md^wk}`$ (10)
$``$ $`r^{(m+w)}.`$
Next, the bispectrum in Eq.(8) is decomposed by

$$B(k,k^{})=|\delta _k||\delta _k^{}||\delta _{kk^{}}|e^{i(\varphi _k+\varphi _k^{}+\varphi _{kk^{}})},$$
(11)
where $`\varphi _k`$ is the Fourier phase of the modes with wave number $`k`$. Now we consider the Fourier phases in Eq.(11) in the non-linear regime. Let us consider that the initial fluctuations are a random Gaussian field whose phases are distributed randomly. Induced by the gravitational instability, however, the density fluctuations become stronger and stronger, which means the phases between Fourier modes become distributed non-randomly (Scherrer, Melott & Shandarin, 1991; Coles & Chiang, 2000; Chiang, 2001; Chiang, Naselsky & Coles, 2002; Watts & Coles, 2003; Watts, Coles & Melott, 2003). That is, the Fourier phases are also correlated due to the gravitational clustering. It is not difficult to imagine that the phases synchronize in the case of the gravitational collapse, like a pancake, for example.

Generally, the 3PCF or the bispectrum depends on the shape of the configuration. If we fix the shape of the triangle, however, the 3PCF and the bispectrum are determined by one parameter. Here we assume the bispectrum in the strong non-linear regime obeys a scaling law as well as the power spectrum. Hence the expectation value of the Fourier phase in the bispectrum (11) is described as

$$e^{i(\varphi _{kt}+\varphi _{k^{}t}+\varphi _{ktk^{}t})}t^\alpha e^{i(\varphi _k+\varphi _k^{}+\varphi _{kk^{}})}$$
(12)
in the strongly non-linear regime. The scaling hypothesis for the Fourier phases corresponds to the following two characteristic possibilities physically: first, the Fourier phases remain correlated, and the expectation value converges to some non-zero constant value through non-linear gravitational clustering. In this case the value of $`\alpha `$ in Eq.(12) is zero. Second, the Fourier phase correlations are finally relaxed due to non-linear gravitational clustering, although the phases may be correlated once by gravitational instability. In this case the expectation value of the Fourier-phase correlations converges to zero, and the value of $`\alpha `$ in Eq.(12) is some finite value that depends on the degree of convergence. That is, the constant $`\alpha `$ should be a non-negative value. Similarly, other terms in Eq.(11) are also assumed to obey some scaling laws (For a detailed description, see Appendix A).

From Appendix A, the 3PCF is reduced to

$`\zeta (r,s)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle B(k,k^{})d^wkd^wk^{}}`$ (13)
$``$ $`t^{(\frac{3}{2}m+2w\alpha )}{\displaystyle |\delta _{tk}||\delta _{tk^{}}||\delta _{tktk^{}}|e^{i(\varphi _{tk}+\varphi _{tk^{}}+\varphi _{tktk^{}})}d^w(tk)d^w(tk^{})}`$
$`+t^{(\frac{3}{2}m+2w\beta \gamma _{4y})}{\displaystyle |\delta _{tk}||\delta _{tk^{}}||\delta _{tktk^{}}|\delta e^{i(\varphi _{tk}+\varphi _{tk^{}}+\varphi _{tktk^{}})}d^w(tk)d^w(tk^{})}`$
$`+\mathrm{}.`$
Where $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ are the scaling factors of variance and other constants. It is noting that each value of these factors should be non-negative so that the 3PCF should not diverge. Then the 3PCF can be approximated by

$`\zeta (r,s)`$ $``$ $`t^{(\frac{3}{2}m+2wϵ)}\zeta ({\displaystyle \frac{r}{t}},{\displaystyle \frac{s}{t}}),`$ (14)
that is,

$$\zeta (r)r^{(\frac{3}{2}m+2wϵ)},$$
(15)
where $`ϵ`$ is defined as

$$ϵmin(\alpha ,\beta +\gamma _{2y},\beta +\gamma _{3y},\beta +\gamma _{4y}).$$
(16)
From Eqs.(10) and (15), we obtain a new expression to connect between $`\zeta `$ and $`\xi `$ as

$$\zeta \xi ^{\frac{3m+4w2ϵ}{2m+2w}}.$$
(17)
The proportional expression (17) states that the 3PCF is proportional to the power of the 2PCF. The power index depends on the power index of the power spectrum in the non-linear regime, $`m`$, and the scaling factors of the bispectrum, $`ϵ`$. The formula clarifies the source of the power index of the 3PCF under the scaling hypothesis.

Now we consider the case $`\alpha 0`$, where the phase the phase correlations get loose by the non-linear gravitational clustering, although they are tied tight once. Still the information of the convergence survives in the power index of the formula (17) . We can know the power index of the 3PCF by calculating the power index of the power spectrum and the phase correlation in the bispectrum (11). In particular, if the equality $`ϵ=m/2`$ is satisfied, the “hierarchical form”, $`\zeta \xi ^2`$, can be reproduced. For example, we consider the case $`\xi r^{1.8}`$ \[Davies&Peebles 1977\]. In this case, the index $`m`$ is equal to $`1.2`$, and our formula agrees to the “hierarchical form”, if $`ϵ=0.6`$.

Next, we consider the case where the Fourier phases keep correlated through the non-linear effects. In this case the expectation value of the phase correlations converges to a finite constant value, $`\alpha =0`$. Then the power index of the formula (17) depends only on the index of the power spectrum and the number of the spatial dimension,

$`\zeta \xi ^{\frac{3m+4w}{2m+2w}}.`$ (18)
Accordingly, the 3PCF can be described as the closed form only by the 2PCF. As a typical example, it is expected that the relation is realized at the moment of the gravitational collapse into a pancake, since the phases are synchronized strongly. In addition, if the power index of the power spectrum is zero, $`m=0`$, the 3PCF is proportional to the second power of the 2PCF. Recall that the index of the power spectrum is around zero in the transitional region from the linear regime to the non-linear regime, if the power index of the power spectrum of the initial random Gaussian field is not negative value. Considering these facts, we suppose the “hierarchical form” might be also realized accidentally around such quasi-linear scales.

## 4 Numerical test in the one-dimensional model

In this section we demonstrate the numerical simulation by the one-dimensional model to confirm our analytical expression. This model enables us to simulate with high accuracy, since the numerical errors of the algorithm include only round-off errors. Here we investigate the time evolution of a plane–symmetric density perturbation in an Einstein–de Sitter universe model by using a semi–analytical method. In the one–dimensional system many plane–parallel sheets move only in perpendicular direction to the surface of these sheets. When two sheets cross, they are allowed to pass through each other freely. In this sheet system, there is an exact solution until two sheets cross over as follows (Zel’dovich, 1970; Sunyaev & Zel’dovich, 1972; Doroshkevich et al., 1973; Zentsova & Chernin, 1980; Yano & Gouda, 1998):

$`x`$ $`=`$ $`q+B_1(t)S_1(q)+B_2(t)S_2(q),`$
$`v`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{B_1}(t)S_1(q)+\dot{B_2}(t)S_2(q),`$ (19)
where $`q`$ and $`x`$ are the Lagrangian and the (comoving) Eulerian coordinates, respectively. Here, $`S_1(q)`$, and $`S_2(q)`$ are arbitrary functions of $`q`$. $`B_1(t)`$, and $`B_2(t)`$ are the growing mode and the decaying mode of linear perturbation solutions, respectively. We are considering the Einstein–de Sitter background universe model, i.e., $`B_1(t)=a`$ and $`B_2(t)=a^{\frac{3}{2}}`$, where $`a`$ is the scale factor. The velocity $`v`$ is the peculiar–velocity normalized by the scale factor. We can compute the crossing time of all neighboring pairs of sheets. We use the shortest of these crossing times as a time step. Then, we can compute the new positions and velocities for all sheets at this crossing time. After two sheets cross, we exchange the velocities of the two sheets that just crossed. Then we obtain again $`S_1(q),S_2(q)`$, and therefore the exact solutions as follows:

$`S_1(q)={\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}}a^1(xq)+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{5}}\dot{a}^1v,`$
$`S_2(q)={\displaystyle \frac{2}{5}}a^{\frac{3}{2}}(xq){\displaystyle \frac{2}{5}}\dot{a}^1a^{\frac{5}{2}}v.`$ (20)
These new exact solutions can be used until again two sheets cross. In this way we obtain the exact loci of the sheets by coupling these solutions. This semi–analytic method has good accuracy, because we connect exact solutions.

In our calculation we are going to use $`2^{12}`$ sheets. Periodic boundary conditions are fixed at a length of $`2`$. Here we consider the time evolution from a random-Gaussian initial condition with the index of the power spectrum given by $`1`$ or $`2`$. The shape of the triangle is chosen as $`r=2s`$. In addition, we take the ensemble average over 100 samples. Figure 1 shows the power spectrum in the nonlinear gravitational regime where we have chosen the initial power index $`1`$. It can be fitted by $`P(k)k^{0.75}`$, which agrees with Yano & Gouda (1998). From the Fourier transform, the 2PCF obeys $`\xi (r)r^{0.25}`$. Figure 2 shows the bispectrum in the nonlinear regime when the power spectrum is expressed as in Figure 1. It is obvious that the bispectrum is well fitted by $`B(k,2k)k^{1.5}`$. Similarly, Figure 4 shows the bispectrum in the nonlinear regime when the power spectrum is expressed as in Figure 3. It is obvious that the bispectrum is well fitted by $`B(k,2k)k^{1.3}`$. These value agree with $`B(k,2k)k^{2m}`$, which is predicted by expression (17) with the relation $`ϵ=m/2`$. In other words, these results agree with the hierarchical assumption $`\zeta \xi ^2`$.

## 5 Summary

In this paper we have studied the connection between the 2PCF and the 3PCF in the non-linear gravitational clustering regime. Under the scaling hypothesis to the bispectrum as well as the power spectrum, we have derived a new formula regarding the 3PCF. It is striking that the origin of the power index of the 3PCF has been revealed. Moreover we have checked the validity of the analytical expression using numerical simulations in the one-dimensional Einstein-de Sitter model.

Under the scaling hypothesis, we have obtained the connection (17), in which there remain two characteristic possibilities for evolution of the phases of the Fourier modes: they remain correlated or tend to become uncorrelated in the strongly non-linear regime. Expression (17) states that the power index of the 3PCF generally consists of information from the third-order statistics, $`ϵ`$, as well as that from the 2PCF.

It is generally believed that the power index of the power spectrum in the non-linear regime, $`m`$, is decided by the initial power spectrum. Combining this fact and our formula, Eq. (17), we can claim that the power index of the 3PCF originates from the initial power spectrum. Therefore, it will be important future work to clarify the relationship between the power spectrum in the non-linear regime and the initial one. Furthermore, the confirmation of the scaling of the 3PCF in three-dimensional N-body simulations is very important future work, although it is much more difficult to calculate the 3PCF in three-dimensional space than in one-dimensional.

The radical progress of recent observations needs increasingly advanced and practical formalism for analyses containing the higher-order statistics. Hence our new formula is expected to be a good indicator to understand the non-linear gravitational clustering. For this purpose it will be a subsequent task to check if the new formula is consistent with the BBGKY hierarchy. In addition, it will also be important to complete the formula by investigating the coefficients as well as the power indices in order to inspect the adjustment with the “hierarchical form” and to understand the physical origin of $`Q`$. We hope the new formula becomes a very useful instrument for analysis of large-scale structure.

We would like to thank Kei-ichi Maeda, Masahiro Morikawa, and Arihiro Mizutani for useful comments. And we are grateful to Takahiko Matsubara and Tsutomu T. Takeuchi for many valuable comments and discussions. H.K. is supported by JSPS Fellowship for Young Scientists.

## Appendix A Bispectrum under the scaling hypothesis

Firstly we decompose the absolute value of the Fourier spectrum of density fluctuation and the Fourier phase into their averages and the discrepancies:

$$X_a=X_a+\delta X_a=|\delta _{tk}|,$$
(A1)
$$X_b=X_b+\delta X_b=|\delta _{tk^{}}|,$$
(A2)
$$X_c=X_c+\delta X_c=|\delta _{tktk^{}}|,$$
(A3)
$$Y=Y+\delta Y=e^{i(\varphi _{tk}+\varphi _{tk^{}}+\varphi _{tktk^{}})}.$$
(A4)
Then the bispectrum is rewritten by

$`B(tk,tk^{})=X_aX_bX_cY`$ $`=`$ $`(X_a+\delta X_a)(X_b+\delta X_b)(X_c+\delta X_c)(Y+\delta Y)`$ (A5)
$`=`$ $`X_aX_bX_cY+X_aX_bX_c\delta Y+\mathrm{}`$
$`+X_aX_b\delta X_c\delta Y+\mathrm{}`$
$`+X_a\delta X_b\delta X_c\delta Y+\mathrm{}`$
$`+\delta X_a\delta X_b\delta X_c\delta Y.`$
Next we rewrite these averages using the variances, $`\sigma _a`$, $`\sigma _b`$, $`\sigma _c`$ and $`\sigma _y`$ and the correlation coefficients, $`r_{ab}`$, $`r_{ay}`$, $`r_{abc}`$, $`r_{aby}`$ and $`r_{abcy}`$,

$`X_a`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _a,`$
$`\delta X_a^2`$ $`=`$ $`s^2\sigma _a^2,`$
$`\delta Y^2`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _y^2,`$
$`\delta X_a\delta X_b`$ $`=`$ $`s^2\sigma _a\sigma _br_{ab},`$
$`\delta X_a\delta Y`$ $`=`$ $`s\sigma _a\sigma _yr_{ay},`$
$`\delta X_a\delta X_b\delta X_c`$ $`=`$ $`s^3\sigma _a\sigma _b\sigma _cr_{abc},`$
$`\delta X_a\delta X_b\delta Y`$ $`=`$ $`s^2\sigma _a\sigma _b\sigma _yr_{aby},`$
$`\delta X_a\delta X_b\delta X_c\delta Y`$ $`=`$ $`s^3\sigma _a\sigma _b\sigma _c\sigma _yr_{abcy},`$ (A6)
where $`s`$ is a constant of order $`1`$. Then

$`X_aX_bX_cY`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _a\sigma _b\sigma _cY+s\sigma _a\sigma _b\sigma _c\sigma _y(r_{ay}+r_{by}+r_{cy})+s^2Y\sigma _a\sigma _b\sigma _c(r_{ab}+r_{bc}+r_{ca})`$ (A7)
$`+s^2\sigma _a\sigma _b\sigma _c\sigma _y(r_{aby}+r_{bcy}+r_{cay})+s^3Y\sigma _a\sigma _b\sigma _cr_{abc}+s^3\sigma _a\sigma _b\sigma _c\sigma _yr_{abcy}.`$
Now we assume that these constants obey power laws as follows:

$`\sigma _at^{m/2},Yt^\alpha ,`$ (A8)
$`\sigma _yt^\beta ,r_{ab}t^{\gamma _2},r_{ay}t^{\gamma _{2y}},r_{abc}t^{\gamma _3},r_{aby}t^{\gamma _{3y}},r_{abcy}t^{\gamma _{4y}}.`$ (A9)
Substituting (A8) and (A9) into (A7), we find

$`X_aX_bX_cY`$ $``$ $`t^{3m/2\alpha }+t^{3m/2\beta \gamma _{2y}}+t^{3m/2\alpha \gamma _2}+t^{3m/2\beta \gamma _{3y}}+t^{3m/2\alpha \gamma _3}+t^{3m/2\beta \gamma _{4y}}.`$
In order for the 3PCF not to diverge, these scaling factors, $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, and $`\gamma `$ should be non-negative values. Then the bispectrum can be approximated as

$$X_aX_bX_cYt^{3m/2ϵ},$$
(A11)
where $`ϵ`$ is defined as

$$ϵmin(\alpha ,\beta +\gamma _{2y},\beta +\gamma _{3y},\beta +\gamma _{4y}).$$
(A12)


text:
# Room Temperature Domain Wall Pinning in Bent Ferromagnetic Nanowires

## I Introduction

Electrodeposited nanowires provide useful systems for studying electrical and magnetic phenomena at sub-micron length scales. Metallic nanowires with diameters in the 20–500 nm range can be grown in bulk quantities to lengths as long as 50 microns.Fert99  Since the composition of the nanowires can be varied along their length, they can be used to study phenomena where electrical current flows perpendicular to the composition modulation. There has been significant interest in studying the magnetic properties of individual pure ferromagnetic nanowires, including the mechanism and dynamics of magnetization reversal,Wernsdorfer96  spin transfer,Jaccard00  and domain wall propagation.Radulescu00  A variety of techniques have been used to examine nanowires, including micro-SQUID,Wernsdorfer96  magnetic force microscopy,Lederman95 ; Radulescu00  and magnetoresistanceRadulescu00 ; Wegrowe99 ; Jaccard00  techniques. Previous magnetoresistance measurements have primarily focused on wires that are still embedded in their fabrication templates, using special growth techniques to ensure that only one wire is contacted for measurement.Wegrowe99 ; Jaccard00  We have developed techniques to remove nanowires from their templatesTanase01  and to make oxide-free electrical contacts to the ends of individual wires.Tanase02  In this work, we look at the effects of mechanically bending Ni nanowires. A nanowire with one bend has two segments whose magnetic easy axes point in different directions due to shape anisotropy. By varying the direction along which the wires are magnetized, a domain wall can be trapped at the bend. Electrical current passing through the nanowire flows through this trapped domain wall, allowing observation of effects due to the wall on the transport properties of the wire.

Previous work on domain wall magnetoresistance in nanostructures includes experimental studies on metal whiskers,Taylor68  template-grown nanowires,Radulescu00  GMR thin films,Gregg96  ferromagnetic thin films with stripe domains,Rudiger99  ferromagnetic trilayers,Prieto03  step-edge wires,Hong98  and lithographically defined structures, Taniyama99 ; Rudiger98 ; Xu00  as well as theoretical models that incorporate spin-flip scattering,Levy97  spin accumulation,Simanek01  weak localization,Tatara97  and semi-classical scattering.vanGorkom99  The resistance contribution of domain walls has been measured to be either positiveRadulescu00 ; Gregg96 ; Rudiger99 ; Prieto03 ; Xu00  or negativeHong98 ; Taniyama99 ; Rudiger98  in various systems. The majority of these transport measurements were performed at low temperatures. In this work, howerver, we present results that show a decrease in resistance associated with the presence of a domain wall at room temperature, using mechanically bent nickel nanowires.

## II Fabrication and Measurement

Metallic nanowires were grown via electrochemical deposition into the pores of nanoporous alumina templates.Possin70 ; Madsen85 ; Whitney93 ; Tanase01  The templates used were $`60\mu \mathrm{m}`$ thick with a nominal pore diameter of 100 nm (Anodisk, Whatman, Inc.), with a 500 nm thick sputtered copper film serving as a working electrode. Platinum was deposited from a solution of 7.3 g/L $`(\mathrm{NH}_4)_2\mathrm{PtCl}_6`$ and 58.3 g/L $`\mathrm{Na}_2\mathrm{HPO}_4`$, buffered to pH 8.3 at a potential of -0.6 V relative to a Ag/AgCl reference electrode. Nickel was deposited from a solution of 20 g/L $`\mathrm{NiCl}_26\mathrm{H}_2\mathrm{O}`$, 515 g/L $`\mathrm{Ni}(\mathrm{H}_2\mathrm{NSO}_3)_24\mathrm{H}_2\mathrm{O}`$, and 20 g/L $`\mathrm{H}_3\mathrm{BO}_3`$, buffered to pH 3.4 at a potential of -1.0 V relative to a Ag/AgCl reference. Due to branching effects inside the pores, the actual diameters of the pores and hence of the nanowires, are significantly larger than the nominal diameter. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) measurements on the nanowires showed diameters of $`350\pm 40`$ nm. The nanowires were grown to lengths ranging from 20 to 40 microns. The majority of the wire length was nickel, with 2 $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ of platinum at each end of the wire (see Fig 1(a)). These Pt endcaps provide a clean low-resistance electrical interface between the nickel segment and the contacts.Tanase02

After fabrication, the alumina template was dissolved in a $`50^{}`$C KOH bath and the wires were resuspended in isopropanol. This suspension was then centrifuged for several minutes, inducing sharp bends at a range of angles into the nanowires. A SEM image of a nanowire with a $`90^{}`$ bend is shown in Fig. 1(b), with a detail of the bend region shown in Fig. 1(c). This bending typically occurred near the center of the wire length. After bending, the wires were spun out onto a glass substrate, and an optical microscope equipped for projection photolithographyPalmer73  was used to pattern evaporated Cr/Au electrical contacts on top of the platinum endcaps of the nanowires. Nanowires were selected based on the angle and sharpness of the bend, and the straightness of the two segments. The contacts were patterned in a pseudo 4-probe geometry, as shown in Fig. 2.

Current-voltage (IV) measurements were performed on a series of straight PtNiPt nanowires of various lengths to determine the resistivity of the segments and the contact resistance. The IV curves were linear up to current densities of $`j=5\times 10^8\mathrm{A}/\mathrm{cm}^2`$ (I=0.5 mA), with Joule heating acting to increase the resistance at higher currents, up to a maximum breakdown current density of $`j=10^{10}\mathrm{A}/\mathrm{cm}^2`$.Tanase02  The platinum segments showed a room-temperature resistivity of $`\rho 17\mu \mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{cm}`$ and the nickel had $`\rho 10\mu \mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{cm}`$.TanaseUnpub  Contact resistances between the electrodes and the nanowires were typically $`12\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The measured resistances decreased monotonically as the wires were cooled to 5 K, indicating that the contacts were metallic in nature and all interfaces were clean. Similar measurements on pure Ni nanowires showed insulator-like thermal behavior, which suggests the presence of surface oxide on the Ni and indicates the importance of the Pt segments for the success of these measurements.

The magnetotransport measurements on PtNiPt nanowires were made with a $`10\mu \mathrm{A}`$ 100 Hz AC current source and a lockin amplifier. The measurements were made at room temperature, using an electromagnet equipped with a computer-controlled motorized rotating sample stage. A 2-axis Hall effect sensor (Sentron AG) was used to implement a closed feedback loop on the rotation system, giving an angular positional accuracy varying from $`0.2^{}`$ at 4 kOe to $`1^{}`$ at 500 Oe. Magnetoresistance hysteresis loops were obtained by ramping the field at rates ranging from 2 to 50 Oe/s and continuously measuring the resistance. The system also allowed for measurement of resistance at constant field while continuously changing orientation. In this mode, the stage was rotated at 0.5 deg/s. The feedback loop allowed for accurate comparisons between $`R(H)`$ and $`R(\theta )`$ measurements. In all cases, the field was in the plane of the substrate, with the rotation axis perpendicular to this plane.

## III Straight nanowires

The magnetoresistance of a 20 $`\mu `$m long straight nanowire is shown in Figs. 3(a)-(d) for four different orientations to the field. As has been seen in previous, in-template, measurements on similar wires, Wegrowe99 ; Jaccard00  there are two main features in the magnetoresistance. First, there is an overall non-hysteretic contribution due to the anisotropic magnetoresistance (AMR) effect in nickel.McGuire75  Our straight wires have a room temperature AMR of $`\mathrm{\Delta }R/R=(R(H=4\mathrm{kOe})R(H=0))/R(H=0)=1.5\%`$ when the wire is perpendicular to the applied field. The decrease in the low-field resistance when the wire is parallel to the field (Fig. 3(a)) indicates that there is some demagnetization at low fields. This is discussed in more detail below. In addition to the non-hysteretic magnetoresistance, there is an abrupt increase in the resistance at a well defined magnetic field, known as the switching field $`H_{\mathrm{sw}}`$.Wernsdorfer96  This hysteretic effect is due to the rapid reversal of the nanowire’s magnetization.Wegrowe99  When the nanowire is nearly perpendicular to the field, we frequently observe a splitting of the transition into two or more unequal steps. This can be seen in Figs. 3(c), (d) and 6(e). We believe that the presence of the smaller transitions is due to slight bends in the nanowire, and a consequent shift in the switching field. When such split transitions are observed, we define the overall switching field as the location of the largest step in the resistance.

As can be seen from Fig. 3, the value of $`H_{\mathrm{sw}}`$ depends on the angle between the wire and the field. This is more evident in Fig. 4(a), which shows the angular dependence of the switching field. This figure can be viewed as a phase diagram for one particular nanowire. When a given $`(H,\theta )`$ location lies outside the elliptical region defined by the set of switching fields, the nanowire is in the reversible state, and the magnetization is single-valued, depending only on the values of $`H`$ and $`\theta `$, and not on the wire’s prior history. On the other hand, when $`(H,\theta )`$ lies inside the set of switching points, the wire is in a hysteretic state, where the magnetization is multiply valued, and depends on the path followed. Fig. 4(b) shows the same switching field data as Fig. 4(a), plotted on a linear scale (showing $`|H_{\mathrm{sw}}|`$). In this panel, the reversible region lies above the plotted points, and the hysteretic region below. These measurements were repeated on a series of 350 nm diameter nanowires, with lengths ranging from 12 to 20 $`\mu `$m. As can be seen from Fig. 4(b), $`H_{\mathrm{sw}}(\theta )`$ is independent of wire length in this range.

Additional measurements were performed where the field was kept fixed and the wire was continuously rotated through two complete revolutions, one counterclockwise ($`\theta `$ increasing) followed by one clockwise ($`\theta `$ decreasing). Three such $`R(\theta )`$ measurements on a straight nanowire are shown in Figs. 5(a)–5(c). The curvature seen in $`R(\theta )`$ is due to the magnetization of the wire rotating towards the direction of the field and hence away from the axis of the wire. The resistance follows $`R|\mathrm{cos}(\theta )|^2`$, as would be expected from the AMR of a cylinder. The rotation sweeps also show sharp switching events that are very similar to those seen in the field sweeps discussed previously. These measurements also show hysteretic behavior. This can be understood by tracking the direction of the magnetization in the wire as it is rotated. Initially ($`\theta =180^{}`$), the wire is parallel to the field, along with the magnetization. As the wire is rotated, the strong shape anisotropy tends to make the direction of M rotate away from the field, tracking the wire axis. This continues as the wire rotates past perpendicular, with the magnetization becoming increasingly anti-aligned to the field. At a certain orientation ($`\theta _{\mathrm{sw}}`$), this anti-aligned magnetization becomes energetically unstable, and the magnetization undergoes a rapid reversal in direction to become aligned with the field. This produces the sharp increases in the resistance seen in Fig. 5. When the direction of rotation is reversed, the same behavior is observed. However, since the reversal occurs after the nanowire rotates past perpendicular to the field, the magnetization, and hence the resistance, is hysteretic.

As with the $`R(H)`$ measurements discussed above, the $`R(\theta )`$ data can be divided into two regions, where the resistance is either reversible or hysteretic. The boundary between these two regions can be determined by plotting $`\theta _{\mathrm{sw}}`$ as a function of the applied field, as shown in Fig. 5(d). The smooth curve in Fig. 5(d) is the fit to the $`H_{\mathrm{sw}}(\theta )`$ data (discussed below) shown in Fig. 4. $`H_{\mathrm{sw}}(\theta )`$ and $`\theta _{\mathrm{sw}}(H)`$ closely overlap, indicating that the location of the phase boundary does not change depending on which variable is being swept. This is further illustrated by comparing the data shown in Fig. 3(b) (R vs. H at $`\theta =70^{}`$) with the data in Fig. 5(b) (R vs. $`\theta `$ at H=500 Oe). The open diamond on both of these panels marks a switching event at $`\theta =70^{}`$, H=500 Oe. Similarly, the open square marks a switching transition at $`\theta =70^{}`$, H=-500 Oe, or equivalently, $`\theta =110^{}`$, H=500 Oe.

To determine the reversal mode of these nanowires, we examine the shape of $`H_{\mathrm{sw}}(\theta )`$. As shown in Fig. 4, $`H_{\mathrm{sw}}`$ is peaked near $`\theta =\pm 90^{}`$ (wire perpendicular to field) and has a minimum at $`\theta =0,180^{}`$ (wire parallel to field). This angular dependence allows us to rule out Stoner-Wohlfarth, or coherent rotation, as the reversal mechanism, as that reversal mode has peaks in the switching field when the wire is both perpendicular and parallel to the field.Stoner48  This suggests that the reversal mechanism for the wire is incoherent rotation, or curling,Brown57  consistent with expectations based on the diameter of the nanowire,Aharoni00  as well as previous magnetic force microscopy studies on Ni nanowires of comparable size.Lederman95

For an ellipsoid reversing its magnetization through the curling mode, it has been predictedAharoni97  that the switching field follows

$$H_{\mathrm{sw}}=2\pi M_s\frac{(2D_z\alpha )(2D_x\alpha )}{\sqrt{(2D_z\alpha )^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta +(2D_x\alpha )^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }}$$
(1)
where $`M_s`$ is the saturation magnetization, $`D_z`$ and $`D_x`$ are the demagnetization factors along the major and minor axes of the ellipsoid, and $`\alpha =k(r_0/r)^2`$. Here, $`r`$ is the minor radius of the ellipsoid, $`r_0`$ is the exchange length of the ferromagnet, and $`k`$ is a geometrical factor dependent on the aspect ratio of the prolate spheroid. From the nanowire’s length of $`20\mu \mathrm{m}`$ and radius $`r=175\mathrm{nm}`$, the demagnetization factors are $`D_x=0.4998`$ and $`D_z=0.00042`$.Morrish83  The saturation magnetization is assumed to be the bulk nickel value, $`M_s=485\mathrm{Oe}`$. The exchange length for nickel is known to be approximately 20 nm,Brown57 ; Lederman95  and $`k`$ for an extended cylinder is 1.079.Aharoni97  The predicted curve, shown as the dashed line in Fig. 4, clearly does not match the observed switching fields for our wires. However, it has been suggested that the magnetization reversal proceeds via an initial nucleation in a small volume of the wire, and subsequent propagation throughout the entire wire.Wegrowe99  This assumption does fit the observed data (solid line in Figs. 4(a), 4(b), and 5(d)), with free parameters $`D_z=0.0991`$ and $`\alpha =0.144`$, corresponding to a nucleating region of aspect ratio 1.3:1 and radius $`r=100\mathrm{nm}`$. This nucleation region occupies 0.5% of the total wire volume. The size of this nucleation region is comparable to previously determined values in nanowires of smaller diameter.Jaccard00  As noted above, $`H_{\mathrm{sw}}(\theta )`$ for several of our straight nanowires have the same shape; this indicates that the size and shape of the initial nucleation volume does not vary signficantly between wires with different lengths.

To examine the energetics of the nanowire reversal process, we have developed a phenomenological model to describe the behavior of the magnetization. We begin by assuming that, except at the switching field, the direction of the magnetization is described by Stoner-Wolhfarth coherent rotation,

$$\frac{H}{2\pi M_s}\mathrm{sin}(\theta \omega )=(D_xD_z)\mathrm{sin}(2\omega )$$
(2)
where $`\theta `$ is the angle between the applied field and the wire axis, and $`\omega `$ is the angle between the magnetization vector and the wire axis.Aharoni00  Because the nanowire is initially being modeled as single domain, the demagnetization factors used in this calculation are derived from the geometry of the entire wire ($`D_x=0.4998`$, $`D_z=0.00042`$), and not from the nucleation volume determined from the curling mode fit. The resistance is then related to the magnetization by $`R(H,\theta )=R_0+\mathrm{\Delta }R\mathrm{cos}^2\omega `$. At $`H=0`$, the shape anisotropy forces the magnetization to lie along the axis of the wire ($`\mathrm{cos}\omega =1`$), indicating that the resistance should be maximized at zero field. However, the observed resistance data shown in Fig. 3 have maxima that are at non-zero field. This implies that there is a demagnetization effect at low field that reduces the overall magnitude of M. A possible mechanism for this effect is that the magnetization is rotating towards the crystalline easy axis of the wire. Since these nanowires are polycrystalline, there will be a distribution of these directions, resulting in a decrease in the net magnetization.

To model this behavior in the data, we assume that the S-W theory provides an accurate description of the direction of the magnetization, but that there is a spatially-uniform demagnetizing effect that reduces the magnitude. In the absence of direct data on the magnitude of the magnetization, we assume a simple analytic form,

$$\frac{M(H)}{M_s}=\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{H\pm H_0}{\mathrm{\Delta }H}\right)$$
(3)
where the sign of $`H_0`$ depends on which branch of the hysteresis is being followed. The expression for the magnetoresistance is then modified to

$$R(H,\mathrm{\Omega })=R_0+\mathrm{\Delta }R\left(\frac{M(H)}{M_s}\right)^2\mathrm{cos}^2\omega ,$$
(4)
and this expression is fit to the observed data using $`H_0`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }H`$, $`R_0`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }R`$ as free parameters. We use the switching field calculated from the small nucleation volume curling mode fit described above, and not by the Stoner-Wohlfarth coherent rotation mode. The best-fit magnetization curves and calculated resistances for two orientations are shown in Fig. 6. The exact functional form of the demagnetization curve Eq. (3) does not have a major effect on the quality of the model. A Langevin function ($`L(x)=\frac{1}{x}\mathrm{coth}(x)`$) works as well as the $`\mathrm{tanh}(x)`$ that was used in Eq. (3).

As can be seen from the figure, this approach produces calculated magnetoresistance curves that closely match the observed data, and hence this modeling procedure provides a good description of the magnetic response of the wire. The magnetization information obtained from the fit can then be used to calculate the magnetostatic energy of the nanowire. For an extended ellipsoid, the energy is given by

$$E=\frac{1}{2}V𝐌𝐇+\frac{1}{2}V4\pi (D_xD_z)M_z^2$$
(5)
where $`V`$ is the volume of the wire and $`M_z`$ is the component of the magnetization along the wire axis.Aharoni00  The field dependence of this energy is shown for two orientations of a straight wire in Fig. 6(c),(f). The magnetic reversal corresponds to a transition from a high-energy to a low-energy state, with a typical change in energy of $`1\times 10^7`$ erg, compared to a total magnetostatic energy on the order of $`1\times 10^6`$ erg.

## IV Bent nanowires

The magnetoresistance behavior of bent wires is signficantly different from that of the straight wires, as illustrated in Fig. 7 for a 40 $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ wire with a $`25^{}`$ bend, and in Fig. 8 for a wire of the same length with a $`90^{}`$ bend. The non-hysteretic AMR component of the resistance is never flat, as it is for straight wires when $`\theta =0`$. In addition, most orientations show jumps in the resistance at two distinct fields, indicating the presence of two magnetization reversals. The switching fields vs. wire orientation for the $`25^{}`$ and $`90^{}`$ bent wires are shown in Fig. 9 and Fig. 10. For each wire, there are two peaks in $`H_{\mathrm{sw}}(\theta )`$, each occuring when one of the segments is perpendicular to the field. As indicated in panel (b) of each figure, the separation between the peaks is equal to the bend angle for each wire. From this, the basic similarity of the individual peaks, and the comparable height of the resistance steps to that observed in the straight wires, we infer that the two resistance steps observed in $`R(H)`$ correspond to magnetization reversals in the individual segments, with the higher field feature coming from the segment that is oriented at the larger angle with respect to H. It should be noted, however, that not all orientations show two switching transitions. For each bent wire, there is a range of orientations (marked by open triangles on Fig. 9 and Fig. 10) where only a single transition is observed. The implications of this are discussed below.

As in the case of the straight nanowires, Fig. 9 and Fig. 10 represent phase diagrams for the bent nanowires. In this case, the shape of the phase boundaries is more complicated, because of the presence of two segments at differing orientations. The overall nature of the diagram, however, is the same, with a reversible region that lies outside the curve, and a hysteretic region inside the curve.

Figure 11(a)–(c) shows $`R(\theta )`$ measurements at a range of fields for a nanowire with a $`90^{}`$ bend. As in the straight wires, switching transitions in the bent wires are observed at the same set of $`(H,\theta )`$ locations in both the $`R(H)`$ and the $`R(\theta )`$ measurements. This is illustrated in Fig. 11(d), where the smooth curves shown in Fig. 10 are superimposed over the measured $`\theta _{\mathrm{sw}}(H)`$ from the $`R(\theta )`$ measurements. The two data sets match well. This is seen in more detail by comparing a field sweep at $`\theta =155^{}`$ (Fig. 8(b)) to an angle sweep at H=450 Oe (Fig. 11(b)). The trajectories in $`(H,\theta )`$ that these two data sets describe are marked in Fig. 11(d) by a straight line and circle, respectively. The switching events on these two scans occur in the same location, indicated on the plots by an open diamond and square.

As a starting point, the angular dependence of the switching fields in the bent nanowires can be modeled by assuming that the two segments of the wire switch independently. If this assumption is accurate, then the curling-mode fit discussed above for the straight wire should also apply to bent wires when suitably offset in angle to account for the different relative orientation of the two segments to the field. As seen in Fig. 9(b) and Fig. 10(b), these curves qualitatively match the observed behavior of the bent wires, indicating that independent-segment curling is a reasonable first approximation for describing the switching behavior.Tanase03  There are, however, systematic deviations between the data and the model, indicating that the first-order approximation of the bent wire as two independent straight segments is incomplete. To understand these deviations, it is necessary to examine interaction effects between the segments.

### IV.1 Effects of domain configuration on $`H_{\mathrm{sw}}`$

Before discussing the effects of intersegment interactions, it is first necessary to examine how the domain configuration in a bent nanowire varies with angular orientation. This can be examined using magnetic force microscopy (MFM) on bent nanowires. MFM images were acquired with a Nanoscope III Multimode AFM/MFM (Digital Instruments). An example is shown in Fig. 12. Fig. 12(a) shows an atomic force microscope topographic image. In Fig. 12(b), the nanowire was initially magnetized in a strong vertical field, and subsequently imaged by MFM at zero field. The MFM picture shows a positive pole at one end of the wire and a negative pole at the other end, with no pole at the bend. The absence of a pole in the body of the wire indicates that the magnetization is continuous, with no domain wall present. In Fig. 12(c), the same nanowire was remagnetized in a strong horizontal field and a zero-field image was again obtained. Here, the poles at the wire ends are both positive, and there is a strong negative pole at the bend. The pole at the bend is a signature of a the presence of a domain wall at the center of the wire. This central pole was measured to have a width of $`1\mu \mathrm{m}`$, significantly larger than the typical 100 nm domain wall width in nickel.Gregg96  We believe that this increase in the size of the domain wall is associated with the extended curvature at the bend region.

The orientation dependence of the domain structure can be understood by considering the schematic of the magnetization structure shown in Fig. 13. At an initial large positive field (a,e), the applied field dominates over the shape anisotropy and the segments’ magnetizations rotate off the segment axis and towards the applied field. When the field is reduced to zero, the magnetizations relax back towards the segment axes (b,f). The MFM images were taken at this point, with Fig. 12(b) corresponding to the schematic magnetization in Fig. 13(b), and similarly for Fig. 12(c) and Fig. 13(f). At some negative field, the segment that is nearly parallel to the field undergoes a switching transition, reversing its magnetization direction (c,g). At this point, the wire configuration shown in (c) has a $`90^{}`$ domain wall at the bend; we therefore term this the “wall” orientation. On the other hand, the magnetization in (g) does not have a domain wall, but instead has a continuous rotation of the magnetization direction between the two segments. This orientation is thus designated the “no-wall” state. At larger negative field, the magnetization of the near-perpendicular segment reverses, and the magnetization for both segments again rotates off-axis (d,h) as in (a,e).

The most visible deviation from the independent segment picture occurs near $`\theta =0^{}`$ and $`\theta =180^{}`$, where the two segments are at similar angles to the field. If the two segments of the bent wire were not coupled, they would switch simultaneously if and only if their angles to the field were the same. For all other orientations, the segments would have different switching fields. In the actual bent wires, however, a single simultaneous transition is seen even when the angles are not the same. This is shown in Fig. 14, which compares the MR of a straight wire at $`28^{}`$ and $`62^{}`$ to the field to the resistance of a bent wire whose segments are at comparable orientations. The straight wire switches at different fields in the two orientations, whereas the bent wire’s response is dominated by a single large jump in the resistance, indicating that both segments switch simultaneously. This “locking” of the switching of the segments occurs over a wide range of orientations, indicated by the solid triangles in Fig. 9 and Fig. 10.

The reversal locking occurs in regions where the wire orientation is similar to the left column in Fig 13. This region is found at $`\theta <78^{}`$ and $`\theta >103^{}`$ in Fig. 9 for the $`25^{}`$ bent wire and $`\theta <45^{}`$ and $`\theta >135^{}`$ in Fig. 10 for the $`90^{}`$ wire. The locking occurs because the energy cost of nucleating a domain wall to enter the intermediate state (c) makes it energetically favorable to suppress the separate transitions and reverse the entire wire simultaneously. The locked transitions are shown in Figs. 9 and 10 as open triangles. An estimate for the energy cost of domain nucleation can be determined by considering the shift in the switching fields and the additional magnetostatic energy associated with that shift. For the orientations shown in Fig. 14, this shift is approximately 35 Oe. This corresponds to an increase of energy of $`1\times 10^8`$ erg, approximately 1% of the total energy of the nanowire.

When the two segments of a bent wire are at sufficiently different angles to the field, the wire reverses its magnetization in two separate steps. There is still an energy cost for switching into the anti-aligned intermediate state, which appears as an increase in the switching field of the segment closer to parallel to the field. This can be seen most clearly in Fig. 10 for $`\theta <45^{}`$ and $`\theta >135^{}`$, where the measured switching fields (circles) are larger than what was expected based on the straight wire results (smooth curve). At higher field, the reversal of the segment closer to perpendicular to the field places the wire back into an aligned magnetization state. This is an energetically favorable transition, and in this regime, the straight wire data matches the behavior of the bent wire.

The opposite behavior is observed when the wire is in an orientation similar to the right column of Fig. 13. For the $`90^{}`$ bent wire, this occurs for $`45^{}<\theta <135^{}`$ in Fig. 10. In this orientation, the low-field reversal (of the segment more nearly parallel to the field) places the wire in a single domain state. Since there is no additional energy barrier due to the creation of a domain wall, the behavior of the bent-wire switching field is accurately predicted by the straight wires. On the other hand, the subsequent reversal of the more nearly perpendicular segment places the wire in an anti-aligned magnetization state. The cost of nucleating a wall results here in an increase in the switching field in this regime. This is seen in Fig. 10 as a shoulder in the peaks for $`45^{}<\theta <135^{}`$ compared to the prediction from the straight wire data.

It should be noted that these shifts in the switching fields for the bent nanowires cannot be ascribed to differences in the lengths of the two segments. The switching field data for the series of straight nanowires shown in Fig. 4(b) indicate that there is very little variation in $`H_{\mathrm{sw}}(\theta )`$ in the range of lengths studied. This range of lengths encloses the lengths of the segments of the bent nanowires studied. This implies that the changes in $`H_{\mathrm{sw}}`$ in the bent wires are not simply due to differences in the segment lengths.

### IV.2 Domain wall resistance

In addition to shifting the switching fields, the domain configuration effects can be observed directly in the magnetoresistance data. This can be seen by comparing the MR curves for a bent wire in two orientations, corresponding to those in Fig. 13, with the same angles between the segments and the applied field. The magnetoresistance for one such pair of orientations is shown in Fig. 15(a). The solid curve, corresponding to the orientation in the left column of Fig. 13 (“wall” orientation), has a domain wall in the region where only one segment has reversed. The dashed curve, corresponding to the other (“no-wall”) orientation, does not have a domain wall in this region. Since the angles between the segments and the field are the same, we would expect the magnetoresistances to be the same, with some differences in the switching fields due to the energetic effects discussed above. Instead, there is a significant difference in the intermediate region, where only one of the segments has reversed. This is shown in more detail in Fig. 15(b), which plots the differences between the two curves. The solid curve (“wall” orientation) has a lower resistance in the intermediate region, suggesting that there is a decrease in the resistance associated with the presence of a domain wall. This decrease was seen in measurements on multiple $`90^{}`$ bent wires, with magnitudes in the range of $`2030\mathrm{m}\mathrm{\Omega }`$, corresponding to a fractional change in the resistance of $`\mathrm{\Delta }R/R=5\times 10^4`$. We note that the bend angle needs to be near $`90^{}`$ to allow a comparison of this sort to be made. This result is somewhat analogous to what was observed by Taniyama *et. al* in lithographically-defined zigzag structures at lower temperatures.Taniyama99

There are multiple theoretical models that include the possibility of domain walls with negative contributions to the resistance. Tatara and FukuyamaTatara97  have proposed a mechanism based on the suppression of weak localization. Using the dimensions of our nanowire in their theory gives a predicted wall resistance of $`\delta R/R=4\times 10^4`$, comparable to the measured value. However, it is unlikely that weak localization effects play a significant role at room temperature, indicating that an alternate explanation is required. van Gorkom *et al.*vanGorkom99  have proposed a semi-classical mechanism based around differing scattering relaxation times for the majority and minority spin channels. Depending on the ratio of these times, the wall resistance can be either negative or positive, with values in the range $`0.05<\delta R/R<0.1`$. This range encompasses the observed values in our nanowires, but in the absence of detailed information on the nature and density of the impurities in the nickel, we are unable to make a more precise comparison between the theory and our data.

Another effect that can provide negative wall resistance is the AMR contribution from the spins inside the wall itself.Hong98 ; Taniyama99  Based on the MFM results shown in Fig. 12, the domain wall width in the bent wires is on the order of $`1\mu \mathrm{m}`$. Given the straight wire satuartion magnetoresistance of $`\mathrm{\Delta }R/R=1.5\%`$, this corresponds to a decrease in the resistance of $`8\mathrm{m}\mathrm{\Omega }`$, approximately one third of the decrease actually observed. Thus, while it appears that AMR plays a significant role in the resistance shift, it seems likely that there are other mechanisms contributing to this effect and that further investigation is necessary to determine its cause.

## V Conclusions

In summary, we examined the magnetotransport properties of straight and bent ferromagnetic nanowires. It was determined that the switching behavior of the straight nanowires is consistent with the curling-mode reversal of a small volume, followed by propagation throughout the wire bulk. The bent wires showed qualitatively similar behavior, with modifications from the intersegment interactions. For both the straight and bent nanowires, the location of the switching events in $`(H,\theta )`$ were found to be independent of which variable was being swept. The magnetic properties of the bent wires were dependent on the domain configuration at the bend; the energetic cost of nucleating a domain wall acts to increasd the observed switching field compared to a straight wire at equivalent orientations. There is also a change in the resistance associated with the domain configuration; the resistance is lower when a domain wall is present. Further investigation is needed to determine the mechanism of this reduction, including examination of wires of differing diameters and possible studies of the dynamics of the reversal. Thus it appears that magnetic nanowires are a fruitful system for future studies of reversal dynamics and the effects of domain walls in ferromagnets.

## VI Acknowledgments

We thank M. Stiles and P. Searson for illuminating discussions. This work was supported by NSF Grant No. DMR–0080031.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

It is known  that the eight-dimensional isotropic oscillator  with constraint is dual to the five-dimensional Coulomb problem in the discrete spectrum. This property is a particular case of a more general statement which says that the eight-dimensional isotropic oscillator (without additional constraint)is dual to the five-dimensional non-Abelian Yang monopole . Similarly, it is possible to show that the eight-dimensional repulsive oscillator ($`U=\mu \omega ^2r^2/2`$) with constraint is dual to the five-dimensional Coulomb problem in the continuous spectrum. This fact, just as for the bound states, later was named the Coulomb-oscillator duality. Due to the $`so(5,1)`$ hidden symmetry the Coulomb problem can be factorized not only in hyperspherical but also in parabolic coordinates. The presence of the parabolic basis makes possible to construct the scattering theory for the charged particle in the five-dimensional Coulomb field. But the dyon-oscillator duality is inherent not only in the $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^8\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^5`$ mapping but also in the mappings $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^1\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^1`$, $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^2\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^2`$, and $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^4\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^3`$. As a result, we obtain one- and two-dimensional anions in the first two cases  and the Dirac’s monopole in the third .

This article has the following structure. In section 2 it is shown that the eight-dimensional repulsive oscillator is dual to the five-dimensional Coulomb problem for the continuous spectrum. Section 3 presents the wave functions in five-dimensional hyperspherical and parabolic coordinates. In section 4 the quantum mechanical problem of the scattering of the charged particle in the five-dimensional Coulomb field is considered. The formulae for the amplitude scattering and cross section are calculated.

## 2 Coulomb-oscillator duality

Let us consider the Hurwitz transformation :

$`x_0`$ $`=`$ $`u_0^2+u_1^2+u_2^2+u_3^2u_4^2u_5^2u_6^2u_7^2,`$
$`x_2+ix_1`$ $`=`$ $`2\left[\left(u_0+iu_1\right)\left(u_5+iu_4\right)+\left(u_2iu_3\right)\left(u_7iu_6\right)\right],`$ (2.1)
$`x_4+ix_3`$ $`=`$ $`2\left[\left(u_0+iu_1\right)\left(u_7+iu_6\right)+\left(u_2iu_3\right)\left(u_5iu_4\right)\right].`$
Here $`u_\mu (\mu =0,1,\mathrm{},7)`$ are the coordinates of the space $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^8(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{u}})`$, and $`x_i(i=0,1,\mathrm{}4)`$, of the space $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^5(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{x}})`$. It is easily seen from (2) that the following equality holds:

$`u^4=\left(u_0^2+u_1^2+\mathrm{}+u_7^2\right)^2=x_0^2+x_1^2+\mathrm{}+x_4^2=r^2,`$ (2.2)
which is called the Euler identity. According to , the connection of the Laplace operators in the spaces $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^8`$ and $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^5`$ has the form

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_8=4r\mathrm{\Delta }_5{\displaystyle \frac{4}{r}}\widehat{J}^2,`$ (2.3)
where $`\widehat{J}^2=\widehat{J}_1^2+\widehat{J}_2^2+\widehat{J}_3^2`$, and

$`\widehat{J}_1={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\left(u_1{\displaystyle \frac{}{u_0}}u_0{\displaystyle \frac{}{u_1}}+u_3{\displaystyle \frac{}{u_2}}u_2{\displaystyle \frac{}{u_3}}+u_5{\displaystyle \frac{}{u_4}}u_4{\displaystyle \frac{}{u_5}}+u_7{\displaystyle \frac{}{u_6}}u_6{\displaystyle \frac{}{u_7}}\right),`$
$`\widehat{J}_2={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\left(u_2{\displaystyle \frac{}{u_0}}u_3{\displaystyle \frac{}{u_1}}u_0{\displaystyle \frac{}{u_2}}+u_1{\displaystyle \frac{}{u_3}}u_6{\displaystyle \frac{}{u_4}}+u_7{\displaystyle \frac{}{u_5}}+u_4{\displaystyle \frac{}{u_6}}u_5{\displaystyle \frac{}{u_7}}\right),`$ (2.4)
$`\widehat{J}_3={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\left(u_3{\displaystyle \frac{}{u_0}}+u_2{\displaystyle \frac{}{u_1}}u_1{\displaystyle \frac{}{u_2}}u_0{\displaystyle \frac{}{u_3}}u_7{\displaystyle \frac{}{u_4}}u_6{\displaystyle \frac{}{u_5}}+u_5{\displaystyle \frac{}{u_6}}+u_4{\displaystyle \frac{}{u_7}}\right).`$
Using the explicit form of the operators one can prove by a direct calculation that the operators $`\widehat{J}_1`$, $`\widehat{J}_2`$ and $`\widehat{J}_3`$ satisfy the commutation relations

$`[\widehat{J}_a,\widehat{J}_b]=iϵ_{abc}\widehat{J}_c,`$
where $`a,b`$ and $`c`$ are equal 1, 2 and 3, respectively.

Now let us connect the eight-dimensional problem of repulsive oscillator

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu }}\mathrm{\Delta }_8{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \omega ^2u^2}{2}}\right)\psi (\stackrel{}{u})=E\psi (\stackrel{}{u})`$ (2.5)
with the five-dimensional Coulomb problem. Since, the operators $`\widehat{J}_a`$ are independent of the coordinates $`x_i`$, we can represent the wave function $`\psi (\stackrel{}{u})`$ of the eight-dimensional repulsive oscillator in the following factorized form

$`\psi (\stackrel{}{u})=\psi (\stackrel{}{r})\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{\Omega }_a),`$ (2.6)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_a`$ denotes the angles, on which the operators $`\widehat{J}_a`$ depend, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{\Omega }_a)`$ is the eigenfunction of the operator $`\widehat{J}^2`$, i.e.

$`\widehat{J}^2\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{\Omega }_a)=J(J+1)\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{\Omega }_a).`$ (2.7)
Here $`J(J+1)`$ are the eigenvalues of the operator $`\widehat{J}^2`$. Now, substituting (2.3) into (2.5) and taking into account (2.7) we arrive at the equation

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu }}\mathrm{\Delta }_5{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu r^2}}J(J+1)\right]\psi (\stackrel{}{r})=\epsilon \psi (\stackrel{}{r}),`$ (2.8)
where $`\epsilon =\mu _0\omega ^2/8`$ and $`4e^2=E`$. Thus, we obtain that the eight-dimensional repulsive oscillator is dual to the infinite number of five-dimensional Coulomb systems with additional terms $`1/r^2`$ and with coupling constant $`\mathrm{}^2J(J+1)/2\mu `$. At $`J=0`$ we arrive at the equation for the ordinary Coulomb problem:

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu }}\mathrm{\Delta }_5{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{r}}\right)\psi (\stackrel{}{r})=\epsilon \psi (\stackrel{}{r}),`$ (2.9)
The condition $`J=0`$ is equivalent to requirement $`\widehat{J}_a\psi (\stackrel{}{u})=0`$. Moreover, it follows from (2) that $`\psi (\stackrel{}{x})`$ is the even function of variables $`u`$

$`\psi \left(\stackrel{}{x}(\stackrel{}{u})\right)=\psi \left(\stackrel{}{x}(\stackrel{}{u})\right).`$ (2.10)
## 3 Hyperspherical and parabolic bases

Let us introduce the five dimensional hyperspherical coordinates in $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^5`$ as follows:

$`x_0`$ $`=`$ $`r\mathrm{cos}\theta `$
$`x_2+ix_1`$ $`=`$ $`r\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2}}e^{i\frac{\alpha \gamma }{2}}`$ (3.1)
$`x_4+ix_3`$ $`=`$ $`r\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2}}e^{i\frac{\alpha +\gamma }{2}},`$
where $`r[0,\mathrm{})`$, $`\theta [0,\pi ]`$, $`\alpha [0,2\pi )`$, $`\beta [0,\pi ]`$, $`\gamma [0,4\pi )`$. In this coordinates the differential elements of length, volume and Laplace operator have the form

$`dl_5^2`$ $`=`$ $`dr^2+r^2d\theta ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{4}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \left(d\alpha ^2+d\beta ^2+d\gamma ^2+2\mathrm{cos}\beta d\alpha d\gamma \right),`$ (3.2)
$`dV_5`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r^4}{8}}\mathrm{sin}^3\theta \mathrm{sin}\beta drd\theta d\alpha d\beta d\gamma ,`$ (3.3)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_5`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}\left(r^4{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2\mathrm{sin}^3\theta }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta }}\left(\mathrm{sin}^3\theta {\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta }}\right){\displaystyle \frac{4\widehat{L}^2}{r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }},`$ (3.4)
where

$`\widehat{L}^2=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\beta ^2}}+\mathrm{cot}\beta {\displaystyle \frac{}{\beta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2\beta }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\alpha ^2}}2\mathrm{cos}\beta {\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\alpha \gamma }}+{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\gamma ^2}}\right)\right].`$ (3.5)
The components of the momentum operator $`\widehat{\text{L}}`$ have the form

$`\widehat{L}_1`$ $`=`$ $`i\left(\mathrm{cos}\alpha \mathrm{cot}\beta {\displaystyle \frac{}{\alpha }}+\mathrm{sin}\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\alpha }{\mathrm{sin}\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\gamma }}\right)`$
$`\widehat{L}_2`$ $`=`$ $`i\left(\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{cot}\beta {\displaystyle \frac{}{\alpha }}\mathrm{cos}\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\alpha }{\mathrm{sin}\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\gamma }}\right)`$ (3.6)
$`\widehat{L}_3`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{}{\alpha }},\widehat{L}_3^{}=i{\displaystyle \frac{}{\gamma }},`$
The solution of the equation (2.9) in hyperspherical coordinates (3) has the following form

$`\psi _{k\lambda Lmm^{}}(r,\theta ,\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2L+1}{2\pi ^2}}}R_{k\lambda }\left(r\right)Z_{\lambda L}\left(\theta \right)D_{mm^{}}^L(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ),`$ (3.7)
where Wigner D-function, normalized by the condition

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}{\displaystyle \left|D_{mm^{}}^L(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )\right|^2\mathrm{sin}\beta d\alpha d\beta d\gamma }={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^2}{2L+1}}`$ (3.8)
is the eigenfunction of the set commuting operators $`\widehat{L}^2,\widehat{L}_3`$ and $`\widehat{L}_3^{}`$ . The function $`Z_{\lambda L}\left(\theta \right)`$ is given by the formula

$`Z_{\lambda L}\left(\theta \right)=2^{2L+1}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(2L+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\right)\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{(2\lambda +3)(\lambda 2L)!}{2\pi (\lambda +2L+2)!}}}(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{2L}C_{\lambda 2L}^{2L+3/2}\left(\mathrm{cos}\theta \right),`$ (3.9)
where $`C_n^\lambda (x)`$ are Gegenbauer polynomials, and quantum number $`\lambda `$ assumes the values $`\lambda =2L,2L+1,\mathrm{}.`$

The radial wave function for the continuous spectrum has the form

$`R_{k\lambda }(r)=C_{k\lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{(2ikr)^\lambda }{(2\lambda +3)!}}\mathrm{e}^{ikr}F(\lambda +2+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{ak}};2\lambda +4;2ikr),`$ (3.10)
where $`k=\sqrt{2\mu ϵ}/\mathrm{}`$, and $`a=\mathrm{}^2/\mu e^2`$ is the Bohr radius.

The representation for the confluent hypergeometric function is

$`F(a;c;z)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(c)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(ca)}}(z)^aG(a;ac+1;z)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(c)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(a)}}\mathrm{e}^zz^{ac}G(ca;1a;z),`$ (3.11)
where

$`G(a;c;z)=1+{\displaystyle \frac{ac}{1!z}}+{\displaystyle \frac{a(a+1)c(c+1)}{2!z^2}}+\mathrm{},`$ (3.12)
makes it possible to obtain the following expression for $`R_{k\lambda }(r)`$:

$`R_{k\lambda }(r)=C_{k\lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{(i)^\lambda }{2k^2r^2}}\mathrm{e}^{\pi /2ak}\mathrm{}e\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{i\left[kr\frac{\pi }{2}(\lambda +2)+\frac{1}{ak}\mathrm{ln}2kr\right]}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\lambda +2\frac{i}{ak}\right)}}G(\lambda +2{\displaystyle \frac{i}{ak}};{\displaystyle \frac{i}{ak}}\lambda 1;2ikr)\right\}.`$ (3.13)
The normalization constant $`C_{k\lambda }`$ is

$`C_{k\lambda }=(i)^\lambda 4k^2\mathrm{e}^{\pi /2ak}\left|\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\lambda +2{\displaystyle \frac{i}{ak}}\right)\right|.`$ (3.14)
if the normalization condition for the radial wave function is

$`{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}r^4R_{k^{}\lambda }^{}(r)R_{k\lambda }(r)𝑑r=2\pi \delta \left(kk^{}\right).`$ (3.15)
If we now let $`r\mathrm{}`$ in formula (3.13) and restrict ourselves to the first term of the expansion, we obtain the asymptotic expression

$`R_{k\lambda }(r){\displaystyle \frac{2}{r^2}}\mathrm{sin}\left[kr+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ak}}\mathrm{ln}2kr{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}(\lambda +1)+\delta _\lambda \right]`$ (3.16)
for the radial wave function $`R_{k\lambda }(r)`$, where

$`\delta _\lambda =\mathrm{arg}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\lambda +2{\displaystyle \frac{i}{ak}}\right).`$ (3.17)
Now, we define the parabolic coordinates in $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^5`$ as

$`x_0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\xi \eta \right),x_2+ix_1=\sqrt{\xi \eta }\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2}}e^{i\frac{\alpha \gamma }{2}},x_4+ix_3=\sqrt{\xi \eta }\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2}}e^{i\frac{\alpha +\gamma }{2}},`$ (3.18)
where $`\xi ,\eta [0,\mathrm{})`$. The differential elements of length and volume and Laplace operator in the terms of these coordinates can be written as

$`dl_5^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\xi +\eta }{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\xi ^2}{\xi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{d\eta ^2}{\eta }}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\xi \eta }{4}}\left(d\beta ^2+d\alpha ^2+2\mathrm{cos}\beta d\alpha d\gamma +d\gamma ^2\right)`$ (3.19)
$`dV_5`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\xi \eta }{32}}(\xi +\eta )\mathrm{sin}\beta d\xi d\eta d\beta d\alpha d\gamma `$ (3.20)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_5`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\xi +\eta }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\xi }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\xi }}\left(\xi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{}{\xi }}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\eta }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\eta }}\left(\eta ^2{\displaystyle \frac{}{\eta }}\right)\right]{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\xi \eta }}\widehat{L}^2`$ (3.21)
Then the equation (2.9) in the parabolic coordinates (3.18) has the form

$`\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\xi +\eta }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\xi }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\xi }}\left(\xi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{}{\xi }}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\eta }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\eta }}\left(\eta ^2{\displaystyle \frac{}{\eta }}\right){\displaystyle \frac{4\widehat{L}^2}{\xi \eta }}\right]\right\}\psi +{\displaystyle \frac{2\mu }{\mathrm{}^2}}\left(\epsilon +{\displaystyle \frac{2e^2}{\xi +\eta }}\right)\psi =0.`$ (3.22)
After the substitution

$`\psi (\xi ,\eta ,\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )=\mathrm{\Phi }_1(\xi )\mathrm{\Phi }_2(\eta )D_{mm^{}}^L(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ),`$ (3.23)
the variables in Eq.(3.22) are separated, and we arrive at the set of differential equations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\xi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\xi }}\left(\xi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }_1}{d\xi }}\right)+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{4}}\xi {\displaystyle \frac{L(L+1)}{\xi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\mu }}{2\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{\Omega }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2a}}\right]\mathrm{\Phi }_1=0`$
(3.24)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\eta }}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\eta }}\left(\eta ^2{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }_2}{d\eta }}\right)+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{4}}\eta {\displaystyle \frac{L(L+1)}{\eta }}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\mu }}{2\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{\Omega }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2a}}\right]\mathrm{\Phi }_2=0,`$
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the parabolic separation constant. The function $`\psi (\xi ,\eta ,\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )`$ normalized by the condition

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \psi _{k^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^{}L_1m_1m_1^{}}^{}\psi _{k\mathrm{\Omega }Lmm^{}}\xi \eta (\xi +\eta )𝑑\xi 𝑑\eta }=2\pi \delta \left(kk^{}\right)\delta \left(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\right)\delta _{LL_1}\delta _{mm_1}\delta _{m^{}m_1^{}}`$ (3.25)
leads to the parabolic basis

$`\psi _{k\mathrm{\Omega }Lmm^{}}(\xi ,\eta ,\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2L+1}{2\pi ^2}}}_{k\mathrm{\Omega }L}\mathrm{\Phi }_{k\mathrm{\Omega }L}(\xi )\mathrm{\Phi }_{k\mathrm{\Omega }L}(\eta )D_{mm^{}}^L(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ),`$ (3.26)
where

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{k\mathrm{\Omega }L}(x)={\displaystyle \frac{(ikx)^L}{(2L+1)!}}\mathrm{e}^{ikx/2}F(L+1+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2ak}}+{\displaystyle \frac{i\sqrt{\mu }}{2\mathrm{}k}}\mathrm{\Omega };2L+2;ikx),`$ (3.27)
$`C_{k\mathrm{\Omega }L}=(1)^L\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2k^3}{2\pi \mu }}}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\pi }{2ak}}\left|\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(L+1{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2ak}}{\displaystyle \frac{i\sqrt{\mu }}{2\mathrm{}k}}\mathrm{\Omega }\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(L+1{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2ak}}+{\displaystyle \frac{i\sqrt{\mu }}{2\mathrm{}k}}\mathrm{\Omega }\right)\right|.`$ (3.28)
We calculate the normalization constant $`C_{k\mathrm{\Omega }L}`$ using the representation (3.11).

## 4 The 5-dimensional generalization of the Rutherford’s formula

We now consider the scattering problem of a charged particle in the five-dimensional Coulomb field. Since the motion in Coulomb field of arbitrary dimensions $`d3`$ is two-dimensional problem, the wave function is independent of the angles $`\alpha ,\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$, i.e. independent of the quantum numbers $`L,m`$ and $`m^{}`$. Substituting $`L=0`$ in Eqs. (3), we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\xi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\xi }}\left(\xi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }_1}{d\xi }}\right)+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{4}}\xi +{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\mu }}{2\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{\Omega }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2a}}\right]\mathrm{\Phi }_1=0`$
(4.1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\eta }}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\eta }}\left(\eta ^2{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }_2}{d\eta }}\right)+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{4}}\eta {\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\mu }}{2\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{\Omega }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2a}}\right]\mathrm{\Phi }_2=0,`$
We seek such solutions of Eqs. (4) that the solution of the Schrödinger equation for negative $`x_0(\mathrm{};0)`$ and large $`r\mathrm{}`$ has the form of a flat wave:

$`\psi _{k\mathrm{\Omega }}(\xi ,\eta )e^{ikx_0}=e^{\frac{ik}{2}(\xi \eta )}.`$ (4.2)
This condition can be satisfied if we set the parabolic separation constant equal to

$`\mathrm{\Omega }={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{a\sqrt{\mu }}}i{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{}k}{\sqrt{\mu }}}.`$ (4.3)
Substituting this relation in Eqs. (4), we obtain a solution of the Schrödinger equation that describes the scattering of a charged particle in the five-dimensional Coulomb field:

$`\psi _k(\xi ,\eta )=_ke^{\frac{ik}{2}(\xi \eta )}F({\displaystyle \frac{i}{ak}};2;ik\eta ),`$ (4.4)
where $`C_k`$ is the normalization constant. To separate the incident and scattered waves in function (4.4), we must investigate the behavior of this function at large distances from the scattering center. Using the first two terms in representation (3.11) for a confluent hypergeometric function, we obtain

$`F({\displaystyle \frac{i}{ak}};2;ik\eta )e^{\frac{\pi }{2ak}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\frac{i}{ak}\mathrm{ln}k\eta }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(2\frac{i}{ak}\right)}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1+iak}{ia^2k^3\eta }}{\displaystyle \frac{1+a^2k^2}{2a^4k^6\eta ^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{i(ak+i)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(2+\frac{i}{ak}\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{ik\eta }}{a^2k^4\eta ^2}}e^{\frac{i}{ak}\mathrm{ln}k\eta }\right].`$ (4.5)
for the large $`\eta `$. We now substitute this relation in wave function 4.4) and select the normalization constant $`C_k`$ in the form

$`C_k=e^{\pi /2ak}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(2{\displaystyle \frac{i}{ak}}\right)`$ (4.6)
for the incident wave to have a unit amplitude. Using the formulae $`r=(\xi +\eta )/2`$ and $`\eta =rx_0=r(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$ to change to spherical coordinates, we obtain

$`\psi _k(\xi ,\eta )=\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{aki}{2a^2k^3r\mathrm{sin}^2\theta /2}}\right]\mathrm{exp}\left[ikx_0{\displaystyle \frac{i}{ak}}\mathrm{ln}\left(2kr\mathrm{sin}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}\right)\right]+`$ (4.7)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{f(\theta )}{r^2}}\mathrm{exp}\left[ikr+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{ak}}\mathrm{ln}(2kr)\right],`$ (4.8)
where $`f(\theta )`$ is the scattering amplitude,

$`f(\theta )={\displaystyle \frac{(1iak)}{4a^2k^4\mathrm{sin}^2\theta /2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(2i/ak\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(2+i/ak\right)}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2i}{ak}}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}\right).`$ (4.9)
Therefore, for the scattering cross section $`d\sigma =\left|f(\theta )\right|^2d\mathrm{\Omega }`$ ($`d\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the element of the solid angle), we obtain the formula

$`d\sigma ={\displaystyle \frac{1+a^2k^2}{16a^4k^8\mathrm{sin}^8\theta /2}}d\mathrm{\Omega },`$ (4.10)
which generalizes the Rutherford’s formula in five-dimensional case.

Acknowledgements. The work is carried out with the support of ANSEF No: PS81 grant.