text:
# Anomaly Free Gauged 𝑆𝑈(4)_𝐿×𝑈(1)_𝑋 Models with Little Higgs

## Abstract

We present an analysis showing how anomaly free fermionic spectra with consistent embeddings of the Standard Model spectrum under $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_YSU(3)_C\times SU(N)_L\times U(1)_X`$ for any $`N>2`$ can be obtained, with special focus on the $`N=3\text{and}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}`$ cases. The construction is motivated by the little Higgs mechanism. We discuss the relevancy of the fermionic spectra to the latter, concentrating on two $`N=4`$ models, without fermions of exotic charges. Such models hold the promise to address and solve all the major theoretical as well as phenomenological problems of the Standard Model at the TeV scale.

preprint:   NCU-HEP-k010 Aug 2003

The phenomenologically overwhelmingly successful Standard Model (SM) has a few theoretically shortcomings. The latter motivates many high energy theorists looking for beyond SM structures that could help us understand basically why some of the parameters in the SM have the values they have. The Higgs sector parameters, in particular, are haunted by the hierarchy problem, or the very un-natural fine-tuning required due to the quadratically divergent quantum corrections to the Higgs boson mass. The fine-tuning problem can be alleviated, only if there is new physics at the TeV scale that guarantee the cancellation of the quadratic divergence to an acceptable level, or totally change our picture of SM physics. A guaranteed cancellation has to come from some mechanism protected by a symmetry. Candidates of the kind include supersymmetry, and the recently proposed little Higgs mechanismdd ; S . The fermion sector also has a very puzzling flavor problem. Finally one may worry about the strong CP problemscp .

To appreciate the flavor problem, we want to emphasize first that the SM has fermions of three families each has the same set of quantum numbers intricately connected among the family by chiral gauge anomaly cancellation conditions. This is well illustrated by the following argument. Assuming the existence of a multiplet having nontrivial charges under each part of the $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ SM gauge group and asking simply for the minimal chiral spectrum with all the gauge anomaly canceled, one would arrive at the spectrum of a SM family as the only solutionunc67 . So, the first fundamental question of the flavor problem is why there are three families, instead of one. The next step in the direction would be to understand the values of the set of flavor parameters and the strong hierarchy among them. In this aspect, there is a notion related to the hierarchy problem (of the Higgs sector parameters). Namely, only the third family fermions may have a significant role to play in the latter problem. The first two families are simply coupled to the Higgs boson too weakly. This is suggestive that the third family might be different from the first two.

The idea of connecting the three families through gauge anomaly cancellations of an extended gauge group is related to many interesting modelsunc67 ; SVS ; 331 ; FLT ; unifi ; unc . For the benefit of the present perspective, we note the following two approaches. Firstly, Ref.unc67  treats the three families on the same footing while trying to duplicate the structure of the one-family SM spectrum (as presented above) for a three-family embedding generic $`SU(N)\times SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)`$ gauge symmetry ($`N=4`$ or otherwise). The existence of family-changing gauge bosons says that such models could not be relevant till a scale of about $`200`$TeV. Treating the third family (quarks) different, Refs.SVS ; 331 ; FLT  have $`SU(3)_C\times SU(3)_L\times U(1)_X`$ models that leave $`SU(2)_L`$ singlets mostly as $`SU(3)_L`$ singlets. Arguably, such model spectra are not particularly appealing, though they do tie the three families together. In fact, as we will show below, the two models are only examples of a one-parameter class of infinite number of models. However, such a model has a scale of relevancy at about a TeV. None of these extended fermion models addresses the hierarchy problem, though one could always incorporate supersymmetry other wise.

On the other hand, the recent little Higgs model-building game has not been paying quite enough attention to the fermion sector and the all important issue of gauge anomaly cancellations. Looking at it as a effective field theory at the TeV scale without bothering about the strong dynamics behind it, a little Higgs model needs at least an extra top-like quark with some appropriate (global) symmetry to cancel the quadratic divergence from the top itself. Extra gauge bosons may also be needed to cancel the quadratic divergence from the electroweak gauge bosons. So, a little Higgs model does have an extended gauge symmetry with extra fermions. To figure out the flavor structure of such a model, one does need to know the full quantum numbers of the SM fields. As pointed out in our earlier paper009 , the construction of the full fermion spectrum is nontrivial and unavoidable. A simple family universal embedding typically leaves nonvanishing gauge anomalies. Cancelling the latter by adding extra fermionic multiplets does not guarantee that no phenomenologically unacceptable extra SM chiral fermion would be introduced. To have a complete and consistent model, we are forced to address the flavor question at the same time. Consistent model solutions then hold promise to be models that address all the major theoretical, as well as phenomenological, problems of the SM at an very accessible energy scale. Such a model spectrum typically also contains extra $`SU(2)_L`$ singlet neutrino states, and new interactions involving the SM neutrinos. Hence, it also provides a bonus for understanding neutrino physics at the same low energy scale. It is our focus here to look into relevant fermionic spectra of the type that do have the consistent gauge anomaly cancellations.

Following Ref.009 , we take the group theoretically simple little Higgs model(s) introduced in Ref.KS  and try to constructed compatible anomaly free fermionic spectra to complete the consistent TeV scale models, without bothering about the strong dynamics suggested to be behind the picture at the scale of tens of TeV. Ref.KS  starts with a model with as $`SU(3)_C\times SU(3)_L\times U(1)_X`$ gauge symmetry, the consistent fermionic spectrum of which we discussed in Ref.009 . The $`SU(3)_L`$ model has a difficulty on the Higgs quartic coupling. The latter motivated the authors to extend the little Higgs construction to a model with an $`SU(3)_C\times SU(4)_L\times U(1)_X`$ gauge symmetryKS . Here, we present an analysis showing how anomaly free fermionic spectra with consistent embeddings of the SM spectrum under $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_YSU(3)_C\times SU(N)_L\times U(1)_X`$ for any $`N>2`$ can be obtained, with special focus on the $`N=3\text{and}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}`$ cases. By a consistent embedding, we mean that the full fermion spectrum does yield the three families SM fermions together with extra states that are vectorlike after the gauge symmetry is broken to that of the SM. While such models can be considered to be of interest in their own right, those among them that could serve as little Higgs models are considered to be more interesting. After presenting the fermionic spectra construction, we will take a look at such little Higgs models.

As said above, a little Higgs model typically has an extra top-like quark $`T`$ to cancel the quadratic divergence from the top itself. The way to do it as presented in Ref.KS  is to extend the $`t`$-$`b`$ quark doublet to a fundamental representation of an $`SU(N)_L`$ multiplet with $`T`$ included. Take the $`N=4`$ example. The $`t`$-$`b`$ quark doublet of $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ is to be embedded into a $`SU(4)_L\times U(1)_X`$ quadruplet $`Q^a`$ as follows

$$4_L=\left(t^ab^aT^aT^a\right)^T$$
(1)
with an appropriate $`X`$-charge denoted by $`X_Q`$. The third state is the top-light quark $`T`$, with the usual electric charge of $`𝒬=\frac{2}{3}`$; and $`a`$ represent the $`SU(3)_C`$ index. Here, we keep the identity of the $`T^{}`$, i.e. its electric charge, unspecified for the moment. The vectorlike QCD spectrum is to be recovered by introducing the Dirac partners in $`SU(4)_L\times U(1)_X`$ singlets as

$$1_L=\overline{b}_a,\overline{t}_a,\overline{T}_a,\overline{T^{}}_a.$$
(2)
Their electric charge is to be given by their $`X`$-charge directly. The requirement amount to nothing other than a specific choice of $`X`$-charge normalization.

We are about to start on the discussion on constructing the anomaly free fermionic spectra. We want to emphasize here the construction we will discuss is generic. To be explicit, we will first relax the little Higgs mechanism requirement, i.e. we do not require the $`Q^a`$ quadruplet to contain the $`T`$ quark with electric charge $`\frac{2}{3}`$. We will return to models of interest in view of the little Higgs mechanism discussed in Ref.KS  afterwards.

The basic approach in the kind of model-building exploits the fact that

$$N_c=N_f;$$

namely, the number of SM families (of fermions) $`N_f`$ happens to coincide with the number of colors. While the extension of $`SU(2)_L`$ doublets into complex (anti-) fundamental representations $`N_L`$ or $`\overline{N}_L`$ of $`SU(N)_L`$ introduces nontrivial $`[SU(N)_L]^3`$ gauge anomaly, if the three families of quark doublets are embedded into one $`N_L`$ and two $`\overline{N}_L`$ representations, only one net colored-$`\overline{N}_L`$ multiplet is left to contribute to the anomaly which may then be canceled by putting the three families of leptonic doublets into $`N_L`$’s. We take $`N=4`$ here for an explicit illustration. Denote the nontrivial $`SU(4)_L`$ multiplets, apart from $`Q^a`$, by $`Q_k^a=\overline{4}_L`$ ($`k=1\text{or}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}`$) and $`L_i=4_L`$ ($`k=1\text{to}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3}`$), and their $`X`$-charges by $`X_Q^{}`$ and $`X_L`$ respectively. We have then

$$X_Q^{}=\frac{1}{3}X_Q$$
(3)
and

$$X_L=X_Q\frac{2}{3}$$
(4)
from the requirement for correct embedding of the $`SU(2)_L`$ doublets, or getting the right electric charge or hypercharge differences. In fact, we can take the electric charge embedding as given by

$$𝒬=\frac{1}{2}\lambda ^3+\frac{A}{3}\lambda ^8+\frac{B}{6}\lambda ^{15}+X,$$
(5)
with the normalization $`\mathrm{Tr}\{\lambda ^\mathrm{a}\lambda ^\mathrm{b}\}=2\delta ^{\mathrm{ab}}`$. The correct doublet embeddings require

$$A+B+X_Q=\frac{1}{6}$$
(6)
besides the given relationship among the $`X`$-charges. The latter gives $`X_Q+2X_Q^{}+X_L=0`$, an equation that also guarantees the cancellation of $`[SU(4)_L]^2U(1)_X`$ gauge anomaly (provided that $`N_c=N_f`$).

So far in our construction of the fermion spectrum, we are left with the freedom to specify $`X_Q`$ and $`A`$ (or equivalently $`B`$). Interestingly, we do not need to specify their values in order to obtain the full anomaly free spectrum if all one cares is to embed the full SM spectrum while allowing extra vectorlike pairs of $`SU(2)_L`$ singlet quarks and leptons of arbitrary electric charges. All we have to do is to finish the spectrum discussed so far with $`SU(4)_L`$ singlets required for the vectorlike pairings of all the fermions at the QCD and QED level. And this works essentially in the same way for the other $`N`$ values. There could be some redundancy in the full spectrum so obtained. Say, one does not need to put in Dirac partners for the SM neutrinos; singlets with no $`X`$-charges are as good as not being there; and vectorlike $`SU(4)_L`$ singlet lepton pairs that come up may be removed. To convince the readers that the anomaly cancellations do work, let us outline the mathematics. The $`[SU(3)_C]^3`$ anomaly vanishes as QCD is kept vectorlike. The kind of embedding by putting all Dirac partners of states in nontrivial $`SU(4)_L`$ representations as singlets, hence with $`𝒬=X`$, also guarantee cancellation of the $`[SU(3)_C]^2U(1)_X`$ gauge anomaly family by family. For the $`[grav]^2U(1)_X`$ anomaly, the trace of $`U(1)_X`$ charges for the quarks within each family is obviously just a scale factor different from that of $`[SU(3)_C]^2U(1)_X`$. We are hence left only with the leptonic contributions, which again cancel for each family. It is then obviously that the $`[U(1)_X]^3`$ anomaly has to vanish too — an explicit checking of the algebra could also be done.

We have illustrated above essentially the existence of infinite number of SM embeddings into $`SU(3)_C\times SU(N)_L\times U(1)_X`$ ($`N=4`$ or otherwise) that could be phenomenologically viable. For the $`N=4`$ case in particular, we still have the freedom to choose $`X_Q`$ and $`A`$ as we like. The discussion is presented in such a way that it is easy to see how similar constructions would work for any other $`N`$. For example, we can take $`N=3`$ and $`B=0`$, to remove the inadmissible $`\lambda _L^{15}`$ in Eq.(5). Choosing $`X_Q=\frac{1}{3}`$ then has $`A=\frac{1}{6}`$ as fixed by Eq.(6) giving the only extra quark in $`Q^a`$ as $`T`$ (electric charge $`\frac{2}{3}`$) and essentially the 331 little Higgs model as constructed in Ref.009  (see also Refs.SVS ; FLT ). We illustrate here again the full fermion spectrum in Table I. In fact, the (first) extra quark state in $`Q^a`$ always has $`𝒬=X_Q2A+(B)=\frac{1}{6}3A`$ \[cf. Eq.(6)\]. One can freely choose the value for this electric charge. The choice here fixes the value of $`A`$, which in turn fixes that of $`X_Q`$ through Eq.(6). Say, picking $`𝒬=\frac{5}{3}`$ gives $`A=\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`X_Q=\frac{2}{3}`$ yielding the fermion spectrum of Ref.331 . Hence, there is a one parameter class of such 331 models each containing a different extra (exotic) singlet quark. Only the one with exactly the $`T`$ quark, as discussed in Ref.009 , is relevant as a little Higgs model. For $`N>4`$, there have to be extra parameters similar to $`A`$ and $`B`$ in an extended Eq.(5). The structure of such anomaly free models are otherwise easy to appreciate.

Now, we focus on $`SU(4)_L\times U(1)_X`$ models with an interest in their compatibility with the little Higgs idea. We first note that the two extra quarks in $`Q^a`$ have electric charges $`X_Q2A+B(=\frac{1}{6}3A)`$ and $`X_Q3B`$, according to Eq.(5). We are free to choose their values, which in turn fixed the full anomaly free spectrum of a model. The little Higgs mechanism, as discussed in Ref.KS , requires a top-like $`T`$ quark with $`𝒬=\frac{2}{3}`$. Doing this fixes $`A=\frac{1}{6}`$. Ref.KS  suggests taking the fourth quark in $`Q^a`$ as having the same electric charge. Further imposing that is equivalent to taking $`X_Q=\frac{5}{12}`$ and $`B=\frac{1}{12}`$. Following our discussion above, one can easily obtain the full fermion spectrum (see Table II for an illustration). However, as the last quark of $`Q^a`$ suggested in Ref.KS  does not play a role in the quadratic divergence cancellation, the choice seems to be arbitrary. Giving the wide range of possible alternatives consistent spectra 111It may be of interest to note that one such $`SU(4)_L\times U(1)_X`$ model has actually been available in the literatureFLT . The model has the two extra quarks having electric charges $`\frac{2}{3}`$ and $`\frac{5}{3}`$, hence is like a combination of the two available $`SU(3)_L\times U(1)_X`$ modelsSVS ; 331 ; FLT . , we have to consider more seriously about the question of picking the one that is most desirable from the theoretical point of view. Moreover, apart from the choice of Ref.KS , there is another choice which looks a bit special— $`X_Q=\frac{1}{6}`$, $`A=\frac{1}{6}`$, and $`B=\frac{1}{6}`$, giving an extra bottom-like $`B`$ quark together with the $`T`$ quark. This is the second model spectrum we think may also be of special interest from the little Higgs perspective. The full fermion spectrum of the model is given in Table III.

For the little Higgs part of such models, let us see what we have from Ref.KS , which is fully compatible with the fermion spectrum of Table II. Four scalar quadruplets of the same quantum numbers are considered. The quantum numbers are such the quadruplets (or rather their conjugates) couple to the $`Q^a`$ quadruplet and the $`\overline{t}_a`$ or $`\overline{T}_a`$ singlet. Under our notation here, the $`4_L`$ scalars have $`X`$-charges given by $`X_Q\frac{2}{3}(=\frac{1}{4})`$. These are nonlinear sigma model fields that may be parametrized as \[cf. Eqs.(50,51) of Ref.KS \]

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_1=e^{+i_u{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{f_2}{f_1}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ f_1\\ 0\end{array}\right)\mathrm{\Phi }_2=e^{i_u{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{f_1}{f_2}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ f_2\\ 0\end{array}\right)`$ (15)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_1=e^{+i_d{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{f_4}{f_3}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ 0\\ f_3\end{array}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_2=e^{i_d{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{f_4}{f_3}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ 0\\ f_4\end{array}\right),`$ (24)
where $`_u`$ and $`_d`$ contain electroweak symmetry breaking doublets. For instance, we have the first order expansions

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& f_1& 0\end{array}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_2}{f_{12}}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}h_u& 0& 0& \end{array}\right)`$ (27)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_2^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& f_4\end{array}\right){\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_3}{f_{34}}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}h_d& 0& 0& \end{array}\right),`$ (30)
with similar expressions for $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1^{}`$; where $`f_{12}^2=f_1^2+f_2^2`$ and $`f_{34}^2=f_3^2+f_4^2`$, and $`h_u`$ and $`h_d`$ are two SM Higgs doublets. The essential feature here is the vacuum misalignment between the $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ pairs and the $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$ pairs. To keep this feature, the third and fourth states of the four scalar quadruplets must have the same vanishing hypercharge. Enforcing that is equivalent to enforcing the corresponding choice of the fermionic spectrum, i.e. with the fourth state in $`Q^a`$ being the also top-like (the $`T^{}`$). The little Higgs picture needs a collective symmetry breaking, with aligned VEVs for the $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$, as well as $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$, pair of Higgs multiplets. Beyond that, the existence of both aligned pair with generic, hence misaligned VEVs actually yields naturally the preserved $`U(1)`$ symmetry, to be identified as the hypercharge, under which the two states in the directions of the broken symmetries have vanishing charges. The choice of fermionic spectrum with three among the four states of a quadruplet having the same electric charge is hence more natural than it may look naively. So, the question is whether this is the only option for little Higgs idea to work.

From the above discussion, we can see that to take a different choice of the fermionic spectrum, we will have to change the content of the set of the symmetry breaking Higgs quadruplets as given by Eq.(24). To preserve the VEV misalignment Ref.KS  rely on to fix the (SM)Higgs quartic coupling, the fourth states of the $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$ pair have to be ones with zero hypercharge. This can be fixed by a suitable choice of their $`X`$-charges. The latter now has to be different from that of the $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ pair. Let us explore the possibility with the fermion spectrum of Table III. We still take the $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ pairs with $`X`$-charge given by $`\frac{1}{2}`$ to take care of the top-sector Yukawa couplings. Added to that, we can take a $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$ pair with $`X`$-charge given by $`\frac{1}{2}`$. The little Higgs mechanism together with the quartic coupling part as discussed in Ref.KS  should still work. Just like the original scenario, each of the four scalar quadruplets is related to a global $`SU(4)`$ symmetry that is broken to $`SU(3)`$ by its own VEV. Each pair gives rise to a SM Higgs doublet as pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone states of a collective breaking of the corresponding pair of $`SU(4)`$’s. The spectrum choice, however, dictates a different embedding of the SM gauge group and hence gives the $`h_d`$ doublet a different hypercharge. In the case discussed above, and in Ref.KS , $`h_d`$ actually has the same hypercharge as $`h_u`$ and does not couple to the down-sector quarks the way the latter couples to the up-sector, hence a somewhat abuse of notation. For the alternative case at hand, however, $`h_d`$ will be an $`h_d`$ literally. In fact, we have

$`_{bottom}`$ $`=`$ $`y_1\overline{b}_a\mathrm{\Psi }_1Q^a+y_2\overline{B}_a\mathrm{\Psi }_2Q^a`$ (33)
$`=`$ $`(f_3y_1\overline{b}_a+f_4y_2\overline{B}_a)B^a+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{f_4}{f_{34}}}y_1\overline{b}_a{\displaystyle \frac{f_3}{f_{34}}}y_2\overline{B}_a\right]h_d\left(\begin{array}{c}t^a\\ b^a\end{array}\right)+\mathrm{}`$
in exact analog to the top sector Yukawa couplings (note: $`\overline{b}`$ and $`\overline{B}`$ do not denote exact Dirac partners of $`b`$ and $`B`$ here).

At the electroweak scale, the models discussed have two Higgs doublets (plus some singlets). From the phenomenological point of view, two Higgs doublet models are prefered to have natural flavor conservation. There is also some indications that a large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ value is required2hdm . The latter implies large bottom Yukawa coupling. In that case, one does have to worry about the bottom loop contribution to the Higgs mass quadratic divergence. The Higgs structure of the model spectrum given by Table III discussed above could be a little Higgs model satisfying such requirements. The $`b`$-$`B`$ quark pair has canceled quadratic divergent contributions in exactly the same way as that of the $`t`$-$`T`$ quark pair. Hence, we consider the model to be an interesting alternative little Higgs model. A possible disadvantage of the model compared to the one above is that, unlike the latter (see Ref.009  for discussions of an analog case) the gauge quantum number assignments do not rule out renormalizable tree-level Yukawa couplings to SM quarks of the first two families. We hope to go into more detailed studies of the models discussed here in future publications.

To summarize, we have presented here how to construct SM extensions with viable fermionic spectra under an $`SU(3)_C\times SU(N)_L\times U(1)_X`$ gauge symmetry. The construction methodology is based on a family non-universal treatment, under which the gauge anomalies cancel among the three SM families in a nontrivial fashion. While such models could be of interested in their own right, our study is motivated by solving the hierarchy problem through the little Higgs mechanism. We also discussed the relevancy and basic features of some of such models as little Higgs models, with particular focus on two specific $`SU(4)_L`$ models. We believe that the phenomenology of the models should be studied in more details.

Our work is partially supported by the National Science Council of Taiwan, under grant numbers NSC 91-2112-M-008-042 and NSC 92-2112-M-044.

Table I : Fermion spectrum for the $`SU(3)_C\times SU(3)_L\times U(1)_X`$ model with little Higgs. Here, we give the hypercharges of the electroweak states, with SM doublets put in \[.\]’s. The other states are singlets. The normalization convention is $`𝒬=T_3+Y`$. Hence, singlets have hypercharges identical with electric charge $`𝒬`$. Other symbols are self-explanatory. Note that despite the notation, the fermions are not mass eigenstates. Mass mixings are expected.

|  | $`U(1)_Y`$-states | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`(\mathrm{𝟑}_𝐂,\mathrm{𝟑}_𝐋,\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟑}})`$ | $`\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟔}}`$\[$`Q`$\] | $`\frac{\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}`$($`T`$) |
| $`(\mathrm{𝟑}_𝐂,\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}}_𝐋,\mathrm{𝟎})`$ | $`\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟔}}`$\[2 $`Q`$\] | $`\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}`$($`D,S`$) |
| $`3(𝐥_𝐂,\mathrm{𝟑}_𝐋,\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟑}})`$ | $`\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}`$\[3 $`L`$\] | 0(3 $`N`$) |
| $`4(\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}}_𝐂,\mathrm{𝟏}_𝐋,\frac{\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟑}})`$ | $`\frac{\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}`$ ($`\overline{u},\overline{c},\overline{t},\overline{T}`$) | |
| $`5(\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}}_𝐂,\mathrm{𝟏}_𝐋,\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟑}})`$ | $`\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}`$ ($`\overline{d},\overline{s},\overline{b},\overline{D},\overline{S}`$) | |
| $`3(\mathrm{𝟏}_𝐂,\mathrm{𝟏}_𝐋,\mathrm{𝟏})`$ | $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ ($`e^+,\mu ^+,\tau ^+`$) | |

Table II : Fermion spectrum for a $`SU(3)_C\times SU(4)_L\times U(1)_X`$ model with little Higgs. Again, we give the hypercharges of the electroweak states, with SM doublets put in \[.\]’s. Basic notation is the same as that of Table I. Note that we separate in the last column a set of singlet quarks and leptons to which alternative choices may be a feasibility. In that case, one has to made adjustments to the some of the $`U(1)_X`$-charges, as discussed in the text (see also Table III).

|  | $`U(1)_Y`$-states | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`(\mathrm{𝟑}_𝐂,\mathrm{𝟒}_𝐋,\frac{\mathrm{𝟓}}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}})`$ | $`\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟔}}`$\[$`Q`$\] | $`\frac{\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}`$($`T`$) | $`\frac{\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}`$($`T^{}`$) |
| $`(\mathrm{𝟑}_𝐂,\overline{\mathrm{𝟒}}_𝐋,\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}})`$ | $`\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟔}}`$\[2 $`Q`$\] | $`\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}`$($`D,S`$) | $`\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}`$($`D^{},S^{}`$) |
| $`3(𝐥_𝐂,\mathrm{𝟒}_𝐋,\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟒}})`$ | $`\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}`$\[3 $`L`$\] | 0(3 $`N`$) | 0(3 $`N^{}`$) |
| $`5(\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}}_𝐂,\mathrm{𝟏}_𝐋,\frac{\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟑}})`$ | $`\frac{\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}`$ ($`\overline{u},\overline{c},\overline{t},\overline{T}`$) | | $`\frac{\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}`$ ($`\overline{T^{}}`$) |
| $`7(\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}}_𝐂,\mathrm{𝟏}_𝐋,\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟑}})`$ | $`\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}`$ ($`\overline{d},\overline{s},\overline{b},\overline{D},\overline{S}`$) | | $`\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}`$ ($`\overline{D^{}},\overline{S^{}}`$) |
| $`3(\mathrm{𝟏}_𝐂,\mathrm{𝟏}_𝐋,\mathrm{𝟏})`$ | $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ ($`e^+,\mu ^+,\tau ^+`$) | |  |

Table III : Fermion spectrum for another $`SU(3)_C\times SU(4)_L\times U(1)_X`$ model with little Higgs. Again, we give the hypercharges of the electroweak states, with SM doublets put in \[.\]’s. Basic notation is the same as that of Table II.

|  | $`U(1)_Y`$-states | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`(\mathrm{𝟑}_𝐂,\mathrm{𝟒}_𝐋,\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟔}})`$ | $`\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟔}}`$\[$`Q`$\] | $`\frac{\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}`$($`T`$) | $`\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}`$($`B`$) |
| $`(\mathrm{𝟑}_𝐂,\overline{\mathrm{𝟒}}_𝐋,\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟔}})`$ | $`\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟔}}`$\[2 $`Q`$\] | $`\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}`$($`D,S`$) | $`\frac{\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}`$($`U,C`$) |
| $`3(𝐥_𝐂,\mathrm{𝟒}_𝐋,\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}})`$ | $`\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}`$\[3 $`L`$\] | 0(3 $`N`$) | -1(3 $`E^{}`$) |
| $`6(\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}}_𝐂,\mathrm{𝟏}_𝐋,\frac{\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟑}})`$ | $`\frac{\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}`$ ($`\overline{u},\overline{c},\overline{t},\overline{T}`$) | | $`\frac{\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}`$ ($`\overline{U},\overline{C}`$) |
| $`6(\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}}_𝐂,\mathrm{𝟏}_𝐋,\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟑}})`$ | $`\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}`$ ($`\overline{d},\overline{s},\overline{b},\overline{D},\overline{S}`$) | | $`\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}`$ ($`\overline{B}`$) |
| $`6(\mathrm{𝟏}_𝐂,\mathrm{𝟏}_𝐋,\mathrm{𝟏})`$ | $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ ($`e^+,\mu ^+,\tau ^+`$) | | 1(3 $`E^+`$) |


format: text

text:
# High-Precision Photometry of the Gamma-Ray Burst 020813: The Smoothest Afterglow Yet

## 1 Introduction

Short-timescale variability in the optical afterglow of gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) can be a tool for understanding the details of GRB origins. The optical afterglow of a GRB stems from a relativistic blastwave as it slows down in the interstellar medium/stellar wind surrounding a source hypernova (e.g. Stanek et al. 2003; Matheson et al. 2003). Understanding variations in intensity of the optical afterglow, or lack thereof, can yield insights into the details of the interaction between GRBs and their surroundings (e.g. Wang & Loeb 1999). Such $`>10`$% variability has been observed by Holland et al. (2002) in GRB 011211 and by Bersier et al. (2003) in GRB 021004.

GRB 020813 was detected by the HETE2 at 2:44:19 UT on 2002 August 13 (Villasenor et al. 2002). Its optical afterglow was localized by Fox, Blake, & Price (2002) at $`\alpha _{2000}=19^h46^m41\stackrel{\mathrm{s}}{\mathrm{.}}88,\delta _{2000}=19\mathrm{°}36\mathrm{}05\mathrm{}`$. The properties of the burst and the afterglow have been described so far by Barth et al. (2003), Covino et al. (2003), Li et al. (2003) and Urata et al. (2003). Gladders & Hall (2002a,b) began taking optical data $`3.0`$hours after the event with the Baade 6.5-m telescope. These data had exceptionally good seeing and high signal-to-noise, and were made public by the authors via an anonymous ftp. We decided to use these high-quality data to investigate the possible presence of short-timescale variability in the afterglow. In this paper we find that between $`3.94.9`$hours after the burst the afterglow of GRB 020813 has been the smoothest yet, with rms deviations ranging from $`0.005`$mag for the $`R`$-band to $`0.007`$mag for the $`I`$-band, only marginally larger than the photometric scatter for nearby non-variable stars.

## 2 Observations and Data Reduction

The $`VRI`$ data were obtained with the Las Campanas Observatory Magellan Baade 6.5-m telescope equipped with the TEK5 camera by M. Gladders and P. Hall over two nights (Gladders & Hall 2003c). Thirty-seven 60 s exposures were taken of the afterglow the first night (11 in $`V`$, 10 in $`R`$, and 16 in $`I`$), and fifteen of the same length the second night (2 in $`V`$, 4 each in $`BR`$, and 5 in $`I`$). Since we were interested in the short-term variability, we decided not to reduce the second night’s data. According to the ftp posting111 ftp://ftp.ociw.edu/pub/gladders/GRB/GRB020813/README, they were overscan corrected, trimmed, de-biased, and flat fielded using calibration frames from the first night (August 13 UT). Also, a fringe frame was produced from other science observations on August 13 UT and was used to de-fringe the $`I`$-band data.

We used the DAOPHOT point-spread function fitting package (Stetson 1987, 1992) and the ISIS image subtraction package (Alard & Lupton 1998, Alard 2000) to reduce the data. We found excellent agreement between the two packages. For consistency, we used the photometry obtained with DAOPHOT throughout this paper. Images from the first night were brought to a common zero point using approximately 50 stars per image, providing very stable differential photometry. Our reduction of the Gladders & Hall data is listed in Table 1.

While this is not important for the current paper, for consistency we have calibrated our photometry to that of Covino et al. (2003). We notice that the reductions of Gladders & Hall’s $`R`$-band data by Covino et al. (2003) and by Li et al. (2003) differ by about $`0.09`$mag, with the Li et al. photometry being brighter.

## 3 Short Timescale Variations

We fitted a power-law to first night $`VRI`$ data; this yielded a local decay slope of $`0.77`$. This simple fit turns out to be a good description of the OT temporal behavior. In the $`R`$-band, the residuals from the power-law behavior are the smallest, with rms of $`0.005`$mag. The rms is slightly larger, $`0.006`$mag, for the $`V`$-band, and is the largest for the $`I`$-band, $`0.007`$mag. For comparison, nearby non-variable stars show rms scatter of $`0.003`$mag in the $`R`$-band, $`0.005`$mag in the $`I`$-band and $`0.007`$mag in the $`V`$-band. The observed deviations might be marginally significant for the $`RI`$-bands. However, these deviations are a factor of several smaller then the smallest deviations reported so far: for GRB 990510, $`R`$-band rms scatter of $`0.021`$mag was observed, with the largest deviation from the smooth decay being $`0.08`$mag (Stanek et al. 1999; see also Hjorth et al. 1999).

So far there have been two detections of short timescale variations in optical afterglows: GRB 011211 (Holland et al. 2002) and, especially clear, GRB 021004 (Bersier et al. 2003). Models have attempted to explain short timescale bumps and wiggles in optical GRB light curves, but given the smoothness of the curve presented here, consideration should be given to explaining very smooth curves as well. If ISM density fluctuations near the GRB explain the bumps and wiggles, the models must also allow for very uniform regions of ISM.

The data reduced here covers only an hour very early after the event, hence it cannot provide limits for later interaction with the ISM or other behavior. Longer-term, equally dense and high quality sampling would be appropriate for a better understanding of short-timescale variability over the course of the GRBs. Such data most likely already exist, for example for GRB 030329, which was very bright and observed intensively by numerous observers for many days. While the light curve of GRB 030329 was very bumpy on timescales of days, on timescales of hours the light curve was very smooth (e.g. Matheson et al. 2003).

We thank M. Gladders and P. Hall for making their data publicly available, which made this project possible. LTL thanks A. Bonanos for her unfailing assistance during the data reduction procedure. We thank D. Bersier, S. T. Holland and S. Jha for their comments on an earlier version of this paper. LTL was supported by a Harvard College Research Program Fellowship.


text:
# References

The current consensus that the Universe is undergoing accelerated expansion presents a challenge to the other current consensus that cosmology should be derivable from String/M-theory, which has 10 or 11-dimensional supergravity as its low-energy effective field theory. There are two aspects to this challenge. One arises from the fact that there is no known formulation of String/M-theory in a spacetime with a future cosmological event horizon , whereas this is a typical feature of universes undergoing late time eternal acceleration. Of course, we don’t know whether the accelerated expansion of the Universe will continue forever, so there is no real conflict with observations here. Still, it remains to find compactifications of String/M-theory for which the effective 4-dimensional theory admits a homogeneous and isotropic (FLRW) spacetime undergoing accelerated expansion, and the difficulty of finding such compactifications is the other aspect of the challenge posed by cosmic acceleration. Note that two periods of acceleration are required to explain both inflation in the early universe and acceleration in the current cosmological epoch.

To see what cosmic acceleration entails, consider, a 4-dimensional FLRW spacetime in standard coordinates. The metric is

$$ds^2=dt^2+S^2(t)\left[\left(1kr^2\right)^1dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2\right],$$
(1)
where $`S(t)`$ is the scale factor and $`k=1,0,1`$ depending on whether the universe is open, flat or closed, and $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2`$ is the $`SO(3)`$ invariant metric on the unit 2-sphere. A computation of the Ricci tensor shows that

$$R_{00}=_t^2S.$$
(2)
It follows that an accelerating universe requires $`R_{00}<0`$. However, the Einstein field equations imply that

$$R_{00}=\left(T_{00}+g^{ij}T_{ij}\right)$$
(3)
and the Strong Energy Condition (SEC) on the matter stress tensor requires the right hand side to be non-negative. Thus, accelerated expansion is possible in a universe governed by Einstein’s equations only if the matter in it violates the SEC.

From a purely 4-dimensional perspective the fundamental condition on the matter stress tensor is the Dominant Energy Condition (DEC), which requires $`p\rho `$ for a perfect fluid of pressure $`p`$ and energy density $`\rho `$. In contrast, the SEC requires only that $`p\frac{1}{3}\rho `$, and is typically violated in theories with a positive scalar potential $`V`$. For example, given a single scalar field $`\varphi `$ and the Lagrangian density

$$=\sqrt{detg}\left[\frac{1}{4}R\frac{1}{2}\left(\varphi \right)^2V\right],$$
(4)
the Einstein equations imply that

$$R_{00}=2[\left(_t\varphi \right)^2V].$$
(5)
If $`V>0`$ then $`R_{00}`$ will be negative whenever $`_t\varphi =0`$, implying an accelerating universe. There will always be some cosmological solutions for which $`_t\varphi `$ passes through zero. In fact, as will become clear in due course, such solutions are the rule rather than the exception! Thus, all one needs to get an accelerating universe from String/M-theory is a compactification for which the effective 4-dimensional theory has a positive scalar potential V, or at least one that is positive in some region of the space of scalar fields.

Although the SEC is in no way fundamental, in the sense that its violation would not imply a violation of fundamental physical principles, it is satisfied by the stress tensor of the D=10 and D=11 supergravities that serve as the low energy effective theories of String/M-theory222The ‘massive’ IIA supergravity is an exception but, for a reason to be explained later, this exception makes no difference.. This fact has consequences for the potential $`V`$ in the effective 4-dimensional theories that result from String/M-theory compactifications, as first pointed out in a 1985 article of Gibbons , and more recently by Maldacena and Nuñez . I will now summarize this ‘no-go theorem’. Consider a D-dimensional spacetime with metric

$$ds_D^2=\mathrm{\Omega }^2(y)ds_4^2(x)+ds_n^2(y)(n=D4)$$
(6)
where $`ds_4^2`$ is the metric of some 4-dimensional spacetime (with coordinates $`x`$), and $`ds_n^2`$ is the metric of some compact non-singular $`n`$-manifold $``$ (with coordinates $`y`$). The non-vanishing function $`\mathrm{\Omega }(y)`$ is a ‘warp factor’. A calculation shows that

$$R_{00}^{(D)}(x,y)=R_{00}(x)\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{\Omega }^2(y)_y^2\mathrm{\Omega }^4(y).$$
(7)
Multiplying by $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$ and integrating over $``$ we deduce that

$$\left[_{}\mathrm{\Omega }^2\right]R_{00}=_{}\mathrm{\Omega }^2R_{00}^{(D)},$$
(8)
and hence that $`R_{00}0`$ if $`R_{00}^{(D)}0`$.

This result might appear to rule out the possibility of an accelerating universe arising from compactification of 10 or 11-dimensional supergravity. In view of our earlier remark that acceleration is always possible when the 4-dimensional scalar potential $`V`$ is positive, this would be equivalent to the statement that the potential arising from such compactifications is never positive, a statement that is false, and was known to be false well before the no-go theorem was formulated. In fact333This point was made in , in a note added to the published version; it has also been made, independently, in ., all that can be inferred about the potential $`V`$ is that it has no stationary points with $`V>0`$. To see that a positive potential without a stationary point is not excluded, it suffices to note that the field equations imply, under the given circumstances, that at least one scalar field is time-dependent. This scalar field could be one that arises from the mode expansion on the compact manifold $``$, in which case the metric on $``$ will be time-dependent. But the theorem assumed time-independent $``$, and is therefore not applicable. One can see from this that the no-go theorem is actually a very weak constraint on the positive potentials that might, in principle, arise from compactification of String/M-theory! There are many potentials that it would allow but which, nevertheless, do not seem to be obtainable. For example, for many compactifications there is a consistent truncation to a single scalar field $`\varphi `$ with a potential of the form

$$V=\mathrm{\Lambda }e^{2a\varphi }(\mathrm{\Lambda }>0)$$
(9)
for (dilaton coupling) constant $`a`$ (which we may assume to be positive). Any value of $`a`$ would be permitted by the no-go theorem but only $`a>1`$ arises in practice. This might be expected on the grounds that $`a<1`$ allows an eternally accelerating cosmology with a future event horizon. This suggests the conjecture that such (Einstein conformal frame) spacetimes cannot arise from classical compactification of String/M-theory; if true (there is no known counterexample) this would impose much stronger constraints on the potential $`V`$ than the no-go theorem. In particular, it would exclude $`a<1`$ (but not $`a=1`$, as will be shown later).

Let us now turn to the question of how one gets positive potentials from (classical) compactification of higher-dimensional theories satisfying the SEC. These arise in one of two ways:

* Flux compactifications: in this case a positive potential is generated by non-zero flux of antisymmetric tensor fields. The prototype is the $`T^7`$ compactification of 11-dimensional supergravity with non-vanishing 4-form field strength , which yields an exponential potential of the form (9) with444This value, which corresponds to $`\mathrm{\Delta }=4`$ in the notation of  was given incorrectly in that paper. The correct value is the same as the one found from $`T^6`$ compactification of the massive IIA supergravity, which is why the existence of this SEC violating theory does not alter our conclusions. $`a=\sqrt{7}`$, the scalar field arising from the ‘breathing mode’ of $`T^7`$. The 4-form is dual to a 7-form proportional to the volume form of $`T^7`$; more generally, some $`k`$-form field strength will be set equal to a closed but not exact $`k`$-form on the compact space $``$. Flux compactifications seem only to yield ‘steep’ exponential potentials with $`a\sqrt{3}`$.
* Hyperbolic compactifications: in this case the compact space is a space of constant negative curvature. The fact that hyperbolic compactifications produce a positive potential was observed by Bremer et al. , and they were investigated by Kehagias and Russo  in the context of String/M-theory. Several attractive features (for example, the absence of moduli other than the volume) were noted and exploited in a cosmological context by Kaloper et al. , and their possible relevance to cosmic acceleration was noted by Wohlfarth and the author . One could consider the prototype to be the compactification of 11-dimensional supergravity on a 7-dimensional compact hyperbolic space. In this case one finds a potential for the breathing-mode scalar $`\varphi `$ of the form (9) with $`a=3/\sqrt{7}`$. In general, hyperbolic compactifications seem always lead to ‘gentle’ exponential potentials with $`1<a<\sqrt{3}`$.

In general, a positive multi-scalar potential can be generated by a combination of both mechanisms, in which case it takes the form of a sum of products of exponentials of canonically normalized scalar fields. However, the simple case of a single exponential for a single scalar field is sufficient for an understanding of the physics and here we shall consider only this case.

The qualitative features of cosmologies derived from (4) with a potential of the form (9) were analysed in a 1987 paper of Halliwell , although the fact that there is typically a period of transient acceleration in the $`a>1`$ cases was not noticed there. In 2002 Cornalba and Costa  noted the existence of a period of acceleration in a $`k=1`$ cosmology arising from a flux compactification555The acceleration was claimed to occur in the neighbourhood of a resolved cosmological singularity. However, for reasons that will hopefully become clear below, the accelerating epoch is necessarily far from the cosmological singularity.. More recently, an explicit time-dependent hyperbolic compactification of the vacuum Einstein equations was shown to yield an Einstein-frame $`k=0`$ universe in which a decelerating epoch with

$$St^{\frac{1}{3}},e^\varphi t^{\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}},$$
(10)
is followed by a period of transient acceleration . This solution was subsequently shown to be the vanishing flux limit of a rather general class of solutions of Einstein’s equations known as S-branes, and the phenomenon of transient acceleration was found to be a generic feature of these solutions . As observed by Emparan and Garriga , this is an immediate corollary of the positive potentials generated by flux and hyperbolic compactifications. Consider the simple case of an exponential potential of the form (9) with $`a>1`$. The initial conditions implied by (10) are $`\varphi 1`$ with $`\dot{\varphi }<0`$. Any such cosmological solution can be viewed as a ball rolling, with friction, up the potential. Clearly, it must reach a maximum at which $`\dot{\varphi }=0`$ and at this point the expansion of the universe is accelerating, for the reason explained previously. Subsequently, the ball starts to roll back down the hill; the late-time behaviour will depend on the value of $`a`$ and also on $`k`$, but in all cases the universe will be decelerating. For example, for $`a^2<3`$ and $`k=0`$ the late-time behaviour will be given by the power-law k=0 attractor solution

$$St^{1/a^2},e^\varphi t^{1/a}.$$
(11)
Nearby trajectories with $`k0`$ will eventually approach a Milne universe attractor or collapse to a big crunch singularity. Note that the compact Kaluza-Klein space $``$ starts at infinite volume and ends at infinite volume; the acceleration of the 4-dimensional cosmology is associated to a ‘bounce’ of the compact space off its minimal volume.

The above explanation of the period of transient acceleration relies only on the positivity of the potential $`V`$ and makes no distinction between flux compactifications and hyperbolic compactifications. However, Halliwell’s analysis  shows that just as the ‘critical’ value $`a=1`$ separates qualitatively different behaviours of cosmological trajectories in the class of models under discussion, so does the ‘hyper-critical’ value $`a=\sqrt{3}`$, which also separates hyperbolic from flux compactifications. To see this, we introduce a new time parameter $`\tau `$ such that

$$d\tau =e^{a\varphi }dt,$$
(12)
and set $`S=e^{\alpha (\tau )}`$. Letting an overdot indicate differentiation with respect to $`\tau `$, we find that the $`\varphi `$ equation of motion is

$$\ddot{\varphi }a\dot{\varphi }^2+3\dot{\alpha }\dot{\varphi }=2a,$$
(13)
while the Friedmann equation is

$$\dot{\alpha }^2\frac{1}{3}\dot{\varphi }^2=\frac{2}{3}\frac{ke^{2a\varphi }}{S^2}.$$
(14)
For $`k=0`$, the above two equations are equivalent to

$$\ddot{\varphi }=3\dot{\alpha }\left(a\dot{\alpha }\dot{\varphi }\right),$$
(15)
and

$$3\dot{\alpha }^2\dot{\varphi }^2=2,$$
(16)
which is a hyperbola separating the the $`k=1`$ and $`k=+1`$ trajectories. The $`\dot{\alpha }>0`$ branch of the hyperbola corresponds to an expanding universe. We can parametrize this branch by writing

$$\dot{\alpha }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\left(\xi +\xi ^1\right),\dot{\varphi }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\xi \xi ^1\right),(\xi >0).$$
(17)
Equation (15) then becomes

$$\dot{\xi }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[\left(a+\sqrt{3}\right)+\left(a\sqrt{3}\right)\xi ^2\right].$$
(18)
We now see why $`a=\sqrt{3}`$ is special. For $`a<\sqrt{3}`$ there is a fixed point solution

$$\xi =\xi _0\left(\frac{\sqrt{3}+a}{\sqrt{3}a}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}},$$
(19)
which is just the power-law attractor solution (11). The fixed point separates two other $`k=0`$ trajectories:

$$(i)\xi =\xi _0\mathrm{coth}\gamma \tau (ii)\xi =\xi _0\mathrm{tanh}\gamma \tau ,\gamma =\left(\frac{3a^2}{2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}$$
(20)
where $`\tau >0`$. Only case (ii) includes $`\xi =1`$, and hence $`\dot{\varphi }=0`$; this solution undergoes a period of acceleration whereas the other does not. In either case one can integrate (17). In case (i) one has

$$S^\sqrt{3}\left(\mathrm{cosh}\gamma \tau \right)^{\lambda _+}\left(\mathrm{sinh}\gamma \tau \right)^\lambda _{},e^\varphi \left(\mathrm{cosh}\gamma \tau \right)^{\lambda _+}\left(\mathrm{sinh}\gamma \tau \right)^\lambda _{},$$
(21)
where

$$\lambda _\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}\pm a}.$$
(22)
There is a big-bang singularity at $`\tau =0`$, near which

$$St^{\frac{1}{3}},e^\varphi t^{\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}},$$
(23)
so the volume of the compact Kaluza-Klein space $``$ is initially zero. Subsequently the solution approaches the attractor (11). In case (ii) we have

$$S^\sqrt{3}\left(\mathrm{cosh}\gamma \tau \right)^\lambda _{}\left(\mathrm{sinh}\gamma \tau \right)^{\lambda _+},e^\varphi \left(\mathrm{cosh}\gamma \tau \right)^\lambda _{}\left(\mathrm{sinh}\gamma \tau \right)^{\lambda _+}.$$
(24)
This behaves intially as in (10) but then passes through a period of acceleration before approaching the attractor (11).

Both the above solutions were found in , for particular values of $`a`$ in the range $`1<a<\sqrt{3}`$, as solutions of the $`D6`$ vacuum Einstein equations with a compact hyperbolic $`D4`$ dimensional manifold of time-dependent volume. As solutions of the 4-dimensional effective theory with Lagrangian density (4), they are actually valid for $`0a<\sqrt{3}`$, in particular for $`a=1`$. The power-law attractor solution in this case has $`St`$ and hence zero aceleration, so the case (ii) solution that approaches it asymptotically must be eternally accelerating666A similar observation was made in  in the $`a>1`$ case for trajectories that approach the $`k=1`$ Milne attractor.. In fact, the late time behaviour is

$$e^\varphi t+\frac{2\sqrt{3}}{t}+𝒪(t^2),St+\frac{4}{\sqrt{3}t}+𝒪(t^2).$$
(25)
from which one sees that $`_t^2S>0`$. One might suspect from this fact that there would be a future cosmological event horizon, in which case $`a=1`$ would be excluded by the (admittedly conjectural) stronger form of the no-go theorem proposed earlier in this article. However, it has been shown by Boya et al.  that if the acceleration tends to zero asymptotically, as it does in this case, then there is no cosmological event horizon.

Halliwell’s qualitative analysis of all cosmological trajectories can similarly be made quantitative for $`k=0`$ when $`a3`$. Consider first the $`a>\sqrt{3}`$ case. The solution of (18) is

$$\xi =\left(\frac{a+\sqrt{3}}{a\sqrt{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{tan}\omega \tau ,\omega =\left(\frac{a^23}{2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}},$$
(26)
where $`0<\tau <\pi /2`$. The equations (17) can now be integrated to yield

$$S^\sqrt{3}\left(\mathrm{cos}\omega \tau \right)^\lambda _{}\left(\mathrm{sin}\omega \tau \right)^{\lambda _+},e^\varphi \left(\mathrm{cos}\omega \tau \right)^\lambda _{}\left(\mathrm{sin}\omega \tau \right)^{\lambda _+}.$$
(27)
The aymptotic behaviour as $`\mathrm{log}t\pm \mathrm{}`$ is

$$St^{\frac{1}{3}},e^\varphi t^{\pm 1/\sqrt{3}}.$$
(28)
In between there is a period of acceleration. For $`a=\sqrt{3}`$ we have simply $`\xi =\sqrt{6}\tau `$ and hence

$$S^3\tau ^{\frac{1}{2}}e^{\frac{3}{2}\tau ^2},e^{\sqrt{3}\varphi }\tau ^{\frac{1}{2}}e^{\frac{3}{2}\tau ^2}.$$
(29)
The late time behaviour now involves logarithmic corrections to the power law behaviour of the $`a>\sqrt{3}`$ case.

Despite the differences between flux compactifications and hyperbolic compactifications, all the above cases of accelerating $`k=0`$ universes are qualitatively similar. There is always a big-bang singularity near which the scale factor behaves as in (10). Inspection of the phase portraits in  shows that this is also true for the $`k0`$ cosmologies. This is not surprising because the singularity theorems that guarantee a cosmological singularity rely on the SEC which is violated by the 4-dimensional effective theory only in a later epoch. In addition, the acceleration leads to only a few e-foldings, insufficient for any application to inflation in the early universe; this disappointing conclusion is confirmed by systematic analyses of the possibilities of hyperbolic-flux compactifications involving many scalar fields . However, the mechanism may be relevant to acceleration in the current cosmological epoch . One of its attractive features is that any time-dependence of four-dimensional ‘constants’ due to the time-dependence of the compact space is absent precisely during the period of acceleration, i.e. now!

Implicit in everything discussed so far in this article is the assumption that String/M-theory is adequately described for cosmological purposes by the classical effective 10 or 11 dimensional supergravity theories. It seemed worthwhile to fully explore the implications of this assumption, but it now also seems that it must be discarded because although it has been possible to find models with transient acceleration of possible relevance to the ‘observed’ acceleration of the current cosmological epoch, it has not been possible to find models that allow a sufficient period of early universe inflation. This is not a disaster; String/M-theory includes orientifolds that violate (at least locally) the SEC , and branes which can produce brane-instanton quantum corrections to the potential $`V`$. It has been shown  that when these effects are taken into account it is possible for the potential $`V`$ to have a local minimum that could lead to inflation777Such a potential would allow classical solutions with a future cosmological event horizon, but since quantum mechanics has now been invoked one can presumably invoke it again to argue that the universe will eventually tunnel out of the metastable vacuum.. Nevertheless, although string and brane effects might yield potentials $`V`$ that are quite different from those obtainable from the classical compactifications of effective supergravity theories considered here, some of the lessons learned from the latter case may prove valuable. If one re-interprets $`a`$ in (15) and (16) to be shorthand for $`V^{}/2V`$ then these equations describe the $`k=0`$ cosmologies for any positive potential $`V`$. As long as $`a\sqrt{3}`$, there will be no fixed point on the $`k=0`$ hyperbola and hence a single $`k=0`$ trajectory, which will necessarily include a period of acceleration. Thus, for a large class of potentials, including all those that arise classically from ‘product’ flux compactifications, an accelerating epoch is not only possible, but (assuming a flat universe) unavoidable! If $`a<\sqrt{3}`$ at some point then fixed points will occur, and acceleration can be avoided. But note that we are now discussing how to avoid acceleration rather than how to achieve it! When it was noted in  that hyperbolic compactification can yield both a flat 4-dimensional universe that undergoes a period of acceleration and a flat 4-dimensional universe that is always decelerating, it was the former case that appeared remarkable, but actually it is the latter case, an eternally decelerating universe, that is exceptional. Of course, the acceleration is transient, so even if it is generic one could ask why we happen to be around to observe it. But is it really any more surprising that we live at an atypical time in a typical universe than that we live at a typical time in a atypical universe?

Acknowledgements. The author thanks Michael Douglas, Gary Gibbons, Jaume Garriga, Jaume Gomis, Shamit Kachru and Mattias Wohlfarth for helpful discussions.


text:
# Anomalous charge transport in triplet superconductor junctions

## Abstract

Charge transport properties of a diffusive normal metal /triplet superconductor (DN/TS) junction are studied based on the Keldysh-Nambu quasiclassical Green’s function formalism. Contrary to the unconventional singlet superconductor junction case, the mid gap Andreev resonant state (MARS) at the interface of the TS is shown to enhance the proximity effect in the DN. The total resistance of the DN/TS junction is drastically reduced and is completely independent of the resistance of the DN in the extreme case. Such anomalous transport accompanies a giant zero-bias peak in the conductance spectra and a zero-energy peak of the local density of states in the DN region. These striking features manifest the presence of novel proximity effect peculiar to triplet superconductor junctions.

preprint: Circuit

Physics of superconducting junctions has been one of the exciting fields of solid state physics in this decade meso . In diffusive normal metal / conventional singlet $`s`$-wave superconductor (DN/CSS) junctions, it is known that the phase coherence between an incoming electron and an Andreev reflected hole plays an essential role in causing the proximity effect in the DNBeenakker ; Hekking . It is also known that the total resistance $`R`$ of DN/CSS junctions does not follow the simple Ohm’s rule, that is, $`R=R_D+R_{R_D=0}`$ where $`R_D`$ is the resistance in the DN and $`R_{R_D=0}`$ is the resistance of the DN/CSS interface. The reduction of $`R`$ becomes prominent for low transparent junctions, where $`R<R_D+R_{R_D=0}`$ is satisfied Beenakker . The lower limit of $`R`$ is given by $`R_D+R_0/2`$ using the Sharvin resistance $`R_0`$, where $`R_{R_D=0}=R_0/2`$ is satisfied only for perfect transparent junctions Beenakker . Previous investigations of the proximity effect, however, are limited to DN/CSS junctions. Stimulated by the successive discovery of unconventional superconductors, we are tempted to expect novel proximity effect in junctions with unconventional pairing, $`e.g.`$, $`p`$-wave, and $`d`$-wave, where pair potentials have sign change on the Fermi surface.

In unconventional superconductor junctions, reflecting the internal phase of the pair potential, charge transport becomes essentially phase sensitive. The most dramatic effect is the appearance of zero bias conductance peak (ZBCP) TK95 ; Kashi00  in tunneling spectroscopy due to the formation of the mid gap Andreev resonant state (MARS) Buch . The origin of the MARS is due to the anomalous interference effect of quasiparticles at the interface, where injected and reflected quasiparticles feel different sign of the pair potentials Kashi00 . It is an interesting issue to clarify the role of the MARS on the transport properties of superconducting junctions. Recently, we have developed a theory of proximity effect, which is available for a diffusive normal metal / unconventional singlet superconductor (DN/USS) junction, where USS indicates anisotropic singlet pairing like $`d`$-wave PRL2003 ; PRB2004 . Unfortunately, however, it is revealed that the proximity effect and the MARS compete with each other in DN/USS junctions. Although the interface resistance $`R_{R_D=0}`$ is reduced by the MARS irrespective of the magnitude of the transparency at the interface, the resulting $`R`$ is always larger than $`R_0/2+R_D`$. This is because the angular average of many channels at the DN/USS interface destruct the phase coherence of the MARS and the proximity effect (see Fig. 1). This destructive angular average is due to the sign change of the pair potentials felt by quasiparticles with injection angle $`\varphi `$ and those with $`\varphi `$, where the angle $`\varphi `$ is measured from the direction normal to the junction interface (see Fig. 1). However, in diffusive normal metal / triplet superconductor (DN/TS) junctions, we can escape from the above destructive average (see Fig. 1). We can expect enhanced proximity effect by the MARS. In order to study this significantly novel charge transport, we must construct a novel theory for DN/TS junctions beyond preexisting onesPRL2003 ; PRB2004 ; Nazarov2 ; Nazarov1 . This is in fact very timely since triplet superconductors have been discovered successively very recently Maeno .

In the present paper, we derive a conductance formula for DN/TS junctions based on the Keldysh-Nambu (KN) Green’s function formalism PRL2003 ; PRB2004 . The total zero voltage resistance $`R`$ in the DN/TS junctions is significantly reduced by the enhanced proximity effect in the presence of the MARS. At the same time, local density of states (LDOS) in the DN region has zero energy peak (ZEP) due to the penetration of the MARS into the DN region from the triplet superconductor (TS) side of the DN/TS interface. It is remarkable that when $`R_D`$ is sufficiently larger than the Sharvin resistance $`R_0`$, $`R`$ is given by $`R=R_0/C_{}`$, which can become much smaller than the preexisting lower limit value of $`R`$, $`i.e.`$, $`R_0/2+R_D`$. In the above, $`C_{}`$ is a constant completely independent of both $`R_D`$ and $`R_B`$, where $`R_B`$ denotes the interface resistance in the normal state. When all quasiparticles injected at the interface feel the MARS, $`R`$ is reduced to be $`R=R_0/2`$ irrespective of the magnitude of $`R_D`$ and $`R_B`$. The line shape of the bias voltage $`V`$ dependent conductance $`\sigma (eV)`$ has a giant ZBCP. These novel features have never been expected either in DN/CSS or DN/USS junctions.

We consider a DN/TS junction with TS terminal and normal reservoir (N) connected by a quasi-one-dimensional diffusive conductor (DN) having a resistance $`R_D`$. The flat interface between the DN and the TS has a resistance $`R_B`$ while the DN/N interface has zero resistance. The positions of the DN/N interface and the DN/TS interface are denoted as $`x=L`$ and $`x=0`$, respectively as shown in Ref. PRB2004 . We restrict our attention to triplet superconductors with $`S_z=0`$ that preserves time reversal symmetry. $`S_z`$ denotes the $`z`$ component of the total spin of a Cooper pair. It is by no means easy to formulate a charge transport of DN/TS junctions since the quasiparticle Green’s function has no angular dependence by the impurity scattering in the DN. However, as shown in our previous paper PRL2003 ; PRB2004 , if we concentrate on the matrix currents Nazarov1 ; Nazarov2  via the TS to or from the DN, we can make a boundary condition of the KN Green’s function. We assume that the constriction area between the DN and the TS is subdivided into an anisotropic zone in the DN, two ballistic zones in the DN and the TS, and a scattering zone, where both ballistic and diffusive regimes can be covered PRB2004 . The sizes of the ballistic zone in the DN and the scattering zone in the current flow direction are much shorter than the coherence length PRL2003 ; PRB2004 ; Nazarov2 . The scattering zone is modeled by an insulating delta function barrier with the transparency $`T(\varphi )=4\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi /(4\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi +Z^2)`$, where $`Z`$ is a dimensionless constant and $`\varphi `$ is measured from the interface normal to the junction PRB2004 . The boundary condition for the KN Green’s function in the DN \[$`\stackrel{ˇ}{G}_N(x)`$\] at the DN/TS interface is given by,

$$\frac{L}{R_D}\left[\stackrel{ˇ}{G}_N(x)\frac{\stackrel{ˇ}{G}_N(x)}{x}\right]|_{x=0_{}}=\frac{h}{2e^2R_B}\stackrel{ˇ}{I},$$
(1)
using matrix current $`\stackrel{ˇ}{I}`$ PRL2003 ; PRB2004 . Average over the angle of injected particles at the interface is defined by

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{I}(\varphi )_{\pi /2}^{\pi /2}𝑑\varphi \mathrm{cos}\varphi \stackrel{ˇ}{I}(\varphi )/_{\pi /2}^{\pi /2}𝑑\varphi T(\varphi )\mathrm{cos}\varphi $$
(2)
with $`\stackrel{ˇ}{I}(\varphi )=\stackrel{ˇ}{I}`$. The resistance of the interface $`R_B`$ is given by $`R_B=<R_0>`$. As shown in the eq. (2) in our previous paper PRL2003 , matrix current $`\stackrel{ˇ}{I}`$ is a function of $`T(\varphi )`$, $`\stackrel{ˇ}{G}_1=\stackrel{ˇ}{G}_N(x=0_{})`$, $`\stackrel{ˇ}{G}_{2+}`$, and $`\stackrel{ˇ}{G}_2`$, where $`\stackrel{ˇ}{G}_{2+}`$ ($`\stackrel{ˇ}{G}_2`$) denotes the outgoing (incoming) Green’s function in the TS. The Green’s functions are fixed in the ”TS” terminal and in the ”N” terminal, and the voltage $`V`$ is applied to the ”N” terminal located at $`x=L`$. $`\stackrel{ˇ}{G}_N(x)`$ is determined from the Usadel equation with eq. (1). If we denote the retarded part of $`\stackrel{ˇ}{G}_N(x)`$ and $`\stackrel{ˇ}{G}_{2\pm }`$ as $`\widehat{R}_N(x)`$ and $`\widehat{R}_{2\pm }`$ PRB2004 , the following equations are satisfied, $`\widehat{R}_N(L)=\widehat{\tau }_z`$, $`\widehat{R}_{2\pm }=(f_\pm \widehat{\tau }_y+g_\pm \widehat{\tau }_z)`$ with $`f_\pm =\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm (\varphi )/\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm ^2(\varphi )ϵ^2}`$ and $`g_\pm =ϵ/\sqrt{ϵ^2\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm ^2(\varphi )}`$, using the Pauli matrices. $`ϵ`$ denotes the energy of the quasiparticles measured from the Fermi energy. $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+(\varphi )`$ \[$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(\varphi )`$\] is the pair potential felt by the outgoing (incoming) quasiparticles (see Fig. 1). After some algebra, we can show that $`\widehat{R}_N(x)`$ is given by $`\mathrm{sin}\theta (x)\widehat{\tau }_x+\mathrm{cos}\theta (x)\widehat{\tau }_z`$. The spatial dependence of $`\theta (x)`$ in the DN is determined by the following equation

$$D\frac{^2}{x^2}\theta (x)+2iϵ\mathrm{sin}[\theta (x)]=0,$$
(3)
with diffusion constant $`D`$ in the DN. Taking the retarded part of Eq. (1), we obtain

$$\frac{L}{R_D}\frac{\theta (x)}{x}|_{x=0_{}}=\frac{2B_R}{R_B},$$
(4)
$$B_R=\frac{(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{cos}\theta _0\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\mathrm{sin}\theta _0)T(\varphi )}{(2T(\varphi ))\mathrm{\Gamma }_3+T(\varphi )[\mathrm{cos}\theta _0\mathrm{\Gamma }_2+\mathrm{sin}\theta _0\mathrm{\Gamma }_1]},$$

with $`\theta _0=\theta (x=0_{})`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=g_++g_{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_3=1+f_+f_{}+g_+g_{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=i(f_+g_{}g_+f_{})`$. Here, we focus on $`ϵ=0`$, where the left hand side of Eq. (4) is reduced to be $`\theta _0/R_D`$. We define $`F_\pm (\varphi )`$ as $`F_\pm (\varphi )=lim_{ϵ0}f_\pm =\mathrm{sign}(\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm (\varphi ))`$ with $`\mathrm{sign}(\mathrm{\Delta }_+(\varphi ))=1(1)`$ for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+(\varphi )>0(<0)`$. In the following, we define the terminology as follows : when $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+(\varphi )\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(\varphi )>0`$ is satisfied, quasiparticles are in the conventional channels (CC), while when $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+(\varphi )\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(\varphi )<0`$ is satisfied, quasiparticles are in the unconventional channels (UC). In UC, quasiparticles feel the MARS while in CC quasiparticles do not feel the MARS. Following the above definition, $`F_+(\pm \varphi )=F_{}(\pm \varphi )`$ is satisfied for CC, while for UC, $`F_+(\pm \varphi )=F_{}(\pm \varphi )`$ is satisfied. From eq. (4), we can show that $`B_R`$ is zero for CC and $`B_R=iF_+(\varphi )`$ for UC, respectively. Then, $`\theta _0`$ becomes

$$\theta _0=iR_DC_{}/R_0,C_{}=_{UC}F_+(\varphi )\mathrm{cos}\varphi d\varphi ,$$
(5)
where $`_{UC}`$ means the $`\varphi `$ integral only from the UC within $`\pi /2<\varphi <\pi /2`$. A remarkable feature is that $`\theta _0`$ becomes a purely imaginary number as shown below. From eq. (3), $`\theta (x)`$ at $`ϵ=0`$ becomes $`\theta (x)=(x+L)\theta _0/L`$. Since the LDOS of the quasiparticles in the DN region renormalized by its value in normal state is given by $`\rho (ϵ)=\mathrm{Real}[\mathrm{cos}\theta (x)]`$, $`\rho (0)`$ is always larger than unity except for $`x=L`$. This means that $`\rho (0)`$ is enhanced due to the enhanced proximity effect by the MARS and has a ZEP as shown later. In the preexisting theories of DN/CSS and DN/USS junctions, $`\theta _0`$ at $`ϵ=0`$ is always a real number and $`\rho (x)`$ never exceeds unity.

In order to understand the essential difference between the DN/TS junctions and the DN/USS junctions intuitively, we consider four simplified cases, (a)the DN/CSS junctions with the CC, (b)the DN/CSS junctions with the UC, (c)the DN/TS junctions with the CC, and (d)the DN/TS junctions with the UC for all $`\varphi `$. This situation is actually realized by choosing $`d`$-wave pair potential with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm (\varphi )=\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{cos}[2(\varphi \alpha )]`$ (Figs. 1(a) and 1(b)) and $`p`$-wave pair potential with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm (\varphi )=\pm \mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{cos}(\varphi \alpha )`$ (Figs. 1(c) and 1(d)) as a prototype of USS and TS, respectively. The relations $`F_+(\pm \varphi )=F_{}(\varphi )`$ and $`F_+(\pm \varphi )=F_{}(\varphi )`$, are satisfied for the DN/USS and the DN/TS junctions, respectively both for the UC and for the CC. For the DN/USS junctions with the CC, since $`F_\pm (\varphi )=F_\pm (\varphi )`$ is satisfied, the contribution to $`\theta _0`$ is not cancelled by angular averaging \[Fig. 1(a)\]. For the DN/USS junctions with the UC and the DN/TS junctions with the CC, since $`F_\pm (\varphi )=F_\pm (\varphi )`$ is satisfied, the contribution to $`\theta _0`$ is cancelled by the angular average \[Figs. 1(b) and 1(c)\]. However, for the DN/TS junctions with UC, since $`F_\pm (\varphi )=F_\pm (\varphi )`$ is satisfied, the contribution to $`\theta _0`$ is non-zero \[Fig. 1(d)\]. It is remarkable that for the DN/TS junctions the CC do not contribute to the proximity effect while UC do.

The total zero voltage resistance of the DN/TS junction can be given as

$$R=\frac{R_D}{L}_L^0\frac{dx}{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta (x)}+\frac{R_B}{I_{b0}},$$
(6)
where $`I_{b0}`$ is obtained from the Keldysh part of $`\stackrel{ˇ}{I}`$ and is a complex function of $`g_\pm `$, $`f_\pm `$, $`\theta _0`$, and $`T(\varphi )`$. At $`ϵ=0`$, $`I_{b0}`$ becomes $`1+\mathrm{exp}(2\theta _0)`$ for UC, while for CC, $`I_{b0}`$ becomes $`\frac{2T^2(\varphi )}{[2T(\varphi )]^2}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _0`$. After simple algebra, $`R`$ is given by

$$R=R_0\{\frac{\mathrm{tanh}\theta _{0i}}{C_{}}+\frac{2}{[1+\mathrm{exp}(2\theta _{0i})]C_++\mathrm{cosh}^2\theta _{0i}D}\}$$
(7)
with $`\theta _{0i}=i\theta _0=R_DC_{}/R_0`$, $`C_+=_{UC}\mathrm{cos}\varphi d\varphi `$ and $`D=_{CC}\frac{2T^2(\varphi )}{[2T(\varphi )]^2}𝑑\varphi `$, where $`_{CC}`$ means the $`\varphi `$ integral only from the CC. The resulting $`R`$ is given by $`R_0/C_{}`$ for sufficiently large $`R_D/R_0`$ and is independent both of $`R_D`$ and $`R_B`$ except for the very special case with $`C_{}=0`$. The magnitude of $`R`$ can become much smaller than the preexisting lower limit value of $`R`$, $`i.e.`$, $`R_0/2+R_D`$. This giant reduction of $`R`$ is due to the enhanced proximity effect by the MARS. When all quasiparticles feel the MARS independent of $`\varphi `$, $`C_{}`$ is given by 2 and $`R`$ becomes $`R=R_0/2`$ independent of $`R_D`$ and $`R_B`$. This interesting situation is actually realized for a $`p_x`$-wave case, where pair potentials are given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm (\varphi )=\pm \mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$ \[see case Fig. 1(d)\]. Above enhanced proximity effect by the MARS is a completely novel proximity effect, which has never been expected in any preexisting theories Beenakker ; PRL2003 ; PRB2004 ; Nazarov1 ; Nazarov2 .

In order to understand this novel proximity effect in detail, we focus on the LDOS $`\rho (ϵ)`$ in the DN region normalized by its value in the normal state. We choose $`p_x`$-wave pairing as a prototype of the TS. As a reference, we compare the results with those for the DN/USS junction with $`d_{xy}`$-wave pair potential, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm (\varphi )`$ is given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm (\varphi )=\pm \mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi )`$. Although $`\rho (ϵ)`$ at the TS side of the DN/TS interface and that at the USS side of the DN/USS interface both have ZEP by the formation of the MARS, $`\rho (ϵ)`$ in the DN has a drastic difference between the two cases. For the $`p_x`$-wave case, the LDOS in the DN region has a ZEP. The height of the ZEP $`\rho (0)`$ is given by $`\mathrm{cosh}[2R_D(x+L)/(LR_0)]`$ and the order of its width is $`E_{Th}`$. On the other hand, for the $`d_{xy}`$-wave case, $`\rho (ϵ)`$ is always unity independent of $`R_D`$ due to the absence of the proximity effect. Contrary to the DN/TS junction, the MARS formed at the USS side of the DN/USS interface can not penetrate into the DN. As seen from $`\rho (ϵ)`$ in DN/TS junctions, the significant reduction of $`R`$ originates from the penetration of the MARS into the DN. Although we have actually shown the existence of ZEP of $`\rho (ϵ)`$ in the DN for $`p_x`$-wave case as a prototype, ZEP is universally expected for DN/TS junctions with the MARS at the interface independent of the detailed shape of the pair potentials of the TS. On the other hand, the LDOS in the DN region of DN/USS junctions do not have ZEP. Using this clear and qualitative difference of LDOS in the DN region between the DN/TS and DN/USS junctions, we can identify the triplet symmetry of the pair potentials.

Finally, we focus on the line shape of the tunneling conductance of DN/TS junctions for non zero voltage, which is defined by $`\sigma (eV)=R_B/R(eV)`$. We choose $`p_x`$-wave pairing as a prototype. As a reference, we compare the results with those for the DN/USS junction with $`d_{xy}`$-wave pair potential. Although both $`p_x`$-wave and $`d_{xy}`$-wave cases have similar line shapes of the voltage-dependent conductance with the ZBCP as a function of $`eV`$ for ballistic junctions Yama , $`i.e.`$ $`R_D=0`$ case, we can classify these two for $`R_D0`$ as shown in Fig. 3. We choose the Thouless energy $`E_{Th}`$ as $`E_{Th}=0.02\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$. For the $`p_x`$-wave case, since all injected quasiparticles feel the MARS, $`\sigma (0)=2R_B/R_0`$ is satisfied for any $`R_D`$. For $`R_D0`$, $`\sigma (eV)`$ can be expressed by the summation of the broad ZBCP and the narrow one, where $`\sigma _N=R_0/R_B`$ denotes the angular averaged transparency of the junction. The width of the former one is proportional to $`\sigma _N\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ and the latter one is the Thouless energy. However, with the increase of $`R_D/R_B`$, $`\sigma (eV)`$ for $`eV>E_{Th}`$ is suppressed, and the ratio of $`\sigma (0)`$ to its background value is largely enhanced. We can call this largely enhanced $`\sigma (0)`$ as giant ZBCP (curve $`b`$ or $`c`$ in the left panel of Fig. 3). By contrast, for $`d_{xy}`$-wave case, since $`\sigma (0)=2R_B/(R_0+2R_D)`$ is satisfied, $`\sigma (0)`$ is reduced with the increase of $`R_D`$. The width of ZBCP is proportional to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0\sigma _N`$ and is not changed with the increase of $`R_D/R_B`$ due to the absence of the proximity effect.

In conclusion, we have presented a theory of charge transport in the DN/TS junctions. The total resistance $`R`$ can become much smaller than the preexisting lower limit value of $`R`$ for DN/CSS and DN/USS junctions, $`i.e.`$, $`R_0/2+R_D`$. As the extreme case where all injected electrons feel the MARS, $`R`$ is reduced to be $`R_0/2`$. The significant reduction of $`R`$ is due to the enhanced proximity effect by the MARS and the resulting LDOS in the DN region has a ZEP. At the same time, we can expect giant ZBCP. The above enhanced proximity effect is a novel proximity effect, which has never been expected in DN/CSS and DN/USS junctions. We have shown in the present paper that these effects are actually realizable for DN/TS junctions with $`p`$-wave pair potential. We believe that these features are easily verifiable in experiments since a mesoscopic interference effect due to the proximity effect has recently been observed in high $`T_C`$ cuprate junctions Hiromi . Similar experiments are technologically possible for junctions composed of Sr2RuO4, where triplet pairing is believed to be realized Maeno .

The authors appreciate useful and fruitful discussions with Y. V. Nazarov, A. A. Golubov J. Inoue, Y. Asano and K. Kuroki.