text:
# Black hole binary mergers

## 1. Introduction

There are now plenty of evidences that many, if not most, of giant ellipticals contain massive central black holes (Magorrian et al., 1998). Also, it has been suggested that the black hole mass $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ shows tight correlation with the spheroidal mass and the central velocity dispersion (Gebhardt et al., 2000; Ferrarese & Merritt, 2000). The most straightforward explanation of such correlation is that massive galaxies are formed by merging of less massive galaxies, and that the central black hole also grows through merging (Kauffmann & Haehnelt, 2000). This merging scenario naturally explains the observed correlations.

This merging scenario has additional important characteristic that it nicely explains the observed structure of the central region of massive elliptical galaxies. High-resolution observations by HST revealed that the “cores” of the giant elliptical galaxies are not really cores with flat volume density, but very shallow cusps expressed as $`\rho r^\alpha `$, where $`\rho `$ is the volume luminosity density and $`r`$ is the distance from the center, with power index $`\alpha =0.51`$ (Gebhardt et al., 1996; Byun et al., 1996). Makino & Ebisuzaki (1996) performed the simulation of repeated mergers of galaxies with central black holes. They found that the structure of the merger converges to one profile. The merger product has a central cusp around the black hole with slope approximately $`0.5`$, and the total mass of the stars in the cusp region is around the mass of the black hole binary. Nakano & Makino (1999a, b) showed, by combination of simple $`N`$-body simulation and an analytic argument, that this shallow cusp is explained by the fact that distribution function of stars has a lower cutoff energy $`E_0`$. Their analytic argument naturally explains the observed correlation between the cusp radius and the black hole mass.

One remaining problem is what will happen to the binary black hole. Begelman et al. (1980, hereafter BBR) predicted that the hardening of the BH binary would be halted once it ejected all the stars in its “loss cone”. Early numerical simulations (Makino et al., 1993; Mikkola & Valtonen, 1992) could not cover the range of the number of particles (relaxation time) wide enough to see the change in the timescale. Recent studies (Makino, 1997; Quinlan & Hernquist, 1997; Chatterjee et al., 2003; Milosavljević & Merritt, 2001) reported the results, which are not only mutually inconsistent but also inconsistent with the theoretical prediction. BBR predicted that after the stars in the loss cone is depleted, the hardening timescale would be the relaxation timescale of the parent galaxy, since in the relaxation timescale stars would diffuse into the loss cone. The results of numerical simulation ranges from no dependence on the relaxation timescale (Milosavljević & Merritt, 2001), to some dependence with upper limit in the timescale (Quinlan & Hernquist, 1997; Chatterjee et al., 2003), and finally to weaker-than-linear dependence (Makino, 1997).

Thus, it has been an open question whether or not the loss-cone depletion occurs. Some even argued that numerical simulations would not help in determining the fate of a BH binary. Here, we present the result of our resent $`N`$-body simulations with up to 1M particles, where we saw a clear sign of the loss-cone depletion.

## 2. Numerical method and Initial Models

The details of the model is given elsewhere(Makino & Funato, 2003). We performed $`N`$-body simulations using direct summation method on GRAPE-6(Makino et al., 2003). Gravitational interaction between field particles is softened, while that involves BH particles is not.

The initial galaxy model is a King model with nondimensional central potential of $`W_0=7`$. We use the Heggie unit, where the mass $`M`$ and the virial radius $`R_v`$ of the initial galaxy model and gravitational constant $`G`$ are all unity. The mass of black hole particles is $`M_{BH}=0.01`$. They are initially placed at $`(\pm 0.5,0,0)`$ with velocity $`(0,\pm 0.1,0)`$.

The largest calculation (1 million particles and up to $`t=400`$) took about one month, on a single-host, 4-processor-board GRAPE-6 system with the peak speed of 4 Tflops.

## 3. Results

Figure 1 shows the time evolution of the specific binding energy (per reduced mass) $`E_b`$ of the black hole binary. It is clear that the hardening timescale becomes longer as we increase $`N`$ (and thereby the relaxation time).

To quantitatively evaluate the dependence of the hardening rate on the number of particles, we calculated the hardening rate $`\beta `$ (see figure 1). When $`E_b=1`$, the hardening rate is almost independent of $`N`$. However, as the binary becomes harder, $`\beta `$ decreases, and the decrease is larger for larger $`N`$. Thus, the hardening rate $`\beta `$ for large values of $`|E_b|`$ shows strong dependence on the number of particles $`N`$. For $`E_b=7`$, the hardening rate $`\beta `$ is almost proportional to $`1/N`$. In other words, we obtained the result which is consistent with the theory. The hardening timescale is proportional to the relaxation timescale of the parent galaxy.

## 4. Discussions

Our present result is consistent with the theory of loss-cone depletion and its refilling in thermal timescale, while previous numerical results are not. What caused this difference?

Makino (1997) obtained the dependence much weaker than linear from simulations with $`N=2,048`$ to 266,144. If we compare his figure 1 and our figure 1, the reason is obvious. The value of the binding energy at which the dependence is measured was rather small. In other words, Makino (1997) did not cover long enough time.

Quinlan & Hernquist (1997) performed simulations very similar to the ones presented here. They found that the hardening rate was practically the same for $`N=10^5`$ and $`N=2\times 10^5`$. We do not really understand why they obtained this result. Thy used the SCF method(Hernquist & Ostriker, 1992) and they varied the masses of particles depending on their initial angular momenta. We suspect this combination might have complicated the dependence of the hardening timescale on the number of particles. Chatterjee et al. (2003) might have similar problem.

Milosavljević & Merritt (2001) performed three runs with 8K, 16K and 32K stars, and found that the hardening rate was independent of the number of particles. As suggested in their paper, this result is simply because the loss cone was not depleted in their simulation, primarily because $`N`$ was too small. So their result is not inconsistent with ours.

As first suggested by BBR and confirmed by a number of followup works, if the hardening timescale of the black hole binary is proportional to the relaxation timescale of the parent galaxy, the evolution timescale of a typical binary black hole in an elliptical galaxy exceeds the Hubble time by many orders of magnitude. In other words, the binary is unlikely to merge through encounters with field stars and gravitational wave radiation.

Our result strongly suggests that the hardening timescale is indeed determined by the relaxation timescale, for large enough $`N`$ and after the binary becomes sufficiently hard. Thus, our result imply that gravitational interaction with field stars is insufficient to let the binary merge.

If the binary black hole has long lifetime, it is quite natural to assume that some of the host galaxies which contain binary black holes would further merge with another galaxy with a central massive black hole or a binary. Simple estimate assuming the thermal distribution of the eccentricity (Makino & Ebisuzaki, 1994) suggests that, during repeated three body interactions, the eccentricity of the binary can reach a very high value, resulting in quick merging through gravitational wave radiation. Thus, strong triple interaction of three supermassive black holes may be common.


format: text

text:
# Universal spectral form factor for chaotic dynamics

## Abstract

We consider the semiclassical limit of the spectral form factor $`K(\tau )`$ of fully chaotic dynamics. Starting from the Gutzwiller type double sum over classical periodic orbits we set out to recover the universal behavior predicted by random-matrix theory, both for dynamics with and without time reversal invariance. For times smaller than half the Heisenberg time $`T_H\mathrm{}^{f+1}`$, we extend the previously known $`\tau `$-expansion to include the cubic term. Beyond confirming random-matrix behavior of individual spectra, the virtue of that extension is that the “diagrammatic rules” come in sight which determine the families of orbit pairs responsible for all orders of the $`\tau `$-expansion.

Introduction: One of the fascinating quantum signatures of chaos is universal behavior of the correlation functions of the spectral density of energy levels, for general hyperbolic dynamics . Three universality classes were suggested by Dyson and Wigner; one, called “unitary”, has no time reversal symmetry, while the other two do have Hamiltonians $`H`$ commuting with an anti-unitary time reversal operator $`𝒯`$; if $`𝒯^2=1`$ one speaks of the “orthogonal” class while the “symplectic” case has $`𝒯^2=1`$. The Fourier transform of the two-point correlator of the level density, called spectral form factor, is predicted by random-matrix theory (RMT)  as

$$K_{\mathrm{uni}}(\tau )=\tau ,K_{\mathrm{orth}}(\tau )=2\tau \tau \mathrm{ln}(1+2\tau ),$$
(1)
in the unitary and the orthogonal case; here $`\tau `$ is a time made dimensionless by referral to the Heisenberg time $`T_H\mathrm{}^{f+1}`$, with $`f`$ the number of freedoms; the results (1) hold in the (semiclassical) limit of large dimension of the matrix representation of $`H`$ and for times up to the Heisenberg time, $`0\tau 1`$. The orthogonal form factor allows for the Taylor expansion $`K_{\mathrm{orth}}(\tau )=2\tau 2\tau ^2+2\tau ^3+\mathrm{}`$, for $`0\tau <\frac{1}{2}`$.

Understanding the observed fidelity of individual dynamics to RMT has been an elusive goal, in spite of considerable efforts based on parametric level dynamics, semiclassical periodic-orbit theory, and the so-called non-linear sigma model . We shall here take a non-trivial step towards that goal, on semiclassical ground.

Periodic-orbit theory à la Gutzwiller  gives the form factor of an individual spectrum as the double sum

$$K_{\mathrm{po}}(\tau )=\underset{\gamma ,\gamma ^{}}{}A_\gamma A_\gamma ^{}^{}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}(S_\gamma S_\gamma ^{})/\mathrm{}}\delta \left(\tau \frac{T_\gamma +T_\gamma ^{}}{2T_H}\right)$$
(2)
where $`S_\gamma ,T_\gamma `$, and $`A_\gamma `$ are the classical action (including the Maslov phase), period, and stability amplitude of the $`\gamma `$th orbit; the angular brackets demand averages over (i) the center energy $`(E+E^{})/2`$ in the product $`\rho (E)\rho (E^{})`$ of two level densities before doing the Fourier transform w.r.t. the energy difference $`EE^{}`$ and (ii) over a time interval small compared to the Heisenberg time. Most orbit pairs $`\gamma ,\gamma ^{}`$ interfere destructively in the double sum (2). Finite contributions arise only from families of pairs wherein the action difference $`S_\gamma S_\gamma ^{}`$ can be continuously steered through the quantum scale $`\mathrm{}`$ toward zero, by varying parameters defining the family (for early premonitions see ). Periods and stability amplitudes do not differ noticeably within such an orbit pair.

Berry’s “diagonal approximation”  includes the trivial pairs $`\{\gamma ,\gamma \}`$ and, given $`𝒯`$ invariance, $`\{\gamma ,\overline{\gamma }\}`$ where the overbar indicates time reversal; it yields $`K^{(1)}=\beta _\gamma |A_\gamma |^2\delta (\tau \frac{T_\gamma }{T_H})=\beta \tau `$ where $`\beta =1`$ without and $`\beta =2`$ with $`𝒯`$ invariance, due to the doubling of contributing pairs in the latter case. The sum $`_\gamma |A_\gamma |^2\delta (\tau \frac{T_\gamma }{T_H})=\tau `$, known as the sum rule of Hannay and Ozorio de Almeida (HOdA), reflects ergodicity for long periodic orbits. In view of (1) the diagonal approximation gives $`K_{\mathrm{uni}}`$ in full, and the first term of the $`\tau `$-expansion of $`K_{\mathrm{orth}}`$.

Sieber and Richter  recently found a family of orbit pairs which for the $`𝒯`$ invariant Hadamard-Gutzwiller model yields the quadratic term of the $`\tau `$-expansion, $`K_{\mathrm{orth}}^{(2)}=2\tau ^2`$, as in (1). Each Sieber-Richter (SR) pair has a close self-encounter which in configuration space looks like a small-angle crossing for one orbit and like a narrowly avoided crossing for the partner orbit. Generalizations to arbitrary hyperbolic systems with two freedoms were given in  and for more freedoms in .

Before identifying the new families of orbit pairs giving $`K_{\mathrm{orth}}^{(3)}=2\tau ^3,K_{\mathrm{uni}}^{(3)}=0`$ we must briefly review SR.

Each self-encounter involves two orbit stretches which are nearly mutually time reversed; it may be depicted as $`\text{}`$ (or $`\text{}`$), arrows indicating sense of traversal. On either side of the “encounter graph” $`\text{}`$, each of the two orbits has a long loop attached. Assuming symbolic dynamics available (to uniquely define periodic orbits and even, approximately, short orbit stretches by symbol sequences; our results are valid more generally) we could write $`E`$ and $`\overline{E}`$ for the two (nearly) mutually time reversed orbit stretches in the encounter region, $`R,L`$ for the two long loops, and $`\overline{L}`$ for the time reversed of $`L`$; we may thus write $`ER\overline{E}L`$ for an orbit and $`ER\overline{E}\overline{L},LE\overline{R}\overline{E}`$ for its SR partners. Note that the orbits in a SR pair traverse one loop in the same sense while the senses of traversal are opposite for the other loop; here, $`𝒯`$ invariance is seen as required for SR pairs to exist.

Following  we parametrize an encounter with the help of a surface of section $`𝒫`$ transverse to an orbit, say $`\gamma =ER\overline{E}L`$, somewhere within the encounter; $`𝒫`$ is two dimensional for $`f=2`$, the case we limit ourselves to. The stretch $`E`$ pierces through $`𝒫`$ in a point $`x_a`$ which can be made the origin of a coordinate system spanned by tangent vectors $`\widehat{e}_s`$ and $`\widehat{e}_u`$ to the stable and unstable manifolds of $`\gamma `$ through $`x_a`$ in $`𝒫`$. A second piercing is associated with $`\overline{E}`$ and thus opposite in sense; it happens after the traversal of the right loop at a point $`x_b`$. We define a close-encounter region by requiring the unstable and stable components of the difference $`𝒯x_bx_a`$ to respect a classically small bound $`c`$ independent of $`\mathrm{}`$,

$$𝒯x_bx_a=u\widehat{e}_u+s\widehat{e}_s,|u|c,|s|c.$$
(3)
Moving $`𝒫`$ we leave the encounter after a time $`t_u`$ given (asymptotically) by $`|u|\mathrm{e}^{\lambda t_u}=c`$. Conversely, we find the start of the encounter going backwards in time by $`t_s`$ with $`|s|\mathrm{e}^{\lambda t_s}=c`$; here $`\lambda `$ is the Lyapunov exponent of the system. The duration of the encounter thus is

$$t_{\mathrm{enc}}=t_s+t_u=\frac{1}{\lambda }\mathrm{ln}\frac{c^2}{|us|}.$$
(4)
Roughly, linearization of the dynamics about any point within the encounter breaks down at either end.

As was shown in  the partner orbit $`ER\overline{E}\overline{L}`$ pierces through $`𝒫`$ first in $`x_a^p=x_a+u\widehat{e}_u`$ and then in $`x_b^p`$ with $`𝒯x_b^p=x_a+s\widehat{e}_s`$. Moreover, the orbits in a SR pair differ in action by the area of the parallelogram spanned by the four points $`x_a,x_a^p,𝒯x_b,𝒯x_b^p`$ ,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }S=us;$$
(5)
that product is canonically invariant and thus independent of the precise location of the surface $`𝒫`$ (The vectors $`\widehat{e}_s,\widehat{e}_u`$ are pairwise normalized as $`\widehat{e}_s\widehat{e}_u=1`$). Inasmuch as weighty contributions to the form factor must have $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=𝒪(\mathrm{})`$, we can conclude that the duration of relevant encounters has the order of the Ehrenfest time $`T_E=\frac{1}{\lambda }\mathrm{ln}\frac{c^2}{\mathrm{}}`$, much smaller than the period $`T=𝒪(T_H)`$.

To evaluate $`K^{(2)}(\tau )`$ we need the cumulative duration $`P(u,s|T)duds`$ of all orbit stretches within self-encounters of a long orbit $`\gamma `$ of period $`T=𝒪(T_H)`$, with unstable and stable components of $`𝒯x_bx_a`$ in $`[u,u+du]`$ and $`[s,s+ds]`$. Ergodicity yields (Refs.  use different conventions)

$$P(u,s|T)duds=T(T2t_{\mathrm{enc}})\mathrm{\Omega }^1duds$$
(6)
with $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ the volume of the energy shell. This results from integrating the ergodic return probability density $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1`$ over the two times of piercing of the orbit through a section $`𝒫`$. The factor $`T`$ indicates that one piercing, say the one at $`x_a`$, may occur at any time in the interval $`[0,T]`$. The time of the subsequent piercing at $`x_b`$ can then lie only in an interval of length $`T2t_{\mathrm{enc}}`$, hence the second factor in (6); this is because both traversals of the encounter region have length $`t_{\mathrm{enc}}`$ and may not overlap. (Overlapping stretches $`E,\overline{E}`$ are either impossible, as in the Hadamard-Gutzwiller model , or indicate an orbit with a self-retracing loop identical with its SR partner ). Note that in the density $`P(u,s|T)`$ each encounter is weighted with the duration $`𝒩t_{\mathrm{enc}}`$ ; the combinatorial factor $`𝒩=2`$ arises since in $`\gamma =ER\overline{E}L`$ the two stretches $`E,\overline{E}`$ are equivalent; we must therefore employ $`\frac{P(u,s|T)}{𝒩t_{\mathrm{enc}}}`$, to count each encounter only once .

The contribution to the form factor reads $`K_{\mathrm{orth}}^{(2)}=\left(_\gamma |A_\gamma |^2\delta (\tau \frac{T}{T_H})\right)_c^c𝑑u𝑑s\frac{1}{2t_{\mathrm{enc}}}P(u,s|T)2\mathrm{cos}(us/\mathrm{})`$. The sum $`\left(_\gamma \mathrm{}\right)`$ gives the factor $`\tau `$ through the HOdA sum rule, as for $`K^{(1)}`$. The integral gets no contribution from the leading term $`T^2/\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in $`P`$, and this is why the $`𝒪(T_E/T_H)`$ correction in (6) is important; the integral with $`P2t_{\mathrm{enc}}T/\mathrm{\Omega }`$ becomes independent of the bound $`c`$ in the limit $`\mathrm{}0`$ and is easily found (since $`t_{\mathrm{enc}}`$ cancels from the integrand and $`T_H=\mathrm{\Omega }/2\pi \mathrm{}`$) as $`2\tau `$. The RMT result $`K^{(2)}=2\tau ^2`$ is thus recovered.

One might wonder why no “parallel” encounters with graphs $`\text{}`$ come into play. The simple reason is that the would-be SR partner of an orbit $`EREL`$ decomposes into a “pseudo-orbit” (separate periodic orbits $`ER`$ and $`EL`$), not admitted to the Gutzwiller sum in the first place. However, parallel encounters will be met with below. The quantification (3) of “close” must then be changed to $`x_bx_a=u\widehat{e}_u+s\widehat{e}_s,|u|c,|s|c`$.

The foregoing review of SR has highlighted those twists of the original formulation of , in particular the appearance of $`\frac{P(u,s|T)}{2t_{\mathrm{enc}}}`$, which make the extension to higher orders in $`\tau `$ a rather elegant travail, to which we now turn.

Orbits pairs contributing in third order: We now present five families of orbit pairs relevant for $`\tau ^3`$. They can be constructed from two SR “switches” $`\text{}`$/$`\text{}`$. Three families have two separate encounters wherein the orbits differ and four intervening “loops” near identical for both orbits; two more families arise as one of the loops shrinks, to let the two encounters overlap, see Fig. 1.

Starting with two independent encounters, we must obviously check three possibilities: ($`aa`$) both “antiparallel”, pictorially $`\text{}\text{}`$ , ($`ap`$) antiparallell and parallel, i.e. $`\text{}\text{}`$ , and ($`pp`$) both parallel, i.e. $`\text{}\text{}`$ . For
all of them there are two distinct ways of filling in intervening lines, with the two encounters either in series ($`s`$) or intertwined ($`i`$). In symbolic notation, those two ways read for case ($`aas`$) $`E_1A\overline{E_1}BE_2C\overline{E_2}D`$ (in series) and for case ($`aai`$) $`E_1AE_2B\overline{E_1}C\overline{E_2}D`$ (intertwined); here $`E_1,\overline{E}_1`$ ($`E_2,\overline{E}_2`$) represent the two orbit stretches of the first (second) antiparallel encounter which are nearly mutually time reversed, while the remaining symbols refer to intervening lines; one immediately checks that only the $`aas`$ orbit allows for a partner orbit, $`E_1\overline{A}\overline{E}_1BE_2\overline{C}\overline{E}_2D`$, while the would-be partner of the $`aai`$ orbit turns out a pseudo-orbit decomposing into the two periodic orbits $`E_1AE_2\overline{C}`$ and $`E_1\overline{B}\overline{E_2}D`$. In the same vein we find that for ($`ap`$) only the $`api`$ orbit and for ($`pp`$) only the $`ppi`$ orbit have non-decomposing partners. We have thus identified three families of orbit pairs with two far apart self-encounters. Clearly, $`ppi`$ pairs arise even without $`𝒯`$ invariance, while $`aas`$ and $`api`$ pairs do require that symmetry.

Now on to the families resulting from shrinking away one of the four loops in the foregoing families. The three remaining loops make for a cloverleaf ($`c`$) structure; the encounter region accommodates a triple of oriented short ($`𝒪(T_E)`$) stretches with encounter graphs $`\text{}`$$`(pc)`$ and $`\text{}`$ (ac); in symbolic notation, they involve $`E,E,E`$ and $`E,\overline{E},\overline{E}`$, respectively. Schematically, the two types of cloverleaf orbits look like the thick lines in Fig. 1$`ac,pc`$. We shall argue that each has a unique partner, shown as dashed lines in Fig. 1. The family $`(pc)`$ with three parallel orbit stretches $`\text{}`$ in the encounter does not require $`𝒯`$ invariance while the $`\text{}`$ family $`(ac)`$ does.

To check the uniqueness of the partner for $`ac`$ and $`pc`$ we start from the respective thick lines in Fig. 1. Each candidate for partnership must have its three long loops nearly identical with those of the starting orbit, save possibly for time reversal; those loops are differently connected in the encounter region. A sextet of cloverleaf orbits thus seems to arise, whose encounter graphs are (without arrows, momentarily) $`\text{}`$$`\text{}`$$`\text{}`$$`\text{}`$$`\text{}`$$`\text{}`$ . The last three immediately drop from candidacy since they represent SR partners of $`\text{}`$ contributing to $`\tau ^2`$ or entail decomposing pseudo-orbits. Now putting arrows on $`\text{}`$, say for $`ac`$ as $`\text{}`$ and hooking on the three loops as in the thick line of Fig. 1$`ac`$, we find only $`\text{}`$ to lead to a non-decomposing partner, the dashed line in Fig.1$`ac`$ with the encounter graph $`\text{}`$ (plus, of course its time reverse); the uniqueness of the $`pc`$ partner (up to time reversal, if $`𝒯`$ invariance holds) is shown similarly.

Duration and action differences: For the independent-encounter pairs $`aas,api,ppi`$ the action differences of the two encounters sum up to $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=u_1s_1+u_2s_2`$. The triple encounters $`ac,pc`$ require extra thought.

Beginning with $`ac`$ we employ a surface of section $`𝒫`$ through the encounter region and denote the three points of piercing by $`x_{a,b,c}`$. As in (3) we have $`𝒯x_bx_a=u_b\widehat{e}_u+s_b\widehat{e}_s,𝒯x_cx_a=u_c\widehat{e}_u+s_c\widehat{e}_s`$; the bound $`c`$ must be respected by all six distances $`|u_b|,|s_b|,|u_c|,|s_c|,|u_bu_c||u_{bc}|,|s_bs_c|s_{bc}`$ and the cloverleaf encounter lasts for

$$t_{\mathrm{enc}}^{\mathrm{cl}}=\frac{1}{\lambda }\mathrm{ln}\frac{c^2}{\mathrm{max}\{|u_b|,|u_c|,|u_{bc}|\}\mathrm{max}\{|s_b|,|s_c|,|s_{bc}|\}}.$$
(7)
Again, relevant encounters will have durations of the order of the Ehrenfest time $`t_E=\frac{1}{\lambda }\mathrm{ln}\frac{c^2}{\mathrm{}}`$.

Now look at an $`ac`$ pair $`\{\gamma ,\gamma ^p\}`$ with encounter graphs $`\text{}`$ and $`\text{}`$ . To find the action difference we proceed in two steps. In the first, we employ an auxiliary orbit, the SR partner $`\gamma ^{}`$ of $`\gamma `$ related to the encounter of the “upper two” stretches, labelled $`a,b`$, leaving the “lowest” stretch $`c`$ as in $`\gamma `$. For $`\gamma ^{}`$ the encounter region is $`\text{}`$ . According to what we have said above about the four points of piercing through the surface of section of an SR encounter the piercings of $`\gamma ^{}`$ occur at $`x_a^{}=x_a+u_b\widehat{e}_u`$ and $`x_b^{}`$ with $`𝒯x_b^{}=x_a+s_b\widehat{e}_s`$; moreover, the action difference within $`\{\gamma ,\gamma ^{}\}`$ is given by (5) as $`S_\gamma ^{}S_\gamma =u_bs_b`$. In our second step we arrive at the $`ac`$ partner $`\gamma ^p`$ of $`\gamma `$ as the SR partner of $`\gamma ^{}`$ w.r.t. the stretches $`a,c`$. Once again invoking what we know about the four piercings in an SR encounter we have $`x_a^p=x_a^{}+(u_cu_b)\widehat{e}_u`$ and $`𝒯x_c^p=x_a^{}+s_c\widehat{e}_s`$, and the action difference $`S_{\gamma ^p}S_\gamma ^{}=(u_cu_b)s_c`$. The action difference of the $`ac`$ pair (valid also for $`pc`$) thus reads

$$\mathrm{\Delta }S=S_{\gamma ^p}S_\gamma =u_bs_b+u_cs_cu_bs_c.$$
(8)
The term $`u_bs_c`$ represents an “interaction”.

$`\tau ^3`$-contributions from two simple encounters: We first generalize the density (6) to $`P(u_1,s_1,u_2,s_2|T)`$, (up to the factor $`du_1ds_1du_2ds_2`$) the “area” of times $`(t_a^1,t_a^2)[0,T]^2`$ such that the points $`\{x_a^\mu =x(t_a^\mu ),\mu =1,2\}`$ of piercing are followed by piercings at $`x_b^\mu =x(t_b^\mu )`$ with unstable and stable components of $`x_b^\mu x_a^\mu `$ (for parallel encounters) and $`𝒯x_b^\mu x_a^\mu `$ (for antiparallel encounters) in the intervals $`[u_\mu ,u_\mu +du_\mu ],[s_\mu ,s_\mu +ds_\mu ]`$. We obtain

$$P(u_1,s_1,u_2,s_2|T)=\frac{1}{6\mathrm{\Omega }^2}T\left(T2(t_{\mathrm{enc1}}+t_{\mathrm{enc2}})\right)^3,$$
(9)
by integrating the ergodic probability density $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$ for two encounters over the four times $`\{t_a^\mu ,t_b^\mu ,\mu =1,2\}`$, respecting the order of those times dictated by the “diagrams” $`aas,api,ppi`$ and the general rule that an orbit must leave one encounter region before reentering or entering the next one; the latter rule in fact separates independent-encounter from cloverleaf families. The restrictions on the times of piercing in question give rise to the small but decisive corrections $`t_{\mathrm{enc},\mu }`$ in (9), as before in (6).

Again in analogy with (6), the density (9) overcounts a pair of simple encounters, by a factor which we shall argue to be $`𝒩t_{\mathrm{enc1}}t_{\mathrm{enc2}}`$. Obviously, the times of piercing may lie anywhere during the respective encounters, hence the product of the two durations. The factor $`𝒩`$ is of combinatorial nature. For instance, in $`aas`$ pairs the two antiparallel encounters are indistinguishable such that $`𝒩_{aas}=2`$; likewise, $`𝒩_{api}=2`$ since the two stretches of, say, the parallel encounter are indistinguishable; finally, in $`ppi`$ pairs all four orbit stretches (symbolically, $`E_1,E_2,E_1,E_2`$) are indistinguishable, hence $`𝒩_{ppi}=4`$.

For $`𝒯`$ invariance, (2) gives $`K_{\mathrm{orth},\mathrm{ind}}^{(3)}=\tau _c^c𝑑u_1\mathrm{}𝑑s_2\frac{1}{𝒩t_{\mathrm{enc1}}t_{\mathrm{enc2}}}P(u_1\mathrm{}s_2|T)2\mathrm{cos}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }S}{\mathrm{}}`$ where we have already allowed the HOdA sum rule to yield a factor $`\tau `$ as above and used the overcounting factor $`𝒩`$ as an indicator for the cases $`aas,api,ppi`$. Using the action difference (5) for both encounters and the weight (9) it is easily found that only the part $`\frac{1}{6\mathrm{\Omega }^2}\times 3\times 4\times T^2t_{\mathrm{enc1}}t_{\mathrm{enc2}}`$ in $`P`$ survives the integration, and actually yields the square of the twofold integral met with for $`\tau ^2`$; all other terms and all $`c`$ dependence vanish with $`\mathrm{}0`$. We thus have

$$K_{\mathrm{orth},\mathrm{ind}}^{(3)}=\frac{8}{𝒩}\tau ^3=\{\begin{array}{cc}4\tau ^3\mathrm{for}aas,api\hfill & \\ 2\tau ^3\mathrm{for}ppi.\hfill & \end{array}$$
(10)
For dynamics without $`𝒯`$ invariance, however, only $`ppi`$ pairs exist and yield $`K_{\mathrm{uni},\mathrm{ind}}^{(3)}=\tau ^3`$, one half the $`ppi`$ term in (10) since a $`ppi`$ orbit now has no time reverse.

$`\tau ^3`$-contributions from triple encounters: Both for $`ac`$ and $`pc`$ pairs, by reasoning as before we have the density

$$P^{\mathrm{cl}}(u_b,s_b,u_c,s_c|T)=\frac{T\left(T3t_{\mathrm{enc}}^{\mathrm{cl}}+\mathrm{}\right)^2}{2\mathrm{\Omega }^2}=\frac{3T^2t_{\mathrm{enc}}^{\mathrm{cl}}}{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}\mathrm{}$$

where the dots point to terms killed by the integration to come, as $`\mathrm{}0`$. The crucial term $`t_{\mathrm{enc}}^{\mathrm{cl}}`$ is due to minimal loop lengths. The orbit must leave an encounter before reentering in the antiparallel or parallel sense; otherwise, an SR pair already accounted for in $`\tau ^2`$ would arise in the antiparallel case, whereas the parallel case would lead to a new family with stretches involved in encounters resembling multiple repetitions of shorter periodic orbits; such families turn out irrelevant for $`\mathrm{}0`$.

To count each cloverleaf only once we divide out the familiar $`𝒩t_{\mathrm{enc}}^{\mathrm{cl}}`$. For $`pc`$ encounters we have $`𝒩_{pc}=3`$ since the three parallel stretches $`\text{}`$ are indistingushable while $`ac`$ encounters $`\text{}`$ entail $`𝒩_{ac}=1`$. Given $`𝒯`$ invariance, the form factor picks up $`K_{\mathrm{orth},\mathrm{cl}}^{(3)}=\tau _c^c𝑑u_b\mathrm{}𝑑s_c\frac{1}{𝒩t_{\mathrm{enc}}^{cl}}P^{\mathrm{cl}}(u_b\mathrm{}s_c|T)2\mathrm{cos}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }S}{\mathrm{}}`$. The limit $`\mathrm{}0`$ yields

$$K_{\mathrm{orth},\mathrm{cl}}^{(3)}=\frac{6}{𝒩}\tau ^3=\{\begin{array}{cc}6\tau ^3\mathrm{for}ac\hfill & \\ 2\tau ^3\mathrm{for}pc.\hfill & \end{array}$$

Without $`𝒯`$ invariance, no $`ac`$ pairs exist and $`pc`$ pairs, not
accompanied by time inverses, give but $`K_{\mathrm{uni},\mathrm{cl}}^{(3)}=\tau ^3`$.

Conclusions and outlook: Adding contributions from independent and cloverleaf encounters we get $`K_{\mathrm{orth}}^{(3)}=(4+4+262)\tau ^3=2\tau ^3`$ and $`K_{\mathrm{uni}}^{(3)}=0`$, as in (1). To third order in $`\tau `$ at least, then, semiclassical treatment of individual hyperbolic dynamics gives the universal form factor characteristic of ensembles of random matrices.

The five families of orbit pairs met here resemble diagrams known from field theoretic treatments of disordered systems  and from quantum graphs . The analogy between classical orbits and diagrams in field theory should persist in higher orders. Orbit pairs (alias diagrams) with $`n1`$ separate simple encounters contribute to $`\tau ^n`$; upon shrinking intervening loops we expect to find all other relevant orbit pairs. The weight of each family includes a correction, due to the ban of encounter overlap and small as a power of $`\frac{T_E}{T_H}`$, exclusively affecting the form factor.

Financial support of the Sonderforschungsbereich SFB/TR12 of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft is gratefully acknowledged. We have enjoyed fruitful discussions with A. Altland, G. Berkolaiko, K. Richter, M. Sieber, D. Spehner, M. Turek, and M. Zirnbauer.


text:
# Angle Resolved Photemission Experiments to look for Time-reversal Violation in Cuprates

## Abstract

The recent experiments reported by Borisenko et al. BORISENKO , are examined in light of the conditions to be satisfied in the search for time-reversal violation by circularly polarized ARPES. Two principal problems are found: (1) A lack of any evidence for the magnitude of the pseudogap or the temperature of its onset in the samples studied. (2) A difference in the dichroic signal at low and high temperatures. The difference is greater than the stated error bars and is contrary to the conclusions reached in the paper.

A new experimental technique using circularly polarized Angle-resolved photoemission (CPARPES) was suggested SIMONVARMA  as a way to search for the proposed Time-Reversal Violation in the pseudogap phase of the high temperature superconductors. The essentials of the technique are the following: The magnetic-field averaged over a unit-cell is zero as it changes direction in specified patterns in a unit-cell. However, any given single-particle excitation has a wavefunction of the form:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_𝐤(\{r\})=\mathrm{\Psi }_{e,𝐤}(\{r\})+i\theta \mathrm{\Psi }_{o,𝐤}(\{r\}).$$
(1)
where both $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{e}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{o}`$ are real. Time-reversal is violated because $`\mathrm{\Psi }_𝐤(\{\mathrm{r}\})`$ cannot be transformed to a real wave-function by any gauge transformation. Further $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{e},𝐤}(\{\mathrm{r}\})`$ is even about some-specified mirror planes while $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{o},𝐤}(\{\mathrm{r}\})`$ is odd about the same mirror planes of the lattice. So $`\mathrm{\Psi }_𝐤(\{\mathrm{r}\})`$ do not have reflection symmetry about certain mirror planes of the lattice SIMONVARMA . CPARPES experiments couple the external, circularly polarized photons to the current in the lattice and are linearly sensitive to the wave-functions. There will therefore be a difference in intensity of the emitted electron current for left (lcp) and right (rcp) circularly polarized photons if there is a violation of reflection symmetry about the specified mirror planes. This difference in intensity will, in general, be proportional to $`\theta `$. However an experiment sensitive to the charge density, such as an ordinary diffraction experiment or linearly polarized ARPES, will show no reflection symmetry breaking - at least to order $`\theta `$.

The essence of the experiment is to observe the violation of reflection symmetry about certain mirror planes as one cools through the characteristic pseudogap temperature in a CPARPES experiment, while at the same time observing no similar violation in experiments such as ordinary linearly polarized ARPES KAMINSKI .

There is however one important technicality, which actually helps in the design of the experiment and was employed in the experiment KAMINSKI  that observed the predicted effect. Let $`\widehat{\mathrm{m}}`$ be a vector in a mirror plane, $`\widehat{\mathrm{n}}`$, the direction of polarization of the incoming photons and $`𝐤`$ be the momentum of the electronic wave-function in the lattice (which in the first Brillouin zone has the same direction as that of the outgoing electron). If these three vectors are non co-planar, i.e. if $`\widehat{\mathrm{m}}(\widehat{\mathrm{n}}\times 𝐤)0`$, the intensity of the current of the outgoing electrons for right circularly polarized (rcp) and left circularly polarized (lcp) photons are unequal even when Time-reversal/Reflection symmetries are unbroken. Suppose $`\widehat{\mathrm{n}}`$ is in the mirror plane, then the difference of the rcp and lcp intensity, D, is zero if $`𝐤`$ is collinear with $`\widehat{\mathrm{m}}`$. Further, D is odd with respect to the component of $`𝐤`$ perpendicular to $`\widehat{\mathrm{m}}`$. We call this the geometric effect. Assume now that Time-reversal is violated below the pseudogap temperature with reflection symmetry violated about a specified $`\widehat{\mathrm{m}}`$. There is now an extra component to D (proportional to $`\theta `$) which is finite even when $`𝐤`$ is collinear with $`\widehat{\mathrm{m}}`$. Furthermore D is even with respect to the component of $`𝐤`$ perpendicular to $`\widehat{\mathrm{m}}`$. Taken together, the geometric effect and the time-reversal violation effect lead to a finite value of D at the mirror plane below the pseudogap temperature, while it remains zero above. The essence of the experiment is to measure D as a function of temperature and as a function of $`𝐤`$. The point on the momentum axis for which D is zero should appear to move when the sample is cooled below the pseudogap temperature.

Besides the requirement of high momentum resolution, it is essential to measure absolute intensities in order that D can be determined with sufficient accuracy. Otherwise only an upper limit can be put on D. It is of course also necessary to know the pseudogap temperature $`\mathrm{T}^{}`$ and magnitude for the samples studied. These quantities can be measured via ordinary ARPES experiments because the proposed dichroism effect only occurs below $`\mathrm{T}^{}`$ and its magnitude is related to the magnitude of the pseudogap.

In one recent experiment BORISENKO  to search for the signature of Time-reversal violation using CPARPES it was claimed that no time reversal violation occurs. However, this work did not fulfill the above conditions. The experiments were done in Pb-doped BISCCO, (contrary to the much studied BISCCO compounds). The first and most important problem with the Borisenko et al. paper is that there is no evidence presented - or in any papers referenced - regarding the magnitude of the pseudogap or $`\mathrm{T}^{}`$, as measured by photoemsission or transport experiments. A comparison of Fig. 1e, which shows the energy distribution curve of an overdoped sample with Figs. 3a and 3b for a supposedly underdoped sample, does not show any changes characteristic of the pseudogap in the latter. Such differences are now routinely observed by other experiments in underdoped BISCCO. At the very least the pseudogap in these Pb-doped samples is significantly smaller than those in underdoped BISCCO to render it unnoticeable when comparing Figs. 1 and 3.

Keeping this in mind, we now look at the CPARPES data presented in Ref.  and re-examine its conclusions. A proper analysis requires one to know the error bars in the experiment. At one point in the paper, it is stated that the mirror planes are determined to an accuracy of 0.001$`\mathrm{A}^1`$. At another point it is stated that the accuracy in determining the momentum is $`\pm 0.004\mathrm{A}^1`$. We have taken the data from Ref.  in Fig. 3e at 300K and 3f at 100K and plotted them both in fig. 1a here. It is quite clear that near the mirror plane there is a systematic shift of the two curves. The average difference of the mid-points of the red and the blue triangles between $`\pm 0.05\mathrm{A}^1`$ is found to be $`0.012\mathrm{A}^1`$. Either the error estimates of the authors are incorrect or the anticipated effect has been observed to an accuracy of about 3 standard deviations. The magnitude of the effect in $`\mathrm{A}^1`$, if the given error bars given are to be taken seriously, is about $`1/2`$ that observed earlier in Ref.  (shown here in Fig. 1b). This is not surprising for three reasons: 1) if a pseudogap exists in the Pb-doped sample, it is much smaller than those observed in underdoped samples of BISCCO, as discussed above. 2) The overall magnitude of the difference signal due to the geometric effect at room temperature, i.e. above T\* is also about 1/2 that observed earlier KAMINSKI . This smaller effect could be due to a difference in the degree of circular polarization about which no information is given in Ref. . 3) As stated in Ref. , the results presented there represent the maximum dichroism signal seen in any recycling experiment, the variation due presumably to changing domains.

One may also look at two other relevant sets of data in Ref. . Fig. 3c shows a systematic average shift of $`0.008\mathrm{A}^1`$, twice the quoted error bar, in the two sets of data presented. Fig. 3d gives the data only at 100K and 30K. There is indeed no shift of the two, just as there is none discernible in Fig. 3g of Kaminski et al.KAMINSKI  below 150K. In the absence of higher temperature data, Fig. 3d does not say very much. One may note however that the intensity of the two maxima in the curves differ by about 2% , whereas in the absence of an effect, they should be equal within the stated error bar of 0.05%. The three figures discussed above represent all the data relevant to dichroism near the $`(\pi ,0)`$ and equivalent points; all of them show evidence of an effect that is well outside the quoted error bars.

The casual attitude towards data analysis is further in evidence in Fig. 4b, where the 0.03$`\mathrm{A}^1`$ position of the point of zero $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{N}`$ in Fig. 4b is considered equivalent to 0 within error bars.

We take this opportunity to also comment on the ”independent experimental approach” which has been used. To quote the paper ”…the signal is weak and problematic for the application of the absolute intensity criterion”, the criterion used by Kaminski et al. KAMINSKI . Therefore Borisenko et al. employ an alternative ”lineshape analysis criterion”. This appears to be based on the misconception that when Time-reversal violation occurs, the mirror plane rotates. The ”lineshape criterion’ is employed as follows: D is measured along the zone diagonals. Within the error bars it changes sign along this line as expected and its absolute magnitude saturates and falls off as the two Fermi-surface points f1 and f2 are approached. The ”lineshape criteria” consists of fits to the data, which appears as an antisymmetric curve. The mid-point of the maxima and minima in these fits determine the mirror planes. If within the error bars of the momentum resolution, the mid-point, i.e. the position of the mirror plane, does not move with temperature, it is concluded that there is no time-reversal violation. However, the position of the maxima should not move due to time-reversal violation. Only the value of the whole curve $`\mathrm{D}(𝐤)`$, including at f1 and f2 should move with respect to that without time-reversal violation. The constancy in the position of the maxima is evidence only that the lattice or charge density symmetry does not change noticeably. In other words, the experiment cannot be done without the ”absolute intensity criterion”.

This misconception can have a serious consequence in the analysis: It is calculated from Eq. (1) and (2) of the paper of Borisenko et al. that the differences in intensity of incoming lcp and rcp photon intensity ”only rescales and shifts $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{N}`$ along the vertical axis leaving the opportunity to define $`𝐤`$ locations by the lineshape analysis precisely.” Actually the shifts in $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{N}`$ are precisely what one should be searching for. Any significant difference of the lcp and the rcp photon intensity can therefore lead to misleading conclusions.

In conclusion, in the absence of a proper characterization of the sample, for example by direct observation of a pseudogap through ordinary linear polarized ARPES, the lack of correspondence between stated errors and the observed variations in the data and a misunderstanding of what features of the data are sensitive to time-reversal violation, make the conclusions of Borisenko et al. of dubious validity.


text:
# Magnetization Process of Single Molecule Magnets at Low Temperatures

## Abstract

We show that correlations established before quenching to very low temperatures, later drive the magnetization process of systems of single molecule magnets, after a magnetic field is applied at $`t=0`$. We also show that in SC lattices, $`m\sqrt{t}`$, as observed in Fe8, but only for $`1+2\mathrm{log}_{10}(h_d/h_w)`$ time decades, where $`h_d`$ is a nearest neighbor dipolar magnetic field and a spin reversal can occur only if the field on it is within ($`h_w,h_w`$). However, the $`\sqrt{t}`$ behavior is not universal. For BCC and FCC lattices, $`mt^p`$, but $`p0.7`$. The value to which $`m`$ finally levels off is also given.

quantum tunneling, single molecule magnets, magnetic relaxation, dipolar interactions, correlations

Magnetic clusters, such as Fe8 and Mn12, that make up the core of large organometallic molecules, behave at low temperatures as large single spins. Accordingly, these molecules have come to be known as single molecule magnets (SMM’s) SD . In crystals, magnetic anisotropy energies $`U`$ inhibit magnetic relaxation of SMM’s, which can consequently take place at very small temperatures only through magnetic quantum tunneling (MQT). Dipolar interactions play then an essential role. They can give rise, upon tunneling, to Zeeman energy changes of nearly 1 K. This exceeds by many orders of magnitude the ground state tunnel splitting energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ that would follow from perturbations by higher anisotropies for Fe8 and Mn12 highan . Energy conservation would make MQT, which has been observed experimentally sangregorio , impossible for the vast majority of spins in the system. Hyperfine interactions between the tunneling electronic spins of interest and nuclear spins open up a fairly large tunneling window of energy $`\epsilon _w`$ such that tunneling can occur if the Zeeman energy change $`2\epsilon _h`$ upon tunneling is not much larger than $`\epsilon _w`$ PS . More precisely, the tunneling rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ for spins at very low temperature, is given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(\epsilon _h)\mathrm{\Gamma }\eta (\epsilon _h/\epsilon _w),$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is some rate (whose value is not important for our purposes), $`\eta (x)1`$ for $`x<1`$, $`\eta (x)0`$ for $`x>1`$, and $`\epsilon _w\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Other theories for MQT of SMM at very low temperatures have also been proposed chudno . We adopt Eq. (1) here, regardeless of theory or physical mechanism behind it. We let $`\eta (x)=1`$ for $`x<1`$ and $`\eta (x)=0`$ for $`x1`$, and refer to $`\epsilon _w`$ as the tunnel energy window.

The interesting early time relaxation $`1m\sqrt{t}`$ of an initially magnetized system has been predicted PS , observed experimentally exp , further explained vill , and widely discussed comm . An unpredicted related phenomenon was later observed by Wernsdorfer et al. ww1 : the magnetization $`m`$ of a system of Fe8 SMM’s increases as $`\sqrt{t}`$, where $`t`$ is the time after a weak magnetic field is applied to an initially unpolarized system. Conveniently, this latter effect seemed to be independent of system shape. Interesting questions arise: is this a universal effect to be found in all MQT experiments? If not, what does it depend on? How many time decades does the $`\sqrt{t}`$ regime cover? What is the final steady state magnetization? No explanation or simulation that we know of has been offered. We address these questions here.

We report Monte Carlo (MC) results that reproduce the $`m\sqrt{t}`$ behavior of initially unpolarized systems. We show that this arises from correlations that develop between spins and local magnetic dipolar fields, while cooling to low temperatures, before finally quenching to experiment. Furthermore $`m(t)`$ depends on the cooling protocol only through the final energy $`\epsilon _a`$ reached just before quenching.

The main results obtained follow. All energies and magnetic fields are given in terms of $`\epsilon _d`$ and $`h_d`$, respectively, where $`2\epsilon _d`$ is the energy of two S spins that lie on sites $`a`$ distance away, that point along the line joining their two sites, $`a`$ is the side of a cubic unit cell, $`h_d=\epsilon _d/(g\mu _BS)`$, $`g`$ is the gyromagnetic ratio, and $`\mu _B`$ is the Bohr magneton. We also let $`\sigma `$ stand for the rms value of $`h`$ for a disordered spin configuration Alonso2 . After quenching and applying a field $`H1`$ at $`t=0`$,

$$m(t)b\epsilon _a\epsilon _wH\sigma ^3F(\mathrm{\Gamma }t,\sigma /\epsilon _w,\sigma /h_0),$$
(2)
where $`b4\sqrt{2/\pi }`$, and

$`F`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }t\text{ for }\mathrm{\Gamma }t1`$ (3)
$`F`$ $``$ $`0.7(\mathrm{\Gamma }t)^p\text{ for }1\mathrm{\Gamma }t(\sigma /ϵ_w)^{1/p}`$ (4)
$`F`$ $``$ $`0.5\sigma \epsilon _w^1\text{ for }(\sigma /\epsilon _w)^{1/p}\mathrm{\Gamma }t,`$ (5)
where, $`h_0=2(2\pi )^2/3^{5/2}\rho _v`$, $`\rho _v`$ is the number of spin sites per unit volume, $`p0.5`$, for simple cubic (SC) lattices, and $`p0.7`$ for body centered cubic (BCC) and face centered cubic (FCC) lattices. These results are inferred from MC simulations in which the energy of the magnetic system is held constant in time as well as from arguments given below. For magnetic systems that readily exchange energy with the lattice, for which the energy is not a constant of time, results are briefly discussed in the closing remarks.

We first describe the simulations. We use the MC method to simulate magnetic relaxation of Ising systems of $`\pm S`$ spins, on simple cubic lattices with periodic boundary conditions, that interact through magnetic dipolar fields and flip under rules to be specified below Ising . The system is first allowed to evolve towards thermal equilibrium at some “high” temperature $`T_a`$. We assume $`k_BT_aU/10`$, which implies that spin reversals then take place mostly through classical thermal processes. Accordingly, spin flips are then governed by detailed balance rules, and Eq. (1) is not enforced. For reasons that are given below, we also impose the restriction $`T_aT_0`$, where $`T_0`$ is the long-range ordering temperature. One may think of this first process as a waiting stage that the systems may have to undergo in the cooling process, before quenching to a lower temperature where a tunneling experiment (as in Ref. ww1, ) can be later performed. Let this first stage end at $`t=0`$ with sudden cooling of the system to a “very low” temperature, that is, to a temperature below, roughly, $`0.2U/(Sk_B)`$ sangregorio ; ree . Accordingly, Eq. (1) is then enforced on all spin flips for $`t>0`$. As for detailed balance, we then proceed as follows. We assume that thermalization of a SMM system with the lattice does not take place (i.e., the energy is constant) at very low temperatures (but see Ref. metes ). We meet this condition by enforcing detailed balance but using an appropriately chosen pseudotemperature $`T_u`$. \[From an expression below Eq. (6), $`k_BT_u\sigma ^2/2\epsilon _a`$. Note that $`T_uT_a`$, since $`\epsilon _a`$ cannot be smaller than the equilibrium energy at $`T_a`$\]. We have checked that the mean energy is indeed constant under this rule. We do not report here results we have obtained applying detailed balance rules with $`T<T_a`$ (applicable to systems where thermal relaxation to the lattice takes place metes ), but make a comment on them in the closing remarks. MC results for the time evolution of $`m/\epsilon _w`$ in SC lattice systems, after a field $`H=1`$ is applied upon quenching, are shown in Fig. 1(a) for various values of $`\epsilon _w`$. Before quenching, the system was thermalized at $`T_a=10/k_B`$ for some time till the energy per spin reached the value $`0.58`$. Clearly, $`m`$ scales with $`\epsilon _w`$ up to a crossover time of, roughly, $`10\mathrm{\Gamma }^1/\epsilon _w^2`$, where $`m`$ levels off. Within the time range $`1\mathrm{\Gamma }t10/\epsilon _w^2`$, $`m\sqrt{t}`$. Monte Carlo results that show how $`m`$ scales with $`\epsilon _a`$ are exhibited in Fig. 1(b) for $`\epsilon _w=0.1`$. Note also that $`m_e`$, the leveling off value of $`m`$, scales with $`\epsilon _a`$, and, as argued below, it scales with $`\sigma ^2`$ as well, in agreement with Fig. 1(c). Results for different cubic lattices are shown in Fig. 1(c). The $`\mathrm{log}m`$ versus $`\mathrm{log}t`$ slopes in the intermediate time regime are clearly lattice structure dependent. Much of Eqs. (2-5) is inferred from these graphs.

For most of the rest of the paper, we try to understand these results. Let’s first examine the physics of the waiting stage. We assume the system is first cooled to some temperature $`T_a`$ that is above the ordering temperature $`T_0`$, but not infinite. We also assume that $`k_BT_aU/10`$. It then follows from Arrehnius’ law, $`\tau =\tau _0\mathrm{exp}(U/k_BT)`$, that over barrier spin flipping readily takes place in the laboratory within a second’s time if $`\tau _010^5`$ s. Some correlation between spin $`s_i`$ and field $`h_i`$ at each site $`i`$ can therefore be established, but no long-range order can develop if $`T_aT_0`$. Assume that either $`T_aT_0`$ or that the time spent in the waiting stage is so short that the probability density function (PDF) $`p(h)`$ that a randomly chosen site have field $`h`$ is reasonably approximated by $`p(h)\mathrm{exp}(h^2/2\sigma ^2)`$. On the other hand, the conditional PDF to find $`\pm S`$ given a field $`h`$ acting on the spin fulfills, in equilibrium, $`p(\pm Sh)\mathrm{exp}(\pm h/k_BT)`$. Now, since the joint probability density $`p(\pm S,h)`$ that, on a randomly chosen site, one find $`h`$ acting on $`\pm S`$ is in general given by $`p(\pm S,h)=p(\pm Sh)p(h)`$,

$$p(\pm S,h)e^{(h\sigma ^2/k_BT)^2/2\sigma ^2},$$
(6)
follows in equilibrium. Therefore, the mean energy is $`\sigma ^2/2k_BT`$. The replacement $`\sigma ^2/2k_BT\epsilon _a`$, generalizes the above equation to

$$p(\pm S,h)e^{(h2\epsilon _a)^2/2\sigma ^2}$$
(7)
for all times up to equilibration. Then, to first order in $`\epsilon _a/\sigma `$,

$$p_{}(h)p_{}(h)\sqrt{2/\pi }h\epsilon _a\sigma ^3e^{h^2/2\sigma ^2},$$
(8)
where $`p_{}(h)=p(S,h)`$ and $`p_{}(h)=p(S,h)`$. All points for $`[p_{}(h)p_{}(h)]/(h\epsilon _a)`$ obtained from MC calculations collapse onto a single curve in Fig. 2a, in agreement with Eq. (8). Deviations, of higher order in $`\epsilon _a/\sigma `$, from Eq. (8) do occur. They are within 10% even if complete thermal equilibration is allowed to take place as long as $`T10`$, i.e., above approximately $`4T_0`$.

We now examine the time evolution of the system after abruptly cooling it, at time $`t=0`$, to a temperature below, roughly, $`0.2U/(Sk_B)`$. Then, spin flips up to $`S_z<S`$ states can be neglected, and tunneling through the ground state doublet is the only available path for spin reversals. Accordingly, spin flips are allowed only if the spin’s Zeeman energy is within the tunnel window. A field $`H`$ is applied for all $`t>0`$. Now, if either the system is in thermal contact with a reservoir at a temperature such that $`k_BT\epsilon _w`$, or the energy is constant and sufficiently high such that $`k_BT_u\epsilon _w`$, then

$$\dot{m}=2\mathrm{\Gamma }𝑑h\eta (H+h)f(h,t),$$
(9)
where $`f(h,t)=p_{}(h,t)p_{}(h,t)`$.

It is worth pointing out that $`f(h,0)`$ is given by Eq. (8), and therefore $`f(h,0)=(2h\epsilon _a/\sigma ^2)p(h,0)`$ at $`t=0`$, where $`p(h,0)`$ is the PDF regardless of spin orientation, i.e., $`p(h)=p_{}(h)+p_{}(h)`$. However, $`f(h,t)hp(h,t)`$ does not hold for $`t>0`$. This point is illustrated in Fig. 2(b), where MC results for both $`f(h,t)`$ and $`p(h,t)`$ are shown for some non-zero times. $`p(h,t)`$ is invariant for times $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. As reported in Ref.Alonso , a sharp dip, of approximately $`\epsilon _w`$ half–width, does develop in $`p(h)`$, but only at much later times, and then not when $`k_BT\epsilon _w`$. On the other hand, a hole does show up in $`f(h,t)`$ in Fig. 2(b), as in Wernsdorder’s experiments ww1 , performed at $`T=40`$ mK (which is roughly 10 times as large as $`\epsilon _w/k_B`$) Alonso ; ww1 .

The time development of the hole in $`f(h,t)`$ is illustrated in Fig. 2(c). Note that the hole deepens, but its width remains approximately constant while $`\mathrm{\Gamma }t1`$, and then, under the conditions stated above Eq. (9), $`\dot{f}=2\mathrm{\Gamma }f`$. Therefore, since $`m`$ equals the area coverd by the hole \[i.e., $`m(t)=𝑑h[f(h,0)f(h,t)]`$\],

$$m2\epsilon _wf(H,0)(1e^{2\mathrm{\Gamma }t})$$
(10)
if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }t1`$ and $`\epsilon _w\sigma `$. Using Eq. (8), Eq. (3) follows. The value $`m_e`$ that $`m(t)`$ levels off to after a sufficiently long time, that is, Eq. (5), can be estimated as follows. For $`\mathrm{\Gamma }t1`$, $`f(H,t)f(H,0)`$, and the hole only becomes broader, but it cannot become wider than the field distribution $`p(h)`$. The final area covered by the hole is therefore $`2f(H,0)\sigma `$, which is the estimated value of $`m_e`$, in rough agreement with the expression for $`m_e`$ below Eq. (5).

More detailed considerations underlie Eq. (4). We have derived theory  the equation,

$$\dot{x}c_1\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi }}c_2_0^t𝑑\tau \frac{2\epsilon _w\dot{x}(\tau )}{\omega (t\tau )+2\epsilon _w},$$
(11)
where, $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ are constants to be specified below, $`\omega (t\tau )`$ is the inverse of the PDF that the field $`h`$ on a randomly chosen site be the same at times $`t`$ and $`\tau `$. Quantity $`m`$ follows from Eq. (11) letting $`m=x\epsilon _a\epsilon _wH/\sigma ^3`$, $`c_1=4`$, and $`c_2=2`$. $`\omega (t\tau )`$ depends on $`t\tau `$ through the probability $`\varphi (t\tau )`$ that a spin point in opposite directions at times $`t`$ and $`\tau `$. To make progress, we make the approximation $`\omega \mathrm{min}[2\pi h_0\varphi ,2\sigma \sqrt{\pi }\sqrt{\varphi }]`$. The approximation for $`\varphi 1`$ follows from the Lorentzian PDF, of half width $`h_0\varphi `$, that ensues when a small fraction $`\varphi `$ of sites are randomly occupied by spins PWA . (The two factors of 2 come from the fact that flipping an already present spin $`S`$ is like placing a $`2S`$ spin on an unoccupied site.) The approximation for $`\varphi 1/2`$ follows from the Gaussian distribution that holds then. In between, the interpolation checks, within some $`10\%`$, with our MC results. Finally, $`\varphi (t\tau )`$ must be evaluated. For this purpose, an equation for the fraction of spins $`n(t)`$ that have flipped at least once before time $`t`$ is derived theory . It is Eq. (11) using $`n=x\epsilon _w/\sigma `$, $`c_1=1`$ and $`c_2=1`$. We then use $`\varphi n/2`$. The functional dependence of $`F`$ shown in Eq. (2) follows by careful inspection of these equations. Numerical calculations yield the curves shown in Figs. 1(a), (b), and (c). The exponent $`p`$ depends on lattice structure, through $`\sigma /h_0`$ in the expression for $`\omega (\varphi )`$ above. The agreement with our MC results exhibited in Fig. 1(c) is reassuring.

A couple of final remarks follow. Equations (2-5) are for magnetic systems that do not exchange energy with a heat bath (i.e., the lattice, usually) at very low temperatures. Then, $`m(t)m_e`$ as $`t\mathrm{}`$. When heat exchange does takes place readily, as in some systems in Ref. metes , then our simulations show that $`m(t)`$ eventually crosses over from the value given by Eqs. (2-5) to $`m_{th}(t)0.3(\epsilon _w/\sigma )^3H\mathrm{\Gamma }t`$, for $`H1`$. This happens when $`m_{th}(t)`$ becomes the larger of the two. Later on, $`m_{th}`$ levels off to a quasi steady state value (not the final thermal equilibrium value), which depends on both system shape and lattice structure, as expected. (If a field is not applied inmediately upon quenching, but later, the quasi steady state value of $`m_{th}`$ is also affected.) The $`(\epsilon _w/\sigma )^3`$ dependence suggests that (see Ref. Ising ), in contrast with constant energy magnetization processes, magnetic ordering takes place while the system magnetizes.

Summing up, we have given MC and theoretically based evidence to show that the $`m\sqrt{t}`$ behavior observed in experiments on Fe8 clusters ww1  after quenching and applying a small field $`H`$ at $`t=0`$ is driven by correlations which are previously established in the system while cooling to very low temperature. We have established that the $`\sqrt{t}`$ behavior is not universal. More generally, $`m(t)t^p`$, and $`p`$ depends on lattice structure. The time range over which this behavior prevails, the value $`m_e`$ that the magnetization later levels off to, and the crossover time to a final thermally–driven regime have been determined. More specifically, Eq. (2-5) have been inferred from MC simulations and Eq. (11), and much of the relevant physics has been explained.

We are grateful to F. Luis and W. Wernsdorfer for useful comments. The Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología of Spain supported this work through grant No. BFM2000-0622.


text:
# Search for 𝑩⁻→𝑱/𝝍𝚲𝒑̄ decay

KEK Preprint 2003-60

Belle Preprint 2003-18

on leave from \]Nova Gorica Polytechnic, Nova Gorica The Belle Collaboration

## Abstract

We report the results of a search for $`B^{}J/\psi \mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{p}`$ based on a data set of 78 fb-1 data collected at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance with the Belle detector at the KEKB asymmetric $`e^+e^{}`$ collider. No substantial signal is found, and we set the branching fraction upper limit $`(B^{}J/\psi \mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{p})<4.1\times 10^5`$ at $`90\%`$ confidence level.

The inclusive decay of $`BJ/\psi +X`$ has been studied by CLEOBA95 , BelleSS00 , and recently BaBarAu02 . The $`J/\psi `$ momentum spectrum in the $`e^+e^{}`$ center of mass frame is consistent with the distribution predicted by non-relativistic QCD calculationsBSW00 , except for an excess in the low momentum region which has been observed by all of the above experiments. The excess below 0.8 GeV/$`c`$ corresponds to a branching fraction of $`4\times 10^46\times 10^4`$.

In order to explain this excess, several theoretical hypotheses have been proposedBN97 ; HC01 ; ELY02 . One of them is that the excess arises from $`BJ/\psi \mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{p}`$ decaysBN97 ; this possibility can also be inferred from the rather large branching fraction of $`B\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{p}X`$, ($`2.3\pm 0.4`$)% PDG . At the quark level, $`B^{}J/\psi \mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{p}`$ can be described as ($`ud\overline{u}\overline{d}`$) produced by gluon emission from the Cabibbo favoured $`bc\overline{c}s`$ diagram. The decay rate could be enhanced by an intermediate exotic state such as a bound state of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\overline{p}`$, $`J/\psi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, or $`J/\psi `$ and $`\overline{p}`$. In this case, the momentum distributions of the daughter particles will exhibit some characteristic enhancements. Thus, searching for $`B^{}J/\psi \mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{p}`$ helps to understand the source of the excess at low $`J/\psi `$ momentum and to find intermediate states. The BaBar collaboration has recently reported results of a similar searchBa03 .

In this paper we report on the study of $`B^{}J/\psi \mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{p}`$. The analysis is based on a data sample of 78 fb-1 accumulated at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance with the Belle detector at the KEKB 8 GeV $`e^{}`$ and 3.5 GeV $`e^+`$ asymmetric colliderKK03 .

The Belle detector consists of a three-layer silicon vertex detector (SVD), a 50-layer central drift chamber (CDC), an array of aerogel threshold $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{C}}\mathrm{erenkov}`$ counters (ACC), time-of-flight scintillation counters (TOF), a CsI(Tl) crystal electromagnetic calorimeter (ECL), a 1.5 T superconducting solenoid coil and an instrumented iron-flux return for muon and $`K_L`$ detection (KLM). The detector is described in detail elsewhereBelle .

In this analysis, we use the decay chain: $`B^{}J/\psi \mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{p}`$, $`J/\psi l^+l^{}`$($`l`$=$`e`$,$`\mu `$), and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }p\pi ^{}`$. Inclusion of charge conjugate states is implied throughout this paper. To suppress continuum backgrounds we require the ratio of the second to zeroth Fox-Wolfram momentsFoxWolf  to be less than 0.5.

To remove charged tracks that are badly measured or do not come from the interaction region, we require leptons from $`J/\psi `$ to originate from within 5 cm of the interaction point along the beam direction. Both lepton tracks are required to be well identified as leptons. Electrons are identified using a combination of specific ionization measurements ($`dE/dx`$) from the CDC, the ACC response, and electromagnetic shower position, shape and energy from the ECLHK02 . Muons are identified with KLM hit positions and penetration depthAA02 . In order to recover dielectron events where one or both electrons have radiated a photon (final state radiation or bremsstrahlung), we include the four-momentum of every photon detected within 0.05 radians of the original $`e^+`$ or $`e^{}`$ direction in the invariant mass calculation. The invariant mass of the candidate $`J/\psi \mu ^+\mu ^{}(e^+e^{})`$ is required to be between $`60(150)`$ MeV/$`c^2`$ and $`+36(+36)`$ MeV/$`c^2`$ of the known $`J/\psi `$ mass. The asymmetric mass requirements are due to radiative tails. The selection criteria for $`J/\psi `$ are identical to those used in ref.ABE03 .

Particle identification information from the ACC, TOF and $`dE/dx`$ information from the CDC is used to construct likelihoods $`L_i`$ for each hadron type $`i`$ ($`i`$ = $`\pi `$, $`K`$, and $`p`$). We require $`L_p/(L_p+L_K)>0.6`$ and $`L_\pi /(L_\pi +L_K)>0.6`$ to select protons and pions, respectively. For the prompt $`\overline{p}`$ candidates, tracks that are positively identified as muons or electrons are rejected.

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ candidates are reconstructed via the $`p\pi ^{}`$ decay channel. We require that the transverse impact parameters of both $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ daughter tracks with respect to the nominal beam axis be greater than 0.03 cm, the $`z`$ distance between the daughter tracks before constraining the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ vertex be less than 12 cm, and the vertex fitting $`\chi ^2`$ be smaller than 100. The invariant mass of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ candidate is required to be within $`\pm `$6 MeV/$`c^2`$ of the nominal $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ mass. These criteria are determined to maximize $`S/\sqrt{S+B}`$, where $`S`$ is the number of expected signal events in the signal region defined below obtained from Monte Carlo (MC), and $`B`$ is the number of expected background events obtained from sideband data. For the calculation of $`S`$, we assume the branching fraction of $`B^{}J/\psi \mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{p}`$ to be $`1.0\times 10^5`$ which is consistent with our final result. We apply vertex and mass constrained fits for $`J/\psi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ candidates to improve the momentum resolution.

We identify $`B^{}J/\psi \mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{p}`$ candidates using two kinematic variables calculated in the center of mass frame: the beam-energy constrained mass, $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}\sqrt{E_{\mathrm{beam}}^2\stackrel{}{p}_B^2}`$, and the mass difference, $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_BM_Bm_B^{}`$, where $`E_{\mathrm{beam}}`$ is the beam energy, $`\stackrel{}{p}_B`$ and $`M_B`$ are the reconstructed momentum and mass of the $`B`$ candidate, and $`m_B^{}`$ is the nominal $`B^{}`$ mass. Candidates with $`|\mathrm{\Delta }M_B|<0.20`$ GeV/$`c^2`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}>5.20`$ GeV/$`c^2`$ are selected for the final analysis. The signal region is defined to be 5.27 GeV/$`c^2<M_{\mathrm{bc}}<`$ 5.29 GeV/$`c^2`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }M_B|<0.03`$ GeV/$`c^2`$, which corresponds to three standard deviations based on the MC simulation. We also define a $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_B`$ sideband region as 0.06 GeV/$`c^2<\mathrm{\Delta }M_B<`$ 0.20 GeV/$`c^2`$.

In this analysis, we do not use the widely used $`\mathrm{\Delta }EE_BE_{\mathrm{beam}}`$, where $`E_B`$ is the energy of the reconstructed $`B`$. For the $`J/\psi \mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{p}`$ events, the kinematic limit of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ can be expressed as $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=\sqrt{M_{\mathrm{tot}}^2+E_{\mathrm{beam}}^2M_{\mathrm{bc}}^2}E_{\mathrm{beam}}`$, where $`M_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ is the sum of the masses of $`J/\psi `$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\overline{p}`$. This kinematic limit is close to the signal region and depends on $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$, which introduces a distortion in the $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ phase space. Consequently, events outside the $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}/\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ signal region cannot be used to model the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E/M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ distributions for the background. Furthermore, we find a large negative correlation between $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ for signal events. On the contrary, $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_B`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ are uncorrelated, which is confirmed using Monte Carlo simulations. Therefore, we use $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_B`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ to identify signal candidates in this analysisnote1 .

Around 15% of the selected events have more than one $`B`$ candidate. We select the best candidate by first choosing the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ candidate with the smallest total $`\chi ^2`$ of the vertex and mass constrained fit. If multiple $`B`$ candidates with the same $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ remain, we select the one with the smallest $`\chi ^2`$ of the $`J/\psi \overline{p}`$ vertex.

Figure 1 shows a scatter plot of $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_B`$ versus $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ and their projections for candidates after all selection criteria are applied. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_B`$($`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$) projection is shown for candidates in the $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$($`\mathrm{\Delta }M_B`$) signal region. There are six events in the ($`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$,$`\mathrm{\Delta }M_B`$) signal region. We obtain the signal yield by fitting the $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ distribution, since this variable has better agreement between data and MC than $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_B`$. The background is described by an ARGUS functionARG  and the signal PDF is modelled by a sum of two Gaussians plus a Crystal Ball line functionCB  to account for the small tail, with parameters obtained from MC. In the fitting, $`E_{\mathrm{beam}}`$ and the width of the main Gaussian are fixed as 5.289 GeV and 2.62 MeV/$`c^2`$ respectively, based on a control sample of $`B^{}D^0\pi ^{}`$. We simultaneously fit the signal and sideband regions, where the PDF in the sideband region is given by an ARGUS function with the same parameters as used in the signal region, except for the normalization, which is allowed to float. The $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ fit gives $`3.5\pm 2.3`$ signal events and $`0.92\pm 0.34`$ background events in the signal box. The statistical significance of the signal, defined as $`\sqrt{2\mathrm{ln}(L_0/L_{\mathrm{max}})}`$, is 2.3, where $`L_{\mathrm{max}}`$ and $`L_0`$ denote the maximum likelihood with the fitted signal yield and with the yield fixed at zero, respectively. We examine the contribution of other decay modes including $`J/\psi `$ and baryons, such as $`B^{}J/\psi \mathrm{\Sigma }^0\overline{p}`$, which may also peak in the $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ signal region. Using MC, we find them to be negligible with an assumption that their branching fractions are comparable to $`B^{}J/\psi \mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{p}`$. As a cross check we also fit the $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_B`$ distributions; the obtained signal yield is $`4.7\pm 2.7`$, with a statistical significance of 2.8, while the background yield is $`0.55\pm 0.31`$. These results are consistent with the results of the $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ fit. Since the signal yield is not substantial, we give an upper limit of the branching fraction as the main result of this analysis.

The reconstruction efficiency ($`ϵ`$) is estimated using signal MC where a three-body phase-space model is employed. We obtain $`ϵ=(6.3_{2.3}^{+2.7})\%`$. The sources and amounts of systematic uncertainties are summarized in Table 1. The uncertainty of the tracking efficiency is estimated by adding the momentum dependent single track systematic error. The uncertainty is $`1\%`$ for leptons from $`J/\psi `$, $`3.5\%`$ and $`1.6\%`$ for low momentum pions and protons from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and $`1.4\%`$ for prompt protons from $`B`$. The uncertainty of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ reconstruction is determined by comparing the proper time distributions for data and MC simulation. For the uncertainty due to modeling three-body decays in the phase space, we conservatively assign the maximum variation of the efficiencies among the slices of $`M(J/\psi ,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, $`M(J/\psi ,\overline{p})`$, and $`M(\mathrm{\Lambda },\overline{p})`$.

We use the method of Feldman and CousinsFC98 , including the uncertainties of the background and efficiency estimationsJC03 , to obtain a 90% confidence interval for the branching fraction given by $`N_S/(ϵ\times N_{B\overline{B}}\times (J/\psi l^+l^{})\times (\mathrm{\Lambda }p\pi ^{}))`$, where $`N_S`$ is the signal yield, $`N_{B\overline{B}}`$ is the number of $`B\overline{B}`$ pairs, $`(85.0\pm 0.5)\times 10^6`$, and the decay branching fractions $`(J/\psi l^+l^{})`$ and $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }p\pi ^{})`$ are taken from the world averagesPDG . The fractions of neutral and charged $`B`$ mesons produced in $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ decays are assumed to be equal. With six observed candidates, $`0.92\pm 0.34`$ background events, and the uncertainties in $`ϵ`$, $`N_{B\overline{B}}`$, and secondary branching fractions mentioned above, we obtain an upper bound of the interval from this procedure of $`(B^{}J/\psi \mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{p})<4.1\times 10^5`$, which we interpret as a conservative estimate of the 90% confidence upper limit of the branching fractionnote2 .

Figure 2 shows the momentum distributions for $`J/\psi `$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and prompt $`\overline{p}`$ of the six candidates in the $`B`$ rest frame. We do not observe any significant enhancement above the phase space distribution, such as would be expected by an intermediate resonanceBN97 .

In summary, we have searched for the decay of $`B^{}J/\psi \mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{p}`$ at Belle with 78 fb-1 data collected at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance. No statistically significant signals are found. We set an upper limit of $`(B^{}J/\psi \mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{p})<4.1\times 10^5`$ at $`90\%`$ confidence level. This result is consistent with the BaBar resultBa03 . This mode does not account for a significant fraction of the observed excess in the low momentum region of $`BJ/\psi X`$.

###### Acknowledgements.

We wish to thank the KEKB accelerator group for the excellent operation of the KEKB accelerator. We acknowledge support from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science; the Australian Research Council and the Australian Department of Education, Science and Training; the National Science Foundation of China under contract No. 10175071; the Department of Science and Technology of India; the BK21 program of the Ministry of Education of Korea and the CHEP SRC program of the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation; the Polish State Committee for Scientific Research under contract No. 2P03B 01324; the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Russian Federation; the Ministry of Education, Science and Sport of the Republic of Slovenia; the National Science Council and the Ministry of Education of Taiwan; and the U.S. Department of Energy.


text:
# Comment on “Frustrating interactions and broadened magnetic interactions in the edge–sharing CuO2 chains in La5Ca9Cu24O41”

## Abstract

Using Monte Carlo techniques, we show that the two–dimensional anisotropic Heisenberg model reproducing nicely inelastic neutron scattering measurements on La5Ca9Cu24O41 (Matsuda et al. \[Phys. Rev. B 68, 060406(R) (2003)\]) seems to be insufficient to describe correctly measurements on thermodynamic quantities like the magnetization or the susceptibility. Possible reasons for the discrepancy are suggested.

Recently, Matsuda et al.mat  reported results of careful inelastic neutron scattering experiments on La5Ca9Cu24O41. From standard spinwave analysis, it is concluded that the experimental data can be well reproduced by a two–dimensional anisotropic spin-1/2 Heisenberg model with antiferromagnetic nearest–neighbor interactions, $`J_{c1}`$ (= 0.2meV), and ferromagnetic next–nearest–neighbor couplings, $`J_{c2}`$ ($`=0.18`$meV), between the Cu ions in the CuO2 chains, as well as antiferromagnetic couplings $`J_{ac1}`$ (= 0.681meV) and $`J_{ac2}`$ ($`=0.5J_{ac1}=0.3405`$meV) between nearest and next–nearest neighboring Cu ions in adjacent chains, respectively (see Fig. 1 in Ref. mat, ). The uniaxial anisotropy of the spins along the $`b`$ axis is written in the form of a single–ion interaction $`D`$ (= $`0.211`$meV), summing over the anisotropy contributions of the different couplings.

This model reproduces the measured dispersion relations along the CuO2 chains, i.e. along the $`c`$ axis, and perpendicular to these chains, along the $`a`$ axis. It is supposed to describe, at low temperatures, the long–range ferromagnetic order in the chains and an antiferromagnetic order perpendicular to the chains.

We performed Monte Carlo simulations on the model in its classical limit with unit vectors as the spins, where the uniaxial anisotropy along the $`b`$ axis is described either by a single–ion anisotropy,mat  $`D(S_j^z)^2`$, or by anisotropic exchange interactions distributing the total anisotropy in various ways among the different couplings. We used exactly the interaction strengths determined in Ref. mat, . To compare the simulational data to previous measurements amm  on the magnetization and specific heat of La5Ca9Cu24O41, we included external fields $`H_{b,c}`$ along the $`b`$ and $`c`$ axes, and we recorded especially sublattice magnetizations, the total magnetization, the susceptibility, and the specific heat. We took care that reliable equilibrium data were obtained, using at least $`5\times 10^5`$ Monte Carlo steps per spin in each run. We studied finite–size effects, simulating square lattices with the linear dimension ranging from 10 to 100. The square lattice is constructed in such a way that its principal axes are given by the two directions along which $`J_{ac1}`$ acts between a reference site and the two sites in one of the adjacent chains. Thence the relatively strong coupling $`J_{ac1}`$ connects nearest–neighbor spins on that lattice, and the CuO2 chains run diagonally through the lattice. This geometry shows most directly the relation of the model by Matsuda et al. to much studied anisotropic Heisenberg models with nearest–neighbor interactions on square lattices.

Our main findings may be summarized as follows:

(i) For vanishing field and at low temperatures, one obtains, indeed, antiferromagnetic order, i.e. the model describes a ferromagnetic ordering of the spins along the CuO2 chains and an antiferromagnetic ordering perpendicular to the chains, due to the fairly strong antiferromagnetic couplings $`J_{ac1}`$ and $`J_{ac2}`$. The frustrated intrachain couplings $`J_{c1}`$ and $`J_{c2}`$, tending to compensate each other, play only a minor role, connecting next–nearest and more distant spins on the square lattice. The transition from the antiferromagnetic to the paramagnetic phase occurs at about $`T_N=11.5\pm 0.5`$K (shifting to somewhat lower temperatures when assigning the uniaxial anisotropy mainly to the intrachain couplings). This apparent agreement with the experimentally observed transition temperature of $`10.5`$K (Ref. mat, ) resp. $`9.7`$K (Ref. amm, ) is, however, misleading. Quantum fluctuations are known to reduce the transition temperature in closely related two–dimensional anisotropic spin-1/2 antiferromagnetic quantum Heisenberg models by a factor of about 1.5 in the extreme Ising limit, as compared to $`T_N`$ in the corresponding classical models with unit vectors; for weaker anisotropy the factor tends to increase.cuc ; ser  Therefore we conclude that the transition temperature of the anisotropic Heisenberg model mat  is expected to be too low compared to the measured $`T_N`$.

(ii) Well above the transition temperature, say, at $`1.5T_N<T<3.0T_N`$, the ratio $`r`$ of the static susceptibilities (defined by the magnetizations divided by the magnetic fields) along the $`b`$ and $`c`$ axes, resp., is found to be almost independent of temperature, both in experiments amm  and in the simulations, see Fig. 1. For the anisotropic Heisenberg model, we find that the ratio is also largely independent of the strength of the field (considering fields smaller than the spin–flop field at zero temperature, $`H_b^{\text{sf}}`$= 1.81meV), with $`r1.02`$ (approaching one at higher temperatures). The measured ratio is appreciably larger, $`r1.3`$, see Fig. 1 in Ref. amm, . This discrepancy may be, however, misleading because the ratio $`r`$ obtained in the simulations has to be multiplied by the ratio of the squares of the corresponding $`g`$–factors, $`(g_b/g_c)^2`$, for a correct comparison with the experiments.klin ; mat2  Indeed, the $`g`$–factor is anisotropic, with $`g_b/g_c1.14`$ for this material.klin ; exp  Thence the simulational findings for the ratio $`r`$ of the magnetizations in differently oriented fields on the anisotropic Heisenberg model with a rather weak anisotropy seems to be consistent with the pertinent experiments.

(iii) Applying the field along the $`b`$ axis, we evaluated the susceptibility $`\chi _b=M_b/H_b`$ at temperatures below $`T_N`$. Typically, at constant temperature, $`\chi _b`$ displays as a function of $`H_b`$ a strong, delta–like peak at $`H_b^{\text{sf}}`$, signalling the transition from the antiferromagnetic to the spin–flop phase and, at a larger field, $`H_b^{\text{pm}}`$, an additional weak maximum indicating the transition from the spin–flop phase to the paramagnetic phase, see Fig. 2. The spin–flop field $`H_b^{\text{sf}}`$ is nearly independent of temperature below about $`0.7T_N`$, decreasing then rather sharply to zero as $`T`$ approaches $`T_N`$. The upper transition field, $`H_b^{\text{pm}}`$, decreases quite strongly with increasing temperature already at low temperatures. These findings on the anisotropic Heisenberg model are in marked contrast with the observed behavior amm ; klin  of $`\chi _b`$ for La5Ca9Cu24O41. Experimentally, one also obtains two anomalies in $`\chi _b`$, but a sharp, cusp–like singularity with a rather low maximal height at a small field followed by a broad and higher maximum at larger fields. The location of the upper characteristic field depends, below $`T_N`$, only weakly on temperature. At the lower characteristic field the breakdown of antiferromagnetic order is observed in neutron scattering experiments;klin  this field goes to zero as one approaches $`T_N`$. Experimentally, there seems to be no evidence for a transition from the antiferromagnetic phase to a spin–flop phase at the lower characteristic field. The origin and nature of that transition has still to be clarified. At any rate, the results on $`\chi _b`$ for the anisotropic Heisenberg model deviate clearly from the measured behavior.

From the comparison between the thermodynamic measurements amm ; klin  on La5Ca9Cu24O41 and the simulational data on the classical version of the model suggested in Ref. mat, , it follows that the model, describing nicely the dispersion relations, seems to be incomplete, missing important ingredients of the real material. Perhaps, as already indicated before,mat  the holes induced by the Ca ions may play an important role. A first, simplified modelling of that aspect in the framework of an Ising model has been proposed recently. sel ; hol  Furthermore, the couplings of spins in neighboring $`ac`$–planes may be relevant. Of course, extending the model of Matsuda et al.mat  to three dimensions is not expected to resolve the discrepancy about the presence of the spin–flop phase. Finally, structural distortions in La5Ca9Cu24O41 may even call for a description going beyond pure spin models.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank B. Büchner and R. Klingeler for very useful discussions as well as M. Krech and M. Matsuda for helpful information.