text:
# Time Delay in Gravitational Lensing by a Charged Black Hole of String Theory

## 1 Introduction

Gravitational lensing is one of the first and more important applications of General Relativity. The first recognized effect was the light deflection by the sun, and after that, there was the lensing of quasars by galaxies. Now it is an ordinary phenomenon in astronomical observations.

Because of the non-linearity of General Relativity, gravitational lensing has been developed in the weak field approximation. However, in the last years the literature is starting to look at the lensing in the strong field limit, because of the necessity of looking for the behavior of light near massive objects, for example near the event horizon of black holes.

The development of strong-field lensing theory was started by Virbhadra and Ellis$`^{\text{[3]}}`$; and more recently by Bozza$`^{\text{[6]}}`$, that shows an analytical technique for obtaining the deflection angle in the strong field situation and showed that the deflection angle diverge logarithmically as light approach the photon sphere of a general class of static spherically symmetric metrics.

Following the work of Bozza; A. Bhadra$`^{\text{[1]}}`$ studies the gravitational lensing due to the Gibbons-Maeda-Garfinkle-Horowtiz-Stromiger (GMGHS) charged black hole of heterotic string theory and compares its estimated observables lensing quantities with those due to the Reissner-Nordström solution of General relativity. As a conclusion, Bhadra finds that there is no significant string effect present in the angular position and magnification of the relativistic images in the strong-gravity scenario.

Very recently, Bozza and Mancini$`^{\text{[7]}}`$ extended the analytical theory of strong lensing by calculating the time delay between different relativistic images, and shows that different types of black holes are characterized by different time delays. Thus, this quantity can, eventually, become available for the classification of the black holes.

In the present work, we follow the method of  to study the time delay between the relativistic images produced by the GMGHS black hole gravitational lensing. In order to get a clear idea of the string contribution, we estimate the expected time delay for several interesting supermassive extragalactic black holes and compare the with the expected for the Reisnner-Nordström solution.

The paper is structured as follows. In Sec. 2. we review the GMGHS black hole and its strong-field lensing solution found by Bhadra. In Sec. 3. we present the time delay computation and the estimated results for several supermassive extragalactic black holes. These are compared with the time delays obtained for Schwarzschild and Reissner-Nordström metrics. Finally, a discussion of the results is given in Sec. 4.

## 2 Lensing due to the GMGHS Charged Black Hole of String Theory

The effective action of heterotic string theory in four dimensions (in Planck units $`c=\mathrm{}=G=1`$), in the low energy sector, is given by$`^{\text{[2]}}`$:

$$𝒜=d^4x\sqrt{g}e^{2\varphi }\left(R+\frac{1}{12}H_{\mu v\rho }H^{\mu v\rho }4\left(\varphi \right)^2+F_{\mu v}F^{\mu v}\right)$$
(1)
where $`R`$ is the Ricci scalar, $`\varphi `$ is the dilaton field, $`F_{\mu v}=_\mu A_v_vA_\mu `$ is the Maxwell Field and $`H_{\mu v\rho }`$ is a three form related to an antisymmetric tensor gauge field $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ and the gauge field $`A_\mu `$ by $`H=dBAF`$.

From the low energy action is clear that $`e^\varphi `$ plays the role of a coupling constant, so it governs the strength of the quantum corrections. The complete string action includes higher order corrections $`R^2,F^4,`$ etc. but these can be neglected when discussing black hole solutions if the size of the hole is much larger than the Planck length.

Assuming that the field $`H_{\mu v\rho }`$ is zero, and making the conformal transformation $`g_{\mu v}^E=e^{2\varphi }g_{\mu v}`$ to the Einstein frame, the action can be written as:

$$𝒜=d^4x\sqrt{g_E}\left(R_E2\left(\varphi \right)^2+e^{2\varphi }F_{\mu v}F^{\mu v}\right)$$
(2)
One class of solution of the above theory is the static charged black hole configuration$`^{\text{[2]}}`$, which is often called the Gibbons-Maeda-Garfinkle-Horowtiz-Stromiger (GMGHS) black hole:

$$ds^2=\left(1\frac{2M}{r}\right)dt^2+\left(1\frac{2M}{r}\right)^1dr^2+r^2\left(1\frac{Q^2e^{2\varphi _o}}{Mr}\right)d\mathrm{\Omega }^2$$
(3)
$$e^{2\varphi }=e^{2\varphi _o}\left(1\frac{Q^2e^{2\varphi _o}}{Mr}\right)$$
(4)
$$F_{\theta \phi }=Q\mathrm{sin}\theta $$
(5)
where $`\varphi _o`$is the asymptotic constant value of the dilaton field; and $`M`$ and $`Q`$ are the mass and electric charge of the black hole. The causal structure of this space-time is identical to Schwarzschild; there is an event horizon at $`r=2M`$ and a curvature singularity at $`r=0`$. (The vector potential At is actually finite at $`r=0`$, although the invariant $`F^{\mu v}F_{\mu v}`$ diverges there.)

If we compare this solution with the Reissner-Nordström black hole:

$$ds^2=\left(1\frac{2M}{r}+\frac{Q^2}{r^2}\right)dt^2+\left(1\frac{2M}{r}+\frac{Q^2}{r^2}\right)^1dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2$$
(6)
is easy to see that charged black holes of string theory are not Reissner-Nordström when $`\varphi =0`$.

For the lensing study we will consider, as usual, a light ray from a source ($`S`$) that is deflected by a lens ($`L`$) and reaches the observer ($`O`$). We will take the background space-time asymptotically flat. The line joining the lens and the observer ($`OL`$) is the optical axis of the system. The distances between observer and lens, lens and source and observer and source are $`D_{OL}`$, $`D_{LS}`$ and $`D_{OS}`$ respectively. $`\beta `$ and $`\theta `$ are the angular position of the source and the image respect to the optical axis; and $`\alpha `$ is the deflection angle.

The position of the source and the image are related through the lens equation obtained by Virbhadra and Ellis$`^{\text{[3]}}`$:

$$\mathrm{tan}\theta \mathrm{tan}\beta =\frac{D_{LS}}{D_{OS}}\left[\mathrm{tan}\theta +\mathrm{tan}\left(\alpha \theta \right)\right]$$
(7)
For a spherically symmetric metric,

$$ds^2=A\left(r\right)dt^2+B\left(r\right)dr^2+C\left(r\right)d\mathrm{\Omega }^2$$
(8)
the deflection angle $`\alpha `$,is given by$`^{\text{[4]}}`$

$$\alpha \left(r_o\right)=I\left(r_o\right)\pi $$
(9)
where $`r_o`$ is the closest approach of the light ray, and

$$I\left(r_o\right)=2_{r_o}^{\mathrm{}}\left[\frac{B\left(r\right)}{C\left(r\right)}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[\frac{C\left(r\right)A\left(r_o\right)}{C\left(r_o\right)A\left(r\right)}1\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}𝑑r$$
(10)
For the GMGHS black hole (3) we have:

$$I\left(x_o\right)=2_{x_o}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\frac{dx}{x}}{\sqrt{\left(\frac{x}{x_o}\right)^2\left(1\frac{1}{x_o}\right)\left(1\frac{\xi }{x}\right)^2\left(1\frac{\xi }{x_o}\right)^1\left(1\frac{\xi }{x}\right)\left(1\frac{1}{x}\right)}}$$
(11)
where $`x_o=\frac{r_O}{2M}`$; $`x=\frac{r}{2M}`$; $`\xi =2q^2e^{2\varphi _o}`$ and $`q=\frac{Q}{2M}.`$

The impact parameter is given by:

$$u\left(x_o\right)=\frac{1}{2M}\sqrt{\frac{C\left(x_o\right)}{A\left(x_o\right)}}=x_o\sqrt{\frac{\left(1\frac{\xi }{x_o}\right)}{\left(1\frac{1}{x_o}\right)}}$$
(12)
The deflection angle increase when the closest approach $`x_o`$ decreases. For a certain value of $`x_o`$ the deflection angle will be $`2\pi `$ and then, a light ray will make a complete loop around the black hole. If $`x_o`$ decreases further, the light ray will give more loops, and when $`x_o`$ is equal to the radius of the photon sphere $`\left(x_m\right)`$ the deflection angle becomes infinite, and the light ray is captured by the black hole. For the GMGHS black hole, the photon sphere is at the radius:

$$x_m=\frac{\xi +3+\eta }{4}$$
(13)
with

$$\eta =\sqrt{\xi ^210\xi +9}$$
(14)
Following Bozza, the first step to solve the integral (11) in the strong field limit is to make the change of variable $`z=1\frac{x_o}{x}`$, obtaining:

$$I\left(x_o\right)=_0^1R(z,x_o)f(z,x_o)𝑑z$$
(15)
where

$$R(z,x_o)=\frac{2\sqrt{1\frac{\xi }{x_o}}}{1\frac{\xi }{x_o}+z\frac{\xi }{x_o}}$$
(16)
$$f(z,x_o)=\left[1\frac{1}{x_o}\left(1\frac{1}{x_o}+\frac{z}{x_o}\right)\left(1z\right)^2\left(1+\frac{z\xi }{x_o\xi }\right)^1\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}$$
(17)
The function $`R(z,x_o)`$ is regular for all values of $`z`$, while $`f(z,x_o)`$ diverges for $`z0`$. Hence, the second step is to find out the order of divergence, expanding the argument of the square root in $`f(z,x_o)`$ up to the second order in $`z`$. This gives:

$$f(z,x_o)f_o(z,x_o)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{p\left(x_o\right)z+q\left(x_o\right)z^2}}$$
(18)
where:

$$p\left(x_o\right)=\frac{\eta \left(x_o2\right)+x_o\left(32x_o\right)}{x_o\left(\eta x_o\right)}$$
(19)
$$q\left(x_o\right)=\frac{\eta ^23\eta x_o\left(x_o3\right)x_o^2}{x_o\left(\eta x_o\right)^2}$$
(20)
Bozza$`^{\text{[6]}}`$ has proved that for a static spherically symmetric space-time with the form of equation (8), the deflection angle always diverge logarithmically for $`x_ox_m`$; and can be written as:

$$\alpha \left(u\right)=\overline{a}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{u}{u_m}1\right)+\overline{b}+O\left(uu_m\right)$$
(21)
All quantities with the subscript $`m`$ are evaluated at $`x_o=x_m.`$ The coefficients of this expansion are calculated by Bhadra$`^{\text{[1]}}`$ for the GMGHS Black hole as: :

$$\overline{a}=\frac{\sqrt{33\xi +\eta }\left(3\xi +\eta \right)}{\sqrt{2a_o}}$$
(22)
$$\overline{b}=\pi +\overline{a}\left\{\begin{array}{c}2\left[\mathrm{log}\left(4\sqrt{a_o}\right)\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{2a_o+a_1}{\sqrt{a_o}}+2\sqrt{a_o+a_1+a_2}\right)\right]\\ +\mathrm{log}\frac{4a_o}{\left(33\xi +\eta \right)^2\left(1+\xi +\eta \right)}\end{array}\right\}$$
(23)
$$u_m=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}\sqrt{\left(9\xi \right)\eta +2718\xi \xi ^2}$$
(24)
where:

$$a_o=2\left(1\xi \right)\left[\xi ^2+\xi \left(\eta 12\right)+9\left(\eta +3\right)\right]$$
(25)
$$a_1=4\left[\xi ^3+\xi ^2\left(\eta 15\right)+\eta \left(23+6\eta \right)3\left(3+\eta \right)\right]$$
(26)
$$a_2=24\xi ^28\xi \left(3+\eta \right)$$
(27)
## 3 Time Delay Computation

Bozza and Mancini$`^{\text{[7]}}`$ derived the time delay betwen different relativistic images, following an approach very similar to the one used for the deflection angle. For an observer at infinity, the time taken for the photon to travel from the source to the observer is:

$$T=_{t_o}^{t_f}𝑑t$$
(28)
This integral can be solved following the same scheme, to obtain finally, that the time delay between the i-th and the j-th relativistic images (in Schwarzschild units) is:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }T_{i,j}^s=2\pi \left(ij\right)\frac{\stackrel{~}{a}}{\overline{a}}+2\sqrt{\frac{B_m}{A_m}}\sqrt{\frac{u_m}{c}}e^{\frac{\overline{b}}{2\overline{a}}}\left(e^{\frac{2\pi j\gamma }{2\overline{a}}}e^{\frac{2\pi i\gamma }{2\overline{a}}}\right)$$
(29)
when the the two images are on the same side of the lens, and:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }T_{i,j}^o=\left[2\pi \left(ij\right)2\gamma \right]\frac{\stackrel{~}{a}}{\overline{a}}+2\sqrt{\frac{B_m}{A_m}}\sqrt{\frac{u_m}{c}}e^{\frac{\overline{b}}{2\overline{a}}}\left(e^{\frac{2\pi j\gamma }{2\overline{a}}}e^{\frac{2\pi i+\gamma }{2\overline{a}}}\right)$$
(30)
when the two images are on opposite sides of the lens. Here $`\gamma `$ is th angular separation between the source and the optical axis, as seen from the lens. In the first case, the upper sign before $`\gamma `$ applies if both images are on the same side of the source, while the lower sign if both both images are on the other side.

For spherically symmetric metrics, we have:

$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{a}}{\overline{a}}=\sqrt{\frac{C_m}{A_m}}$$
(31)
$$c=\frac{C_m^{\prime \prime }A_mC_mA_m^{\prime \prime }}{4\sqrt{A_m^3C_m}}$$
(32)
When the source is almost aligned with the lens, we have $`\gamma D_{OL}^12\pi `$; and therefore, in this case, we have for $`ij`$.:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }T_{i,j}^s\mathrm{\Delta }T_{i,j}^o$$
(33)
### 3.1 Time Delay in Supermassive GMGHS Black Hole Lensing

By applying this scheme for the GMGHS black hole and assuming that the source is almost aligned with the lens, we obtain the time delay between the second and the first relativistic images as:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }T_{2,1}=2\pi \frac{\stackrel{~}{a}}{\overline{a}}+2\sqrt{\frac{B_m}{A_m}}\sqrt{\frac{u_m}{c}}e^{\frac{\overline{b}}{2\overline{a}}}\left(e^{\frac{\pi }{\overline{a}}}e^{\frac{2\pi }{\overline{a}}}\right)$$
(34)
where the coefficients are:

$$A_m=\left(1\frac{1}{x_m}\right)=B_m^1$$
(35)
$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{a}}{\overline{a}}=\sqrt{\frac{\left(x_m^2\xi x_m\right)}{\left(1\frac{1}{x_m}\right)}}$$
(36)
$$c=\frac{2\left(1\frac{1}{x_m}\right)+\frac{1}{x_m}\left(1\frac{\xi }{x_m}\right)}{4\sqrt{\left(1\frac{1}{x_m}\right)^3\left(x_m^2\xi x_m\right)}}$$
(37)
And $`\overline{a},\overline{b}`$ and $`u_m`$ given by (22),(23), and (24) respectively. Thus, the time delay for the GMGHS black hole depends on its mass and electric charge.

Now we will give some realistic values by modelling some supermassive black holes as GMGHS. Taking the case $`q=0`$ (i.e. no electric charge) we obtain the same time delays reported by Bozza and Macini$`^{\text{[7]}}`$ for the Scharzschild metric:

| Galaxy | Mass ($`M_{}`$) | $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_{2,1}`$ GMGHS $`\left(q=0\right)`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| NGC4486 (M87) | $`3.3\times 10^9`$ | $`149.3`$ h. |
| NGC3115 | $`2.0\times 10^9`$ | $`90.5`$ h. |
| NGC4374 (M84) | $`1.4\times 10^9`$ | $`63.3`$ h. |
| NGC4594 (M104) | $`1.0\times 10^9`$ | $`45.2`$ h. |
| NGC4486B (M104) | $`5.7\times 10^8`$ | $`25.8`$ h. |
| NGC4261 | $`4.5\times 10^8`$ | $`20.4`$ h. |
| NGC4342 (IC3256) | $`3.9\times 10^8`$ | $`17.6`$ h. |
| NGC7052 | $`3.3\times 10^8`$ | $`14.9`$ h. |
| NGC3377 | $`1.8\times 10^8`$ | $`8.1`$ h |

Table I. Time delay for GMGHS Black Hole.without electric charge

This result just shows that the GMGHS black hole without electric charge reduces to the Schwarzschild metric.

Now, if we put some electric charge ($`q0`$) the estimated time delay for the same black holes differ from the obtained by Bozza and Mancini for the Reissner-Nordström metric:

|  | Reissner-Nordström $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_{2,1}`$ (hours.) | | | | GMGHS $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_{2,1}`$ (hours.) | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Galaxy | $`q=0.1`$ | $`q=0.2`$ | $`q=0.3`$ | $`q=0.4`$ | $`q=0.1`$ | $`q=0.2`$ | $`q=0.3`$ | $`q=0.4`$ |
| NGC4486 | $`148.3`$ | $`145.4`$ | $`140.1`$ | $`131.7`$ | $`148.4`$ | $`\mathrm{145.\hspace{0.17em}5}`$ | $`140.5`$ | $`133.1`$ |
| NGC3115 | $`89.9`$ | $`88.1`$ | $`84.9`$ | $`79.8`$ | $`90.0`$ | $`\mathrm{88.\hspace{0.17em}2}`$ | $`85.2`$ | $`80.7`$ |
| NGC4374 | $`62.9`$ | $`61.7`$ | $`59.4`$ | $`55.9`$ | $`63.0`$ | $`61.7`$ | $`59.6`$ | $`56.5`$ |
| NGC4594 | $`44.9`$ | $`44.0`$ | $`42.4`$ | $`39.9`$ | $`45.0`$ | $`44.1`$ | $`\mathrm{42.\hspace{0.17em}6}`$ | $`40.3`$ |
| NGC4486B | $`26.6`$ | $`25.1`$ | $`24.2`$ | $`22.7`$ | $`25.6`$ | $`25.1`$ | $`24.3`$ | $`23.0`$ |
| NGC4261 | $`20.2`$ | $`19.8`$ | $`19.1`$ | $`18.0`$ | $`20.2`$ | $`\mathrm{19.\hspace{0.17em}8}`$ | $`19.2`$ | $`18.1`$ |
| NGC4342 | $`17.5`$ | $`17.2`$ | $`16.6`$ | $`15.6`$ | $`17.5`$ | $`\mathrm{17.\hspace{0.17em}2}`$ | $`16.6`$ | $`15.7`$ |
| NGC7052 | $`14.8`$ | $`14.5`$ | $`14.0`$ | $`13.2`$ | $`14.8`$ | $`14.6`$ | $`14.1`$ | $`13.3`$ |
| NGC3377 | $`8.1`$ | $`7.9`$ | $`7.6`$ | $`7.2`$ | $`8.1`$ | $`7.9`$ | $`7.7`$ | $`7.3`$ |

Table II. Time delays for GMGHS and Reissner-Nordström Black Holes.

## 4 Conclusion

Since the charged black holes of General Relativity and String Theory are qualitatively different, it is expected that there will be some differences in the observational features of each of them, particularly in the strong field limit.

Here, we have used the analytical model of Bozza to obtain the time delay in the strong field scenario for the GMGHS black hole. Modeling some supermassive objects at the center of galaxies as charged string theory black holes, we have seen that there are some differences in the numerical estimates of the time delay between the second and the first relativistic images, when compared with the obtained in the Reissner-Nordström case by Bozza and Mancini.

As can be seen from Table II, the string effects in the time delay are more evident for great masses and great electric charges. The differences in the estimates are of the order of hours, so they can be easy measured, in principle; providing a possible method for distinguish between General Relativty and String Theory charged black holes.


format: text

text:
# Mode Competition in Gas and Semiconductor Lasers

## 1 Introduction

The basic physics of mode competition in gas and semiconductor lasers has been known since the 1960’s . When the laser medium is in quasi-equilibrium and spatial variations in the mode patterns can be neglected, only a single frequency appears in the laser output. A rate equation model developed by Siegman  describes the subthreshold, transition, and lasing regions of operation for a single mode laser. Quantum theories of a single mode laser  give similar (if not idential) results for the laser output power versus pumping rate as the simpler semiclassical models.

In this paper we extend the rate equation models for a single model laser  to include mode competition in both gas and semiconductor lasers. For the gas laser we develop a set of coupled rate equations which allow electron scattering between the lasing levels. The slow electron scattering rate in gas lasers allows the electron occupation factors in the different lasing levels to get out of equilibrium with each other, producing multiple frequencies in the laser output. In semiconductor lasers electron scattering between the different energy levels is rapid, keeping the occupation factors in the different lasing levels in equilibrium with each other. But spatial variation in the optical mode intensities inside the laser cavity favor different lasing modes in different regions of space within the semiconductor. Following Ref.  we extend the rate equations for a homogenous (semiconductor) line to allow for spatially varying mode patterns, generating multiple frequencies in the laser output.

We assume both gas and semiconductor lasers are a four level system, with two intermediate lasing levels, as shown in Fig. 1. For simplicity we consider only two lasing modes, mode $`A`$ and mode $`B`$, with mode $`A`$ the favored lasing mode. For the gas laser $`A`$ and $`B`$ represent localized atomic states, while for the semiconductor $`A`$ and $`B`$ are spatially extended states within the energy band of a quantum well. To simplify the mathematics we assume lower lasing level is always empty, having occupation factors $`\stackrel{~}{f_A}=\stackrel{~}{f_B}=0`$. In the language of gas lasers this means we assume electrons in the lower lasing level empty very efficiently into an electron bath ($`\tau _A,\tau _B0`$). In semiconductor language we would say there is extremely efficient hole capture into the quantum well. We therefore consider only pumping electrons into the upper lasing level. In physical systems would also have to guarentee charge neutrality while pumping the laser, and therefore also consider details of pumping and relaxation out of the lower lasing level.

In this paper we limit consideration of laser mode competition to only 1-2 competing modes. In actual lasers many modes compete, and this case has been considered by Casperson . The rate equation models in this paper can be easily generalized to consider multiple lasing modes.

## 2 Gas Lasers: Spectral Hole Burning

We construct the rate equations for an inhomogeneous line following the example of a single mode laser from Refs. . We consider a scattering rate $`s_{AB}=s_{AB}`$ for electrons from mode $`A`$ to mode $`B`$. If we firstly neglect optical transitions, the rate equation for the occupation probability $`f_A`$ for electrons in state $`A`$ is

$$\frac{df_A}{dt}=f_As_{AB}(1f_B)+f_Bs_{BA}(1f_A)+I_A.$$
(1)
Here $`I_A`$ is the pumping current per state. Specializing to thermodynamic equilibrium (no pumping current) implies the rates $`s_{AB}`$ and $`s_{BA}`$ are related by a Boltzmann factor as

$$s_{AB}=s_{BA}\mathrm{exp}(E_AE_B)/k_BT.$$
(2)
The rate equation for the photon number $`n_A`$ in mode A is unchanged from that for a single mode laser

$$\frac{dn_A}{dt}=K_A(n_A+1)N_A\gamma _An_A.$$
(3)
Here $`K_A`$ is an optical rate constant for the $`A`$ transition, $`N_A`$ the number of $`A`$ states (number of atoms of type $`A`$ in a gas laser), and $`\gamma _A`$ the cavity escape rate for photons having frequency $`\omega _A`$. Putting Eqs. (1)-(3) together (along with analogous equations for mode $`B`$) into a single matrix equation for the variables $`f_A`$, $`f_B`$, $`n_A`$, and $`n_B`$ gives

$$\frac{d}{dt}\left[\begin{array}{c}f_A\\ \\ f_B\\ \\ n_A\\ \\ n_B\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}\begin{array}{c}(K_An_A+A_A+s_{AB})\\ +(s_{AB}s_{BA})f_B\end{array}& s_{BA}& 0& 0\\ s_{AB}& \begin{array}{c}(K_Bn_B+A_B+s_{BA})\\ +(s_{BA}s_{AB})f_A\end{array}& 0& 0\\ & & & \\ K_A(n_A+1)N_A& 0& \gamma _A& 0\\ & & & \\ 0& K_B(n_B+1)N_B& 0& \gamma _B\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}f_A\\ \\ f_B\\ \\ n_A\\ \\ n_B\end{array}\right]+\left[\begin{array}{c}I_A\\ \\ I_B\\ \\ 0\\ \\ 0\end{array}\right].$$
(4)
We now specialize to $`(E_AE_B)k_BT`$ so that we can approximate $`s_{AB}s_{BA}=s`$. As scattering rate $`s`$ becomes large ($`s\mathrm{}`$), the occupation factors $`f_A`$ and $`f_B`$ are forced to equal each other $`(f_A=f_B)`$ in this approximation. Without the approximation $`s_{AB}s_{BA}`$, and in the absence of any optical transitions, we would have the occupation factors forced towards a Fermi distribution $`f(E)`$ having $`f_A=f(E_A)`$ and $`f_B=f(E_B)`$ as $`s_{AB}\mathrm{}`$. The approximation $`s_{AB}s_{BA}`$ therefore makes only a minor correction to the occupation factors, and is therefore not essential for our analysis of mode competition. We therefore approximate $`s_{AB}s_{BA}=s`$ leading to

$$\frac{d}{dt}\left[\begin{array}{c}f_A\\ f_B\\ n_A\\ n_B\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}(K_An_A+A_A+s)& s& 0& 0\\ s& (K_Bn_B+A_B+s)& 0& 0\\ K_A(n_A+1)N_A& 0& \gamma _A& 0\\ 0& K_B(n_B+1)N_B& 0& \gamma _B\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}f_A\\ f_B\\ n_A\\ n_B\end{array}\right]+\left[\begin{array}{c}I_A\\ I_B\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right].$$
(5)
Inspection of the upper left quadrant of the matrix in Eq. (5) shows that the scattering rate $`s`$ is negligible until $`s`$ exceeds one of the spontaneous emission rates $`A_A`$ or $`A_B`$. Thus, the transition from two independent lasers ($`s=0`$) to a homogeneous line ($`s\mathrm{}`$) occurs when the scattering rate $`s`$ exceeds the spontaneous emission rates $`A_A`$ and $`A_B`$. This is true in open cavity lasers with luminescence through the sides of the laser cavity, so that the spontaneous emission rates $`A_A`$ and $`A_B`$ greatly exceed the cavity escape rates $`\gamma _A`$ and $`\gamma _B`$. If the cavity is closed, so that no side luminescence occurs, the spontaneous emission rates are forced towards the cavity rates, i.e. $`A_A\gamma _A`$ and $`A_B\gamma _B`$. In the case of a closed cavity the transition from two independent lasers to a homogeneous line occurs when the scattering rate $`s`$ is comparable to the cavity rates $`\gamma _A`$ and $`\gamma _B`$. Note that on a homogeneous line $`(s\mathrm{})`$ Eq. (5) simplifies to $`ff_A=f_B`$ and

$$\frac{d}{dt}\left[\begin{array}{c}2f\\ n_A\\ n_B\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}(K_An_A+K_Bn_B+A)& 0& 0& \\ K_A(n_A+1)N_A& \gamma _A& 0& \\ K_B(n_B+1)N_B& 0& \gamma _B& \end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}f\\ n_A\\ n_B\end{array}\right]+\left[\begin{array}{c}I\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right],$$
(6)
where $`I=I_A+I_B`$ and $`A=A_A+A_B`$.

We solve Eq. (5) in steady state using an iterative technique. From the $`i`$th iteration for the variables $`f_A^i`$, $`f_B^i`$, $`n_A^i`$, and $`n_B^i`$, we produce the $`(i+1)`$st iteration by

$$\left[\begin{array}{c}f_A^{i+1}\\ f_B^{i+1}\\ n_A^{i+1}\\ n_B^{i+1}\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}(K_An_A^i+A_A+s)& s& 0& 0\\ s& (K_Bn_B^i+A_B+s)& 0& 0\\ K_A(n_A^i+1)N_A& 0& \gamma _A& 0\\ 0& K_B(n_B^i+1)N_B& 0& \gamma _B\end{array}\right]^1\left[\begin{array}{c}I_A\\ I_B\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right].$$
(7)
We have tried several different types of initial guesses for $`f_A`$, $`f_B`$, $`n_A`$, and $`n_B`$ to start the iterative procedure, and the final results seem to be independent of the different initial guesses. The initial guess which seems to converge in the shortest time is to start in the subthreshold region and take for $`f_A^i`$, $`f_B^i`$, $`n_A^i`$, and $`n_B^i`$ the analytical results for two independent single mode lasers ($`s=0`$). When incrementing to the next pumping rate, assume an initial guess for $`f_A`$, $`f_B`$, $`n_A`$, and $`n_B`$ which are just the converged values at the previous pumping rate.

We use some results from the single mode laser  to frame our discussion of two coupled lasing modes. When the two laser modes are decoupled ($`s=0`$), the threshold currents for each mode are $`I_{th}^A=\gamma _AA_A/N_AK_A`$ and $`I_{th}^B=\gamma _BA_B/N_BK_B`$. The normalized pumping rate $`r`$ is defined as $`r=I_A/I_{th}^A`$. We define the ratio of the two threshold currents when the modes are decoupled as $`z=I_{th}^B/I_{th}^A`$. We assume the pumping current divides equally among the two states so that $`I_A=I_B=I/2`$. The occupation factors above threshold are fixed at $`f_A=f_{th}^A=\gamma _A/N_AK_A`$ and $`f_B=f_{th}^B=\gamma _B/N_BK_B`$ due to gain saturation.

An important laser parameter is the number of luminescent modes $`p`$, where $`A_ApK_A`$. For mode $`B`$ this leaves the relation $`A_BpzK_B(\gamma _A/\gamma _B)(N_B/N_A)`$. We further simplify by taking $`N=N_A=N_B`$ and $`\gamma _A=\gamma _B=\gamma `$. In the absence of mode coupling ($`s=0`$), the results for photon numbers versus normalized pumping rate $`r`$ are then

$$2n_A=p(r1)+p\sqrt{(r1)^2+(4r/p)}$$
(8)
and

$$2n_B=p(rz)+p\sqrt{(rz)^2+(4r/p)}.$$
(9)
Figures 2-4 show the photon numbers and occupation factors versus normalized pumping rate $`r`$ for different scattering rates $`s`$. We choose $`p=10^7`$ and $`z=1.1`$ in Figs. 2-4. In Fig. 2 there is no scattering between states $`A`$ and $`B`$ ($`s=0`$), leaving two independent single mode lasers. Iterating Eq. (7) (solid lines) then just reproduce the analytical results from Eqs. (8)-(9) (circles) in Fig. 2(a). The normalized occupation factors $`f_A/f_{th}^A`$ and $`f_B/f_{th}^A`$ in Fig. 2 increase approximately linearly with pumping below threshold and saturate above the lasing threshold.

As the scattering rate increases to $`s=1.0A_A`$ in Fig. 3, and even further to $`s=5.0A_A`$ in Fig. 4, we see the lasing threshold for mode $`A`$ shifts to a lower pumping current. The threshold current for mode $`B`$ continues to increase as the scattering rate $`s`$ increases. The increase in lasing threshold for mode $`B`$ is much more pronounced than the decrease in threshold current for mode $`A`$. Inspection of the occupation factors for the two decoupled lasers in Fig. 2(b) explains the threshold current shifts. Increasing the scattering rate $`s`$ forces the two occupation factors towards each other. In Fig. 2(b) we have $`f_B>f_A`$ in the subthreshold region. Hence scattering between the modes will increase $`f_A`$ and decrease $`f_B`$ in the subthreshold region as seen in Fig. 3(b) and Fig. 4(b). Scattering then lowers the threshold current required for mode $`A`$ to lase. Once mode $`A`$ reaches the lasing threshold, additional scattering between states $`A`$ and $`B`$ makes it more difficult for mode $`B`$ to raise its occupation factor to $`f_B=f_{th}^B`$ required for mode $`B`$ to lase.

The threshold current for mode $`A`$ can shift in either direction, up or down, with additional scattering between the modes. If $`f_B>f_A`$ in the subthreshold region, the case we have chosen in Figs 2-4, additional scattering $`s`$ lowers the threshold current for mode $`A`$. If the occupation factors obey $`f_B<f_A`$ in the subthreshold region, then the threshold current for mode $`A`$ increases with additional scattering $`s`$. When the pumping current divides equally between the states $`A`$ and $`B`$ as we have assumed, the threshold current for mode $`A`$ shifts down with additional scattering $`s`$ if $`(f_{th}^B/I_{th}^B)>(f_{th}^A/I_{th}^A)`$, or, equivalently, if the spontaneous rates obey $`A_A>A_B`$. Given our assumptions of $`\gamma _A=\gamma _B=\gamma `$ and $`N_A=N_B=N`$, we require $`K_A>zK_B`$ for additional scattering $`s`$ to lower the threshold current of mode $`A`$. Since we choose $`z=1.1`$ and $`K_B=0.75K_A`$ in Figs. 2-4 this condition is satisfied. Increasing $`z`$ and/or $`K_B`$ could reverse the inequality and raise the threshold current for mode $`A`$ with increased scattering $`s`$. If the pumping current divides unequally as $`I_A=\alpha I`$ and $`I_B=(1\alpha )I`$, the requirement for additional scattering $`s`$ to lower the threshold current of mode $`A`$ is $`(1\alpha )A_A>\alpha A_B`$. The threshold current required for mode $`B`$ to lase will always increase when we add additional scattering $`s`$ (assuming mode $`A`$ is the favored lasing mode with $`f_{th}^A<f_{th}^B`$).

In the limit of $`s\mathrm{}`$ we move towards a homogeneous line. Figure 5 shows the solution of Eq. (5) with with $`s=100A_A`$. The photon number $`n_B`$ and occupation factor $`f_B`$ are now essentially fixed when mode $`A`$ starts lasing due to gain saturation. Iteratively solving Eq. (6) produces essentially the same graph as shown in Fig. 5. The homogeneous line shown in Fig. 5 is the opposite limit of two independent laser lines shown in Fig. 2. Varying the scattering rate $`s`$ interpolates smoothly between the solutions in Fig. 2 and Fig. 5.

## 3 Semiconductor Lasers: Spatial Hole Burning

When there are spatial variations in the optical intensity in different modes, two lasing frequencies can coexist on a homogeneous line. Figure 6 shows the normalized optical mode intensities $`|u_A|^2`$ and $`|u_B|^2`$ for the lowest two longitudinal modes in a cavity. Near the center of the laser (region I), mode $`A`$ is the favored lasing mode. However in region II, where the optical intensity $`|u_B|^2>|u_A|^2`$, mode $`B`$ is the favored lasing mode. If the gain medium were confined to region I, only mode $`A`$ would lase. Similarly, for the gain medium restricted to region II, only mode $`B`$ would lase. For semiconductor lasers the gain media fills the entire laser cavity, so there is competition for the available optical gain between the lasing modes.

Whether or not a single or multiple frequencies appear in the laser output spectrum depends on the size of the electron diffusion coefficient $`D`$. For single frequency laser operation to occur the electron must diffuse from region I to region II in Fig. 6 before the photon exits the cavity. If the photon escapes the laser cavity before the electron can diffuse from region I to region II, the regions are essentially independent as far as the laser light is concerned. Optically, the laser behaves as if two independent (single mode) lasers operate inside the cavity. The distance from region I to region II in Fig. 6 is approximately one quarter of the lasing wavelength ($`\lambda /4`$). So for open cavity lasers we expect essentially single mode operation whenever $`D(\lambda /4)^2\stackrel{~}{A}`$. If the cavity is closed (no side luminescence) so that $`\stackrel{~}{A}\gamma _A`$, the condition for single mode laser operation becomes $`D(\lambda /4)^2\gamma _A`$.

To describe semiconductor lasers quantitatively we need to generalize Eq. (4) to account for the spatial variation in the mode patterns and electron density inside the laser. The occupation factors in each mode will be spatially varying such that $`f_Af_A(r)`$ and $`f_Bf_B(r)`$. If we introduce the position dependent density of states $`N(E,r)`$, the total electron density is now

$$\rho (r,t)=\underset{i}{}N(E_i,r)f_i(r,t).$$
(10)
The electron density in states $`A`$ and $`B`$ are $`\rho _A(r)=N(E_A,r)f_A(r)`$ and $`\rho _B(r)=N(E_B,r)f_B(r)`$. The total number of active type $`A`$ lasing levels is then

$$N_A=_aN(E_A,r)𝑑V,$$
(11)
where $`_a`$ denotes integration over that portion of the laser cavity containing the active lasing media. We further define the scattering rate per initial and final state density $`\stackrel{~}{s}_{AB}`$ as

$$\stackrel{~}{s}_{AB}=\frac{s_{AB}}{N(E_A,r)N(E_B,r)}.$$
(12)
To account for spatial variations in the electromagnetic modes inside the laser cavity we introduce the mode functions $`u_A(r)`$ and $`u_B(r)`$ such that the electromagnetic energy density is given

$$\mathrm{}\omega _An_A(t)|u_A(r)|^2=ϵ(r)|E_A(r,t)|^2,$$
(13)
where $`E_A(r,t)`$ is the electric field of mode $`A`$ and $`ϵ(r)`$ the dielectric constant. Since we must have

$$_Lϵ(r)|E_A(r,t)|^2𝑑V=\mathrm{}\omega _An_A(t),$$
(14)
where the integration region $`L`$ denotes the entire laser cavity, the mode functions $`u_A(r)`$ are normalized as

$$_L|u_A(r)|^2𝑑V=1.$$
(15)
We can insert this factor of ’1’ from Eq. (15) wherever necessary in order to generalize Eq. (4) to account for spatially varying electromagnetic fields.

Using Eqs. (10)-(15), the generalization of Eq. (1) to account for spatial variations in the electron density and electromagnetic field intensity is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\rho _A}{dt}}=N(E_A,r)\left\{\rho _A\stackrel{~}{s}_{AB}[N(E_B,r)\rho _B]+\rho _B\stackrel{~}{s}_{BA}[N(E_A,r)\rho _A]\right\}`$
$`+R_A(r,t)[K_AV_L]n_A|u_A|^2\rho _AA_A\rho _A+D_A^2\rho _A.`$ (16)
Here $`R_A(r,t)=N(E_A,r)I_A(r,t)`$ is the total pumping rate per unit volume into the state $`A`$, $`V_L=_L𝑑V`$ the volume of the laser cavity, and $`D_A`$ the diffusion constant of electrons in state $`A`$. The generalization of Eq. (3) to account for spatial variations inside the laser is

$$\frac{dn_A}{dt}=[K_AV_L](n_A+1)_a|u_A|^2\rho _A𝑑V\gamma _An_A.$$
(17)
Eqs. (16)-(17) can be used to construct a generalization of the coupled mode Eq. (4) to account for spatial variations in the laser.

Our interest is in semiconductors with homogeneous optical lines, so we do not pursue the full generalization of Eq. (4). We assume the scattering rate $`s_{AB}\mathrm{}`$ in the semiconductor, so that we are back on a homogeneous optical line. We assume negligible separation of the energy levels as before so that $`(E_AE_B)k_BT`$ and $`s=s_{AB}=s_{BA}`$ The occupation factors we therefore take to be in equilibrium with each other at each point in space so that $`f(r)=f_A(r)=f_B(r)`$. With these assumptions we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\rho (r,t)}{dt}}=\left([K_AV_L]n_A(t)|u_A(r)|^2+A_A\right){\displaystyle \frac{N(E_A,r)}{N(E_A,r)+N(E_B,r)}}\rho (r,t)`$
$`\left([K_BV_L]n_B(t)|u_B(r)|^2+A_B\right){\displaystyle \frac{N(E_B,r)}{N(E_A,r)+N(E_B,r)}}\rho (r,t)`$
$`+D^2\rho (r,t)+R(r,t).`$ (18)
Here $`\rho =\rho _A+\rho _B`$ is the total electron density, the total pumping rate is $`R=R_A+R_B`$, and we have taken $`D=D_A=D_B`$ for the diffusion constant. The final coupled mode rate equations for a homogeneous semiconductor line that we solve are

$$\frac{d\rho }{dt}=[\stackrel{~}{K}_AV_L]n_A|u_A|^2\rho [\stackrel{~}{K}_BV_L]n_B|u_B|^2\rho \stackrel{~}{A}\rho +D^2\rho +R,$$
(19)
together with

$$\frac{dn_A}{dt}=(n_A+1)_a[\stackrel{~}{K}_AV_L]|u_A|^2\rho 𝑑V\gamma _An_A,$$
(20)
and

$$\frac{dn_B}{dt}=(n_B+1)_a[\stackrel{~}{K}_BV_L]|u_B|^2\rho 𝑑V\gamma _Bn_B.$$
(21)
The position dependent optical rate constants $`\stackrel{~}{K}_A(r)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{K}_B(r)`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{A}(r)`$ are

$$\stackrel{~}{K}_A(r)=K_A\frac{N(E_A,r)}{N(E_A,r)+N(E_B,r)},$$
(22)
with

$$\stackrel{~}{K}_B(r)=K_B\frac{N(E_B,r)}{N(E_A,r)+N(E_B,r)},$$
(23)
and

$$\stackrel{~}{A}(r)=\frac{A_AN(E_A,r)+A_BN(E_B,r)}{N(E_A,r)+N(E_B,r)}.$$
(24)
Eqs. (19)-(21) are similar to Eqs. (E.1.9a) and (E.1.9b) for a single mode laser from Ref. . Eqs. (19)-(21) should also be considered the generalization of Eq. (6) to account for spatial variations while lasing on a homogeneous line. We simplify further by taking the electron density of states to be constant in space so that the rate constants $`\stackrel{~}{K}_A(r)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{K}_B(r)`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{A}(r)`$ are independent of space. For simplicity and concreteness we consider competition between the longitudinal laser modes, though the same procedure would work for the inclusion of transverse cavity modes. We choose an Fabry-Perot type cavity having the normalized mode functions

$$|u_A|^2=\frac{2}{A_LL}\mathrm{sin}^2(A\pi x/L)$$
(25)
and

$$|u_B|^2=\frac{2}{A_LL}\mathrm{sin}^2(B\pi x/L).$$
(26)
Here $`A_L`$ is the cavity area, $`L`$ the cavity length, $`A`$ is the number of half wavelengths in mode $`A`$, and $`B`$ the number of half wavelengths in the longitudinal cavity mode $`B`$.

### 3.1 Slow Diffusion

We solve Eqs. (19)-(21) in steady state using an iterative technique. We take the diffusion constant $`D=0`$, letting us solve Eq. (19) for $`\rho `$ and substitute back into Eqs. (20)-(21) leading to

$$n_A=(n_A+1)p_a\frac{|u_A|^2r(dV/V_a)}{|u_A|^2n_A+|u_B|^2n_B(1/z)+(p/V_L)},$$
(27)
and

$$n_B=(n_B+1)p_a\frac{(1/z)|u_B|^2r(dV/V_a)}{|u_A|^2n_A+|u_B|^2n_B(1/z)+(p/V_L)}.$$
(28)
In Eqs. (27)-(28) we have used the ration of optical coupling constants $`z=\stackrel{~}{K}_A/\stackrel{~}{K}_B`$, the number of luminescent modes $`p=\stackrel{~}{A}/\stackrel{~}{K}_A`$, assumed equal cavity escape rates $`\gamma _A=\gamma _B`$, and defined the normalized pumping rate as $`r=R/R_{th}^A=RV_a/\gamma p`$. We now produce the $`(m+1)`$st iteration for the photon numbers from the $`m`$th iteration using

$$n_A(m+1)=p_{L_a}\frac{(n_A(m)+1)r(x)\mathrm{sin}^2(A\pi x/L)(dx/L_a)}{n_A(m)\mathrm{sin}^2(A\pi x/L)+(1/z)n_B(m)\mathrm{sin}^2(B\pi x/L)+(p/2)},$$
(29)
and

$$n_B(m+1)=p_{L_a}\frac{(n_B(m)+1)r(x)(1/z)\mathrm{sin}^2(B\pi x/L)(dx/L_a)}{n_A(m)\mathrm{sin}^2(A\pi x/L)+(1/z)n_B(m)\mathrm{sin}^2(B\pi x/L)+(p/2)}.$$
(30)
Here $`V_a=A_LL_a`$ with $`A_L`$ the cavity area and $`L_a`$ the length of active media. Once we have iterated Eqs. (29)-(30) to convergence, we obtain the electron density from

$$\frac{\rho (x)}{\rho _{th}^A}=\frac{pr(x)}{p+2n_A\mathrm{sin}^2(A\pi x/L)+(2/z)n_B\mathrm{sin}^2(B\pi x/L)}.$$
(31)
Here $`\rho _{th}^A=N_Af_{th}^A/V_a=\gamma /\stackrel{~}{K}_AV_a`$ is the electron density when mode $`A`$ reaches threshold in a single mode laser. For simplicity we also take the pumping rate $`r(x)`$ to be a constant (independent of space).

Figure 7 shows the photon numbers $`n_A`$ and $`n_B`$ for two modes competing on a homogeneous line. In Fig. 7(a) the optical mode intensities are constant, so that $`|u_A|^2=|u_B|^2=1/(A_LL)`$ (as we implicitly assumed for the gas laser of section 2). Figure 7(a) therefore mimics the case where spatial variations in the laser are negligible. Two other cases where we can neglect spatial variation of the mode intensities are in a ring laser or in a semiconductor laser with rapid electron diffusion. In Fig. 7(a) the photon number $`n_B`$ in mode $`B`$ is fixed whenever mode $`A`$ begins lasing. The solution of Eqs. (27)-(28) therefore reproduces lasing on a homogeneous line whenever the optical mode intensities $`|u_A|^2`$ and $`|u_B|^2`$ are constant. We let the optical mode intensities vary in space in Fig. 7(b), where we have taken the lowest two longitudinal cavity modes ($`A=1`$ and $`B=2`$). Mode $`B`$ can indeed begin lasing in Fig. 7(b), but requires a higher pumping rate than for two independent lasers on the same optical line. We have chosen parameters $`z=1.1`$ and $`p=10^7`$ in Fig. 7. The circles in Fig. 7 show the solutions from Eqs. (8)-(9) for two independent single mode lasers.

Spatial vatiations in the optical mode intensities $`|u_A|^2`$ and $`|u_B|^2`$ become less relevant when the optical rate constant $`\stackrel{~}{K}_B`$ becomes small. The ratio of the rate constants $`z=\stackrel{~}{K}_A/\stackrel{~}{K}_B`$ in Fig. 7 is $`z=1.1`$. We increase $`z`$ in Fig. 8 to (a) $`z=1.3`$ and (b) $`z=1.5`$, raising the threshold current required for mode $`B`$ to lase. For the parameter $`z=1.5`$ in Fig. 8(b), mode $`B`$ no longer lases for the range of pumping currents shown $`(0r3)`$. Although spatial variations in the optical mode intensities are still present in Fig. 8, they become less relevant when the optical coupling constant $`\stackrel{~}{K}_B`$ for mode $`B`$ is too weak.

Figure 9(a) shows the photon numbers $`n_A`$ and $`n_B`$ versus pumping and for two higher lying longitudinal modes having $`A=6`$ and $`B=7`$. The photon numbers $`n_A`$ and $`n_B`$ in Fig. 9(a) are essentially unchanged from those for the two lowest cavity modes having $`A=1`$ and $`B=2`$ in Fig. 7(b). Figure 9 and Fig. 7 use the same parameters, namely $`z=1.1`$ and $`p=10^7`$. The photon numbers $`n_A`$ and $`n_B`$ versus pumping therefore have little (if any) dependence on the number of half wavelengths in the cavity. The weak dependence of Fig. 7(a) on the number of half wavelengths (where $`AB=1`$) is because the fraction of the gain media where $`|u_B|^2|u_A|^2`$ is essentially independent of the number of half wavelengths in the cavity, as can be checked numerically.

Spatial holes are burned into the electron density $`\rho (x)`$ in Fig. 9(b), especially when mode $`B`$ begins lasing. Figure 9(b) shows the electron density $`\rho (x)`$ inside the active laser medium for different pumping rates $`r`$. Because the mode intensities have a node at the mirrors and there is no electron diffusion, the pumping rates can be read directly from the normalized density axis at the mirrors (points $`l=0`$ and $`l=200`$) in Fig. 9(b). The normalized pumping rates in Fig. 7(b) are $`r=0.6,0.8,1.05,1.65,2.25,3.0`$. The electron density $`\rho (x)`$ is essentially constant for pumping rates below threshold ($`r=0.6,0.8`$) in Fig. 7(b). There is a small variation in electron density for pumping rates below threshold, which is invisible on the scale in Fig. 9(b). Above threshold the variation in electron density becomes quite pronounced, especially when mode $`B`$ begins lasing ($`r=1.65,2.25,3.0`$). The growth of electron density $`\rho (x)`$ as we move from the center of the gain media towards the mirrors is due to our neglect of diffusion. Since the optical mode intensites $`|u_A|^2`$ and $`|u_B|^2`$ have a node at the mirrors, a large spatial hole is also burned into the main body of the laser. Smaller spatial holes arising from the oscillating optical mode intensities produce oscillations in the electron density.

### 3.2 Fast Diffusion

When we include diffusion $`(D0)`$, we can no longer solve Eq. (19) directly for the density $`\rho (x)`$. Instead we discretize the active lasing medium, taking lattice points $`x_l=la`$. Here $`a`$ is the lattice spacing and $`0ll_{max}`$, with $`L_a=l_{max}a`$ the length of the active medium. With this lattice Eq. (19) reads

$$\frac{d}{dt}\left[\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{}\\ \rho _{l1}\\ \rho _l\\ \rho _{l+1}\\ \mathrm{}\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}\mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ t& 2t+w_{l1}& t& 0& 0\\ 0& t& 2t+w_l& t& 0\\ 0& 0& t& 2t+w_{l+1}& t\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{}\\ \rho _{l1}\\ \rho _l\\ \rho _{l+1}\\ \mathrm{}\end{array}\right]+\left[\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{}\\ R_{l1}\\ R_l\\ R_{l+1}\\ \mathrm{}\end{array}\right].$$
(32)
Here $`t=D/a^2`$ is the diffusion rate and

$$w_l=\stackrel{~}{K}_AV_Ln_A|u_A(x_l)|^2+\stackrel{~}{K}_BV_Ln_B|u_B(x_l)|^2+\stackrel{~}{A}.$$
(33)
Given an initial guess for the photon numbers $`n_A`$ and $`n_B`$, we can invert Eq. (32) for the density $`\rho (x)`$ in steady state. Taking a hypothetical five point lattice we have

$$\left[\begin{array}{c}\rho _0\\ \rho _1\\ \rho _2\\ \rho _3\\ \rho _4\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}t+w_0& t& 0& 0& 0\\ t& 2t+w_1& t& 0& 0\\ 0& t& 2t+w_2& t& 0\\ 0& 0& t& 2t+w_3& t\\ 0& 0& 0& t& t+w_4\end{array}\right]^1\left[\begin{array}{c}R_0\\ R_1\\ R_2\\ R_3\\ R_4\end{array}\right].$$
(34)
We use zero derivitive boundary conditions to truncate the matrix in Eq. (34). After solving Eq. (34) numerically for $`\rho _l`$, we can substitute this density back into Eqs. (20)-(21) to generate updated photon numbers $`n_A`$ and $`n_B`$ in steady state. We move from the $`m`$th to the $`(m+1)`$st iteration for the photon numbers by

$$n_A(m+1)=(n_A(m)+1)_a\frac{[\stackrel{~}{K}_AV_L]}{\gamma _A}|u_A|^2\rho 𝑑V,$$
(35)
and

$$n_B(m+1)=(n_B(m)+1)_a\frac{[\stackrel{~}{K}_BV_L]}{\gamma _B}|u_B|^2\rho 𝑑V.$$
(36)
Figures 10 and 11 show the effects of adding electron diffusion to the photon numbers and electron density in Fig. 9. In Figs. 10-11 the number of half wavelengths in the cavity are $`A=6`$ and $`B=7`$ with a ratio of optical rate constants $`z=\stackrel{~}{K}_A/\stackrel{~}{K}_B=1.1`$, the same parameters as in Fig. 9. Figure 10 uses a diffusion constant $`D=100a^2\stackrel{~}{A}`$ with $`L=200a`$ ($`t=100p`$ with $`l_{max}=200`$), while Fig. 11 uses a larger diffusion constant $`D=500a^2\stackrel{~}{A}`$ with $`L=200a`$ ($`t=500p`$ with $`l_{max}=200`$). Since the cavity is six half wavelengths long ($`L=6\lambda /2`$), we have $`D=(9/400)\lambda ^2\stackrel{~}{A}`$ in Fig. 10 and $`D=(45/400)\lambda ^2\stackrel{~}{A}`$ in Fig. 11. These values for the diffusion constant are in good agreement with our order of magnitude estimate for when diffusion should affect the laser output characteristics.

Adding electron diffusion raises the threshold current required for mode $`B`$ to lase, as can be seen in Figs. 10(a) and 11(a). The larger the diffusion constant, the greater is the threshold current required for mode $`B`$ to begin lasing. Diffusion also reduces the spatial hole burning effects due to the mirrors, leaving only the smaller spatial holes due to the difference in the number of half wavelengths in the cavity between modes $`A`$ and $`B`$. Some overall gradients are still visible in the electron density in Fig. 10(b), while in Fig. 11(b) the overall average electron density density is essential uniform (mirror effects are negligible). Fig. 11(b) resembles the picture of electron density used to illustrate the effects of spatial hole burning in the laser in Ref. .

## 4 Conclusions

We have generalized the laser rate equations in Refs.  both electron scattering between the different lasing levels to describe spectral hole burning effects in gas lasers. In order to model spatial hole burning effects present in semiconductor lasers, and guided by Ref. , we then further generalized the rate equation model to include the effects of spatially varying optical mode intensities in the laser.

In order for multiple frequencies to lase simultaneously, either the energy spectrum or spatial variation of the optical gain must be broken up into many independent (single moded) lasers. Electron equilibration (scattering rate) is slow in gas lasers, and this allows the energy spectrum to be broken up into many independent frequency ranges. An order or magnitude estimate for single mode laser operation to occur in gas lasers is that the scattering rate between electrons in the different energy ranges must exceed the spontaneous emission rate ($`sA`$). For semiconductor lasers the electron diffusion is slow, and the gain media can be viewed as many independent lasers at each point in space. Due to spatial variations in the optical mode intensities, different lasing modes will be favored at each point in space. Since the regions where different modes dominate lasing are spatially separated by about one quarter wavelength, we need the diffusion constant to exceed $`D\lambda ^2A/16`$ for single moded operation in semiconductor lasers. Numerical simulations given in this paper agree with these two order of magnitude estimates for the transition from single to multiple moded laser operation.

Finally, we can summarize some general (and well known) conclusions about single versus multiple moded laser operation. Firstly, all lasers are single moded for some range of pumping rates near threshold. The range of pumping rates for single moded operation is larger for more scattering between electronic states and for faster electronic diffusion. But a range of pumping rates for single moded operation nonetheless exists no matter how weak the equilibration or how slow the electronic diffusion (unless two degenerate states are lasing). Secondly, all lasers become multi-moded when pumped hard enough (unless the gain medium is first destroyed by too high of a pumping rate). Finally, bad economic analogies do not describe laser mode competition. Statements such as ’Laser mode competition is just like life. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.’ are clearly incorrect. Even as the photon number in mode $`A`$ increases, the worst that can happen is that the photon number in mode $`B`$ remains constant. Mode $`B`$ can also begin lasing (become an economic success) either by electrons scattering from mode $`A`$ (working in a supporting industry often created by a competitor) or by specializing its spatial mode pattern to take advantage of optical gain inaccessible to $`A`$ (working in another area of the economy to exploit talents and resources unavailable to a competitor).


text:
# Andreev reflection and enhanced subgap conductance in NbN/Au/InGaAs-InP junctions

## I Introduction

The study of hybrid systems consisting of superconductors (S) in contact with a two-dimensional electron gas (2DEG) has attracted considerable interest in recent years. Various new effects arising due to the Andreev reflection at the S/2DEG interface were studied in such systems, both theoretically and experimentally Neurohr96 ; Takagaki98 ; Asano00 ; Asano00a ; Chtchelkatchev01 ; Hoppe00 ; Zuelicke01 ; Tkachov03 ; Zhou98 ; Moore99 ; Uhlisch00 ; Takayanagi02 . By taking phase-coherent Andreev reflection into account, the oscillations in the conductance of a S/2DEG junction in magnetic field have been predicted which are based on an Aharonov-Bohm-type interference effect Takagaki98 ; Asano00 ; Asano00a ; Chtchelkatchev01 . The current transport across the S/2DEG interface in the quantum Hall effect regime was investigated by Hoppe, Zülicke and Schön Hoppe00 ; Zuelicke01 . They could show that bound states are formed at the S/2DEG interface which are the coherent superposition of electron and hole edge excitations Hoppe00 . Very recently, the magneto-tunneling spectrum and the thermal conductance have been studied in a superconductor/quasi-one-dimensional semiconductor structure Tkachov03 . The transport across a superconductor/semiconductor interface in the Hall geometry was discussed in Takagaki98 ; Zhou98 . In Zhou98 , it is predicted that the Hall voltage is significantly suppressed near the interface compared to its normal metal value.

Experimental observation of these new phenomena is a challenging problem because in most cases the high probability of Andreev reflection at the interface is essential. Since Andreev reflection is a two-particle process Andreev64 , it is strongly affected by the transmissivity at the S/2DEG interface. Therefore, a serious effort has to be made to achieve a high junction transparency in order to access the novel transport regimes of interest. Recently, Takayanagi et al. Takayanagi02  reported the succesful preparation of good ohmic contacts between NbN/AuGeNi electrodes and a 2DEG in an AlGaAs/GaAs heterostructure.

In this work, we report on the fabrication of highly transparent superconductor/2DEG junctions formed by superconducting NbN electrodes and a 2DEG in a InGaAs/InP heterostructure. High junction transparency has been achieved by the use of a thin (10 nm) Au interlayer between NbN and the heterostructure. This achievement allowed us to observe for the first time a decrease in the differential resistance with pronounced double-dip structure within the superconducting energy gap and to measure the dependence of this structure on the magnetic field. Previously, experiments on transparent S/2DEG junctions (in diffusive limit) revealed a peculiar non-monotonic voltage dependence of the differential resistance with a maximum at zero bias, referred to as ”reentrant” resistance Charlat96 ; VolkovAllsopp96 ; GolubovWilhelm97 ; Nazarov96 ; Belzig99 . In diffusive S/2DEG contacts with Schottky barriers, a large and narrow peak in the differential conductance of the junctions around zero bias voltage was observed Kastalsky91 ; Magnee94 ; Quirion02 . The latter effect, known as ”reflectionless tunneling”, has been studied theoretically in Refs. Zaitsev90 ; Lambert91 ; Wees92 ; Takane92 ; Beenakker92 ; VolkovKlapwijk92 ; VolkovZaitsev93 ; Volkov93 ; Hekking93 ; Beenakker94 ; MelsenBeenakker96 ; Lesovik97 ; VolkovTakayanagi97 ; Bezuglyi00 . Below we will argue that the new double-dip structure in the differential resistance detected in our measurements is related to the transport in SN-2DEG contacts in a ballistic regime Neurohr96 . Experimental data for zero magnetic field will be analyzed in our work within the quasiclassical model for the proximity effect developed in Neurohr96 ; Golubov96 .

## II Experimental

Our experiments have been performed with strained InGaAs/InP heterostructures fabricated by metal organic vapor phase epitaxy (MOVPE) on a semi-insulating InP substrate. The InGaAs/InP heterostructures consist of a 400 nm thick InP buffer, a 10 nm thick (Si)-InP dopant layer ($`N_d=4.2\times 10^{17}\mathrm{cm}^3`$), a 20 nm thick InP spacer, a 10 nm thick In0.77Ga0.23As layer containing the 2DEG, and a 150 nm thick In0.53Ga0.47As cap. The use of InGaAs/InP heterostructures with a strained In0.77Ga0.23As layer allows one to achieve a high mobility in the 2DEG owing to a low effective electron mass of $`m^{}=0.036m_e`$ and a reduced contribution of alloy scattering. Shubnikov-de Haas and Hall effect measurements of our 2DEG structures revealed a carrier concentration of $`7\times 10^{11}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ and a mobility of about 250000 cm2/Vs at 0.3 K. From these values a Fermi energy $`E_f`$ of 37 meV and a transport mean free path of 3.6 $`\mu `$m were estimated.

A schematic of the sample layout is shown in Fig. 1. The semiconductor mesa was defined by electron beam lithography and reactive ion etching (RIE) using CH4/H2 gas mixture. We prepared two different types of electrodes to the two-dimensional electron gas in a InGaAs/InP heterostructure. The electrodes of the first type were 100 nm thick NbN layers deposited by dc magnetron sputtering. The NbN electrodes are contacted at the mesa sidewalls to the 2DEG. Directly prior to the deposition of NbN, the semiconductor surface was cleaned by an Ar plasma, in order to remove residual atoms at the surface. At the final processing step, the geometry of the NbN electrodes were defined using a lift-off technique. The electrodes of the second type were prepared by a modified two-step process. First, after the cleaning of the surface of the etched InGaAs/InP heterostructure by Ar-plasma, a thin (10 nm) Au interlayer was deposited in situ by dc magnetron sputtering followed by the deposition of the NbN electrode. Subsequently, we employed a rapid ($``$ 10 sec) annealing step. The temperature of annealing was 400C.

For the electrical characterization a three-terminal measurement scheme has been employed where a small ac current is superimposed to a dc bias current. The differential resistance is obtained by detecting the ac voltage by a lock-in amplifier. The ac excitation current was 10 nA. The measurements were performed at temperatures down to 0.3 K in a He-3 cryostat equipped with a superconducting solenoid with a magnetic field up to 10 T.

## III Experimental Results

In Fig. 2, the differential resistance $`dV/dI`$ as a function of the bias voltage measured at different temperatures is shown for a 10 $`\mu `$m wide NbN/2DEG interface. It is seen that at low temperatures, a pronounced resistance peak occurs at zero bias voltage, indicating a strong barrier at the NbN/2DEG interface. Measurements show that the height of the resistance peak does not depend on temperature in the low temperature range $`T<1.5`$ K. If the DC bias voltage approaches a value of 1.5 mV, a minimum in the differential resistance is observed. The position of this resistance minimum coincides with the superconducting energy gap determined from the critical temperature of superconductor $`T_c`$. At voltages $`V_{dc}>4`$ meV a constant differential resistance is found. With increasing the temperature the resistance peak at zero bias as well as the minima at about $`\pm 1.5`$ mV become weaker and disappear completely at temperatures above $`T_c10`$ K. The interface resistances of the NbN/InGaAs-InP interfaces are relatively high due to a high barrier at the interface. In order to improve the contact characteristics, we modified the method of preparation of the S/2DEG interfaces of the structures as was discussed in the previous section. By using a thin gold interlayer, we succeeded to obtain a considerably smaller interface resistance.

Figure 3 shows the differential resistance of a $`5\mu `$m wide NbN/Au/2DEG interface as a function of the voltage drop at different temperatures. It is seen that a decrease in the differential resistance is observed within the range of voltages $`\pm 1`$ mV at temperatures below 6 K. This result is a characteristic of the transport across a junction with high probability of Andreev reflection, resulting in excess current at low bias Neurohr96 ; Golubov96 . At zero dc bias voltage, the differential resistance exhibits a minimum. At 0.5 K, the zero bias resistance dip reaches a value of about 15 % of the normal state resistance $`R_N`$. At low temperatures ($`<2`$ K), in the voltage dependence of the differential resistance, we observed two shoulders, both symmetric in voltage. As the temperature is increased, the double dip structure in the differential resistance progressively disappears. At temperatures higher than 2 K, the feature at small voltages is suppressed and only a broad resistance dip within the range of 1 mV remains. Finally, at temperatures about 6 K almost constant differential resistance is measured. At this temperature the sample is effectively normal conductive, since the temperature is close to $`T_c`$.

Fig. 4 demonstrates the effect of a magnetic field perpendicular to the plane of the 2DEG on the differential resistance of the NbN/Au/2DEG interface. The differential resistance is plotted versus dc bias current $`I_{dc}`$ and is normalized to the resistance value $`R_i`$ measured at $`1.5\mu `$A. The measurements were performed at 0.5 K. It is seen that with increasing magnetic field $`B`$ the reduction of the resistance at zero bias as related to its value at $`I_{dc}=1.5\mu `$A becomes smaller. The double-dip structure occurs on the scale of about several 100 mT and is still clearly seen at $`B=0.9`$ T. At high fields, the features are no longer well resolved, however a reduced zero-bias resistance remains even at magnetic fields of about 3 T. Note that in our samples, the onset of the Shubnikov-de Haas oscillations in the 2DEG is observed at a magnetic field of about 0.25 T. Therefore, our experiments indicate that the subgap conductance enhancement due to Andreev reflection is preserved in the regime of high quantizing magnetic fields.

## IV Discussion and Comparison with Theory

Detailed interpretation of the I-V curves in magnetic field requires separate study and will be reported elsewhere. Here we shall discuss the experimental data in zero field, in order to demonstrate that the regime of highly-transparent S/2DEG interfaces was achieved in our junctions.

First we analyze the experimental data using the well-established Blonder, Tinkham, and Klapwijk (BTK) model for the current transport Blonder82 . Although the BTK model does not include effects of disorder and an intermediate non-superconducting layer at the interface Neurohr96 , it is widely applied to both ballistic and diffusive systems, in order to obtain an estimate of the junction transmissivity. In the BTK model, a potential barrier at the interface is approximated by a $`\delta `$-function potential. A transmission coefficient $`T_N`$ in the normal state is given by $`T_N=1/(1+Z^2)`$ where $`Z`$ is the dimensionless parameter characterizing the potential barrier strength Blonder82 . Following Gao93 , from the drop of the differential resistance at zero bias compared to the large bias case (experimental curve at $`T=0.5`$ K, Fig. 3), a barrier strength $`Z=0.5`$ for the NbN/Au/InGaAs-InP junction is obtained. The normal-state transmission coefficient $`T_N`$ calculated from $`Z`$-value is 0.8, which is considerably higher than the value of $`T_N=0.2`$ obtained for NbN/InGaAs-InP junctions.

Golubov et al. Neurohr96 ; Golubov96  extended the BTK model by taking into account the presence of a non-superconducting N layer at the interface. The structure therefore may be represented as an SN-2DEG junction. The S and N layers are assumed to be in the dirty limit, while the 2DEG channel is in the clean limit Neurohr96 . The N-2DEG interface is simulated in the model by the BTK $`Z`$-factor.

The equilibrium state of the S and N layers is described by the angle-averaged Green’s functions $`G`$ and $`F`$, which are obtained from the Usadel equations Belzig99 . By formally introducing a complex angle $`\theta (ϵ,x)`$ with $`G(ϵ,x)=\mathrm{cos}\theta (ϵ,x)`$ and $`F=\mathrm{sin}\theta (ϵ,x)`$, the Usadel equations are written as Neurohr96 :

$$\xi _{S,N}^2\theta _{S,N}^{\prime \prime }(x)+iϵ\mathrm{sin}\theta _{S,N}(x)+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{S,N}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{S,N}(x)=0$$
(1)
where $`ϵ=E/\pi k_BT_c`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{S,N}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{S,N}/\pi k_BT_c`$ are the normalized energy and pair potential, and $`T_c`$ is the critical temperature of the superconductor. The coherence lengths $`\xi _{S,N}`$ are given by $`\xi _{S,N}=(\mathrm{}D_{S,N}/2\pi k_BT_c)^{1/2}`$ where $`D_S`$ and $`D_N`$ are the diffusion coefficients in the superconductor and normal layers, respectively.

The pair potential $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_S`$ in the superconductor is determined by the self-consistency equation

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_S(x)\mathrm{ln}\frac{T}{T_c}+2\frac{T}{T_c}\underset{\omega _n>0}{}\left[\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_S(x)}{\omega _n}\mathrm{sin}\theta _S(i\omega _n,x)\right]=0$$
(2)
where $`\omega _n=(2n+1)T/T_c`$ are the normalized Matsubara frequencies. In the normal conductor, the pair potential $`\mathrm{\Delta }_N`$ is assumed to be zero. The quasiparticle density of states (DOS) in terms of the proximity angle $`\theta `$ is obtained from $`N(E)=N_0\mathrm{Re}(\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$, where $`N_0`$ is the Fermi level DOS in the normal state.

In order to calculate the current across a junction, the solution of the Eqs. (1, 2) for the proximity effect in the dirty SN sandwich, including the influence of a clean 2DEG, has to be found. Eqs. (1, 2) must be supplemented with the two sets of boundary conditions: at the SN interface and at the 2DEG-N interface. For the SN interface the boundary conditions are given by

$`\gamma _{B_1}\xi _N\theta _N^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}(\theta _S\theta _N),`$ (3)
$`\gamma _1\xi _N\theta _N^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\xi _S\theta _S^{},`$ (4)
where $`\gamma _1=\rho _S\xi _S/\rho _N\xi _N`$ is a parameter characterizing the strength of the proximity effect between S and N layers and $`\gamma _{B_1}=R_B/\rho _N\xi _N`$ describes the effect of the SN interface transparency, $`R_B`$ is the SN interface resistance, $`\rho _S`$ and $`\rho _N`$ are the normal state resistivities. In the bulk of the superconductor, $`\theta _S`$ is given by $`\theta _S=\mathrm{arctan}(i\mathrm{\Delta }_0/E)`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ is the bulk value of the pair potential. For the N-2DEG interface, which separates the disordered N layer (of thickness $`d_N`$) and the clean 2DEG, the material-dependent parameters for the boundary conditions, similar to Eqs. (3, 4), are found from the estimates Neurohr96 : $`\gamma _2(3k_{2DEG}/k_N^2l_N)\xi _N/\xi _{2DEG}`$ and $`\gamma _{B_2}=Z^2`$, where $`k_{2DEG}`$ and $`k_N`$ are the Fermi wave-vectors in the 2DEG and in the N layer, $`l_N`$ is the mean free path in the N layer, and $`Z`$ is the barrier strength in the BTK model. The estimations show that for our NbN/Au/2DEG junctions one may set $`\gamma _2=0`$.

The complete self-consistent problem requires numerical simulations. The self-consistent solution is then used to determine the Andreev and normal reflection coefficients at the 2DEG-N interface and the current across a junction Neurohr96 ; Golubov96

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left|\mathrm{sin}\theta _N(ϵ,0)\right|^2}{\left|1+2Z^2+\mathrm{cos}\theta _N(ϵ,0)\right|^2}}`$ (5)
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4Z^2(1+Z^2)}{\left|1+2Z^2+\mathrm{cos}\theta _N(ϵ,0)\right|^2}}`$ (6)
$`I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2k_NW}{\pi ^2\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}\left[f_0(ϵ+eV)f_0(ϵ)\right]\left(1+AB\right)𝑑ϵ`$ (7)
where $`f_0`$ is the Fermi distribution function, $`V`$ is the voltage drop in the junction and $`W`$ is the contact width. In Eqs. (5, 6), the function $`\theta _N(ϵ,0)`$ is taken in the N region near the N-2DEG interface.

An essential feature of the model Neurohr96 ; Golubov96  is the existence of a gap in the density of states $`\mathrm{Re}(\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$ of the N layer which is in proximity to a superconductor. This leads to the characteristic two-gap structures in the energy dependence of Andreev and normal reflection coefficients and thus in the voltage dependence of the resistance Merkt97 . Fig. 5 shows the corresponding calculated $`dV/dIV_{dc}`$ curves for NbN/Au/2DEG junctions. The parameters for the calculated curves were chosen within a realistic range given by the characteristic material constants Plathner96 ; Gousev94 ; Pambianchi94 ; Nunoz00 ; Dikin02 ; Schaepers03 . As can be seen from Fig. 5 and Fig. 3, the calculated and measured curves show a rather good qualitative agreement. However, we could not find a good quantitative fit to the experimental curves. The main discrepancies are in the detailed shape and in the amplitude of variations of the differential resistance. A weaker dip in the experimental curve than calculated within the model Neurohr96  can possibly be explained by smearing due to the inhomogeneity of the junction (i.e. variation of the interface quality over the width of the junction).

We have also considered the model of diffusive contact when a disordered 2DEG channel exists between the clean 2DEG and SN electrode and a potential drop is distributed between the SN-2DEG interface and the disordered region in the 2DEG. Properties of disordered contacts have been first studied theoretically by Artemenko, Volkov, and Zaitsev Artemenko79  and later in Refs. VolkovAllsopp96 ; GolubovWilhelm97 ; Nazarov96 ; Belzig99 ; Zaitsev90 ; Lambert91 ; Wees92 ; Takane92 ; Beenakker92 ; VolkovKlapwijk92 ; VolkovZaitsev93 ; Volkov93 ; Hekking93 ; Beenakker94 ; MelsenBeenakker96 ; Lesovik97 ; VolkovTakayanagi97 ; Bezuglyi00 . The transport measurements on the S/N structures in the diffusive limit have been carried out in Kastalsky91 ; Magnee94 ; Quirion02  and have revealed a conductance peak around zero bias voltage which arises due to an interplay between Andreev scattering and disorder-induced scattering in the normal electrode. The fitting parameters we obtained within the model of diffusive contact (in particular, large thickness of the disordered 2DEG channel $`d_N^{}28\xi _N^{}`$) appeared to be unrealistic. Therefore, it is less likely that the diffusive model can be applied in our case when the 2DEG is in the extreme clean limit. We believe that the observation of the two-gap like structure in the differential resistance is related to the transport between the NS bilayer and clean 2DEG through the clean constriction (the situation which was considered in Neurohr96 ; Golubov96 ).

In conclusion, we fabricated highly transparent superconductor/normal metal/two-dimensional electron gas junctions formed by a superconducting NbN electrode, a thin (10nm) Au interlayer, and a 2DEG in a InGaAs/InP heterostructure. High junction transparency has been achieved by exploiting of a newly developed process of Au/NbN evaporation and rapid annealing at 400C. A decrease in the differential resistance with pronounced double dip structure was observed within the superconducting energy gap in junctions investigated and its magnetic field dependence was measured. It has been found that the reduced subgap resistance remains in high magnetic fields. Experimental data in zero field are analyzed within a model based on the quasiclassical Green-function approach. The present results suggest that our novel preparation method is not only advantageous for the fabrication of highly transparent S/2DEG interfaces but it might also have important implications for S/2DEG/S Josephson junction based devices.

The authors thank U. Zülicke for fruitful discussions, A. van der Hart for performing electron beam lithography on our samples and H. Kertz for his excellent assistance during the measurements. This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG).