text:
# Little Higgs Phenomenology

## 1 Introduction

The Standard Model (SM) of strong and electroweak interactions has passed stringent tests up to the highest energies accessible today. The precision electroweak data Hagiwara:fs  point to the existence of a light Higgs boson in the SM, with mass $`m_H<200`$ GeV. The SM with such a light Higgs boson can be viewed as an effective theory valid up to a much higher energy scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, which could be as high as the Planck scale. In particular, the precision electroweak data exclude dimension-six operators arising from strongly coupled new physics below a scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of order 10 TeV Barbieri ; any new physics appearing below this scale must be weakly coupled. However, without protection by a symmetry, the Higgs mass is quadratically sensitive to the cutoff scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ via quantum corrections, rendering the theory with $`m_H\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ rather unnatural. For example, for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=10`$ TeV, the “bare” Higgs mass-squared parameter must be tuned against the quadratically divergent radiative corrections at the 1% level. This gap between the electroweak scale $`m_H`$ and the cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is called the “little hierarchy”.

Little Higgs models decon ; minmoose ; Littlest ; SU6Sp6 ; KaplanSchmaltz ; custodialmoose ; SkibaTerning ; Spencer  revive an old idea to keep the Higgs boson naturally light: they make the Higgs particle a pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone boson PNGBhiggs  of a broken global symmetry. The new ingredient of little Higgs models is that at least two interactions are needed to explicitly break all of the global symmetry that protects the Higgs mass. This forbids quadratic divergences in the Higgs mass at one-loop; the Higgs mass is then smaller than the cutoff scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ by two loop factors, making the cutoff scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }10`$ TeV natural and solving the little hierarchy problem.

From the bottom-up point of view, the most important quadratic divergences in the Higgs mass due to top quark, gauge boson, and Higgs boson loops are canceled by loops of new weakly-coupled fermions, gauge bosons, and scalars with masses around a TeV. In contrast to supersymmetry, the cancellations in little Higgs models occur between loops of particles with the same statistics. Electroweak symmetry breaking is triggered by a Coleman-Weinberg coleman-weinberg  potential generated by integrating out the heavy degrees of freedom.

The constraints on little Higgs models from electroweak precision data have been examined in detail in Refs. GrahamEW1 ; JoAnneEW ; GrahamEW2 ; JayEW . The constraints come from $`Z`$ pole data from LEP and SLD, low-energy neutrino-nucleon scattering, atomic parity violation, and the $`W`$ boson mass measurement from LEP-II and the Tevatron. These measurements probe contributions from the exchange of virtual heavy gauge bosons between fermion pairs, the modification of $`Z`$-pole observables due to mixing of the $`Z`$ with the heavy gauge bosons, and the shift in the mass ratio of the $`W`$ and $`Z`$. The lower bounds on the masses of the new heavy gauge bosons are generally in the 1.5–2 TeV range GrahamEW2 ; JayEW . The electroweak precision measurements tend to favor parameter regions in which the new heavy gauge bosons are approximately decoupled from the SM fermions, thereby suppressing four-fermi interactions. The electroweak precision measurements do not directly constrain the mass of the top-partner. However, the mass of the top-partner is related to the heavy gauge boson masses by the structure of the model. For naturalness, the top-partner should be as light as possible. The lower bounds on the top-partner mass are generally in the 1–2 TeV range.

The “Littlest Higgs” model Littlest  is a minimal model of this type. It consists of a nonlinear sigma model with a global SU(5) symmetry which is broken down to SO(5) by a vacuum condensate $`f\mathrm{\Lambda }/4\pi `$ TeV. The gauged subgroup \[SU(2)$`\times `$U(1)\]2 is broken at the same time to its diagonal subgroup SU(2)$`\times `$U(1), identified as the SM electroweak gauge group. The breaking of the global symmetry leads to 14 Goldstone bosons, four of which are eaten by the broken gauge generators, leading to four massive vector bosons: an SU(2) triplet $`Z_H`$, $`W_H^\pm `$, and a U(1) boson $`A_H`$. The ten remaining uneaten Goldstone bosons transform under the SM gauge group as a doublet $`h`$ (which becomes the SM Higgs doublet) and a triplet $`\varphi `$ (which gets a mass of order $`f`$). A vector-like pair of colored Weyl fermions is also needed to cancel the divergence from the top quark loop, leading to a new heavy vector-like quark with charge $`+2/3`$. In this talk I review the phenomenology of the Littlest Higgs model, following Refs. LHpheno ; LHloop .

## 2 Collider phenomenology

The heavy SU(2) gauge bosons $`Z_H`$ and $`W_H`$ can be produced via Drell-Yan at the LHC (and at the Tevatron, if they are light enough). The cross section is proportional to $`\mathrm{cot}^2\theta `$ because the $`Z_H`$ and $`W_H`$ couplings to fermion pairs are proportional to $`\mathrm{cot}\theta g_2/g_1`$ (see Ref. LHpheno ). In Fig. 1 we show the cross section for $`Z_H`$ production at the Tevatron and LHC for $`\mathrm{cot}\theta =1`$.

In the region of small $`\mathrm{cot}\theta 0.2`$ favored GrahamEW1 ; JoAnneEW ; GrahamEW2 ; JayEW  by the precision electroweak data, the cross section must be scaled down by $`\mathrm{cot}^2\theta 0.04`$. Even with this suppression factor, a cross section of 40 fb is expected at the LHC for $`M_{Z_H}2`$ TeV, leading to 4,000 events in 100 fb-1 of data. The production and decay of $`Z_H`$ and $`W_H`$ at the LHC has also been studied in Ref. gustavo .

The $`Z_H`$ boson decays to fermion pairs with partial widths proportional to $`\mathrm{cot}^2\theta `$ and to boson pairs ($`ZH`$ and $`W^+W^{}`$) with partial widths proportional to $`\mathrm{cot}^22\theta `$. This feature can be used to distinguish the Littlest Higgs model from a “big Higgs” model with the same gauge group in which the Higgs doublet transforms under only one of the SU(2) groups gustavo , in which case the $`ZH`$ and $`W^+W^{}`$ partial widths would be proportional to $`\mathrm{cot}^2\theta `$. Neglecting final-state masses, the branching fraction into three flavors of charged leptons is equal to that into one flavor of quark ($`1/8`$ for $`\mathrm{cot}\theta >0.5`$), due to the equal coupling of $`Z_H`$ to all SU(2) fermion doublets. The branching ratio into $`ZH`$ is equal to that into $`W^+W^{}`$. The decay branching fractions of $`W_H`$ follow a similar pattern.

The Littlest Higgs model also contains a heavy U(1) gauge boson, $`A_H`$, which is generally the lightest new particle in the model. Its couplings to fermions are more model dependent than those of $`Z_H`$ and $`W_H`$, since they depend on the U(1) charges of the fermions (see Ref. LHpheno  for details). Even the presence of $`A_H`$ is somewhat model-dependent, since this particle can be eliminated by gauging only one U(1) group (hypercharge) without adding a significant amount of fine-tuning GrahamEW2 .

The heavy top-partner $`T`$ can be pair-produced via QCD with model-independent couplings. The cross section for this production mode falls quickly with increasing $`M_T`$ due to phase space suppression. The single $`T`$ production mode, $`W^+bT`$, dominates for $`M_T>`$ TeV (Fig. 2). The cross section for single $`T`$ production depends on the ratio of couplings $`\lambda _1/\lambda _2`$ (see Ref. LHpheno ), which relates $`M_T`$ to the scale $`f`$.

$`T`$ decays into $`tH`$, $`tZ`$, and $`bW^+`$ with branching fractions 1/4, 1/4, and 1/2, respectively. The top sector is quite similar in many of the other little Higgs models in the literature, so these general features of $`T`$ production and decay should apply. Some models contain more than one top-partner SU6Sp6 ; KaplanSchmaltz ; custodialmoose ; Spencer ; Anntalk  or contain partners for all three fermion generations KaplanSchmaltz ; SkibaTerning ; in these cases the phenomenology will be modified.

The decay partial widths of the Higgs boson into gluon pairs or photon pairs are modified in the Littlest Higgs model by the new heavy particles running in the loop and by the shifts in the Higgs couplings to the SM $`W`$ boson and top quark LHloop . These modifications of the Higgs couplings to gluon or photon pairs scale like $`1/f^2`$, and thus decouple at high $`f`$ scales. The range of partial widths for given $`f`$ values accessible by varying the other model parameters was computed in Ref. LHloop .

For $`f>1`$ TeV, the correction to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Hgg)`$ is unlikely to be observable because of the large SM QCD uncertainty QCDggh . The correction to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(H\gamma \gamma )`$ is more promising; it could be observed at a photon collider, where the $`\gamma \gamma Hb\overline{b}`$ rate can be measured to about 2% gammagamma  for $`m_H`$ 115–120 GeV. Combining this with BR($`Hb\overline{b}`$) measured to about 1.5–2% at an $`e^+e^{}`$ collider e+e-  allows the extraction of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(H\gamma \gamma )`$ with a precision of about 3%. Such a measurement would be sensitive to $`f<2.7`$ (1.8, 1.2) TeV at the $`1\sigma `$ ($`2\sigma `$, $`5\sigma `$) level. For comparison, the electroweak precision constraints require $`f>1`$ TeV in the Littlest Higgs model GrahamEW2 .

## 3 Conclusions

The little Higgs idea provides a new way to address the little hierarchy problem of the Standard Model by making the Higgs a pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone boson of a spontaneously broken global symmetry. The global symmetry is explicitly broken by gauge and Yukawa interactions; however, no single interaction breaks all the symmetry protecting the Higgs mass. This prevents quadratically divergent radiative corrections to the Higgs mass from appearing at the one-loop level, and thus allows the cutoff scale to be pushed higher by one loop factor, to $`10`$ TeV. From the bottom-up point of view, the quadratically divergent radiative corrections to the Higgs mass due to top quark, gauge boson, and Higgs loops are canceled by new heavy quarks, gauge bosons, and scalars, respectively.

The details of the phenomenology depend on the specific model. Since quite a few little Higgs models have appeared over the past two years, finding generic features of the phenomenology is important. Very generically, there must be new gauge bosons, fermions and scalars to cancel the quadratic divergences in the Higgs mass.

There is some tension between the precision electroweak constraints pushing up the new particle masses and the requirement that the new particles be light to avoid fine tuning. However, by tuning the parameters of the models appropriately one can satisfy both constraints. This tuning of the parameters should be explained in the ultraviolet completion of the nonlinear sigma model. Our developing understanding of the effects of little Higgs models on the electroweak precision observables is now driving model building to incorporate features that loosen the constraints. Taking these constraints into account, the new particles should live in the 1–2 TeV mass range and should be accessible at the LHC.

###### Acknowledgements.

It is a pleasure to thank Tao Han, Bob McElrath and Lian-Tao Wang for collaborations leading to the papers LHpheno ; LHloop  on which this talk is based. I also thank the organizers of EPS 2003 for the opportunity to speak. This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under grant DE-FG02-95ER40896 and by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Spintronics is a novel branch of nanoscience which exploits spin properties of electrons or nuclei instead of charge degrees of freedom . Perhaps the most current efforts in designing and manufacturing the spintronics devices are focused now on finding novel ways of both generation and utilization of spin-polarized currents. This, in particular, includes the study of spin-dependent transport in semiconductor nanostructures, which can operate as spin polarizers or spin filters. Although spintronics can have a lot of practical applications  \- , one of them is most interesting and ambitious: the application of electron or nuclear spins to quantum information processing and quantum computation  \- .

In this paper we suggest a new type of spin polarizer constructed from the finite array of semiconducting quantum dots (QD) attached to a quantum wire (QW).

All dots of the array are identical and each of them carries the spin 1/2. The schematic construction of the proposed device is shown for a single dot in Fig.1 and for the finite array of dots in Fig.2.

Using the mathematical modeling based on zero-range potentials ,  we reduce the problem of spin-dependent transport in the device to exactly solvable scattering problem. In terms of the scattering data, in particular, in terms of spin-dependent transmission coefficients through the device, we calculate the most important measurable characteristics: the polarization efficiency $`P(k)`$ and the conductance $`G(k)`$ of the device.

## 2 Assumptions, constrains and choice of model parameters

In this section we formulate the physical conditions under which our mathematical modeling is relevant. We assume that in the quantum wire connected with a quantum dots one-mode propagation of electrons in a ballistic regime can be realized. For the ballistic propagation of electrons through the QW the de Broglie wavelength  $`\lambda _B=\frac{2\pi \mathrm{}}{\sqrt{2m^{}k_BT}}`$ has to be much greater than both the mean free path $`l_{mfp}`$ in the material of QW and the length $`d`$ of QW between the neighboring quantum dots, i.e. $`\lambda _Bl_{mfp}`$ and $`\lambda _Bd`$.

On the other hand in order to use zero-range potentials for mathematical modeling of scattering by quantum dots the de Broglie wavelength has to be greater than the mean size $`r_0`$ of the dot: $`\lambda _Br_0`$ . There are different ways to manufacture quantum dots (see, e.g. , , ). Depending on technology the mean size of quantum dots varies from 20 nm for small dots up to more than 100 nm for the large dots. In order to satisfy all the constrains mentioned above we have to assume that spin-gun can be realized on relatively small QD using narrow-gap semiconductors (i.e. semiconductors with small $`E_g`$ — see Table 1). For such materials (see Table 1) $`\lambda _B`$ is about 50 nm at room temperature and more than 100 nm at the liquid nitrogen temperature.

Table 1.

| Semiconductor | $`E_g,eV`$  (285 K) | $`\frac{m^{}}{m_e}`$ | $`\lambda _B,`$nm  (285 K) | $`\lambda _B,`$nm  (77 K) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`GaAs`$ | 1.430 | 0.068 | 29.9 | 57.7 |
| $`InAs`$ | 0.360 | 0.022 | 52.8 | 101.5 |
| $`Cd_xHg_{1x}Te`$ |  | | | |
| $`x=0.20`$ | 0.150 | 0.013 | 68.6 | 131.9 |
| $`x=0.30`$ | 0.290 | 0.021 | 54.0 | 103.9 |
| $`HgTe`$ | -0.117 | 0.012 | 71.4 | 137.4 |
| $`Zn_{0.15}Hg_{0.85}Te`$ | 0.190 | 0.015 | 63.9 | 122.9 |
| $`InSb`$ |  | 0.014 | 66.1 | 127.2 |

It means that we have either to use in our modeling the parameters $`d,r_0`$ 100 nm or to assume the working temperature of the device less than $`T=77K`$. Below in Section 5 we shall take into account these limitations in our numerical simulations of the device operation.

## 3 A mathematical model of spin transport through a single quantum dot

In this section we consider a model for scattering of a 1D electron on a quantum dot attached to the quantum wire. Both 1D electron and quantum dot are assigned to have spin $`1/2`$ ($`s_e=1/2,s_d=1/2`$ and the possible spin projection on a fixed axis are $`(s_3)_{e,d}=\pm 1/2.`$ We emphasize that in the model in question the quantum dot is treated as unstructured uncharged scatterer carrying spin $`1/2`$ as a whole.

Due to the Breit-Fermi theory  the spin-spin interaction in frames of this simplest model leads to a singular interaction $`V^s`$ in the model Hamiltonian: $`V^s=\widehat{\gamma }_s\delta (x)\widehat{s}(1),\widehat{s}(2),`$ where $`x`$ is the distance between the electron and the quantum dot, $`\delta (x)`$ is the 1D delta function, $`\widehat{\gamma }_s`$ is the coupling constant, $`\widehat{s}(1)`$ and $`\widehat{s}(2)`$ are the electron and the quantum dot spin operators respectively: $`\widehat{s}(j)=(s_1(j),s_2(j),s_3(j)),`$ $`j=1,2,`$ $`s_i=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\sigma _i`$ where $`\sigma _i,i=1,2,3`$ are the Pauli matrices and $`\widehat{s}(1),\widehat{s}(2)=s_1(1)s_1(2)+s_2(1)s_2(2)+s_3(1)s_3(2).`$

Thus, the Schrödinger equation relevant to the proposed model has the form

$$\left[\frac{d^2}{dx^2}I_4+\gamma _s\delta (x)s(1),s(2)\right]\mathrm{\Psi }(x,s_3(1),s_3(2))=k^2\mathrm{\Psi }(x,s_3(1),s_3(2)),$$
(1)
Here $`I_4`$ is the unit operator in the total spin space $`𝐂^2𝐂^2`$ and $`m^{}`$ is the effective mass of electron in semiconductor material of the quantum wire and $``$ means the tensor product, $`k^2=E\frac{2m^{}}{\mathrm{}^2}`$, $`s(j)=\mathrm{}^1\widehat{s}(j)`$, $`\gamma _s=2m^{}\widehat{\gamma }_s`$. The wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ depends on the coordinate variable $`x`$ and $`s_3(1),s_3(2)`$ can take the values $`\pm 1/2`$.

In accordance with the extensions theory approach  the equation (1) is equivalent to the following boundary problem

$$\left(\frac{d^2}{dx^2}I_4\right)\mathrm{\Psi }=k^2\mathrm{\Psi }$$
(2)
$$\mathrm{\Psi }|_{x=+0}=\mathrm{\Psi }|_{x=0}$$

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^{}|_{x=+0}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}|_{x=0}=\gamma _ss(1),s(2)\mathrm{\Psi }|_{x=0}.$$
(3)
In order to solve the problem (2), (3) one has to separate the spin variables, i.e. to calculate the matrix elements of the Hamiltonian from equation (1) in the spin basis constructed below. Let us denote by $`\chi _\pm (1)`$ and $`\chi _\pm (2)`$ the spin part of the electron and the dot wave functions respectively with the value of spin projection $`s_3(j)=\pm 1/2,j=1,2.`$ One can take these spinors in the form $`\chi _+(j)=\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\end{array}\right),`$ $`\chi _{}(j)=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\end{array}\right).`$ It is well known  that the two-spin space $`_{s_1}_{s_2}𝐂^2𝐂^2`$ can be decomposed into the direct sum of two invariant (with respect to operators of representation of the group of rotation) subspaces: $`_{s_1}_{s_2}=D_0D_1,`$ where $`D_0`$ is the singlet space (subspace of the total spin $`S=0`$) which is spanned on the spinor $`\chi _{0,0},dimD_0=1`$, and $`D_1`$ is the triplet space (subspace of the total spin $`S=1`$) which is spanned on three spinors $`\{\chi _{1,1},\chi _{1,0},\chi _{1,1}\}`$, $`dimD_1=3`$.

The orthonormal basis of spinors in the triplet subspace has the form : $`\chi _{1,1}=\chi _+(1)\chi _+(2)`$, $`\chi _{1,1}=\chi _{}(1)\chi _{}(2)`$, $`\chi _{1,0}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\chi _+(1)\chi _{}(2)+\chi _{}(1)\chi _+(2))`$. The second index in $`\chi _{1,S_3}`$ means the values of the total spin projection $`S_3=1,0,1`$ The basis vector in the singlet subspace reads $`\chi _{0,0}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\chi _+(1)\chi _{}(2)\chi _{}(1)\chi _+(2))`$. The above described spinors form the orthonormal basis in the total spin space $`_{s_1}_{s_2}𝐂^2𝐂^2`$. Hence the total wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x,s_3(1),s_3(2))`$ can be decomposed as follows

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(x,s_3(1),s_3(2))=\psi _{1,1}(x)\chi _{1,1}+\psi _{1,0}(x)\chi _{1,0}+\psi _{1,1}(x)\chi _{1,1}+\psi _{0,0}(x)\chi _{0,0}$$
(4)
In order to separate the spin variables in the problem (2), (3) it is sufficient to calculate the action of the operator $`s(1),s(2)`$ on these spinors. One can easily verify that $`s(1),s(2)\chi _{1,S_3}=\frac{1}{4}\chi _{1,S_3}`$, where $`S_3=1,0,1`$ and $`s(1),s(2)\chi _{0,0}=\frac{3}{4}\chi _{0,0}`$.

Since the chosen basis of spinors is an orthonormal system the separation of spin variables in the channel $`S=0`$ and $`S=1`$ gives the following boundary value problem for the coordinate parts of the wave function (4)

$$(\frac{d^2}{dx^2}I_2k^2)\psi =0$$
(5)
$$\psi (+0)=\psi (0)$$

$$\psi ^{}|_{x=+0}\psi ^{}|_{x=0}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\gamma _{11}& 0\\ 0& \gamma _{00}\end{array}\right)\psi (0).$$
(6)
Here $`\psi `$ is a two-component vector $`\psi =\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _{1,S_3}\\ \psi _{0,0}\end{array}\right)(x)`$ where $`S_3=1,0,1`$, $`\gamma _{00}=\frac{3}{4}\gamma _s`$ is the coupling constant in the singlet channel and $`\gamma _{11}=\frac{1}{4}\gamma _s`$ is the coupling constant in the triplet channel. In the proposed model in the absence of relativistic effects the total spin $`S`$ conserves and the triplet-singlet and singlet-triplet transitions are forbidden. As a consequence, the antidiagonal elements of the coupling matrix in boundary condition (6) are equal to zero. Since the projection of the total spin $`S_3`$ also conserves, one can choose in the boundary problem above any value of this projection. In what follows we set $`S_3=1`$.

## 4 Scattering on periodic array of $`N`$ quantum dots

The single-dot Hamiltonian (7) for the case of periodic array of $`N`$ quantum dots is modified as follows

$$H^{(N)}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m^{}}\frac{d^2}{dx^2}I_4+\underset{l=1}{\overset{l=N}{}}\widehat{\gamma }_s\delta (xy_l)\widehat{s}(1),\widehat{s}(2),$$
(7)
where points $`y_l`$ are separated by distance $`d`$.

All the constructions of the previous section are easily generalized for this case. Hence after separation of spin variables in the equation $`H^{(N)}\mathrm{\Psi }^{(N)}=E\mathrm{\Psi }^{(N)}`$ one obtains for the coordinate part $`\psi ^{(N)}(x)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _{1,1}^{(N)}\\ \psi _{0,0}^{(N)}\end{array}\right)(x)`$ of the total wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{(N)}`$ the following boundary value problem

$$(\frac{d^2}{dx^2}I_2k^2)\psi ^{(N)}=0$$
(8)
$$\psi ^{(N)}(y_l+0)=\psi ^{(N)}(y_l0)$$

$$\psi _{}^{(N)}{}_{}{}^{}|_{x=y_l+0}\psi _{}^{(N)}{}_{}{}^{}|_{x=y_l0}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\gamma _{11}& 0\\ 0& \gamma _{00}\end{array}\right)\psi ^{(N)}(y_l),l=1,2,\mathrm{},N.$$
(9)
The transmission coefficient in the triplet channel $`T_{11}^{(N)}(k)`$ and singlet channel $`T_{00}^{(N)}(k)`$ are calculated in terms of elements of the $`4\times 4`$ matrix $`\widehat{𝐓}=t_{ij}`$, $`i,j=1,2,3,4`$, ($`i`$ is the line number, $`j`$ is the column number) which is the product of transition matrices through dots and wires connected dots. It reads $`\widehat{𝐓}=Q^{N1}Q_1`$, where

$$Q=\frac{1}{2ik}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\gamma _{11}+2ik& 0& e^{2idk}\gamma _{11}& 0\\ 0& \gamma _{00}+2ik& 0& e^{2idk}\gamma _{00}\\ \gamma _{11}& 0& e^{2idk}(2ik\gamma _{11})& 0\\ 0& \gamma _{00}& 0& e^{2idk}(2ik\gamma _{00})\end{array}\right).$$
(10)
The matrix $`Q_1`$ differs from $`Q`$ by absence of multiplier $`e^{2idk}`$ in its matrix elements. Here $`d`$ is the distance between the centers $`y_l`$ where $`\delta `$functions are localized. As applied to the physical situation we are modeling $`d`$ is the length of a quantum wire connecting two neighbor dots. The transmission coefficients have the form $`T_{11}^{(N)}=t_{11}+t_{13}e^{2iky_1}R_{11}^{(N)}`$, $`T_{00}^{(N)}=t_{22}+t_{24}e^{2iky_1}R_{00}^{(N)}`$. The reflection coefficients $`R_{11}^{(N)}`$, $`R_{00}^{(N)}`$ in the triplet and singlet channels respectively are given by equations $`R_{11}^{(N)}=e^{2iky_1}D^1(t_{41}t_{34}t_{31}t_{44})`$, $`R_{00}^{(N)}=e^{2iky_1}D^1(t_{43}t_{32}t_{33}t_{42})`$, where $`D=t_{33}t_{44}t_{34}t_{43}`$. The relations $`|T_{jj}^{(N)}|^2+|R_{jj}^{(N)}|^2=1`$ ($`j=0,1`$) which imply the unitarity of scattering has been checked by means of analytical calculations package.

In the case $`N=1`$ one has $`T_{jj}^{(1)}=2ik(2ik\gamma _{jj})^1`$, $`R_{jj}^{(1)}=e^{2iky_1}\gamma _{jj}(2ik\gamma _{jj})^1`$ ($`j=0,1`$)

## 5 Results and discussions

In this section we present the results of the numerical calculations of the operation regime characteristics for the spin gun and discuss the proper choice of the model parameters as well as the choice of semiconductor materials for QW and QD. We use the applied bias $`V:eV=\mu _L\mu _R`$ for tuning the spin polarization effects in the device.

In order to calculate the conductance $`G`$ of the device we exploit the two-channel Landauer formula at zero-temperature limit:

$$G=\frac{e^2}{\pi \mathrm{}}\left[|T_{00}^{(N)}(E_F+eV)|^2+|T_{11}^{(N)}(E_F+eV)|^2\right],$$

where $`E_F`$ is the Fermi level of QW.

For unpolarized incident beam of electrons the scattering by QD array in the triplet and singlet channels leads to different transmission coefficients $`T_{11}^{(N)}`$ and $`T_{00}^{(N)}`$. Following  we shall use the polarization efficiency

$$P=\frac{|T_{11}^{(N)}|^2|T_{00}^{(N)}|^2}{|T_{11}^{(N)}|^2+|T_{00}^{(N)}|^2}$$

which determines the difference of transmission probabilities through the spin gun for the triplet and singlet spin states.

At a given wave number $`k`$ the conductance $`G`$ and polarization efficiency $`P`$ of the device both depend on the model parameters: the distance $`d`$, the coupling constants $`\gamma _{11}`$, $`\gamma _{00}`$ and the number $`N`$ of QD. They also both depend on the choice of semiconductor materials from which the QD and QW are fabricated, i.e. effective mass $`m^{}`$, Fermi energy $`E_F`$ and mean size $`r_0`$ of quantum dots. Varying the bias applied one can calculate the dependence of $`G`$ and $`P`$ on $`k=\sqrt{\frac{2m^{}(E_F+eV)}{\mathrm{}^2}}`$ at fixed model parameters and chosen $`m^{}`$, $`E_F`$ and $`r_0`$. Let us mention that from spin analysis in Section 3 one has $`\gamma _{00}=3\gamma _{11}`$. Since $`d`$ and $`N`$ are free parameters of the model the only parameter has to be fixed is $`\gamma _{11}`$. The reasonable way to fix this parameter is to take it proportional to the inverse mean size of the quantum dot. For relatively small QD $`r_020÷30nm`$. Hence $`\gamma _{11}0.03÷0.05nm^1`$. Taking $`d50nm,`$ we obtain the value of order $`1`$ for the dimensionless parameter $`\widehat{\gamma }_{11}=\gamma _{11}\frac{d}{\pi }.`$

In Figures 3 - 5 we show the dependence of $`G`$ and $`P`$ on the dimensionless parameter $`\widehat{k}=k\frac{d}{\pi }`$ for $`\gamma _{11}\frac{d}{\pi }=1`$ in the cases $`N=1,2,8`$. We also indicate the position of Fermi level $`E_F=35meV`$ in $`InSb`$ ($`m^{}=0.014m_e`$) and fix the inter-dot distance $`d=45nm`$.

The general behavior of the conductance $`G`$ and polarization efficiency $`P`$ for the wide range of parameters variation is the following. On the $`\widehat{k}`$-axis with the growth of the number $`N`$ of quantum dots there arise the so-called “working windows” (see Figure 5), i.e. such intervals $`[\widehat{k}_1,\widehat{k}_2]`$, $`[\widehat{k}_3,\widehat{k}_4]`$,…in which $`P`$ and $`G`$ are sufficiently high simultaneously. Due to the interference processes in a QD array at $`N8÷10`$ the values of $`P`$ and $`G`$ on the working windows approach $`P100\%`$ and $`G\frac{e^2}{\pi \mathrm{}}`$ which equals to one half of its upper limit. It means that at $`\widehat{k}`$ lying in the working windows the spin gun really produces the fully polarized spin beam and conducts at fairly high level. In Figures 3 - 5 the working windows lie on the right of $`E_F`$ up to the value of $`\widehat{k}=\frac{d}{\pi }\sqrt{\frac{2m^{}(E_F+eV)}{\mathrm{}^2}}`$ which corresponds to the bias applied.

## 6 Plans and prospect

There are a lot of interesting modifications of the model we constructed. For example, we are going to take into account the internal structure of quantum dots. We plan to supply the quantum dot by prescribed internal structure remaining the model exactly solvable. Other interesting modification is to take into account the Coulomb interaction between the electron and quantum dot if the dot is charged. We shall prove that if we switch on the Coulomb interaction the modified model remains exactly solvable. Finally we are going to incorporate in our model the magnetic field in order manipulate spins in QW and QD.

## 7 Acknowledgments

The idea to use interference effect in finite periodic structures in order to amplify the polarization of electronic beam and the name of a such type spintronic devices (spin-gun) were proposed by N.T. Bagraev and B.S. Pavlov 111unpublished manuscript. The authors are very grateful to B.S. Pavlov for supplying the manuscript and for numerous fruitful discussions.


text:
# 𝐵_𝐾 from Two-flavor Dynamical Domain Wall Fermions

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The kaon B parameter, $`B_K`$, is an essential bridge between $`K_0\overline{K_0}`$ mixing experiments and the CKM matrix. Using domain wall fermions (DWF), quenched calculations of $`B_K`$ have been done , where operator mixing and $`O(a)`$ errors are small because of the good chiral properties of DWF. Including dynamical fermions is an obvious way to improve these calculations.

Using an improved HMC algorithm for DWF , we have generated three ensembles of lattices of size $`16^3\times 32`$ for $`N_f=2`$ QCD with degenerate dynamical masses of $`m_{\mathrm{dyn}}=0.02,0.03,0.04`$. Our fermion action is the standard DWF action with $`L_s=12`$ and $`M_5=1.8`$ and our gauge action is DBW2 with $`\beta =0.80`$. Extrapolating the rho mass in $`m_{\mathrm{dyn}}`$ to the chiral limit, we find a lattice spacing of $`a^1=1.81(6)`$ and a residual mass $`m_{\mathrm{res}}=0.00136(5)`$. We measure on lattices separated by 50 trajectories and have 78, 84, 57 lattices for $`m_{\mathrm{dyn}}=0.02`$, 0.03 and 0.04, respectively111This includes some data generated after the conference.. For more details see  and for results with $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=1`$ matrix elements see .

## 2 CALCULATION OF $`B_K`$

$`B_K`$ is defined by

$`B_K{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{K}^0|O_{LL}|K^0}{\frac{8}{3}\overline{K}^0|A_\mu |00|A^\mu |K^0}},`$ (1)
where $`A_\mu =\overline{s}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5d`$ and $`O_{LL}`$ is the $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=2`$ four-quark operator $`(\overline{s}d)_{VA}(\overline{s}d)_{VA}`$. For a general value of the mass of the pseudoscalars entering (1), we will use the symbol $`B_{\mathrm{PS}}`$, reserving $`B_K`$ for the case where the pseudoscalars have the kaon mass.

We first evaluate this by the conventional method, where the ratio of a three-point Green’s function and two pseudoscalar–axial-vector correlators is taken:

$`R(t)={\displaystyle \frac{J_5^a(t_0)O_{LL}(t)J_5^a(t_1)}{\frac{8}{3}J_5^a(t_0)A_4^a(t)A_4^a(t)J_5^a(t_1)}}.`$ (2)
(no sum on $`a`$). We use Coulomb gauge fixed wall sources at $`t_0=4`$ and $`t_1=28`$ for valence masses, $`m_{\mathrm{val}}`$, equal to $`0.01`$, 0.02, 0.03, 0.04 and 0.05. Propagators are found with both periodic and anti-periodic temporal boundary conditions and averaged to double the temporal length.

In Figure 1 we show $`R(t)`$. We choose to fit data from $`t=14`$ to 17, same fitting range as , to determine $`B_{\mathrm{PS}}^{\mathrm{lat}}`$. The error bars in this figure, and throughout this report, assume that our lattices are decorrelated. The fits shown in Figure 1 give values of $`B_{\mathrm{PS}}^{\mathrm{lat}}=0.557(10)`$, 0.611(6) and 0.645(7) for $`m_{\mathrm{dyn}}=m_{\mathrm{val}}=0.02`$, 0.03 and 0.04 respectively. Variations in the plateaus are noticeable at the 1-2% level and the assumption of 50 trajectories being sufficient for decorrelation needs further studies and statistics. However, the current data certainly makes a few percent resolution in the lattice values achievable by possibly doubling the statistics.

In Figure 2, we show our results for $`B_{\mathrm{PS}}^{\mathrm{lat}}`$ for degenerate valence quark masses for each different value of $`m_{\mathrm{dyn}}`$. The filled points in the figure have $`m_{\mathrm{dyn}}=m_{\mathrm{val}}`$ and correspond to the fitted lines in Figure 1. (We also have data for non-degenerate valence quarks and with our statistics, only the average quark mass plays a role.) Our simplest result to report for $`B_K`$ comes from extrapolating the $`m_{\mathrm{val}}=m_{\mathrm{dyn}}`$ points in Figure 2 to $`m_f=\overline{m_s}/20.018`$. (A pseudoscalar with two quarks with $`m_f=\overline{m_s}/2`$ has the mass of the kaon.) We perform this extrapolation using the partially quenched formula

$`B_{\mathrm{PS}}(m)`$ $`=`$ $`b_0\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{6}{(4\pi f)^2}}\left(M_{\mathrm{PS}}^2\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{M_{\mathrm{PS}}^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\chi \mathrm{PT}}^2}}\right)\right)`$ (3)
$`+`$ $`b_1M_{\mathrm{PS}}^2,`$
fitting the three points with $`m_{\mathrm{val}}=m_{\mathrm{dyn}}`$ to determine $`b_0`$ and $`b_1`$. We find $`b_0=0.267(12)`$, $`b_1=1.256(79)`$ and $`B_K^{\mathrm{lat}}=0.541(9)`$ (statistical error only), with a small $`\chi ^2`$/d.o.f. Note that we are using the known coefficient of the chiral logarithm, $`M_{\mathrm{PS}}^2=4.06\times (m_f+m_{res}),f=0.0786`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\chi \mathrm{PT}}=1`$ GeV. The statistical error in the lattice spacing gives an additional 2% systematic error in the value of $`B_K^{\mathrm{lat}}`$, due to the uncertainty in the strange quark mass.

While our data makes extrapolation to $`m_f=\overline{m_s}/2`$ quite robust, the value of $`b_0`$ is much less solid. A small value in the chiral limit has also been seen in the quenched calculations, but more control over the extrapolation is needed.

We have also fit the dependence of $`B_{\mathrm{PS}}`$ on $`m_{\mathrm{val}}`$ to (3) for each fixed $`m_{\mathrm{dyn}}`$, using the five values for $`m_{\mathrm{val}}`$. The interpolated values for $`B_K^{\mathrm{lat}}(m_{\mathrm{val}}=\overline{m_s}/2,m_{\mathrm{dyn}})`$ are 0.537(11), 0.557(9) and 0.568(10) for $`m_{\mathrm{dyn}}=0.02`$, 0.03 and 0.04 respectively. We reduce the fitting range to exclude the heaviest two points and see the results stay same within error.

An alternative method of extracting $`B_K`$ is to divide the three-point function in the numerator of (1) by a wall-wall pseudoscalar correlator . This removes some zero mode effects in the quenched approximation, while giving larger statistical errors. However here we see no difference in the central values for results calculated using these two methods.

## 3 RENORMALIZATION AND MIXING

To get to $`B_K^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$ we need to renormalize $`B_K^{\mathrm{lat}}`$ and control mixing with other dimension six, chirally disallowed operators. Using NPR  in the quenched theory we have seen that mixing coefficients with chirally disallowed operators are small. Preliminary NPR calculations on our $`40`$ dynamical DWF lattices also show that the mixing coefficients are small (less than a few percent).

These NPR results are preliminary, since we have not fully investigated all the mass dependence of the procedure and our statistics are somewhat limited. However, we can also use the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ parameter introduced in  to quantify the chiral symmetry breaking of DWF and conclude that the mixing with chirally disallowed operators is of $`𝒪(m_{\mathrm{res}}^2)`$ and hence negligible.

We calculate $`\widehat{B}_K`$, the renormalization group invariant (RGI) parameter, from $`B_K^{\mathrm{lat}}`$ via the multiplicative renormalization

$`\widehat{B}_K`$ $`=`$ $`Z^{\mathrm{RGI},\mathrm{RI}\mathrm{MOM}}(\mu )`$ (4)
$`\times `$ $`(Z_Q^{\mathrm{\Delta }S=2}(\mu a)/Z_A^2(\mu a))B_K^{\mathrm{lat}}(a)`$
A similar equation is used for $`B_K^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$ except that $`Z^{\mathrm{RGI},\mathrm{RI}\mathrm{MOM}}Z^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}},\mathrm{RI}\mathrm{MOM}}`$. The factor $`Z^{\mathrm{RGI},\mathrm{RI}\mathrm{MOM}}Z_Q^{\mathrm{\Delta }S=2}(\mu )/Z_A^2(\mu )`$ is calculated following the techniques in  with all quark masses equal to $`m_{\mathrm{dyn}}`$. This quantity is extrapolated to $`m_{\mathrm{dyn}}=m_{\mathrm{res}}`$ then the extrapolation to $`(pa)^2=0`$ is done to remove $`𝒪(a^2)`$ errors. The two loop $`\alpha _S(\mu )`$ formula with $`N_F=2,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}=300`$ MeV and $`a^1=1.81\mathrm{GeV}`$ is used. The uncertainty due to the choice of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ is estimated by changing $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ by $`\pm `$50 MeV. We check the results stay same within error by changing the order of the two limits, $`(pa)^20`$ and $`m_{\mathrm{dyn}}m_{\mathrm{res}}`$.

Following the procedure above, we find $`Z^{\mathrm{RGI},\mathrm{RI}\mathrm{MOM}}Z_Q^{\mathrm{\Delta }S=2}/Z_A^2=1.29(4)`$ and $`Z^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}},\mathrm{RI}\mathrm{MOM}}Z_Q^{\mathrm{\Delta }S=2}/Z_A^2=0.93(2)`$ at $`\mu =2`$ GeV. These numbers agree with the one loop perturbative calculation, which gives the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ factor to be 0.92.

## 4 CONCLUSIONS

Our initial calculation of $`B_K`$ with dynamical domain wall fermions has yielded $`B_K^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}(2\mathrm{GeV})=0.503(20)`$ and $`\widehat{B}_K=0.697(33)`$ . The errors on these quantities include the statistical error on $`B_K^{\mathrm{lat}}`$, the error on the $`Z`$ factors and a 2% error reflecting the uncertainty in the kaon mass arising from the uncertainty in the lattice scale. These results correspond to an extrapolation of $`m_{\mathrm{dyn}}=m_{\mathrm{val}}`$ to $`\overline{m_s}/2`$.

We summarize results for each dynamical lattice in Table 1. These are obtained by interpolating $`m_{\mathrm{val}}`$ to $`\overline{m_s}/2`$ at fixed $`m_{\mathrm{dyn}}`$ and are somewhat smaller than quenched DWF calculations at a similar lattice spacing. We see a trend in Table 1 toward lower values as the dynamical quark mass is reduced. We have likely underestimated our statistical error, due to the long autocorrelation times in dynamical QCD simulations, and we have not yet studied the other methods of chiral extrapolations, the continuum limit or finite volume effects. However, it is clear that these dynamical DWF calculations are possible with current computers and hold promise for the next generation of computers.


text:
# Thermal photons from 𝜋𝜌→𝜋𝛾 revisited

## Abstract

We evaluate the photon spectra from the reaction $`\pi \rho \pi \gamma `$ for the exchange of $`\pi `$, $`\rho `$, $`\omega `$, $`\varphi `$ and $`a_1`$ as intermediary mesons. It is found that the contributions from the intermediary $`a_1`$ is more than any other meson exchange processes up to photon energies 2.5 GeV.

Investigation of the properties of hot and dense hadronic matter produced in high energy heavy ion collisions through real and virtual photon spectra is a field of great contemporary interest. As the energy density of the hadronic matter increases, the system is expected to go to a new phase of matter called quark gluon plasma (QGP). Among others, photons are considered as a very promising signal of QGP annals . However, to estimate the photons from QGP an accurate evaluation of the photon spectra from hadrons is necessary phots . Among all the processes which produces photons in a hot hadronic system the reaction $`\pi \rho \pi \gamma `$ is the dominant one for photon energies ($`E`$) above 0.5 GeV.

In a recent paper turbide  it was claimed that the $`t`$ channel $`\omega `$ exchange in $`\pi \rho \pi \gamma `$ is the single most dominant process of photon production for $`E>2`$ GeV. For $`\pi \rho a_1`$ vertices they have employed the Massive Yang-Mills approach and the $`\pi \rho \omega `$ interaction is similar to that given in gsw . It is the purpose of this paper to comment on the above observation.

We have made a detailed study of this process considering all possible diagrams involving $`\pi `$, $`\rho `$, $`\omega `$, $`\varphi `$ and $`a_1`$ mesons in the intermediate state. For this purpose the following interactions have been considered. For the $`\pi a_1\gamma `$ and $`\pi a_1\rho `$ vertices we employed the phenomenological interactions from Ref. rudaz , (see also shin ) which reproduces the $`a_1\pi \rho `$ and $`a_1\pi \gamma `$ decay widths reasonably well. It may be mentioned here that the $`a_1\pi \gamma `$ vertex used in Refs.song ; xiong  gives a larger value of the above decay width compared to the experimental value. The $`\omega \rho \pi `$ interaction is taken from gsw . The coupling constants has been fixed (via vector meson dominance) to reproduce the $`\omega \pi ^0\gamma `$ decay width. For the sake of completeness we have also considered $`\varphi `$ mediated reactions, though its contribution is found to be small. The interaction vertex for $`\varphi \rho \pi `$ is similar to $`\omega \rho \pi `$ and the coupling is constrained from the decay $`\varphi \pi ^0\gamma `$. The $`\rho \pi \pi `$ vertex has been fixed from $`\rho \pi \pi `$ decay. All the reactions involving intermediary $`\pi `$, $`\rho `$, $`a_1`$, $`\omega `$ and $`\varphi `$ as well as four point $`\pi \rho \pi \gamma `$ interactions have been considered. We have not introduced form factors at the vertices because the main focus of the work is to compare the relative importance of the $`\omega `$ and $`a_1`$ exchange reactions. Coherent sums have been performed for the same class of relevant diagrams for all the intermediary mesons.

The emission rate of photons from $`\pi \rho \pi \gamma `$ is plotted in Fig. 1 at a temperature $`T=200`$ MeV. Our results do not agree with that of Ref. turbide  i.e. $`\omega `$-exchange in the $`t`$ channel is not the single most important process for the entire range of $`E`$ considered here. In fact up to $`E2.5`$ GeV the emission rate due to $`a_1`$-exchange processes is seen to be the most dominant one. We have also observed that the $`a_1`$ exchange in the $`s`$ channel is more dominant than the corresponding $`t`$ channel exchange as claimed in xiong . The contribution from $`\omega `$ exchange processes in the $`s`$ and $`t`$ channels is found to be comparable to the $`a_1`$ exchange processes beyond $`E2.5`$ GeV. The decay of $`\omega `$ meson is not considered here to avoid double counting with the $`s`$ channel $`\omega `$ exchange process. Contribution from $`\varphi `$ exchange is negligibly small.

In summary, we have evaluated the production rate of photons by the reactions $`\pi \rho \pi \gamma `$ with all the possible charge states of $`\pi `$ and $`\rho `$. An exhaustive set of processes involving intermediary $`\pi `$, $`\rho `$, $`\omega `$, $`\varphi `$ and $`a_1`$ mesons have been considered. We observe that the contributions from the $`a_1`$ exchange process is the dominant one for photon energies up to 2.5 GeV. It should be mentioned here that beyond $`E=2.5`$ GeV photons from hard QCD processes may mask the thermal contributions.


text:
# Quantum Phase Transitions of Quasi-One-Dimensional Heisenberg Antiferromagnets

## 0.1 Why Quasi-One-Dimensional Systems?

Low-dimensional quantum antiferromagnets have attracted much attention in recent years. Due to quantum fluctuations, they often have non-trivial ground states. We investigate the ground state of quasi-one-dimensional (Q1D) Heisenberg antiferromagnets (HAF’s) which consist of coupled one-dimensional (1D) spin chains with bond alternation on a square lattice. An isolated 1D uniform spin chain has no long-range order and a striking phenomenon associated with the Haldane gap haldane  is known, namely, chains with integer spins have a finite excitation gap over their ground states, whereas those with half-odd-integer spins do not. On the other hand, HAF’s on a spatially isotropic square lattice have the long-range Néel order in the ground statekubo . What kind of ground states do the models have that lie in the intermediate region between genuine 1D systems and two-dimensional (2D) systems? This is our question.

The ground state of a 1D bond-alternated HAF’s with spin magnitude $`S=1`$ has been investigated extensively affleck . There are two gapped ground states, the Haldane phase and the dimer phase, between which a quantum phase transition of the Gaussian universality class occurs. We study the ground state of coupled $`S=1`$ bond-alternated spin chains on a square lattice. There are two ways of coupling such chains, whether we place the stronger bonds on parallel positions between the neighboring chains or place them in a zig-zag way. The arrangements of bonds are shown in Fig. 1. Hereafter we will refer to the former lattice as the square lattice with columnar dimerization and the latter as that with the staggered dimerization. The Hamiltonian for the model with columnar dimerization is written as follows.

$$=J\underset{i,j}{}\left(𝐒_{2i1,j}𝐒_{2i,j}+\alpha 𝐒_{2i,j}𝐒_{2i+1,j}\right)+J^{}\underset{i,j}{}𝐒_{i,j}𝐒_{i,j+1}$$
(1)
The spin operator $`𝐒_{i,j}`$ has magnitude $`|𝐒|=1`$ and $`i,j`$ denote the points on a square lattice. We consider only the nearest neighbor coupling. We set the stronger intrachain coupling unity and the antiferromagnetic interchain coupling $`J^{}`$ positive. The strength of bond alternation is parametrized by $`\alpha `$ ($`0\alpha 1`$). The Hamiltonian of the model with staggered dimerization is similarly defined. We set the $`x`$ axis parallel to the chains.

There are some previous works on coupled uniform chains sakai ; tasaki ; koga  and weakly coupled bond-alternated chains on a square lattice with columnar dimerization koga . It is known that the models have gapped ground states if the interchain coupling is weak enough and quantum phase transitions occur by tuning the interchain coupling. In our study, by using the continuous-time quantum Monte Carlo loop algorithm with the subspin-symmetrization technique todo , we determine the phase boundaries accurately and discuss the universality class of the quantum phase transition. As our method is numerically exact and non-perturbative, we can derive the ground-state phase diagram parametrized by $`\alpha `$ and $`J^{}`$ over the whole region.

## 0.2 Simulations and Finite-Size Scaling

### 0.2.1 Details of Simulations

Let us denote the size of the lattice simulated by $`L_x`$, $`L_y`$ and the temperature $`T=1/\beta `$. By the Suzuki-Trotter decomposition, we map the original quantum system on $`L_x\times L_y`$ lattice to a classical system on $`L_x\times L_y\times \beta `$ spacetime by adding the imaginary-time axis (denoted by $`\tau `$) with the length $`\beta `$. The aspect ratios $`L_x/L_y`$, $`L_x/\beta `$, are fixed. Fixing the ratios between the spatial size and the imaginary-time size is based on the assumption of Lorentz invariance chakravarty , namely, the dynamical critical exponent be equal to unity. The sizes of the simulated systems and inverse temperatures are up to $`L_x\times L_y10^3`$ sites and $`\beta 10^2`$, with $`10^3`$ Monte Carlo steps used for thermalization and $`10^4`$ for measurement. The latter are cut into 20 bins from which we obtain averages and variances as estimates of observables and their statistical errors.

We calculate the staggered susceptibility $`\chi (\pi )`$, correlation lengths $`\xi _x`$, $`\xi _y`$ and the excitation gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Correlation lengths are calculated from the second moment of correlation functions and the gap is obtained as a reciprocal number of $`\xi _\tau `$. By the finite-size scaling (FSS) of these observables, we determine critical points and exponents in the thermodynamic limit $`L_x,L_y\mathrm{}`$ and the ground state limit $`\beta \mathrm{}`$. We obtain critical exponents of the staggered susceptibility $`\gamma `$ and the correlation length $`\nu `$, by which the critical behavior of $`\chi (\pi )`$ and $`\xi _d`$ are described as $`\chi (\pi )t^\gamma `$ and $`\xi _dt^\nu `$, where $`t`$ is the distance from the critical point. These are sufficient to give other exponents with the scaling relations.

### 0.2.2 Determination of critical points and exponents

We fit the behavior of observables near critical points into the FSS formulae which are written as $`\xi _d=Lf_d(tL^{1/\nu })`$ and $`\chi (\pi )=L^{\gamma /\nu }g(tL^{1/\nu })`$, where $`L`$ is the linear system size and $`f_d`$, $`g`$ are polynomials. We take terms of the polynomial up to the second order. Here we describe how the critical point and exponents are determined in the ground state of staggeredly coupled bond alternating chains with $`\alpha =0.1`$. The raw data of the staggered susceptibility $`\chi _\mathrm{s}`$ are plotted in Fig. 2 (a) and its FSS is shown in Fig. 2 (b). Data with $`L_x=L_y=\beta =16`$, $`24`$, and $`32`$ are used. As seen in Fig. 2, the data near the critical point are scaled quite well by choosing $`J_\mathrm{c}^{}`$, $`\nu `$ and $`\gamma `$ as 0.1943(4), 0.69(2) and 1.4(1), respectively. These exponents coincide with those of 3D classical Heisenberg models $`\nu =0.7048(30)`$ and $`\gamma =1.3873(85)`$ chen  within numerical accuracy. It is thus confirmed that the universality class of the quantum phase transition of the 2D quantum Heisenberg model belongs to that of 3D classical Heisenberg models. The FSS on correlation lengths gives consistent results.

Other critical points are determined in the same way to yield the phase boundary over the whole parameter region.

## 0.3 Results and Discussions

In Fig. 3, we present the ground-state phase diagrams for columnar and staggered dimerization. First of all, both of them are quite similar with each other for large $`\alpha `$. Actually these two models are identical on the line with $`\alpha =1`$. On this line, there are three points which have been investigated in detail so far. The 2D isotropic HAF at $`(\alpha ,J^{})=(1,1)`$ has a gapless gound state with finite staggered magnetization. The AF phase, which includes the isotropic point, occupies a large area in the phase diagram. On the other hand, the system consists of decoupled Haldane chains parallel to the $`x`$ ($`y`$) axis in the $`J^{}=0`$ ($`J^{}\mathrm{}`$) limit. The finite excitation gap (Haldane gap) observed at $`J^{}=0`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ survives even at finite $`J^{}`$. We refer to these two gapped phases as Haldane (x) and Haldane (y) phases, respectively.

Now we take a more detailed look on the models with columnar dimerization. At $`(\alpha ,J^{})=(0,0)`$, the system consists of decoupled dimers and therefore has a spin-gapped gound state (dimer phase). This phase also extends to finite $`\alpha `$ and $`J^{}`$. Most striking feature of the phase diagram shown in Fig. 1.3(a) is that the dimer phase around $`(\alpha ,J^{})=(0,0)`$ and the Haldane (y) phase at large $`J^{}`$ are actually the identical phase. Since the boundary of the AF phase does not touch the $`\alpha =0`$ line, there is no critical point between the dimer and Haldane (y) phases. Especially it should be pointed out that the $`\alpha =0`$ line corresponds to the two-leg ladders, which always has a spin-gapped gound state irrespectively of the strength of rung coupling todo2 .

Furthermore, the Haldane (x) and Haldane (y) phases are also shown to be identical by considering the bond alternation in the $`y`$ direction mm . Thus in the ground states of Q1D models, all of the gapped phases are identical. On the other hand, in a strictly 1D chain, the dimer phase and the Haldane phase are definitively distinguished in terms of the topological hidden order measured by the string-order parameter denNijs , which is non-zero only in the Haldane phase. It should be emphasized that once we have a finite interchain coupling the string-order parameter vanishes even in the Haldane (x) phase. In this sense the line $`J^{}=0`$, which represents strictly 1D chains, is singular in the phase diagram.

The ground-state phase diagram of the model with staggered dimerization is topologically different from the columnar one. Particularly the AF phase extends onto the $`\alpha =0`$ line, as the lattice remains connected two-dimensionally even at $`\alpha =0`$ (as long as $`J^{}`$ is finite). Thus in the phase diagram three spin-gapped phases (Haldane (x), Haldane (y) and dimer) are separated by the AF phase. It is of great interest to pursue phase diagrams in the presence of the bond alternation in the $`y`$ direction both in columnar and staggered ways and see the topology of these gapped phases in the extended parameter space.

## Index


text:
# Quantum Depinning Transition of Quantum Hall Stripes

## Abstract

We examine the effect of disorder on the electromagnetic response of quantum Hall stripes using an effective elastic theory to describe their low-energy dynamics, and replicas and the Gaussian variational method to handle disorder effects. Within our model we demonstrate the existence of a depinning transition at a critical partial Landau level filling factor $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _c`$. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu <\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _c`$, the pinned state is realized in a replica symmetry breaking (RSB) solution, and the frequency-dependent conductivities in both perpendicular and parallel to the stripes show resonant peaks. These peaks shift to zero frequency as $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu \mathrm{\Delta }\nu _c`$. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu \mathrm{\Delta }\nu _c`$, we find a partial RSB (PRSB) solution in which there is free sliding only along the stripe direction. The transition is analogous to the Kosterlitz-Thouless phase transition.

There is strong evidence from DC transport experiments stripesexpr  that states with stripe ordering form at certain fillings of higher Landau levels ($`N2`$) stripestheory . These states exhibit a highly anisotropic, and apparently metallic, conductivity stripesexpr . At low temperatures, as the partial filling of the highest occupied Landau level, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu `$, moves away from $`1/2`$, the electrons in this level cease to contribute to the transport properties, and the system behaves in a way typical of the integer quantum Hall effect iqhe . One likely interpretation of this change in behavior is that the electrons in the partially filled Landau level become pinned by disorder when $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu <\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _c`$. The nature of this transition is the subject of this work.

Microwave absorption measurements muwave  provide additional information about these systems. These experiments probe the dynamical conductivity of the system, $`\sigma _{\alpha \beta }(\omega )`$, which, in pinned systems, exhibits a peak at a frequency determined by the effective restoring force due to the disorder FL1 . Existing data muwave ; Florida  are suggestive of such a peak moving to zero frequency as the transition is approached from below, consistent with qualitative expectations for a quantum depinning transition YFC . Interesting filling factor dependences of this peak have also been observed in Landau levels where a Wigner crystal is presumably pinned chen .

To examine the possibility of a depinning transition in the stripe state, we calculate the frequency-dependent conductivity using the replica trick and the Gaussian variational method (GVM), first introduced by Mézard and Parisi MP  and further developed by Giamarchi, Le Doussal, and their coworkers GLD96 ; GO ; CGLD ; OC . In the replica approach, a pinned state is represented by one in which there is replica symmetry breaking (RSB). We demonstrate that for the stripe system, this leads to peaks both in Re$`\sigma _{xx}(\omega )`$ and in Re$`\sigma _{yy}(\omega )`$, albeit at slightly different frequencies and with different line shapes. (Here and in what follows, we adopt coordinates such that the stripes lie along the $`\widehat{y}`$ direction.) An example of our results is illustrated in Fig. 1. A prominent feature of the result is that the peak positions move to zero frequency as $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu \mathrm{\Delta }\nu _c`$ from below.

For $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu >\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _c`$, we find a different type of state in which the system is pinned for motion perpendicular to the stripes, but is free to slide along them. We call this a partial replica symmetry breaking (PRSB) state. The PRSB state has a number of striking properties, including a power law dependence of Re$`\sigma _{xx}(\omega )\omega ^\gamma `$ as a function of frequency with $`\gamma `$ continuously increasing with $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu \mathrm{\Delta }\nu _c`$; and a superconducting response fradkin  at zero frequency in Re$`\sigma _{yy}(\omega )`$, followed by an incoherent metallic response at finite frequency. The transition is in the Kosterlitz-Thouless universality class YFC ; fertig99 . It exhibits a jump in the low-frequency exponent $`\gamma `$ at the transition, analogous of the universal jump in the stiffness of a thin-film superfluid and in the critical exponent of correlation functions nelson . The possibility of observing these properties in quantum Hall stripes and other analogous systems is discussed below.

Model and method. We start with an action for an elastic system in a magnetic field YFC  to describe the low-energy degrees of freedom of the quantum Hall stripes and their nonlinear coupling to the disorder,

$`S=S_0+S_{\mathrm{imp}}`$ (1)
$`S_0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2T}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐪,\omega _n}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta =x,y}{}}u_\alpha (𝐪,\omega _n)G_{\alpha \beta }^{(0)1}(𝐪,i\omega _n)`$
$`\times u_\beta (𝐪,\omega _n)`$ (2)
$`S_{\mathrm{imp}}={\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫_0^{1/T}𝑑\tau V(𝐫)n(𝐫,\tau )},`$ (3)
where $`u_\alpha `$ is a displacement degree of freedom, $`G_{\alpha \beta }^{(0)1}(𝐪,i\omega _n)=D_{\alpha \beta }(𝐪)ϵ_{\alpha \beta }\omega _n/l_B^2`$ is the inverse Green’s function of $`u`$ in the pure limit ($`ϵ_{xy}=ϵ_{yx}=1,ϵ_{xx}=ϵ_{yy}=0`$), $`l_B`$ is the magnetic length, and $`D_{\alpha \beta }(𝐪)`$ is the dynamical matrix. This last quantity is determined YFC  by matching the electron density-density correlation function obtained from the elastic model with that computed from microscopic time-dependent Hartree-Fock (HF) calculations CF . In the low-energy sector, $`D_{\alpha \beta }(𝐪)`$ has a smectic form, $`D_{xx}(𝐪)d_{xx}(q_x)+\kappa _bq_y^4`$, $`D_{xy}(𝐪)=D_{yx}(𝐪)d_{xy}(q_x)q_y`$, and $`D_{yy}(𝐪)d_{yy}(q_x)q_y^2`$. We note that alternative estimates of $`D`$ were made by using an edge state model for the stripe system edgestatemodel , which leads to different results than ours. We will comment on this difference below. The disorder potential $`V(𝐫)`$ in Eq. (3) is assumed to be Gaussian distributed with zero average, $`\overline{V(𝐫)V(𝐫^{})}=V_0^2a_xa_y\delta (𝐫𝐫^{})`$, where $`a_x`$ and $`a_y`$ are the lattice constants of the stripe crystal. In Eq. (3) $`n(𝐫,\tau )`$ is the electron density operator whose Fourier transform we approximate by GLD96  $`n(𝐪,\tau )n_0\left\{1i𝐪𝐮(𝐪,\tau )+_{𝐊0}𝑑𝐫e^{i𝐊[𝐫u(𝐫,\tau )]i𝐪𝐫}\right\}`$ where $`n_0`$ is the average electron density and $`𝐊`$ is a stripe crystal reciprocal lattice vector. For simplicity, we drop the $`i𝐪𝐮`$ term in $`n(𝐪,\tau )`$ since this cannot pin the electron system GLD96 , and we keep only the lowest harmonics of the reciprocal lattice vectors, $`K_x=0,\pm 2\pi /a_x`$ and $`K_y=0,\pm 2\pi /a_y`$. These approximations should not qualitatively change our results.

We use replicas and the GVM to handle the disorder effects. This method has been employed with great success in a number of systems GLD96 ; GO , although some controversy has arisen over previous applications to quantum Hall systems, for reasons that do not apply to our present study OC ; footnote1 . We introduce $`n`$ replicas of the system where eventually we will take $`n0`$. This involves setting $`S_0S_0^{(\mathrm{eff})}=_{a=1}^nS_0^{(a)}`$ with $`a`$ the replica index; averaging over disorder introduces coupling among the replicas in the form $`S_{\mathrm{imp}}^{(\mathrm{eff})}v_{\mathrm{imp}}_{a,b=1}^n_0^{1/T}𝑑\tau _1𝑑\tau _2𝑑𝐫_{𝐊0}\mathrm{cos}\{𝐊[𝐮^a(𝐫,\tau _1)𝐮^b(𝐫,\tau _2)]\}`$, with $`v_{\mathrm{imp}}=V_0^2a_x^2a_y^2n_0^2`$. The GVM MP  consists of replacing $`S_0^{(\mathrm{eff})}+S_{\mathrm{imp}}^{(\mathrm{eff})}`$ with a variational Gaussian action, characterized by variational Green’s function $`G_{\alpha \beta }^{ab}(𝐪,i\omega _n)`$ which is chosen to minimize the free energy. This leads to a set of saddle point equations (SPE’s). It is convenient to parameterize the matrix $`G`$ in terms of a self-energy matrix $`\zeta `$, such that $`(G^1)_{\alpha \beta }^{ab}(𝐪,i\omega _n)=G_{\alpha \beta }^{(0)1}(𝐪,i\omega _n)\delta _{ab}\zeta _{\alpha \beta }^{ab}(i\omega _n)`$. Note that we can safely assume $`\zeta `$ has no $`𝐪`$ dependence because none emerges in the SPE’s. We also set $`\zeta _{xy}^{ab}=\zeta _{yx}^{ab}=0`$ since it is a valid solution of the SPE’s, and preserves reflection symmetry.

Our SPE’s are a natural generalization of those found using the replica and GVM on isotropic systems GLD96 ; GO ; CGLD . Here, we will present only the final equations, deferring details to a future publication LFCY . After taking the limit $`n0`$, the self-energy is characterized by a replica diagonal component, $`\zeta _{\alpha \alpha }^{aa}(i\omega _n)\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_\alpha (i\omega _n)`$ and an off-diagonal function, $`\zeta _{\alpha \alpha }^{ab}(i\omega _n)\zeta _\alpha (u)\delta _{\omega _n,0}`$, where $`0<u<1`$. It is the first of these that directly enters the frequency-dependent conductivity, while the second of these determines whether the system is in a replica symmetric state (constant $`\zeta (u)`$), a RSB state ($`\zeta (u)`$ varying with $`u`$) or some other state. The dynamical conductivity is obtained GLD96  via

$`\sigma _{\alpha \beta }(\omega )=(e^2/a_xa_y)i\omega \stackrel{~}{G}_{\alpha \beta }^{\mathrm{ret}}(𝐪=0,\omega ),`$ (4)
with $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{\alpha \beta }^{\mathrm{ret}}(𝐪,\omega )=\stackrel{~}{G}_{\alpha \beta }(𝐪,i\omega _n\omega +i\delta )`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{\alpha \beta }`$ is the $`n0`$ limit of $`G_{\alpha \beta }^{aa}`$. The self energy $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_\alpha ^{\mathrm{ret}}(\omega )`$ is the analytic continuation of $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_\alpha (i\omega _n)`$, which satisfies the following SPE’s LFCY :

$`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_\alpha ^{\mathrm{ret}}(\omega )=e_\alpha \left[F_\alpha (\omega )F_\alpha (0^+)\right],`$ (5)
$`F_\alpha (\omega )=4v_{\mathrm{imp}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐊0}{}}K_\alpha ^2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑te^{i\omega t}`$
$`\times \mathrm{Im}\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{\mu =x,y}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{K_\mu ^2}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑fA_\mu (f)\left[1e^{itf}\right]\right\},`$ (6)
where $`e_\alpha =_0^1𝑑u\zeta _\alpha (u)F_\alpha (0^+)2v_{\mathrm{imp}}_{𝐊0}K_\alpha ^2_0^{1/T}𝑑\tau \mathrm{exp}\{T_\mu K_\mu ^2_{𝐪,\omega _n}[1\mathrm{cos}\omega _n\tau ]\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mu \mu }(𝐪,\omega _n)\}`$ and $`A_\mu (f)=_𝐪\mathrm{Im}\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mu \mu }^{\mathrm{ret}}(𝐪,f)`$.

The constants $`e_x,e_y`$ may be regarded as a measure of the strength of pinning by the disorder potential. When one or both of these vanish, the effective elastic constants $`G^1(𝐪=0,\omega _n)`$ allow the system to be shifted as a whole without any energy cost. If one knows these constants then Eqs. (5) and (6) form a closed set of equations which may be solved numerically. A common further “semiclassical” approximation GLD96  involves expanding Eq. (6) for small $`A_\mu `$, which is valid when the fluctuations of the stripes are small. While it greatly simplifies the numerics, this approximation is invalid near the depinning transition since the fluctuations become arbitrarily large. We thus leave Eq. (6) in its present form.

We are left with the task of computing $`e_x`$ and $`e_y`$. As has been discussed elsewhere GLD96 , this can be accomplished without fully solving the SPE’s by imposing the condition Re $`\sigma \omega ^2`$ for small $`\omega `$, which guarantees that the collective mode density of state vanishes at zero frequency. (This constraint can also be justified by requiring marginal stability of the replicon mode GLD96 .) The second constraint can be found from the SPE’s for $`\zeta _\alpha (u)`$ with the assumption of a one-step RSB, which is a common solution in low-dimensional systems GLD96 ; GO ; CGLD . This leads after some work LFCY  to the condition

$`e_y/e_x={\displaystyle \underset{𝐊0}{}}K_y^2e^{W(𝐊)}/\left[{\displaystyle \underset{𝐊0}{}}K_x^2e^{W(𝐊)}\right],`$ (7)
where $`W(𝐊)=\frac{1}{\pi }_\mu K_\mu ^2_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑fA_\mu (f)`$ are Debye-Waller factors. These play a prominent role in the depinning transition: as we shall see, $`W(𝐊)`$ diverges whenever $`𝐊`$ has a component along the $`\widehat{y}`$ axis as $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _c`$ is approached from below, leading to a suppression of $`e_y`$. This behavior cannot be captured by the semiclassical approximation.

Results – RSB solution. We have solved numerically Eqs. (5) and (6) along with the two constraints using an iterative method LFCY . In what follows we present some results for electrons in the $`N=3`$ Landau level, with a disorder level $`v_{\mathrm{imp}}=0.0005e^4/l_B^2`$. This is likely to be somewhat larger than experimental values, but we choose it for numerical convenience and do not expect our results to qualitatively change with smaller disorder strengths. The dynamical conductivities for these parameters when the system is in a pinned (RSB) phase are presented in Fig. 1. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu `$ well below $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _c0.46`$, Re$`\sigma _{xx}`$ has a pinning peak whose lineshape is qualitatively similar to what is found using the semiclassical approximation CGLD . The prominent behavior visible in Fig. 1 (a) is the collapse of the peak frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{px}0`$ as the depinning transition is approached. Experimental observations are so far consistent with thismuwave ; Florida . Re$`\sigma _{yy}`$ also has a collapsing peak, but the observed lineshape is more interesting. Below the peak frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{py}`$, in the range $`e_y<\omega <\mathrm{\Omega }_{py}`$ the conductivity appears to tend toward a non-vanishing value when $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu `$ is sufficiently below $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _c`$. The quantity $`e_y`$ turns out to be rather small due to a large Debye-Waller factor, and in this frequency range the system displays a behavior similar to the incoherent metal response at non-vanishing frequency of the depinned (PRSB) phase which we discuss below. For $`\omega e_y`$, Re$`\sigma _{yy}(\omega )`$ vanishes quadratically with $`\omega `$ (not visible on the scale of Fig. 1), as required for a pinned state. As $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu \mathrm{\Delta }\nu _c`$, we eventually reach a situation in which $`e_y`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{py}`$ are of similar order, in which case the pinning peak sharpens and grows quite large. This peak continuously evolves into a $`\delta `$-function at zero frequency as the system enters into the PRSB state, so that the transition from pinned to depinned behavior is very continuous.

Results – PRSB solution. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu \mathrm{\Delta }\nu _c`$ the state is characterized by $`e_x0`$ but $`e_y=0`$. This corresponds to a RSB solution for $`\zeta _x(u)`$ but a replica symmetric solution for $`\zeta _y(u)`$. We call this the partial RSB (PRSB) state. In this situation, the system is pinned perpendicular to the stripe direction, but is free to slide along it. This is consistent with the results from a perturbative renormalization group study of the same model YFC , where the coupling of the disorder to the motion of the system parallel to the stripes was shown to be irrelevant when $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu `$ is close enough to 1/2. This irrelevance suggests that the PRSB phase should be in a superconducting state. This observation is born out by the presence of a $`\delta `$-function in Re$`\sigma _{yy}`$ at zero frequency. Remarkably, Re$`\sigma _{xx}`$ vanishes at zero frequency, so that we find the PRSB state is one with an infinite anisotropy in the DC conductivity. This is not observed in DC transport experiments stripesexpr , and we comment below on what is missing from our model that leads to this discrepancy. The possibility of such behavior for quantum Hall stripes was first suggested in Ref. \[fradkin, \].

The origin of the PRSB and its structure may be understood from the SPE (5). The state is characterized by $`e_x0`$ and Im$`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_x^{\mathrm{ret}}(\omega )\omega `$ at small $`\omega `$, and $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_y^{\mathrm{ret}}(\omega )`$ vanishing faster than linearly in $`\omega `$. It is easy to show in this situation, $`A_y(f)1/f`$ at small $`f`$. After some algebra, we find LFCY  that when

$`\gamma ={\displaystyle \frac{a_yl_B}{a_x}}{\displaystyle 𝑑q_x\frac{d_{xx}e_x}{\sqrt{[d_{xx}e_x]d_{yy}d_{xy}^2}}}21,`$ (8)
a self-consistent solution of Eq. (5) emerges, with $`\mathrm{Re}\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_y^{\mathrm{ret}}(\omega )\omega ^2`$ and $`\mathrm{Im}\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_y^{\mathrm{ret}}(\omega )\omega ^{\gamma +1}`$. The large value of this last exponent leads both to a power law dependence of Re$`\sigma _{xx}\omega ^\gamma `$ and the $`\delta `$-function response at zero frequency in Re$`\sigma _{yy}`$. It is also easy to show that $`lim_{\omega 0}\mathrm{Re}\sigma _{yy}`$ = const.$`>0`$, so that, at low but finite frequency the response is metallic. This combination of infinite and “incoherent” metallic response is typical of superconductors kohn .

In the vanishing disorder limit, the minimum value of $`\gamma `$ from the formula (8) for which we can obtain a PRSB solution agrees precisely with the condition found in Ref. YFC,  for pinning along the stripes to become irrelevant. One remarkable consequence of this limiting value is that Re$`\sigma _{xx}\omega ^\gamma `$ with $`\gamma 1`$ as the transition is approached from above, whereas just below the transition we expect, in the pinned state, Re$`\sigma _{xx}\omega ^2`$. Thus, the low frequency exponent jumps at the transition, in a way that is analogous to the universal jump in the superfluid stiffness and the critical exponent of correlation functions of the Kosterlitz-Thouless transition nelson . This behavior is similar to what happens in the roughening transition fertig99 ; chaikin .

In real DC transport experiments, one observes a finite anisotropy rather than the infinite one found in the PRSB state. The missing ingredients from our model are processes allowing hopping of electrons between stripes. These processes are very difficult to incorporate into an elastic model. It is clear that, if relevant, such processes can broaden the $`\delta `$-function response to yield anisotropic metallic behavior. Our results should apply at frequency scales above this broadening. Indeed, microwave absorption experiments become quite challenging at low frequencies, and it is unclear whether existing measurements of the dynamical conductivity can access the low frequency conductivity in the unpinned state, whether or not it is broadened. In any case, it is interesting to speculate that a true $`\delta `$-function response might be accessible in structured environments where barriers between stripes may suppress electron hopping among stripes Endo , or that there may be analogous states for layered 2+1 dimensional classical systems of long string-like objects, which has been shown fertig99  to be closely related to the two-dimensional quantum stripe problem.

The quantum depinning transition we find is unlikely to occur in models which preserve particle-hole symmetry (PHS) at $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu =1/2`$ edgestatemodel . Our model overcomes this limitation because the HF state we use spontaneously breaks PHS at this filling to arrive at a lower energy state than the simpler “box-filled” state stripestheory  which has been used in the edge state description of the quantum Hall smectic edgestatemodel . It is at present unclear if quantum fluctuations restore PHS to the quantum Hall smectic at $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu =1/2`$. Our results offer a falsifiable experimental test that can settle this question.

Acknowledgements. The authors are especially grateful to R. Lewis, L. Engel, and Y. Chen for many stimulating discussions about this problem, and for showing us their experimental data prior to publication. We are also indebted to G. Murthy, E. Orignac, E. Poisson, and A.H. MacDonald for useful discussions and suggestions. This work was supported by a NSF Grant No. DMR-0108451, by a grant from the Fonds Québécois de la recherche sur la nature et les technologies and a grant from the Natural Sciences and Engeneering Research Council of Canada, and by a grant from SKORE-A program.


text:
# Communication through measurements and unitary transformations

## 1 Introduction

The implications of an instantaneous collapse of the state of a quantum system of two entangled particles due to a measurement has been a matter of debate from the very beginning of quantum mechanics . If two spin 1/2 particles are in a singlet state, a local measurement on one of the particles provokes an immediate change of the state (of the composite system and therefore also the state) of the other particle, even if the two particles are spatially separated. However, no ‘faster than light signalling’ (FTLS) using local measurements on a pair of two entangled spin 1/2 particles is possible because one does not control the collapse of the spin. Gisin , reacting on the proposal of a nonlinear quantum mechanics by Weinberg , put forward a clever way of sending signals by a system of entangled spins in the case a nonlinear evolution would be available, by using the entanglement of the reduced density states and by coding one bit of information in the chosen measurement direction. In linear quantum theory, this is not possible because the reduced density states are independent of the chosen measurement direction such that the receiver cannot decide by a local measurement which choice the sender has made. Therefore, only in non linear modifications of quantum theory superluminal signalling could be possible. This suggests that the no FTLS condition could be used as a physical motivation for the linear structure of quantum mechanics . However, non linear generalizations of quantum theory are possible in which the no FTLS condition does hold . Also, choosing a suitable nonlinear gauge transformation  one can always ‘disguise’ a linear evolution equation into a non linear one. Therefore, non linearity is identified as a necessary but not a sufficient condition for FTLS.

In this paper we present a thought experiment which applies standard (linear) quantum mechanics on a system of two entangled spin 1/2, with a state evolution described by unitary transformations, and an instantaneous collapse of the state if a measurement is performed. The thought experiment uses two unitary transformations which are well-known in the theory of quantum computation, namely the Hadamard gate and the Controlled NOT gate. Hence it is natural to present our thought experiment with the concepts of quantum computation (e.g. ) and to talk about ‘qubits’ rather than ‘spin 1/2 particles’. First, we briefly recall some basic properties of the Hadamard and the Controlled NOT gate to keep this paper self-contained. Next, we show how to transmit the value of a bit by performing local measurements and a unitary transformation (Controlled NOT) on a system of two entangled (but possibly spatially separated) qubits.

## 2 Signaling via CNOT and local measurements

### 2.1 Some unitary transformations used in quantum computation

The Hadamard gate $`H`$ is a unitary operation acting on a single qubit, mapping the vector $`|0,`$ respectively $`|1`$, into the superposition vector $`H|0=\frac{|0+|1}{\sqrt{2}},`$ respectively $`H|1=\frac{|0|1}{\sqrt{2}}.`$ The Controlled NOT gate $`CNOT`$ is a unitary operation acting on two qubits mapping $`|i,j`$ onto $`CNOT|i,j=|i,ji`$, with $``$ addition modulo 2. An intuitive view of this gate is that the value $`j`$ of the ‘target’ (second) bit is changed into its inverse $`j1`$ whenever the ‘control’ bit $`i`$ has value $`1`$, and is left unchanged if the control bit $`i`$ has value $`0`$. Nevertheless, one should keep in mind that this is only an intuitive view of a unitary operation which acts on the two qubit system as a whole. Indeed, in the basis $`\left\{|0^{}=\frac{|0+|1}{\sqrt{2}},|1^{}=\frac{|0|1}{\sqrt{2}}\right\}`$ the roles of ‘control’ and ‘target’ qubit are switched, such that $`CNOT|i^{},j^{}=|i^{}j^{},j^{}`$; e.g. $`CNOT|0^{},1^{}=|1^{},1^{}`$ and so on, showing that only for a fixed choice of basis we can interpret the action of the CNOT gate in terms of a control and a target qubit. Finally, we remark that $`H=H^1`$ and $`CNOT=CNOT^1`$.

### 2.2 FTLS thought experiment

Let the system of two qubits be prepared in the ground state $`|00.`$ After a Hadamard transformation is applied to the first qubit, a $`CNOT`$ is applied with the first qubit as ‘control’ bit and the second qubit as ‘target’ bit. The state of the two entangled qubits is given by $`\psi _A`$:

$`\psi _A`$ $`=`$ $`CNOT\left(\left(H1\right)|00\right)`$
$`=`$ $`CNOT\left({\displaystyle \frac{|00+|10}{\sqrt{2}}}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|00+|11}{\sqrt{2}}}`$
which is a maximally entangled state. Next, we assume that the two qubits are spatially separated but stay in the entangled spin state $`\psi _A=\frac{|0_B0_A+|1_B1_A}{\sqrt{2}}`$ such that Alice, the sender, has access to the second qubit, and Bob, the receiver, has access to the first qubit. If Alice wants to send a bit value $`1`$ she performs a spin measurement in the computational basis $`\{|0_A,|1_A\}`$. If Alice wants to send a bit value $`0`$ she does no measurement at all (hence not provoking a state collapse). Let us denote the state after Alice has made her choice by $`\psi _A^{}.`$ Next, a ‘restoring procedure’ is established by applying $`CNOT^1=CNOT`$ and $`H^11=H1`$ on the two qubits system (we assume that this is possible, and discuss its validity and consequences in next section). This state we denote by $`\psi _B.`$ Finally, Bob who has access to the second qubit performs a spin measurement in his computational basis $`\{|0_B,|1_B\}.`$ There are three possible events:

1) Alice does not perform a measurement (sending a bit value 0) and the ‘restoring procedure’ maps the state $`\psi _A^{}=\psi _A`$ back into the original initial state $`\psi _B=|00`$:

$`\psi _B`$ $`=`$ $`\left(H1\right)\left(CNOT\left({\displaystyle \frac{|00+|11}{\sqrt{2}}}\right)\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\left(H1\right){\displaystyle \frac{|00+|10}{\sqrt{2}}}=|00`$
such that Bob obtains with certainty the outcome ‘$`0`$’ in his (local) measurement and the outcome $`1`$ has zero probability to occur.

2) Alice does perform a measurement (sending a bit value 1) and has observed the outcome $`1`$. The state $`\psi _A`$ of the two entangled qubits has collapsed in the state $`\psi _A^{}=|11.`$ After applying the ‘restoring procedure’, the state $`\psi _B`$ prior to the measurement by Bob is given by:

$`\psi _B`$ $`=`$ $`\left(H1\right)CNOT\left(|11\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\left(H1\right)|10`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|00|10}{\sqrt{2}}}`$
such that Bob observes the outcome $`0`$ with probability 1/2 or the outcome $`1`$ with probability 1/2.

3) Alice does perform a measurement (sending a bit value 1) and has observed the outcome $`0`$. The state $`\psi _A`$ of the two entangled qubits has collapsed in the state $`\psi _A^{}=|00.`$ After applying the ‘restoring procedure’, the state prior to the measurement by Bob is given by:

$`\psi _B`$ $`=`$ $`\left(H1\right)CNOT\left(|00\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\left(H1\right)|00`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|00+|10}{\sqrt{2}}}`$
such that again Bob observes the outcome $`0`$ with probability 1/2 or the outcome $`1`$ with probability 1/2.

To conclude, if Bob observes an outcome $`1`$, he knows with certainty that Alice wanted to send a bit value 1. If Bob observes the outcome $`0`$, Bob cannot decide with certainty which of the three events has happened (i.e., whether Alice has performed a measurement or not). However, Alice and Bob could use this procedure on a number $`N`$ of pairs of entangled qubits. E.g., for $`N=10`$, the probability that Alice performs a measurement (wanting to send bit value 1) but Bob observes an outcome $`0`$ in each of his 10 spin measurements, causing him to assume that actually a bit value $`0`$ was sent, is $`\left(0.5\right)^{10}0.1\%.`$ Combining this redundancy technique with classical bit correction techniques, this procedure could be used to transmit bits of information with probability of Bob correctly receiving the bit arbitrary close to unity.

### 2.3 Discussion

The thought experiment shows how it is in principle (*mathematically*) possible using unitary transformations and state collapse due to measurement to transmit one bit of information with probability of Bob correctly receiving the bit arbitrary close to unity. Hence, if one wants to maintain the no FTLS condition in *physical* reality, one of the assumptions made in the thought experiment has to be physically impossible. One possibility is to drop the assumption that the collapse of the state due to measurement is real. Another possibility is that not all unitary transformations used in the thought experiment can be performed in reality. Since the Hadamard gates are local unitary gates, working on a single qubit, the only ‘impossible’ unitary transformation should be the CNOT gate acting on two spatially separated qubits. This means that the no FTLS condition is not only determined by the linearity of standard quantum mechanics (equipped with the state collapse postulate), but is also present on the operational level, namely as imposing a physical restriction on the possible realizable unitary transformations of a quantum system. It means that certain (which appear to be mathematically in principle possible) unitary transformations are physically impossible.

## 3 Conclusions

We have shown that in theory bits of information could be transmitted using local measurements and a global unitary transformation on a system of two entangled (but spatially separated) qubits, following the rules of standard linear quantum mechanics with an instantaneous collapse of the state due to measurement. Although it is impossible to control the collapse of the state in a quantum measurement, whether a collapse has actually occurred or not does make a difference. Therefore, the thought experiment shows that the no FTLS condition is not just a consequence and possible physical justification of the linearity of quantum mechanics, but also translates onto the operational level as the impossibility to perform a certain global unitary transformation (in this case the CNOT) on a pair of spatially separated qubits.