text:
# Phase noise measurement in a cavity with a movable mirror undergoing quantum Brownian motion

## I Introduction

The mechanical interaction between a moving mirror and a radiation field has been an important topic for the study of very high precision optical interferometers in which radiation pressure effects cannot be ignored. This interaction is at the basis of the interferometric detection of gravitational waves, where the tiny displacement of a mirror can be detected as a phase shift of the interference fringes . Another interesting application is the atomic force microscope , where an image of a surface at atomic resolution is obtained from the measurement of the force between the surface and a probe tip mounted on a microcantilever.

A cavity with a movable mirror is of interest also for cavity QED studies, which usually involves the quantum coherent interaction between high-Q cavity modes at low photon number and single atoms. In this case, the atomic degrees of freedom are replaced by the motional degree of freedom of the movable mirror. Interesting quantum effects, as the generation of sub-Poissonian light , of Schrödinger cat states of both the cavity mode  and even of the mirror  have been already illustrated.

In these applications one needs a very high resolution for position measurements and a good control of the various noise sources, because one has to detect the effect of a very weak force. As shown by the pioneering work of Braginsky , even though all classical noise sources had been minimized, the detection of gravitational waves would be ultimately determined by quantum fluctuations and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Quantum noise in interferometers has two fundamental sources, the photon shot noise of the laser beam, prevailing at low laser intensity, and the fluctuations of the mirror position due to radiation pressure, which is proportional to the incident laser power. This radiation pressure noise is the so-called “back-action noise” arising from the fact that intensity fluctuations affect the momentum fluctuations of the mirror, which are then fed back into the position by the dynamics of the mirror. The two quantum noises are minimized at an optimal, intermediate, laser power, yielding the so-called standard quantum limit (SQL), which coincides with mean square fluctuations of the harmonic oscillator ground state $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_{SQL}=\sqrt{\mathrm{}/2m\omega _𝒮}`$ ($`\omega _𝒮`$ is the mirror oscillation frequency). Real devices constructed up to now are still far from the standard quantum limit because quantum noise is much smaller than that of classical origin, which is essentially given by thermal noise. In fact, present interferometric gravitational wave detectors are limited by the Brownian motion of the suspended mirrors , which can be decomposed into suspension and internal (i.e. of internal acoustic modes) thermal noise. Therefore it is very important to establish the experimental limitations determined by thermal noise and recent experiments  have obtained interesting results. With this respect it is also important to establish which is the most appropriate formal description of quantum Brownian motion. In fact, even though the classical understanding of the phenomenon is well established, relying on Langevin or Fokker-Planck equations , its quantum generalization is still the subject of an intense debate (see  and references therein). In particular, the recent paper by Jacobs et al.  has shown that the standard description of quantum Brownian motion, which is the straightforward generalization of the classical case , gives an inadequate description since it generates a non-sensical term in the optical phase noise spectrum in the case of a cavity with a movable mirror. The authors of  adopt therefore a corrected quantum Langevin equation, based on the Diòsi master equation , and suggest that, even if it is quite challenging, the corresponding modifications of the phase noise spectrum could be revealed using miniature high-frequency mechanical oscillators and ultra-low temperatures. In the present paper we shall reconsider the same system, i.e. a driven cavity with a movable mirror, and shall show that the inadequacy shown in  has to be traced back to the inadequacy of the quantum noise commutation relations and correlation functions which are dictated by the standard Brownian motion master equation. We shall see that, differently from the master equation approach, a consistently applied quantum Langevin equation  provides a flexible approach, valid at any temperature and therefore also in the fully quantum regime of very low temperatures. This however does not mean that the quantum Langevin equation approach is generally superior than the master equation approach, but simply that in the case under study, which is a linearized, non-markovian problem, the quantum Langevin description is more convenient and powerful.

The outline of the paper is as follows. In Sec. II the appropriate quantum Langevin equations for a Brownian particle are derived starting from the usual model based on the coupling with a reservoir of harmonic oscillator, and its consistency is shown. In Sec. III the quantum Langevin approach is applied to the case of a cavity mode with a movable mirror and the homodyne spectrum of the reflected light, showing the thermal and quantum fluctuations of the mirror, is studied. Sec. IV is for concluding remarks.

## II The dynamics of the system

The system studied in the present paper consists of a coherently driven optical cavity with a moving mirror. This opto-mechanical system can represent one arm of an interferometer able to detect weak forces as those associated with gravitational waves  or an atomic force microscope . The detection of very weak forces requires having quantum limited devices, whose sensitivity is ultimately determined by the quantum fluctuations. For this reason we shall describe the mirror as a quantum mechanical harmonic oscillator with mass $`m`$ and frequency $`\omega _𝒮`$. The optomechanical coupling between the mirror and the cavity field is realized by the radiation pressure. The electromagnetic field exerts a force on the movable mirror which is proportional to the intensity of the field, which, at the same time, is phase-shifted by $`2kq`$, where $`k`$ is the wave vector and $`q`$ is the mirror displacement from the equilibrium position. In the adiabatic limit in which the mirror frequency is much smaller than the cavity free spectral range $`c/2L`$ ($`L`$ is the cavity length) , one can focus on one cavity mode only because photon scattering into other modes can be neglected, and one has the following Hamiltonian

$$H=\mathrm{}\omega _cb^{}b+\frac{p^2}{2m}+\frac{1}{2}m\omega _𝒮^2q^2\mathrm{}\frac{\omega _c}{L}qb^{}b+i\mathrm{}E\left(b^{}e^{i\omega _0t}be^{i\omega _0t}\right),$$
(1)
where $`b`$ is the cavity mode annihilation operator with optical frequency $`\omega _c`$ and $`E`$ describes the coherent input field with frequency $`\omega _0\omega _c`$ driving the cavity. The quantity $`E`$ is related to the input laser power $`P`$ by $`E=\sqrt{P\gamma _c/\mathrm{}\omega _0}`$, where $`\gamma _c`$ is the cavity decay constant due to the input coupling mirror. Since we shall focus on the quantum and thermal noise of the system, we shall neglect all the experimental sources of noise, i.e., we shall assume that the driving laser is stabilized in intensity and frequency. This means neglecting all the fluctuations of the complex parameter $`E`$. Including these supplementary noise sources is however quite straightforward and a detailed calculation of their effect is shown in Ref. . Moreover recent experiments have shown that classical laser noise can be made negligible in the relevant frequency range . The adiabatic regime $`\omega _𝒮c/2L`$ we have assumed in Eq. (1) implies $`\omega _𝒮\omega _c`$, and therefore the generation of photons due to the Casimir effect, and also retardation and Doppler effects are completely negligible.

The dynamics of the system is not only determined by the Hamiltonian interaction (1), but also by the dissipative interaction with external degrees of freedom. The cavity mode is damped due to the photon leakage through the mirrors which couple the cavity mode with the continuum of the outside electromagnetic modes. For simplicity we assume that the movable mirror has perfect reflectivity and that transmission takes place through the other “fixed” mirror only (see Fig. 1 for a schematic description of the system). The mechanical oscillator, which may represent not only the center-of-mass degree of freedom of the mirror, but also a torsional degree of freedom as in , or an internal acoustic mode as in , undergoes Brownian motion caused by the uncontrolled coupling with other internal and external modes at the equilibrium temperature $`T`$.

The dissipative dynamics of the optical cavity mode is well described by the so-called vacuum optical master equation

$$\dot{\rho }=\frac{\gamma _c}{2}\left(2b\rho b^{}b^{}b\rho \rho b^{}b\right),$$
(2)
for the time evolution of the density matrix of the whole system $`\rho `$. In fact, the mean thermal number of photons at the optical frequency $`\omega _c`$ is extremely small and thermal excitation is therefore completely negligible. The time evolution generated by Eq. (2) presents no ambiguity. In fact it is of Lindblad form  and therefore it preserves the positivity of the density matrix. Moreover it is completely equivalent to the time evolution for the operators in the Heisenberg representation driven by the following quantum Langevin equation

$$\dot{b}(t)=\frac{\gamma _c}{2}b(t)+\sqrt{\gamma _c}b_{in}(t),$$
(3)
where $`b_{in}(t)`$ is the input noise operator associated with the vacuum fluctuations of the continuum of modes outside the cavity, having the following commutation relation

$$[b_{in}(t),b_{in}^{}(t^{})]=\delta (tt^{})$$
(4)
and correlation functions

$`b_{in}(t)b_{in}(t^{})=b_{in}^{}(t)b_{in}(t^{})=0`$ (5)
$`b_{in}(t)b_{in}^{}(t^{})=\delta (tt^{}).`$ (6)
The description of the quantum Brownian motion of a massive particle in a potential is instead not so well established. The standard Brownian motion master equation (SBMME) has been first derived by Caldeira and Leggett  in the high temperature limit and reads

$$\dot{\rho }(t)=\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}[H_𝒮,\rho ]\frac{i\eta }{2m\mathrm{}}[q(t),\{p(t),\rho (t)\}]\frac{\eta kT}{\mathrm{}^2}[q(t),[q(t),\rho (t)]],$$
(7)
where $`H_𝒮`$ is the uncoupled particle Hamiltonian, $`p`$ is its momentum and $`\eta \dot{q}`$ is the friction force. This master equation is the direct generalization of the Fokker-Planck equation for the classical Brownian motion but, since it is not of Lindblad form, it has the drawback that it does not ensure the positivity of the density operator . This fact has stimulated many authors who have amended the SBMME with additional terms so to cast it into the Lindblad form . These corrected master equations preserve the positivity of the density matrix but also them are valid in the high temperature limit only, as the SBMME, because they necessarily provide a Markovian description of Brownian motion which instead becomes highly non-Markovian in the low temperature limit . In fact, in this limit, the reservoir correlation time is no more negligible because it is essentially determined by the “thermal time” $`\tau _T=\mathrm{}/kT`$.

An alternative description of quantum Brownian motion is provided by the quantum Langevin equations for the Heisenberg operators $`q(t)`$ and $`p(t)`$, which, in analogy with the classical case, should read

$`\dot{q}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}[H_𝒮,q(t)]`$ (8)
$`\dot{p}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}[H_𝒮,p(t)]{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{m}}p(t)+\xi (t),`$ (9)
where $`\xi (t)`$ is a Hermitian noise operator with correlation function

$$\xi (t)\xi (t^{})=2\eta kT\delta (tt^{}).$$
(10)
One would expect that these equations give correct results at least in the high temperature limit, where the classical limit should be recovered. Instead Ref.  has shown that they give inconsistent results even in this limit because they do not preserve the commutation relation $`[q(t),p(t)]=i\mathrm{}`$ and they yield a spurious term in the phase fluctuation spectrum. In fact, in spectral measurements, the Fourier transform of correlation functions of the form $`G(\tau )=R(t)R(t+\tau )`$ are measured, where $`R(t)`$ is an appropriate output field. This correlation function depends only on $`\tau `$ because of stationarity, and moreover it is an even function of $`\tau `$ because $`R(t)`$ commutes with itself at different times. This implies that the observed spectrum has to be an even function of the frequency $`\omega `$, while the adoption of the quantum Langevin equations (8)-(9) yields a term which is an odd function of $`\omega `$ .

In Ref.  these inadequacies of the quantum Langevin equations (8)-(9) have been traced back to the fact that they are equivalent to the SBMME (7), which is not of Lindblad form and therefore does not preserve positivity. For this reason they consider the amended master equation of the Lindblad form proposed by Diósi in , and derive the set of quantum Langevin equation equivalent to it,

$`\dot{q}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}[H_𝒮,q(t)]+ϵ(t)`$ (11)
$`\dot{p}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}[H_𝒮,p(t)]{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{m}}p(t)+\xi (t),`$ (12)
having the additional noise term $`ϵ(t)`$. The corresponding correlation functions are

$`\xi (t)\xi (t^{})`$ $`=`$ $`2\eta kT\delta (tt^{})`$ (13)
$`ϵ(t)ϵ(t^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2\eta }{6m^2kT}}\delta (tt^{})`$ (14)
$`\xi (t)ϵ(t^{})`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{2m}}\delta (tt^{})`$ (15)
$`ϵ(t)\xi (t^{})`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{2m}}\delta (tt^{}).`$ (16)
It is then possible to see that the phase noise spectrum associated with this dynamical description of quantum Brownian motion has no spurious term and that it is an even function of the frequency, as it must be. However, the approach of Ref.  can be questioned for two reasons. First of all the master equation of Ref.  has been derived by Diósi with heuristic arguments and in a later paper  Diósi himself corrected it by considering a more rigorous medium temperatures extension of the SBMME. The master equation of Ref.  would lead to a different set of quantum Langevin equations; more generally speaking, the Lindblad form condition does not uniquely determine the master equation, and therefore the form of the quantum Langevin equations neither. Furthermore, the added noise term $`ϵ(t)`$ in Eq. (11) is not present in the classical case and it has an unclear physical origin.

For this reason we reconsider here the problem, assuming a different starting point. Most of the derivations of the Brownian motion master equations are based on the independent oscillator model for the reservoir, whose quite general validity has been extensively discussed in . Therefore, rather than first deriving the master equation from this reservoir model and then considering the quantum Langevin equations associated to it, we derive the quantum Langevin equations directly from the reservoir oscillator model, as it is shown in .

Let us neglect for the moment the presence of the cavity mode and consider a particle undergoing Brownian motion, with Hamiltonian $`H_𝒮`$. The reservoir is described by a collection of independent harmonic oscillators with frequency $`\omega _j`$, couplings $`k_j`$, and whose canonical coordinates $`q_j`$ and $`p_j`$ have been appropriately rescaled. The total system Hamiltonian is

$$H_𝒮+\frac{1}{2}\underset{j}{}((p_jk_jq)^2+\omega _j^2q_j^2).$$
(17)
The quantum Langevin equations can be obtained from the Heisenberg equations for $`q(t)`$, $`p(t)`$ and the reservoir annihilation operators $`a_j(t)=\left(\omega _jq_j(t)+ip_j(t)\right)/\sqrt{2\mathrm{}\omega _j}`$,

$`\dot{q}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}[H_𝒮,q(t)]`$ (18)
$`\dot{p}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}[H_𝒮,p(t)]+{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}k_j\left(p_j(t)k_jq(t)\right)`$ (19)
$`\dot{a_j}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`i\omega _ja_j(t)k_j\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _j}{2\mathrm{}}}}q(t).`$ (20)
If we integrate the equation for $`a_j(t)`$ starting from the initial time $`t_0`$, we get

$$a_j(t)=e^{i\omega _j(tt_0)}a_j(t_0)k_j\sqrt{\frac{\omega _j}{2\mathrm{}}}_{t_0}^t𝑑t^{}e^{i\omega _j(tt^{})}q(t^{}),$$
(21)
which, using integration by parts and the fact that $`\dot{q}=\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}[H_𝒮,q]=p/m`$, can be rewritten as

$$a_j(t)=ik_j\sqrt{\frac{1}{2\mathrm{}\omega _j}}q(t)+e^{i\omega _j(tt_0)}a_j(t_0)ik_j\sqrt{\frac{1}{2\mathrm{}\omega _j}}e^{i\omega _j(tt_0)}q(t_0)i\frac{k_j}{m}\sqrt{\frac{1}{2\mathrm{}\omega _j}}_{t_0}^t𝑑t^{}e^{i\omega _j(tt^{})}p(t^{}).$$
(22)
Then we replace (22) in the equation for $`\dot{p}(t)`$, (19), which becomes

$$\dot{p}(t)=\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}[H_𝒮,p(t)]+\stackrel{~}{Q}(t)\underset{j}{}k_j^2\mathrm{cos}\left[\omega _j(tt_0)\right]q(t_0)_{t_0}^t𝑑t^{}\underset{j}{}k_j^2\mathrm{cos}\left[\omega _j(tt^{})\right]\frac{p(t^{})}{m},$$
(23)
where we have defined the reservoir operator

$$\stackrel{~}{Q}(t)=i\underset{j}{}k_j\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{}\omega _j}{2}}\left(e^{i\omega _j(tt_0)}a_j^{}(t_0)e^{i\omega _j(tt_0)}a_j(t_0)\right).$$
(24)
As it is well known, the irreversible properties of the reservoir are obtained only when an infinite number of oscillators, distributed over a continuum of frequencies, is considered. The continuous limit has to be performed according to the following prescription

$$\underset{j}{}k_j^2\mathrm{}_0^\mathrm{\Omega }𝑑\omega k^2(\omega )\frac{dn}{d\omega }\mathrm{}=\frac{2\eta }{\pi }_0^\mathrm{\Omega }𝑑\omega \mathrm{},$$
(25)
where $`dn/d\omega `$ is the oscillators density, $`\eta `$ is just the friction coefficient, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the frequency cutoff of the reservoir oscillator spectrum. When the continuous limit is considered, the Heisenberg equations for the Brownian particle become

$`\dot{q}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p(t)}{m}}`$ (26)
$`\dot{p}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}[H_𝒮,p(t)]+\stackrel{~}{Q}(t)2\eta \stackrel{~}{\delta }(tt_0)q(t_0)2\eta {\displaystyle _{t_0}^t}𝑑t^{}\stackrel{~}{\delta }(tt^{}){\displaystyle \frac{p(t^{})}{m}},`$ (27)
where we have defined the following function

$$\stackrel{~}{\delta }(t)=\frac{1}{\pi }_0^\mathrm{\Omega }𝑑\omega \mathrm{cos}(\omega t).$$
(28)
Eqs. (26) and (27) become identical to the usual Langevin equations (8)-(9) when the usual assumption of a reservoir dynamics much faster than that of the Brownian particle is made. This means making a coarse-grained description in time equivalent to assuming the infinite cutoff limit $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{}`$, under which the function $`\stackrel{~}{\delta }(t)`$ becomes a Dirac delta function. The reservoir operator $`\stackrel{~}{Q}(t)`$ in Eq. (27) plays therefore the role of the random Langevin force, commuting with a generic system operator evaluated at the initial time $`t_0`$, for every value of $`t`$. This fact suggests to interpret $`\stackrel{~}{Q}(t)`$ as the input noise of the system and the above quantum Langevin equations in terms of the input-output formalism developed by Gardiner and Collett . However the interpretation of $`\stackrel{~}{Q}(t)`$ as an input noise must be made with care, because its commutation relations are different from those of the typical input noise operators (see Eq. (4)). In fact, using definition (24) and the continuous limit prescription (25), one derives the following commutation relation

$$[\stackrel{~}{Q}(t),\stackrel{~}{Q}(t^{})]=2i\mathrm{}\eta \frac{d}{dt}\stackrel{~}{\delta }(tt^{}),$$
(29)
which is not a delta function in $`(tt^{})`$, even in the coarse-grained time limit $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{}`$. With this respect, it is interesting to consider also the correlation function of the noise operator $`\stackrel{~}{Q}(t)`$, which is generally defined as a trace over the reservoir degres of freedom,

$$\stackrel{~}{Q}(t)\stackrel{~}{Q}(t^{})_{}=tr_{}\{\stackrel{~}{Q}(t)\stackrel{~}{Q}(t^{})R_0\},$$
(30)
where $`R_0`$ is the density operator of the reservoir at thermal equilibrium at temperature $`T`$,

$$R_0=\underset{j}{}e^{\frac{\mathrm{}\omega _ja_j^{}a_j}{kT}}(1e^{\frac{\mathrm{}\omega _j}{kT}}).$$
(31)
Using again Eqs. (24) and (25), one gets

$$\stackrel{~}{Q}(t)\stackrel{~}{Q}(t^{})_{}=\frac{\mathrm{}\eta }{\pi }\left\{_r(tt^{})+i_i(tt^{})\right\},$$
(32)
with

$`_r(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^\mathrm{\Omega }}𝑑\omega \omega \mathrm{cos}(\omega \tau )\mathrm{coth}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2kT}}\right)`$ (33)
$`_i(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^\mathrm{\Omega }}𝑑\omega \omega \mathrm{sin}(\omega \tau )=\pi {\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\tau }}\stackrel{~}{\delta }(\tau ),`$ (34)
The antisymmetric part, corresponding to $`_i`$, is a direct consequence of the commutation relations (29) and, as we have seen, is never a Dirac delta, while the symmetric part, corresponding to $`_r`$, explicitely depends on temperature and becomes proportional to a Dirac delta function only if the high temperature limit $`kT\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ first, and the infinite frequency cutoff limit $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{}`$ later, are taken. Eqs. (29) and (32)-(34) show the non-Markovian nature of quantum Brownian motion, which becomes particularly evident in the low temperature limit . Therefore, assuming the independent oscillator model for the reservoir, which is the usual starting point for the derivation of the Brownian motion master equation, we have derived the exact quantum Langevin equations (26) and (27), which reduce to the usual quantum Langevin equations (8)-(9) in the limit $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{}`$. However, these equations must not be used as usual input-output equations, as it is implicitely dictated by the SBMME of Eq. (7) (see Ref. ), but the appropriate commutation relations (29) and correlation functions (32)-(34) must be used. Therefore the inadequacies found in Ref.  are not due to the form of the Langevin equations but only to the inappropriate form of the noise correlation function dictated by the SBMME. It is also important to stress that our Langevin equation description of quantum Brownian motion is more general than that associated with a master equation approach, because it is valid at all temperatures and it does not need any high temperature limit.

Another criticism to the standard quantum Langevin equations presented in Ref.  is that they do not preserve the commutation relations of system operators. This can also be traced back to the inappropriate form of the commutation relations of the noise operator $`\stackrel{~}{Q}(t)`$. Actually, Eqs. (26) and (27) are exact and, because of the unitarity of the time evolution, they mantain the initial commutation rules for the system operators. This property is preserved also by the standard quantum Langevin equations (8)-(9), which are the $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{}`$ limit of Eqs. (26)-(27), provided that the correct noise commutation relation is used. Let us see this fact in detail. If we do not restrict to the usual condition $`t>t_0`$, under the $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{}`$ limit, Eqs. (26) and (27) have to be written as (see Appendix)

$`\dot{q}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`p(t)/m`$ (35)
$`\dot{p}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}[H_𝒮,p]+\stackrel{~}{Q}(t)2\eta \delta (tt_0)q(t_0){\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{m}}𝒮(tt_0)p(t),`$ (36)
where $`𝒮(t)`$ is the sign function (defined so that $`𝒮(0)=0`$).

If we consider for example the commutator between $`q(t)`$ and $`p(t)`$, differentiate it with respect to $`t`$ and use Eqs. (36), we obtain

$$\frac{d}{dt}[q(t),p(t)]=\frac{\eta }{m}𝒮(tt_0)[q(t),p(t)]+[q(t),\stackrel{~}{Q}(t)].$$
(37)
In order to solve this equation we need the commutator between $`q(t)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}(t)`$. More in general we consider both quantities $`𝒳(t)=[q(t),\stackrel{~}{Q}(t^{})]`$ and $`𝒴(t)=[p(t),\stackrel{~}{Q}(t^{})]`$ as functions of $`t`$, with $`t^{}`$ an independent parameter. If for simplicity we restrict to the case of interest here of a harmonically bound Brownian particle $`H_𝒮=m\omega _𝒮^2q^2/2`$, it is possible to obtain the equation for $`\dot{𝒳}(t)`$ and $`\dot{𝒴}(t)`$ using Eqs. (36)

$`\dot{𝒳}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`𝒴(t)/m`$ (38)
$`\dot{𝒴}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`m\omega _𝒮^2𝒳(t)+2i\mathrm{}\eta \delta ^{}(tt^{}){\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{m}}𝒮(tt_0)𝒴(t),`$ (39)
where we have used Eq. (29) in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{}`$ limit and the initial condition $`𝒳(t_0)=0`$. Using Eq. (36), the solution of Eqs. (38)-(39) can be expressed in the following form:

$`𝒳(t)`$ $`=`$ $`2\eta {\displaystyle \frac{}{t^{}}}\left\{[q(t),q(t^{})]\mathrm{\Xi }(t,t^{},t_0)\right\}`$ (40)
$`𝒴(t)`$ $`=`$ $`2\eta {\displaystyle \frac{}{t^{}}}\left\{[p(t),q(t^{})]\mathrm{\Xi }(t,t^{},t_0)\right\},`$ (41)
with

$$\mathrm{\Xi }(t,t^{},t_0)=\theta (tt_0)\theta (tt^{})\theta (t^{}t_0)\theta (t_0t)\theta (t^{}t)\theta (t_0t^{}),$$
(42)
where $`\theta (\tau )`$ is the Heavyside step function (defined so that $`\theta (0)=1/2`$). Using Eqs. (36) within Eq. (40) and setting $`t=t^{}`$, it is possible to observe that

$$𝒳(t^{})=[q(t^{}),\stackrel{~}{Q}(t^{})]=\frac{\eta }{m}𝒮(t^{}t_0)[q(t^{}),p(t^{})].$$
(43)
Finally, using this results in Eq. (37) with $`t^{}=t`$, one gets the desired result, i.e., that the time derivative of the commutator between $`q(t)`$ and $`p(t)`$ is equal to zero. Similar arguments can be used to prove the preservation of all the other commutation relations between Brownian particle operators.

## III Homodyne spectrum

Let us now consider again the dynamics of the optical mode of the cavity with a movable mirror. Using the results of the preceding section, the dynamics for $`t>t_0`$ of the system can be described by the following set of coupled quantum Langevin equations in the interaction picture with respect to $`\mathrm{}\omega _0b^{}b`$ (see Eqs. (1), (3), and (36)),

$`\dot{q}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`p(t)/m`$ (44)
$`\dot{p}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`m\omega _𝒮^2q(t)+\stackrel{~}{Q}(t){\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{m}}p(t)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\omega _c}{L}}b^{}(t)b(t)`$ (45)
$`\dot{b}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(i\omega _ci\omega _0+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _c}{2}}\right)b(t)+i{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _c}{L}}q(t)b(t)+E+\sqrt{\gamma _c}b_{in}(t),`$ (46)
where the commutation relations and correlation functions of the input noise $`b_{in}(t)`$ are given respectively by Eqs. (4), (5) and (6), while those of $`\stackrel{~}{Q}(t)`$ are given by Eq. (29) and Eqs. (32)-(34) considering the limit $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{}`$.

In standard interferometric applications, the driving field is very intense. Under this condition the system is characterized by a semiclassical steady state with the internal cavity mode in a coherent state $`|B_{st}`$, and a new equilibrium position for the mirror, displaced by $`q_{st}=\mathrm{}\omega _c|B_{st}|^2/m\omega _𝒮^2L`$ with respect to that with no driving field. The steady state amplitude is given by the solution of the nonlinear equation

$$B_{st}=\frac{E}{\frac{\gamma _c}{2}+i\omega _ci\omega _0i\frac{\mathrm{}\omega _c^2}{m\omega _𝒮^2L^2}|B_{st}|^2},$$
(47)
which is obtained by taking the expectation values of Eqs. (44)-(46), factorizing them and setting all the time derivatives to zero. Eq. (47) shows a bistable behaviour which has been experimentally observed in .

Under these semiclassical conditions, the dynamics is well described by linearizing the quantum Langevin equations (44)-(46) around the steady state. If we now rename with $`q(t)`$ and $`b(t)`$ the operators describing the quantum fluctuations around the classical steady state, one gets

$`\dot{q}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`p(t)/m`$ (48)
$`\dot{p}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`m\omega _𝒮^2q(t){\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{m}}p(t)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\omega _cB_{st}}{L}}\left(b(t)+b^{}(t)\right)+\stackrel{~}{Q}(t)`$ (49)
$`\dot{b}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _c}{2}}+i\mathrm{\Delta }\right)b(t)+i{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _cB_{st}}{L}}q(t)+\sqrt{\gamma _c}b_{in}(t),`$ (50)
where we have chosen the phase of the cavity mode field so that $`B_{st}`$ is real and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\omega _c\omega _0\frac{\mathrm{}\omega _c^2}{m\omega _𝒮^2L^2}|B_{st}|^2$$
(51)
is the cavity mode detuning. We shall consider from now on $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$, which corresponds to the most common experimental situation, and which can always be achieved by appropriately adjusting the driving field frequency $`\omega _0`$. In this case the dynamics becomes simpler, and it is easy to see that only the phase quadrature $`Y(t)=i\left(b^{}(t)b(t)\right)`$ is affected by the mirror position fluctuations $`q(t)`$, while the amplitude field quadrature $`X(t)=b(t)+b^{}(t)`$ is not. In particular, in the limit of a sufficiently large cavity mode bandwidth $`\gamma _c\eta /m,\omega _𝒮`$ (which is usually satisfied), the dynamics of the phase quadrature adiabatically follows that of the mirror position, that is

$$Y(t)=\frac{4\omega _cB_{st}}{\gamma _cL}q(t)+\mathrm{noise}\mathrm{terms}.$$
(52)
Therefore a phase noise measurement, as for example the homodyne measurement of the field quadrature $`Y(t)`$, gives a direct information on the mirror Brownian motion. In particular, the interesting measurable quantity is the output power density spectrum of the phase quadrature

$`S_Y(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau e^{i\omega \tau }Y_{out}(t)Y_{out}(t+\tau )}\right\}_t`$ (53)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\left\{{\displaystyle 𝑑\omega ^{}e^{i(\omega +\omega ^{})t}Y_{out}(\omega ^{})Y_{out}(\omega )}\right\}_t,`$ (54)
where $`\{\mathrm{}\}_t`$ denotes the time average over $`t`$, $`Y_{out}(t)=i\left[b_{out}^{}(t)b_{out}(t)\right]`$ is the output phase quadrature, $`Y_{out}(\omega )=𝑑te^{i\omega t}Y_{out}(t)`$ is its Fourier transform, and

$$b_{out}(t)+b_{in}(t)=\sqrt{\gamma _c}b(t)$$
(55)
is the usual input-output relation . If we now take the Fourier transform of Eqs. (48)-(50), one gets the following expression for the Fourier transform of the correlation function of the cavity mode annihilation operator

$$b(\omega )=\frac{1}{D(\omega )}\left[i\frac{\omega _cB_{st}}{mL}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}\omega _cB_{st}\sqrt{\gamma _c}}{L}\frac{b_{in}(\omega )+b_{in}^{}(\omega )}{i\omega \gamma _c/2}\stackrel{~}{Q}(\omega )\right)\left(\omega _𝒮^2\omega ^2i\eta \omega /m\right)\sqrt{\gamma _c}b_{in}(\omega )\right],$$
(56)
with

$$D(\omega )=\left(i\omega \frac{\gamma _c}{2}\right)\left(\omega _𝒮^2\omega ^2i\eta \omega /m\right).$$
(57)
For the evaluation of the phase noise spectrum $`S_Y(\omega )`$, one has to use Eq. (56) and then consider the spectrum of the various noise terms, which are easily derived from the Fourier transform of the correlation functions (5), (6), (32), (33) and (34):

$`\stackrel{~}{Q}(\omega )\stackrel{~}{Q}(\omega ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi \eta \mathrm{}\omega \left[1+\mathrm{coth}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2kT}}\right)\right]\delta (\omega +\omega ^{})`$ (58)
$`b_{in}^{}(\omega )b_{in}(\omega ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (59)
$`b_{in}(\omega )b_{in}^{}(\omega ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi \delta (\omega +\omega ^{}),`$ (60)
where we have assumed again the infinite cutoff limit $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{}`$ in the evaluation of the spectrum of the thermal noise operator $`\stackrel{~}{Q}(t)`$. One finally obtains

$$S_Y(\omega )=1+4\left(\frac{\mathrm{}\omega _c^2\gamma _c|B_{st}|^2}{mL^2}\right)^2\frac{1}{\left((\gamma _c/2)^2+\omega ^2\right)|D(\omega )|^2}+4\left(\frac{\omega _c^2\eta \gamma _c|B_{st}|^2}{m^2L^2}\right)\frac{1}{|D(\omega )|^2}\mathrm{}\omega \mathrm{coth}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2kT}\right).$$
(61)
This is the phase noise spectrum associated with the homodyne measurement of the phase quadrature $`Y(t)`$, and the only assumptions made in its derivation are the linearization around the semiclassical steady state and the time coarse-grained description $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{}`$. Its temperature dependence is instead exact and therefore Eq. (61) is valid even at very low temperatures, differently from the spectra obtained with the approaches based on the master equation, as in Ref. , which cannot be applied in the low temperature limit.

Notice that $`S_Y(\omega )`$ is an even function of $`\omega `$, as it must be due to stationarity and the commutation rules of output fields . In fact, the non-sensical term of the spectrum found in Ref.  in the case of the standard quantum Langevin description is due to the inappropriate form of the correlation function of the Langevin noise dictated by the SBMME, and it is absent when the correct spectrum of the quantum Brownian noise term of Eq. (58) is used. This spectrum is plotted in Fig. 2 (see the figure caption for parameter values), where also the three contributions to the noise spectrum are explicitely shown. The full line refers to the total homodyne spectrum, while the dashed-dotted line describes the shot noise, which is frequency-independent (actually $`S_Y(\omega )`$ has been defined so to be normalized just to the shot noise level). The dashed line describes the second term in Eq. (61), which is the one associated with the radiation pressure; finally the dotted line describes the last term which is just the thermal noise contribution.

The homodyne spectrum derived in Ref.  with the adoption of the Diósi master equation of Ref.  coincides with Eq. (61) except for a different thermal noise term, which is obtained from that of Eq. (61) with the replacement

$$\mathrm{}\omega \mathrm{coth}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2kT}\right)2kT+\frac{\mathrm{}^2\left(\omega ^2+\eta ^2/m^2\right)}{6kT}.$$
(62)
However, despite this formal difference, the two predictions become practically indistinguishable if typical experimental parameters are considered. In fact, the prediction of Ref.  coincides with the high temperature expansion (at first order in $`\mathrm{}\omega /kT`$) of Eq. (61) except for the additional factor $`\mathrm{}\eta ^2/6m^2kT`$. However, in typical experiments, mechanical oscillators with a very good quality factor are always used, so that the term $`\mathrm{}^2\eta ^2/6m^2kT`$ will be in practice always negligible with respect to $`\mathrm{}^2\omega ^2/6kT`$ in Eq. (62). This means that an appreciable discrepancy between the two expressions of the thermal noise term manifests itself only when $`kT<\mathrm{}\omega `$, which means prohibitively small temperatures, or alternatively, very large frequencies (larger than 1 THz at liquid He temperatures). Moroever at these high frequencies the thermal noise contribution is completely blurred by the shot noise term and therefore we can conclude that with present tecnology the phase noise spectrum of Eq. (61) and that evaluated in Ref.  cannot be experimentally distinguished. Nonetheless, the result of Eq. (61) is important because it shows that the standard quantum Langevin equations (supplemented with the appropriate commutation relations (29) and correlation functions (32)-(34) of the random Langevin force) do give an adequate description of quantum Brownian motion, which is even more general than that associated with the master equation, which is not valid at very low temperatures.

## IV Conclusions

We have considered in this paper the dynamics of a cavity mode with a movable mirror, which is often used for the interferometric detection of very weak forces. We have focused in particular on the description of the quantum Brownian motion of the mirror, which is responsible for the thermal noise term in the measured phase noise spectrum of the light reflected from the cavity. We have shown that the standard quantum Langevin equations (8)-(9) provide an adequate and consistent description of quantum Brownian motion. We have derived the quantum Langevin equations directly from the independent oscillator model (providing the commonly used description for the oscillator reservoir, see ), and we have seen that they provide a quite general description of quantum Brownian motion, valid at any temperatures. This is instead not true for master equation-based approaches, which cannot be applied in the low-temperature limit . The inadequacies found in the quantum Langevin approach are to be traced back to the fact that the quantum Langevin force appearing in it is different from the standard input noise terms of the input-output formalism , since it is characterized by a different commutation relation (see Eq. (29)) which does not coincide with a Dirac delta in any limit.

## A

In order to justify the presence of the sign function $`𝒮(t)`$ on Eq. (36), let us consider the step function

$$\theta (\tau )=\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 1& \text{if }\tau >0\text{ }\hfill \\ \hfill 1/2& \text{if }\tau =0\text{ }\hfill \\ \hfill 0& \text{if }\tau <0\text{ },\hfill \end{array}$$
(A1)
and the formal identity:

$`(t,t_0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{t_0}^t}𝑑t^{}\delta (tt^{})p(t^{})`$ (A2)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t^{}\delta (tt^{})p(t^{})\left(\theta (t^{}t_0)\theta (t^{}t)\right)`$ (A3)
which holds for every $`t`$ and $`t_0`$. Now using the formal properties of $`\delta (t)`$ on Eq. (A3), one can verify that for $`t>t_0`$ and for $`t<t_0`$, $`(t,t_0)=p(t)/2`$ and $`(t,t_0)=p(t)/2`$ respectively, while, of course, $`(t_0,t_0)=0`$. This can be written using the sign function $`𝒮(\tau )=\theta (\tau )\theta (\tau )`$ in the following way

$$(t,t_0)=𝒮(tt_0)p(t)/2.$$
(A4)


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Neutrino flavor transitions (e.g. $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$) are the most widely accepted explanation of the atmospheric neutrino anomaly and the solar neutrino problem (SNP) . In the most popular scenarios for such flavor conversions, vacuum oscillations and matter enhanced transitions (MSW) , the neutrino conversion and survival probabilities depend on two types of neutrino-specific parameters. One of them is the mixing matrix $`U`$ defined from $`\nu _\alpha =U_{\alpha i}\nu _i`$, where $`\alpha =e,\mu ,\text{ or }\tau `$ and the sum runs over the mass states, $`\nu _1`$, $`\nu _2`$, $`\nu _3`$. The other is the differences of masses squared, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{kj}^2=m_k^2m_j^2`$, where the latter refer to the neutrino mass states $`\nu _i`$. There is no widely accepted mass matrix, therefore the conventional way of analyzing the results from neutrino oscillation experiments is to consider the mixing matrix as independent of the mass-squared differences. But when we assume a certain mass matrix $`M`$ in the Lagrangian (in a current basis)

$$=\overline{\nu }M\nu +\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,$$
(1.1)
then the mixing will explicitly depend on the masses through the diagonalization of $`M`$. The maximal mixing arising from the democratic texture  is a widely discussed example of this kind (see also ).

The mass matrix proposed by Lehmann, Newton and Wu (LNW) for quarks , was recently applied to neutrinos in , and gross features of the model were explored for solar and atmospheric neutrinos. We shall here examine the implications of that model in more detail, focusing on solar neutrinos, and compare the vacuum-oscillation scenario with the MSW scenario. Also, we will for the different cases discuss the energy spectrum of the recoil electrons induced by solar neutrinos. Constraints from atmospheric neutrino data will be taken into account.

## 2 The model

Let us briefly review the model being considered . One assumes that there are three neutrinos with a real mass matrix of the form:

$$M=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& d& 0\\ d& c& b\\ 0& b& a\end{array}\right),$$
(2.1)
where $`b^2=8c^2`$. This symmetric mass matrix is diagonalized by the matrix $`U`$,

$$M_d=U^{}MU,$$
(2.2)
where $`M_d`$ is a diagonal matrix whose entries are the mass eigenvalues. The diagonalization involves solving a cubic equation for $`a`$.

For an arbitrary set of mass eigenvalues, ($`m_1`$, $`m_2`$, $`m_3`$), the model yields two possible mixing matrices (two physical solutions of the cubic equation), referred to as Solution 1 and Solution 2 . The corresponding mixing matrices $`U`$ are displayed in Fig. 1 for $`m_2m_3`$ (the physical region of the model extends a little beyond the triangle given by $`m_1m_2m_3`$). As illustrated in those figures, the mixing elements are determined by the two mass ratios $`m_1/m_3`$ and $`m_2/m_3`$.

The neutrino oscillation data give quite strong restrictions on both the mixing and the mass-squared differences, when treated as free parameters. Also, a model for the neutrino masses should not violate the experimental upper bounds on the neutrino masses : $`m_{\nu _e}<10`$ eV, $`m_{\nu _\mu }<0.17`$ MeV, $`m_{\nu _\tau }<18.2`$ MeV. Furthermore, it should satisfy the mass constraints from cosmology : $`m_{\nu _f}<94`$ eV, be capable of explaining the apparent oscillation of atmospheric neutrinos, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^210^3\text{eV}^2`$, and give a plausible explanation of the SNP, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^210^{10}\text{eV}^2`$ (vacuum oscillation) or $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^210^5\text{eV}^2`$ (MSW). The natural scale implied by these values for the mass-squared differences is far too small to be in conflict with any of the above-mentioned mass bounds.

We denote the mass states in such a way that $`m_1m_3`$. Of the two independent $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{kj}^2`$, one will be reserved for an explanation of the atmospheric neutrino anomaly, and the other will be assigned to a solution of the solar neutrino problem. Thus we are trying in one model to satisfy the two most serious neutrino problems. According to our notation, the smallest mass-squared difference will be either $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$.

In the present model one can fit directly in terms of masses as opposed to mass-squared differences and mixing factors. When the values of the mixing elements are given by the masses, we do not expect as good a theoretical fit to the observed data as when these parameters are considered as independent. For given values of $`U`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{kj}^2`$ the probability expression for flavor conversion will be the same whether the mixing matrix is dependent on the masses or not. Therefore we know to some extent from the traditional analyses where in the parameter space we can expect acceptable fits for the model we are analyzing. For example, for solar neutrinos it is known that both vacuum- and matter-influenced neutrino transitions require small $`U_{e3}`$ in order to give good fits. From Fig. 1 we see that this is achieved when both $`m_1/m_3`$ and $`m_2/m_3`$ are small. And from the same figure it is apparent that in this region the mixing elements $`U_{e1}`$ and $`U_{e2}`$ are very sensitive to small changes in the masses. This means that by small changes in the mass ratios, the mixing elements can be adjusted close to the best-fit values obtained when $`U`$ and the masses are considered as independent.

In the analysis of the solar-neutrino data (summarized in Table 1) we will see that, for small values of $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$, the two mixing solutions give approximately the same results.

In the traditional analyses of the data from neutrino-oscillation experiments one often expresses the amount of mixing in terms of angles. We adopt the following, common parameterization of the mixing matrix :

$`U=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}c_{12}c_{13}& s_{12}c_{13}& s_{13}\\ c_{12}s_{13}s_{23}s_{12}c_{23}& s_{12}s_{13}s_{23}+c_{12}c_{23}& c_{13}s_{23}\\ c_{12}s_{13}c_{23}+s_{12}s_{23}& s_{12}s_{13}c_{23}c_{12}s_{23}& c_{13}c_{23}\end{array}\right],`$ (2.6)
where $`c_{12}=\mathrm{cos}\theta _{12}`$, $`s_{12}=\mathrm{sin}\theta _{12}`$, etc. This will be particularly useful when we discuss the MSW mechanism. If $`\theta _{13}=0`$ we get the two-generation case.

For vacuum oscillations as well as for the MSW scenario, we shall discuss four cases, small $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$, small $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$, together with Solutions 1 and 2.

## 3 Atmospheric-neutrino constraints

We shall not here perform a detailed $`\chi ^2`$ fit to the atmospheric-neutrino data. Instead, we will use best-fit values for $`U`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{kj}^2`$ from the literature as constraints and compare those with the acceptable regions we find for the solar neutrino data. The experimental data indicate that the “missing” muon neutrinos can be explained by a close to maximal $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillation , which requires small $`U_{e3}`$. Also, the result from the CHOOZ experiment , interpreted in terms of three generations and our choice for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{kj}^2`$-values, indicates small $`U_{e3}`$. For masses where our model gives good fits to the solar neutrino data, we actually have $`U_{e3}1`$. This criterion allows us to neglect matter effects for atmospheric neutrinos .

With three neutrino families the oscillation probability between arbitrary flavor states can be written as

$$P_{\nu _\alpha \nu _\beta }(R)=\delta _{\alpha \beta }4\underset{j<k}{}\left[U_{\alpha j}U_{\beta j}U_{\alpha k}U_{\beta k}\right]\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{kj}^2R}{4E}\right),$$

where $`R`$ is the distance traveled since the neutrinos were created, and $`E`$ is the neutrino energy.

For the case of atmospheric neutrinos, the factor $`R/E`$ is quite small as compared with the case of solar neutrinos. Thus, the term in Eq. (3) with a small $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{kj}^2`$ (henceforth referred to as the SNP value, $`10^5\text{eV}^2`$ or $`10^{10}\text{eV}^2`$) can be neglected. When this small SNP term involves $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ we get

$$P_{\nu _\mu \nu _\tau }(R)4U_{\mu 3}^2U_{\tau 3}^2\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2R}{4E}\right),$$
(3.1)
where we use the approximation $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$. From  we know that the best fit between data and the oscillation hypothesis occurs at $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^23.2\times 10^3\text{eV}^2`$. This means that the lowest possible value of the heaviest mass state is $`m_3=𝒪(0.05\text{eV})`$.

In Fig. 2 we have plotted the amplitude in Eq. (3.1) for Solutions 1 and 2. One should keep in mind that the approximation leading to Eq. (3.1) is only satisfied close to the diagonal, $`m_1=m_2`$. For Solution 1, an unrealistically large $`m_2/m_3`$ would be needed to get an acceptable $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ mixing. For Solution 2, we observe that large $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ mixing could be reached for values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ which are marginally compatible with the solar-neutrino constraints. We also note that the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ which is required for the MSW effect will allow a larger amplitude for atmospheric-neutrino transitions than a mass-squared difference relevant for the vacuum oscillation solution to the SNP, since the MSW effect requires a larger $`m_2`$.

When $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$ assumes the SNP value, i.e., $`m_2m_3`$, then the atmospheric $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ transition probability can be written as $`P_{\nu _\mu \nu _\tau }(R)4U_{\mu 1}^2U_{\tau 1}^2\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2R/4E\right)`$ instead of (3.1), where we have used the approximation $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$. The maximal amplitude for this oscillation is about 0.5 for both mixing solutions. This value is too low to be of real interest.

In summary, the atmospheric-neutrino data favor parameters corresponding to Solution 2 with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$. They also favor the MSW solution for the solar-neutrino problem, since this mechanism requires a larger $`m_2`$, and thus a larger amplitude for atmospheric-neutrino oscillations.

## 4 Vacuum oscillations

Vacuum oscillations provide a plausible solution to the solar-neutrino problem . In this scenario, the length of the relevant oscillation cycle (see Eq. (3)) is about one Sun-Earth distance, i.e. $`1.5\times 10^{11}`$ m. The corresponding $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{kj}^2`$ is several orders of magnitude smaller than the one which is relevant for atmospheric neutrinos. As mentioned, it will be either $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$ which is relevant for solar neutrinos. Thus, the allowed values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$ will be of the order relevant for either atmospheric or solar neutrinos.

One necessary condition for acceptable fit between data and the vacuum oscillation hypothesis is that the smallest $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{kj}^210^{10}\text{eV}^2`$. The other independent mass-squared difference is held fixed at $`3.2\times 10^3\text{eV}^2`$, in order to be able to accommodate the atmospheric neutrino data. To find the optimal mixing matrix we have to search through a large number of values for the mass ratios $`m_1/m_3`$ and $`m_2/m_3`$, which we do by varying $`m_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$.

### 4.1 Small $`𝚫𝒎_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟏}}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$

The interesting region is here close to the diagonal in the $`m_1`$$`m_2`$ plane (see Fig. 1). The best fit is achieved at $`m_1=3.1\times 10^6\text{eV}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2=8.0\times 10^{11}\text{eV}^2`$ which gives $`\chi ^2=4.1`$. This $`\chi ^2`$-value is about 0.1% higher than the value obtained in an analysis where $`U`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{kj}^2`$ are treated as independent. This good agreement is explained by the high sensitivity of the mixing matrix to the mass values. Fig. 3 shows how the relevant mixing elements depend on $`m_1`$ when $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}`$ are held fixed at $`8.0\times 10^{11}\text{eV}^2`$ and $`3.2\times 10^3\text{eV}^2`$, respectively. As can be seen from this figure, the mixing solutions are equal for $`m_110^3\text{eV}`$. For Solution 1, $`U_{\mu 3}1`$, which means no $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ for atmospheric neutrinos. For Solution 2 this amplitude is $`0.4`$. This value is unchanged over a broad range of mass values, including the best fit value for the solar neutrino solution. In Fig. 4 we have plotted the $`\chi ^2`$ values corresponding to Fig. 3. When $`m_1`$ is reduced beyond the best-fit value, the mixing matrix approaches the identity matrix, hence the fit becomes poor.

### 4.2 Small $`𝚫𝒎_{\mathrm{𝟑𝟐}}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ ($`𝒎_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}𝒎_\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$)

In this case we can not get an equally good fit for solar neutrinos as we had for small $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$. It turns out that the best fit is achieved when we, in the expression (3), have vanishing amplitude for the oscillation factors containing the largest $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{kj}^2`$ . This can not be achieved within the model, neither for Solution 1 nor for Solution 2, see Fig. 1. For Solution 1 the best fit gives $`\chi ^26.1`$, while for Solution 2 one gets $`U_{e2}U_{e3}1/\sqrt{2}`$, with the best fit result $`\chi ^25.0`$. Also, the relevant amplitude for atmospheric neutrino oscillations would be rather low in this case.

### 4.3 Summary on vacuum oscillations

If we consider only the SNP, none of the best fits can be excluded. The best-fit point is achieved with small $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ and at practically the same mass values for Solutions 1 and 2. Including atmospheric neutrino data, the preferred solution would be small $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ and Solution 2. But the maximum possible oscillation amplitude for $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ is only 0.4, so the vacuum oscillation solution to the SNP is disfavored by the model in . On the other hand, the recoil spectrum has an enhancement at high energies, as suggested by the data (see Fig. 7).

## 5 The MSW interpretation

For an exponential solar density, the three-flavor MSW equations have recently been solved analytically for arbitrary masses . Here, since we assume two widely separated values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{kj}^2`$, we use the more conventional approach . This allows for a numerical comparison of the two approaches. The agreement was found to be very good. For example, for ($`m_1`$, $`m_2`$, $`m_3`$) = (0.002, 0.01, 0.057) eV and $`E=1`$ MeV, the two approaches give $`\nu _e`$ survival probabilities of 0.668 and 0.660. For some of the mass points we also check the exponential solar density approximation against the solar density profile calculated in a standard solar model , by performing numerical integrations on the latter. The agreement is within a few percent.

In the two-generation MSW case where the angle and mass-squared difference are varied independently, one arrives at two possible solutions in the parameter space spanned by $`\mathrm{sin}^2(2\theta )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$. There is one region with low $`\chi ^2`$ at small angles, and another minimum at large angles . As we will see, this is also the case for the model in .

For solar neutrinos, Solutions 1 and 2 are nearly identical for the masses relevant at the best-fit point. Therefore we will divide the presentation of our results into two parts, small $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ and small $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$.

### 5.1 Small $`𝚫𝒎_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟏}}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$

For small values of $`m_2/m_3`$ and very small values of $`m_1/m_3`$ we get $`U_{e1}1`$ for both mixing solutions. These are practically equivalent for solar neutrinos, both of them have a best fit with $`\chi ^2=1.8`$ at $`m_1=2.8\times 10^6\text{eV}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2=7.0\times 10^6\text{eV}^2`$, where we have imposed $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2=3.2\times 10^3\text{eV}^2`$. The latter quantity is held fixed at this value, which is compatible with the atmospheric neutrino data . Because it is large compared to the SNP-relevant $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$, its exact value is, within the uncertainty, unimportant for the solar-neutrino analysis. These mass values correspond to small mixing angle, see Eq. (2.6). With the above-mentioned values of the mass-squared differences held fixed, we show in Fig. 5 (left panel) how $`U_{e1}`$ and $`\chi ^2`$ vary when $`m_1`$ is slightly perturbed around its best-fit value.

As previously noted, for atmospheric neutrinos we consider only vacuum oscillations, due to the smallness of $`U_{e3}`$. In the parameter region shown in Fig. 5 (left panel), $`U_{e3}<10^3`$. From Eq. (3.1) it follows that the $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillation amplitude is 0.05 and 0.6 for Solutions 1 and 2, respectively. Thus, Solution 1 is unacceptable in this parameter region. We also note that the $`\chi ^2`$ value is quite sensitive to the mass values $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$.

In Fig. 5 (right panel) we show how the model compares with the data in the region known as the “large-mixing-angle solution”. In this region, which requires somewhat larger values of $`m_1`$, the relevant mixing elements are very sensitive to changes in the mass ratios $`m_1/m_3`$ and $`m_2/m_3`$, which are still rather small. For the masses shown in this figure, $`U_{e3}<10^2`$. The best fit (varying $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$) has $`\chi ^2=3.8`$ and occurs at $`m_1=2.1\times 10^3\text{eV}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2=3.2\times 10^5\text{eV}^2`$, with the constraint $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2=3.2\times 10^3\text{eV}^2`$. For Solutions 1 and 2 the atmospheric neutrino-oscillation amplitudes are 0.07 and 0.7, respectively. Thus, in the LMA region, Solution 1 is unacceptable.***Updated results from the Gallium detectors and Super-Kamiokande were recently presented at the XIX International Conference on Neutrino Physics & Astrophysics. Those values shift the SMA solution to $`m_1=2.2\times 10^6\text{eV}`$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2=1.2\times 10^5\text{eV}^2`$. The LMA solution is relatively less changed.

These two low-$`\chi ^2`$ regions can be combined into a single plot, Fig. 6. The solid contours enclose regions where $`\chi ^2<7.8`$. Because we have two degrees of freedom (four different kinds of detectors and two parameters) and the global minimum has $`\chi _{\mathrm{min}}^2=1.8`$, from the relation $`\chi ^2=\chi _{\mathrm{min}}^2+5.99`$, these contours corresponds to 95% C.L. In the same plot we also show the contours for atmospheric $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ amplitudes equal to 0.7, 0.8 and 0.9. No point in this figure gives a mass-squared difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$ outside of the 68% C.L. region given by .

### 5.2 Small $`𝚫𝒎_{\mathrm{𝟑𝟐}}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ ($`𝒎_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}𝒎_\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$)

In this case the mixing elements are far less sensitive to small changes in the mass ratios. And for this reason the mixing elements are less adjustable within the relevant values of the mass-squared differences. For Solution 1 we get a best fit $`\chi ^212`$.

For Solution 2 it is unavoidable to get $`U_{e2}=U_{e3}=1/\sqrt{2}`$, see Fig. 1. The predicted fit to the observed values corresponds to $`\chi ^215`$, which is quite poor. Small $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$ is also unfavored in view of the atmospheric neutrino data.

## 6 Spectrum distortion

The Super-Kamiokande detector measures the recoil energy of the scattered electrons coming from the process $`\nu +e^{}\nu +e^{}`$ . For each of the solar sources, the form of the neutrino energy spectrum is measured in laboratories, and is independent of the total flux. Thus, the Super-Kamiokande measurements of the upper part of the $`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}`$ energy spectrum gives restrictions on the neutrino parameters, independent of solar models. If an energy dependent suppression of the flux should be established by such a method, it would be a very strong hint for neutrino oscillations because it would in principle not involve the uncertainties associated with solar models. However, the $`hep`$ neutrino flux is poorly known . This fact tends to reduce the significance of these measurements.

In Fig. 7 we have plotted the ratio of the measured counting rate against the expectation in the absence of oscillations . If there is no neutrino flavor transition, this ratio should be a straight horizontal line. However, it seems to increase for $`E13`$ MeV. In the same figure we have tried to reproduce the observed spectrum within three scenarios: the vacuum, SMA, and LMA solution. These are actually all acceptable, but, as concerns the spectrum, the vacuum and SMA solutions are favored.

## 7 Conclusion

We have extended earlier work on the application of the Lehmann–Newton–Wu mass matrix  to neutrinos by investigating also the vacuum oscillation case, and by studying in more detail the MSW solutions. Two new fits to the solar neutrino counting rates have been found, beyond those of , one at $`m_13\times 10^6`$ eV, with $`m_23\times 10^3`$ eV and $`m_30.05`$ eV, corresponding to a small mixing angle solution in the MSW interpretation, and a vacuum-oscillation solution with $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ of the order $`10^6`$$`10^5`$ eV. Both of these solutions lead to electron energy recoil spectra that are in better agreement with the data than the LMA solutions, but they are only in marginal agreement with the atmospheric neutrino data.

For both the vacuum and MSW solutions of the solar neutrino problem, only hierarchical mass values gives viable fits. In both cases, best fits are obtained when the largest mass value is $`m_30.05`$. When atmospheric neutrino constraints are taken into account, only the large-angle part of the MSW effect gives an acceptable fit to the observed data. The result from the combined analyses of the atmospheric and solar neutrino data will be further constrained with the forthcoming long-baseline experiments and SNO data .

Acknowledgments

We are greatly indebted to Professor Tai Tsun Wu for the most helpful discussions. This work was supported in part by the Research Council of Norway.


text:
# Theory of the Luminescence Spectra of High-Density Electron-Hole Systems: Crossover from Excitonic Bose-Einstein Condensation to Electron-Hole BCS state

## Abstract

We present a unified theory of luminescence spectra for highly excited semiconductors, which is applicable both to the electron-hole BCS state and to the exciton Bose-Einstein condensate. The crossover behavior between electron-hole BCS state and exciton Bose-Einstein condensate clearly manifests itself in the calculated luminescence spectra. The analysis is based on the Bethe-Salpeter equation combined with the generalized random-phase-approximation, which enables us to consider the multiple Coulomb scattering and the quantum fluctuation associated with the center-of-mass motion of electron-hole pairs. In the crossover regime, the calculated spectra are essentially different from results obtained by the BCS-like mean-field theory and the interacting Boson model. In particular, it is found that the broad spectrum, arising from the recombination of electron-hole BCS state, splits into the P- and P$`_2`$-luminescence bands with decreasing the particle density. The dependence of these bands on the carrier density is in good agreement with experiments for highly excited semiconductors.

thanks: E-mail:inagaki@ms.aist-nara.ac.jp

The issue of Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) of excitons has received considerable attention because of the Bosonic nature of excitons . Following the pioneering work by Keldysh et al. , the high-density electron-hole system with excitonic instability has been extensively studied both theoretically  and experimentally . Recent developments in the experimental techniques make it possible to observe the remarkable optical phenomena suggesting the spontaneous generation of the macroscopic quantum coherence. In particular, the anomalous exciton transport phenomena observed in $`\mathrm{Cu}_2\mathrm{O}`$  and $`\mathrm{BiI}_3`$  are manifestations of the nondissipative rapid propagation of high-density excitons. However, current understanding of these experiments still remains controversial because of the complicated experimental situation due to the finite life-time of excitons, phonon effects, spatial inhomogeneity of the system, and so forth.

We should remark that the macroscopic quantum state of high-density excitons is qualitatively different from the BEC states of superfluid $`^4`$He and atomic gases. The system exhibits a crossover from the exciton BEC to the electron-hole BCS state with increasing the excitation-light intensity.

Under the weak photoexcitation, the system can be described by the interacting exciton model  because the mean distance between excitons is much larger than the exciton Bohr radius. The system undergoes the exciton BEC at sufficiently low temperatures, and the density of exciton with zero momentum is the order parameter of the macroscopic quantum state. When the photoexcitation is sufficiently strong, the bound electron-hole pairs can no longer be regarded as pure Bosons because the state-filling and the exchange effects, originated from the Fermionic nature of electrons and holes, take essential part in the problem. In the high-density limit, the electron-hole pairs behave like Cooper pairs, and the BCS-like energy gap at the Fermi level is the order parameter of the macroscopic quantum state  which is essentially the same as the excitonic phase ; it is noted that no Bosonic nature exists above $`\mathrm{T}_\mathrm{c}`$, and the property of the system is totally different from the exciton BEC state.

Similar crossover phenomena have been discussed in a variety of physical contexts, e.g., superconductivity , nuclear matter  and superfluid $`^3`$He . Recently, much attention has been focused on the BCS-BEC crossover in connection with the unusual properties of the high-$`T_\mathrm{c}`$ cuprate superconductors. In particular, it is observed that a pseudo-gap structure in the normal-state density of states of underdoped cuprates persists almost up to room temperature . A further unusual property of the high-$`T_\mathrm{c}`$ superconductor is its extreme short coherence length (of the order of several lattice constants) of Cooper pairs ; this fact is in contrast with the conventional superconductors where the Cooper pairs are strongly overlapping in real space. When we investigate this kind of crossover phenomena, the optically generated electron-hole system has the marked advantage over the superconducting materials, because the macroscopic quantum states can directly be controlled by changing the intensity or the frequency of excitation light.

In this article, we first present a unified theory of luminescence spectra for highly excited electron-hole systems which is applicable both to the electron-hole BCS state and to the exciton BEC state. The earlier theories based on the interacting-Boson model or on the BCS-like mean-field theory are not appropriate because the highly photoexcited system is often in the intermediate state between the electron-hole BCS state and the exciton BEC state. In the present theory, the multiple Coulomb interaction between electron-hole pairs is incorporated by numerically solving the Bethe-Salpeter (BS) equation  for electron-hole pair correlation function. This analysis is closely related to that in Ref. , where the absorption spectra for condensed exciton system are calculated by properly taking into account the ladder diagram for vertex function. In the present paper, the effect of the collective quantum fluctuation associated with the center-of-mass motion of electron-hole pairs is incorporated by the generalized random-phase approximation (RPA) . The calculated spectra considerably deviate from results obtained by the BCS-like mean-field analysis, and are essentially different from results by the interacting Boson model. The crossover from the exciton BEC to the electron-hole BCS state is clearly found to manifest itself in the luminescence spectra. In particular, the P$`_2`$-luminescence band, which arises from the exciton recombination accompanied by the excitation of another exciton from 1S to 2S state, continuously changes to the Fermi-edge singularity with increasing the electron-hole density. In the low carrier density, we find that the intensity of the P$`_2`$-luminescence band predominates comparing to that of the P-luminescence band, and this behavior is in excellent agreement with experiments for various semiconductors . The present analysis also predicts the weak luminescence band due to the recombination of electron-hole pairs which are generated by the collective phase fluctuation. These result are closely related to the recent noteworthy experiment of ZnO thin films, in which the room temperature ultraviolet laser emission is observed .

We consider a electron-hole system in a direct-gap semiconductor, which consists of the isotropic, nondegenerate parabolic conduction and valence bands with identical electron and hole masses. The repulsive interactions between electrons and between holes as well as the electron-hole attractive interaction are taken into account. The spin degrees of freedom is neglected to avoid the unnecessary complication due to the biexciton state.

The spontaneous emission rate is expressed by the imaginary part of the electron-hole pair correlation function as $`I(\omega )=2\mathrm{I}\mathrm{m}G(\omega \mu +i\gamma )`$, where $`\gamma `$ and $`\mu `$ are the exciton decay constant and the chemical potential of the electron-hole pairs, respectively. $`G(\omega )`$ is the Fourier transform of the electron-hole pair correlation function

$`G(t)=i\mathrm{\Theta }(t){\displaystyle \underset{𝒌,𝒑}{}}g_𝒌g_𝒑c_𝒌^{}(0)d_𝒌^{}(0)d_𝒑(t)c_𝒑(t),`$ (1)
where $`g_𝒌`$ is the radiation-matter coupling constant; $`c_𝒑`$ and $`d_𝒑`$ are the annihilation operators for electrons and holes, respectively. Here $`\mathrm{}`$ indicates the expectation value with respect to the electron-hole BCS state. In order to consider the electron-hole pair correlation, let us introduce the Bogoliubov transformation given by $`c_𝒌=u_𝒌\alpha _𝒌+v_𝒌\beta _𝒌^{}`$, $`d_𝒌=u_𝒌\beta _𝒌v_𝒌\alpha _𝒌^{},`$ where $`\alpha _𝒌`$ and $`\beta _𝒌`$ are the annihilation operators for new quasiparticles (Bogolons). The Bogoliubov parameters $`u_𝒌`$ and $`v_𝒌`$ are determined by solving the BCS-like gap equation for electron-hole systems. The BCS-like gap equation is reduced to the Wannier equation in the low density limit, which implies that the equation gives the correct result for the relative motion of electron-hole pairs both in the high- and low-density limits .

In the following analysis, it is convenient to introduce a two-component operator, $`\psi _𝒌=(\alpha _𝒌,\beta _𝒌^{})`$ and the Pauli spin matrices $`𝝉_\mu `$ ($`\mu =1,2,3`$). The spontaneous emission rate is expressed as

$`I(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{2\gamma I_{\mathrm{coh}}}{(\omega \mu )^2+\gamma ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{Im}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{𝒌,𝒑}{}}g_𝒌g_𝒑𝑲_𝒌𝓖_{𝒌,𝒑}(\omega \mu +i\gamma )𝑲_𝒑\right],`$ (2)
where $`𝑲_𝒌=(u_𝒌^2v_𝒌^2,i)`$. Here $`I_{\mathrm{coh}}`$ is defined by

$`I_{\mathrm{coh}}={\displaystyle \underset{𝒌,𝒑}{}}g_𝒌g_𝒑u_𝒌v_𝒌u_𝒑v_𝒑(\psi _𝒌^{}𝝉_3\psi _𝒌)(\psi _𝒑^{}𝝉_3\psi _𝒑),`$ (3)
and the $`(\mu ,\nu )`$ component of $`𝓖_{𝒌,𝒑}(\omega )`$ is defined by the Fourier transform of

$`\left(𝓖_{𝒌,𝒑}(t)\right)_{\mu ,\nu }=i\mathrm{\Theta }(t)(\psi _𝒌^{}(0)𝝉_\mu \psi _𝒌(0))(\psi _𝒑^{}(t)𝝉_\nu \psi _𝒑(t)),`$ (4)
respectively. The first term on the right-hand side of Eq. (2) gives the the sharp spectrum at the chemical potential of the electron-hole pairs; this spectral component arises from the coherent spontaneous emission from the macroscopic quantum state. The electron-hole pair recombination does not generate Bogolons so that the spectral width is merely determined by the lifetime of electrons in the conduction band. The second term expresses the incoherent spontaneous emission rate accompanied by the creation of Bogolons; this spectral component reflects the various interesting features arising from the many-body interaction in high-density electron-hole systems.

Making use of the generalized RPA, we evaluate $`I_{\mathrm{coh}}`$ in Eq. (2) as

$`I_{\mathrm{coh}}=\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{𝒌}{}}g_𝒌u_𝒌v_𝒌\right\}^2+2{\displaystyle \underset{𝒌,𝒑}{}}g_𝒌g_𝒑u_𝒌v_𝒌u_𝒑v_𝒑{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{2\pi \mathrm{i}}}{\displaystyle \frac{V_{𝒌𝒑}(z)}{(zE_𝒌E_𝒑)^2}},`$ (5)
where $`V_𝒒(\omega )`$ is the screened Coulomb potential. The single particle excitation energy (Bogolon energy) is given by $`E_𝒌=\sqrt{\zeta _𝒌^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒌^2}`$, where $`\zeta _𝒌`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒌`$ are the renormalized energy of the electron-hole pair and the BCS gap, respectively. The first term on the right-hand side of Eq. (5) is obtained by the BCS-like mean field approximation, and the second term expresses the correction which comes from the collective quantum fluctuations similar to the Anderson mode in superconductivity .

The function $`𝓖_{𝒌,𝒑}(\omega )`$, which gives the intensity of the incoherent emission through Eq. (2), satisfies the following BS equation,

$`𝓖_{𝒑,𝒌}(\omega )(\omega 𝝉_0+2E_𝒌𝝉_2){\displaystyle \underset{𝒌^{}}{}}V_{𝒌𝒌^{}}(\omega )𝓖_{𝒑,𝒌^{}}(\omega )\left(C_{𝒌,𝒌^{}}^{(0)}𝝉_2+iC_{𝒌,𝒌^{}}^{(3)}𝝉_1\right)`$
$`=(\psi _𝒌^{}(0)𝝉_\mu \psi _𝒌(0))(\psi _𝒑^{}(0)𝝉_\nu \psi _𝒑(0)),`$ (6)
where $`C_{𝒌,𝒑}^{(0)}(u_𝒌u_𝒑+v_𝒌v_𝒑)^2`$ and $`C_{𝒌,𝒑}^{(3)}(u_𝒌v_𝒑v_𝒌u_𝒑)^2`$ are the coherence factors and $`𝝉_0`$ is the $`2\times 2`$ unit matrix. This BS equation is obtained by linearizing the equation-of-motion for the correlation function $`𝓖_{𝒌,𝒑}(t)`$. The multiple Coulomb interaction between electrons and holes is expressed by the second term on the right-hand side of Eq. (Theory of the Luminescence Spectra of High-Density Electron-Hole Systems: Crossover from Excitonic Bose-Einstein Condensation to Electron-Hole BCS state). This term makes a significant contribution to the recombination of the electron-hole pairs with nonzero total momentum, which is not taken into account in the BCS-like mean-field theory. The right-hand side of Eq. (Theory of the Luminescence Spectra of High-Density Electron-Hole Systems: Crossover from Excitonic Bose-Einstein Condensation to Electron-Hole BCS state) is rewritten as

$`(\psi _𝒌^{}(0)𝝉_\mu \psi _𝒌(0))(\psi _𝒑^{}(0)𝝉_\nu \psi _𝒑(0))`$
$`=(𝝉_0+𝝉_2)\delta _{𝒌,𝒑}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝝉_3{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{2}{}}}(1)^{j+1}(\psi _𝒌^{}(0)𝝉_j\psi _𝒑(0))(\psi _𝒌^{}(0)𝝉_j\psi _𝒑(0)).`$ (7)
The second term on the right-hand side represents the fluctuation effect due to the collective excitations similar to the Anderson mode in superconductivity. A generalized RPA analysis gives the following expression,

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{2}{}}}(1)^{j+1}(\psi _𝒌^{}(0)𝝉_j\psi _𝒑(0))(\psi _𝒌^{}(0)𝝉_j\psi _𝒑(0))=4{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle \frac{V_{𝒑𝒌}(z)C_{𝒑,𝒌}^{(3)}}{z^2(E_𝒑+E_𝒌)^2}}.`$
As a first step in our numerical calculations, the gap equation is iteratively solved to evaluate the renormalized energy of electron-hole pair $`\zeta _𝒌`$ and the BCS gap function $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒌`$. The incoherent luminescence spectrum is evaluated by numerically calculating the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the stability matrix  for Eq. (Theory of the Luminescence Spectra of High-Density Electron-Hole Systems: Crossover from Excitonic Bose-Einstein Condensation to Electron-Hole BCS state). The quasi-static dielectric function given by the single-plasmon-pole approximation is employed .

The incoherent components of the luminescence spectra are shown in Figs. 1-3. As a reference, we also present the luminescence spectra calculated by the BCS-like mean-field theory and the generalized RPA analysis, in which the fluctuation effect associated with the center-of-mass motion of pairs is considered but the multiple Coulomb interaction is neglected. We use the units where the exciton binding energy and the exciton Bohr radius being unity. The dimensionless mean interparticle distance $`r_\mathrm{s}=(4\pi n/3)^{1/3}`$ is introduced, where $`n`$ is the electron-hole density. The exciton decay constant is chosen as $`\gamma =0.03`$, unless othewise stated. The arrow in the figures represents the level of the chemical potential of the electron-hole pair at which the coherent luminescence line appears. With decreasing the particle density, the position of coherent luminescence band approaches to $`\omega E_\mathrm{g}=1`$, where $`E_\mathrm{g}`$ is the energy gap between the valence and conduction bands. This behavior ensures that the present analysis reproduces the result obtained by the interacting exciton model in the low density limit.

Fig. 1 shows the luminescence spectrum in the high density case ($`r_\mathrm{s}=1.0`$). The band renormalization effect due to the exchange interaction is clearly observed. The peaked structure near the Fermi level ($`\omega E_\mathrm{g}1`$) is the manifestation of the BCS-like gap formation, which is strongly pronounced by the multiple Coulomb interaction between electrons and holes; the electron-hole pairs with nonzero total momentum take part in the recombination processes. The luminescence band in $`\omega E_\mathrm{g}>\mu `$, which is missing in the mean-field analysis, corresponds to the pair annihilation process of the virtual Bogolons generated by the collective phase fluctuation.

The luminescence spectra in the intermediate densities corresponding to $`r_\mathrm{s}=2.2`$ is shown in Fig. 2. It is noted that the incoherent luminescence spectrum below the chemical potential splits into two components: the broad component below $`\omega E_\mathrm{g}1.7`$ and the sharp one around $`\omega E_\mathrm{g}1.5`$. The intensity of the broad component is approximately proportional to the square of the particle density; its spectral position slightly shifts towards the shorter wavelength with decreasing the particle density. These behaviors suggest that the broad component corresponds to the P-luminescence band , which comes from the radiative recombination of an exciton assisted by the dissociation of another exciton. On the other hand, the sharp component around $`\omega E_\mathrm{g}1.5`$ corresponds to the P$`_2`$-luminescence band , which arises from the radiative recombination of an exciton accompanied by the excitation of another exciton from 1S to 2S state. In addition, a weak luminescence subband, called P$`_3`$, is observed around $`\omega E_\mathrm{g}1.6`$; this component comes from the exciton recombination assisted by the excitation of another exciton from 1S to 3S state. The peaked structure above the chemical potential originates from the pair annihilation of Bogolons, which are generated by the collective phase fluctuation from the electron-hole BCS state. It is noted that we do not deal with a simple two-exciton problem, but calculated P, P$`_2`$, and P$`_3`$ bands in the framework of the many-body theory. We should also recall that these spectral components cannot be obtained by a BCS-like mean-field theory with the RPA correction.

The luminescence spectrum in a low electron-hole density state ($`r_\mathrm{s}=13`$) is shown in Fig. 3. It is found that the P-luminescence band almost disappears and the P$`_2`$ band predominates with decreasing the carrier density. This behavior arises because the transition of another exciton to the bound state (2S) is much stronger than that to the dissociated states in low carrier density state.

We show in Fig, 4 the comparison between the present theory and the experiment for ZnO thin film at 77K . Here the exciton decay constant is chosen as $`\gamma =0.1`$. The calculated spectra are in good agreements with this experimant in the following points: (1) the exciton luminescence line predominates in the low density state. (2) The intensity of the $`\mathrm{P}_2`$-luminescence line grows superlinearly with increasing carrier density, and it prevails in the intermediate density states. (3) The P-luminescence line appears in higher densities and it merges with the $`\mathrm{P}_2`$-luminescence line as the carrier density increases.

Finally, it should be noted that the dependence of the line shape and the spectral position on the electron-hole density cannot be predicted by the well-known analysis for two-exciton problem .

In conclusion, we first present the many-body theory for luminescence spectra which is applicable both to the exciton BEC state and to the electron-hole BCS state. Our analysis, based on the BS equation combined with the generalized RPA, properly describes the crossover behavior between the two essentially different macroscopic quantum states.

This work is partially supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Science, Culture and Sports of Japan.