text:
# Iron K line Variability in the Low-Luminosity AGN NGC 4579

## 1 Introduction

Fe line emission in AGNs is an X-ray spectral feature produced through reprocessing by the matter surrounding the nucleus, and it can be used as a probe of the matter in the vicinity of the central black hole, such as accretion disks. Broad Fe emission lines have been detected in a number of Seyfert 1 galaxies, and they have been interpreted as arising from a relativistic accretion disk (e.g. Tanaka et al. 1995; Nandra et al. 1997). Fe K emission has also been detected in several low-luminosity AGNs (LLAGNs). The origin of Fe lines in these objects, however, is unclear. The line centroid energy of some LLAGNs is close to 6.7 keV (Ishisaki et al. 1996; Serlemitsos et al. 1996; Iyomoto et al. 1997; Terashima et al. 1998a, hereafter T98; Roberts, Warwick, & Ohashi 1999), which is higher than 6.4 keV as seen in Seyfert 1s, while some objects show a line at 6.4 keV (Terashima, Kunieda, & Misaki 1999). Possible origins of the Fe line at 6.7 keV include an ionized standard accretion disk, a thermal plasma in the outer region of an advection-dominated accretion flow (Narayan, & Raymond 1999), an ionized absorber and emitter along the line-of-sight (Pellegrini et al. 2000), or a thermal plasma in the host galaxy (Ptak et al. 2000). If the higher line energy is due to ionized iron, the problem arises as to how to achieve a high degree of ionization given the low luminosities and low accretion rates in LLAGNs. The variability of Fe lines provides information on the location of the line-emitting region, and thus constraints on the origin of the lines. Studies of Fe lines in LLAGNs are also of great importance to understand the structure of accretion disks in low luminosity objects.

NGC 4579 contains an LLAGN with $`L_\mathrm{X}`$(2–10 keV) = $`1.5\times 10^{41}`$ ergs s-1 (we assume a distance of 16.8 Mpc; Tully 1988). An ASCA observation was made on 1995 June 25, and an Fe K line is detected at $`6.73_{0.12}^{+0.13}`$ keV (source rest frame) with an equivalent width (EW) of $`490_{190}^{+180}`$ eV and a width of $`0.17_{0.12}^{+0.11}`$ keV (T98). We observed NGC 4579 again with ASCA in 1998 to search for possible variability of the Fe line. In this Letter, we report the change of the line centroid energy associated with a continuum luminosity increase of about 35%.

## 2 The ASCA Data

We observed NGC 4579 on 1998 Dec. 18 and 28 with the ASCA satellite (Tanaka, Inoue, & Holt 1994). The two Solid-State Imaging Spectrometers (SIS0 and SIS1; Burke et al. 1994) were operated in the 1CCD Faint mode. The two Gas Imaging Spectrometers (GIS2 and GIS3; Ohashi et al. 1996; Makishima et al. 1996) were operated in the nominal pulse height mode.

X-ray spectra were accumulated from circular regions with radii of 4 for the SIS and 6 for the GIS. Background spectra were taken from a source-free region in the same field. The effective exposure times, after data screening, were 18.6 ks for each SIS and 19.6 ks for each GIS on December 18, and 17.6 ks for each SIS and 19.6 ks for each GIS on December 28. The count rates were similar for both observations: 0.14 counts s-1 for SIS and 0.13 counts s-1 for GIS, after background subtraction. The spectra from SIS0 and SIS1 were combined, as were those from GIS2 and GIS3. We fitted the SIS0 plus SIS1 spectra and the GIS2 plus GIS3 spectra simultaneously. It is known that SIS and GIS spectra at the low-energy band ($`<`$1 keV) are inconsistent with each other due to accumulated radiation damage of the SIS (see Yaqoob et al. 2000). In order to minimize the uncertainty in the low-energy band, we used the region 1.0–10 keV for the SIS. We confirmed that the SIS and GIS data within this band yield statistically consistent spectral fits.

## 3 Results

We fitted the combined spectrum of the two observations in 1998. At first we fitted the spectrum with a power law plus Gaussian model and a thermal bremsstrahlung plus Gaussian model. The former model provided an acceptable fit with $`\chi ^2=201.0`$ for 227 degrees of freedom (dof). The latter model resulted in a significantly worse fit with $`\chi ^2=302.7`$ for 227 dof. Spectral features of a soft thermal plasma, detected in the 1995 observation, were not clearly seen in the residuals. We tried to add a Raymond-Smith thermal plasma component (hereinafter RS) to the power law plus Gaussian model. The temperature and abundance of the RS component were fixed at the values of T98 ($`kT`$=0.90 keV and abundance = 0.5 solar), and the normalization was left to vary. The absorption column density for the RS component was fixed at the Galactic value ($`N_\mathrm{H}`$ = $`3.1\times 10^{20}`$ cm-2; Murphy et al. 1996). The $`\chi ^2`$ improved only by $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$ = 1.0. Thus we found no clear evidence for the presence of soft thermal emission in the 1998 observation. This is probably for the following reasons. First, the flux of the hard component has brightened by a factor of 1.35 from 1995, and thus the soft thermal component has been diluted. Second, we ignored the soft energy band below 1 keV of the SIS data in the fit, where the soft component is expected to be more prominent. The spectral slope of the hard component is nearly unaffected by the addition of the soft thermal component, while the absorption column density depends on it. We use the power law + Gaussian + RS model in the following analysis.

The best-fit parameters for the continuum and X-ray fluxes in the 2–10 keV band are shown in Table 1, as well as the fitting results of the 1995 data taken from T98. The Fe line parameters are summarized in Table 2. The SIS and GIS spectra (along with the best-fit continuum model), and ratios of data to the best-fit continuum around Fe lines in the 1998 observation are shown in Figure 1. Ratios of data to the best-fit continuum for the 1995 observation are also shown in Figure 1 for comparison. The hard X-ray luminosity in the 2–10 keV band ($`L_\mathrm{X}`$ = $`2.0\times 10^{41}`$ ergs s-1) is $``$35% larger in 1998 than in 1995. Although the best-fit spectral slope has slightly steepened, the statistical errors overlap each other. No significant change of the absorption column density is seen either, although the errors are large because of the limited energy band of SIS used in the analysis. An intriguing spectral change is the centroid energy of the the Fe line. The line center energy varied from $`6.73_{0.12}^{+0.13}`$ keV in 1995 to $`6.39\pm 0.09`$ keV in 1998. Confidence contours for the line center energy versus normalization for the two observations are shown in Figure 2. The change of the line center energy is significant at more than 90% confidence level for two interesting parameters. Note that the calibration uncertainty of the energy scale is less than 1%. We examined the gain uncertainties by using the gold edge around 2.3 keV and the Cu-K line of the GIS detector background and found no evidence for a significant gain shift larger than the 1% level. We also confirmed that all the four detectors provided Fe K line center energies consistent with each other within 1% using a recent observation of the bright AGN NGC 5548 in 1998 June and July.

The change of the line center energy could be caused by a change of the ionization state of the line emitter or by variability of multiple emission lines with different line centroid energies. In order to quantify the second possibility, we modeled the line feature with a combination of two Gaussians. We fixed the line center energies and widths of each line at the best-fit values in 1995 and 1998. The obtained EWs and intensities are shown in Table 2 and Figure 3. The intensity and EW of the 6.7 keV line decreased significantly. The intensity of the 6.4 keV line significantly increased, while the EW marginally increased. The continuum parameters in this fit are same as in the single Gaussian model fits shown in Table 1. If we assume zero width for the 6.7 keV line instead of the best-fit value in 1995, the conclusion on line variability is unchanged.

Finally, we fitted the spectra of the two observations in 1998 separately to search for spectral variability on a time scale of 10 days. We used the same model in the fit of the combined spectrum. The Fe line was modeled with a single Gaussian. The obtained spectral parameters are also summarized in Table 1 and Table 2. The X-ray luminosity in the 2–10 keV band is slightly ($``$15%) higher in the first observation compared to the second. We found no clear spectral change between these two observations.

## 4 Discussion

We found that the center energy of the Fe K line in NGC 4579 decreased in 3.5 yrs, while the luminosity in the 2–10 keV band increased by 35%. We examined two models to represent the observed variability: a single Gaussian model and a double Gaussian model. In the double Gaussian model, the center energies were fixed at 6.39 keV and 6.73 keV. The results of these model fits indicate that the line intensity of the 6.7 keV line varied within an interval of 3.5 yr. This variability indicates that the emitter of the Fe line at 6.7 keV is located within $`1`$ pc from the nucleus, and thus rules out hot gas in the host galaxy (starburst activity and/or ridge emission, which is diffuse X-ray emission with $`kT510`$ keV, as observed in our Galaxy) as the origin of the 6.7 keV Fe line. On the other hand, the Fe line at 6.4 keV has an origin in fluorescence in cold or slightly ionized matter illuminated by a central X-ray source (Makishima 1986). Thus, the observed Fe lines at 6.4 keV and 6.7 keV most likely originate from the AGN itself rather than from hot gas further out in the host galaxy. The relatively strong 6.4 keV line in 1998 (EW = $`250_{95}^{+105}`$ eV) indicates that cold matter subtends a large solid angle viewed from the nucleus (e.g., Gerorge & Fabian 1991). A part of the line could come from an obscuring torus which is assumed in unified models of AGNs (e.g., Antonucci 1993). If the torus is present and located at further than 1 pc from the center, the Fe line from it does not vary within an interval of $``$ 3 yr. Then, the torus contribution can be at most $`8.5\times 10^6`$ photons-1 s-1 cm-2, which is the measured 90% confidence upper limit on the constant 6.4 keV line from the 1995 observation (see Table 2). This line flux corresponds to an EW of 155 eV for the continuum level in 1998. The rest of the 6.4 keV line should come from the region closer to the nucleus. Such a Fe line emitter could be identified with an optically thick accretion disk. If this is the case, a standard accretion disk should exist even at the low Eddington ratio of NGC 4579 ($`L_{\mathrm{Bol}}/L_{\mathrm{Eddigton}}=2.0\times 10^3`$; Ho 1999). The presence of an optically thick accretion disk is consistent with the estimate of the transition radius from an advection dominated accretion flow to a standard disk ($``$100 Schwarzschild radii) by Quataert et al. (1999). However, the suggestion of a truncated disk might not be appropriate to achieve the observed large equivalent width ($``$250 eV). Therefore, cold matter beyond the accretion disk, such as an obscuring torus, must contribute somewhat to the observed EW of the 6.4 keV line, if the truncated disk interpretation is correct.

The origin of the 6.7 keV line seen in 1995 still remains puzzling, however. If the Fe lines in 1995 and 1998 originated from the same region, the decrease of ionization state responding to the small flux increase of only 35% is difficult to be explained by photoionization under an assumption of a constant density. If the ionized matter is located far from the nucleus, the observed behavior of the Fe line could be due to a time lag between the continuum and Fe line variability. The X-ray flux in the 0.5–2 keV band observed with the ROSAT PSPC in 1991 Dec. is a factor of 2.3 higher than that of the first ASCA observation in 1995 June (Ptak et al. 1999). Therefore, the decrease of ionization state might be explained by a time lag effect, if the Fe line emitter is located 1 pc away form the nucleus. In order to explain the change of ionization state from Fe 25 (6.7 keV line) to Fe 17 or less (6.4 keV line), the ionization parameter $`\xi =L/nR^2`$ should change from $`\mathrm{log}\xi 3`$ to 2 (e.g., Kallman, & McCray 1982), where $`L`$, $`n`$, $`R`$ are the luminosity of ionizing photons, the number density of photoionized matter, and the distance from the ionizing source to the photoionized matter, respectively. The observed variability, however, is not enough to explain the change of the ionization parameter unless the density and/or geometry of the ionized matter also changed, or large-amplitude variability occurred during the unobserved span. Long-term variability of a factor 10 is reported in only a few objects (M81, Pellegrini et al. 2000; and possibly M51, Terashima et al. 1998b).

Alternatively, the 6.4 keV and 6.7 keV lines may originate from different regions. If most of the 6.4 keV line comes from the torus and the 6.7 keV line is from different photoionized matter, the disappearance of the 6.7 keV line might be understood by increasing the ionization state such that the gas is almost fully ionized. In this case, the 6.4 keV line could vary in response to the continuum variability with some time lag which depends on the size and geometry of the torus. However, the small flux change, again, is not enough to change the ionization state so drastically.

Thus, it is conceivable that the physical conditions (density and/or geometry) of the ionized matter changed between the two observations whether the 6.4 keV and 6.7 keV lines originate from a single region or different regions. Such a change could be caused by a change of the ionization balance in the surface layer of the standard accretion disk, or in the boundary region between the standard disk and the advection-dominated flow. It is worth noting that there are several Seyfert 1 galaxies showing the change of Fe K line centroid energy accompanied by small variations in the continuum luminosity (Weaver, Gelbord, & Yaqoob 2000). The cause of such variability, however, is yet to be understood. We note also that a drastic change of Fe line profile is observed during a flare in MCG–6–30–15 (Iwasawa et al. 1999), althogh the time scale they observed is much shorter than ours. The peak energy of the Fe line during the flare was around 5 keV and such a profile change can be interpreted as being due to a flare occuring very close to the black hole (Iwasawa et al. 1999).

The observed line does not show an obvious asymmetric profile skewed toward lower energies, a signature expected from a relativistic disk (e.g., Fabian et al. 1989) and one which is observed in many Seyfert 1 nuclei (Tanaka et al. 1995; Nandra et al. 1997). The line width is evidently rather small; we place an upper limit of $`\sigma <0.16`$ keV. Our data, unfortunately, do not have sufficient signal-to-noise ratio to confirm the presence or absence of disklike kinematic features in NGC 4579. Future measurements of the line profile using higher energy resolution and larger effective areas will be crucial to investigate the origin of the Fe line and the structure of the accretion disk in LLAGNs.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors are grateful to all the ASCA team members. We also thank an anonymous referee for useful comments. YT and KM thank Japan Society for the Promotion of Science for support.


format: text

text:
# Zero-point fluctuations in the ground state of a mesoscopic normal ring

## I Introduction

An interesting aspect of quantum systems is the fact that even at zero temperature there are fluctuations which manifest themselves in observables which do not commute with the Hamiltonian of the system. In mesoscopic systems phase coherence plays an essential role, and it is thus important to ask to what extent coherence is affected by zero-point fluctuations. To investigate this question we consider the ground state of a normal mesoscopic ring threaded by an Aharonov-Bohm flux and capacitively coupled to an external circuit. Such a ring exhibits a persistent current which is a direct consequence of phase coherent electron motion over distances large compared to the ring circumference. At zero temperature such a ring interacts with an external circuit (see Fig. 1) only due to zero-point fluctuations. More precisely, the external circuit can, through the generation of zero-point voltage fluctuations, induce polarization fluctuations in the ring which in turn affect the magnitude of the persistent current. The source of the voltage fluctuations in the external circuit are the resistive elements. We can thus ask: How does the persistent current of the ring depend on the resistive properties of the external circuit? For the system shown in Fig. 1, Ref.  provided an answer by mapping a simple model of a ring with a quantum dot and external circuit on the anisotropic Kondo model and using the known Bethe ansatz solutions of this problem. The purpose of this work is to consider the same model and to provide a discussion which is physically more transparent. The discussion given below is, however, limited to the case of weak coupling between the ring and the external circuit.

Investigations of the coherence properties of the ground state of mesoscopic structures are rare and concern mainly superconductors. Hekking and Glazman investigate a thin superconducting loop in an electromagnetic environment; Oshikawa and Zagoskin consider a superconducting grain coupled to a normal wire. In contrast, investigations on dephasing in systems driven out of the ground state are numerous and there exists a considerable literature. In particular, zero-point fluctuations have been of interest, following recent experimental work by Mohanty, Jariwala, and Webb on weak localization in metallic diffusive wires. These experiments probe a transport state and not the ground state of the system. In the experiments of Mohanty and Webb it is the weak-localization effect in the linear response conductance of the system which is of interest. Subsequently to these experiments the role of zero-point fluctuations in weak localization effects has been very much debated and a number of works have appeared which suggest that the experiments can possibly be better explained without invoking zero-point fluctuations. Weak-localization is a quantum effect which survives ensemble averaging and thus the dephasing rates which count are specific to the fact that we deal with time-reversed trajectories and that an ensemble average has to be performed. The absence of an effect of zero-point fluctuations found in Refs.  might give rise to the mistaken impression that zero-point fluctuations are quite generally without any effect on the coherence properties of a system. The example presented here shows that zero-point fluctuations are clearly important for the coherence properties of the system, although perhaps not for weak localization phenomena. Below we consider a specific ring (not an ensemble) and ask how the maximum amplitude of the persistent current is affected by zero-point fluctuations.

The effect of a thermal bath on the persistent current has been discussed by Landauer and Büttiker and Büttiker within a Debye relaxation approach. In this approach, however, the bath affects essentially only the population of different states, but not the electronic states of the ring itself. As a consequence, at zero temperature, this model exhibits no effect due to zero point fluctuations: the magnitude of the persistent current is independent of the coupling strength to the bath. Still a different model, introduced by Büttiker, considers a ring coupled via a side branch to a normal electron reservoir. Due to the connection between reservoir and ring a carrier in the ring eventually escapes to the reservoir and is replaced with an incident carrier with a phase which is unrelated to that of the escaping carrier. This model predicts even at zero temperature an amplitude of the persistent current which depends on the coupling strength. This effect is not due to zero-point fluctuations but results from the exchange of carriers between the reservoir and the ring. If the ring is coupled to a side branch of finite length, the side branch can nevertheless generate effects which are similar to that of a reservoir, especially if only ensemble averaged quantities are considered. This is correct only if the side branch has a charging energy which is weak compared to the level spacing. If the charging energy is large compared to the level spacing the side branch has no effect on the ensemble averaged persistent current. It is thus interesting to ask, whether there exist models which are strictly canonical (without carrier exchange with a reservoir) and for which the sample specific persistent current depends nevertheless on the properties of the bath. The model investigated in this work examines a ring which is coupled to the bath only via the long range Coulomb force.

The mesoscopic ring which we consider (see Fig. 1) is divided into two regions by tunneling barriers. It is a ring with an in-line quantum dot.. This model allows a simple characterization of the electrostatic potential in terms of only two variables $`U_d`$ (for the dot) and $`U_a`$ (for the arm), and by the charges $`Q_d`$ and $`Q_a`$. The two regions, the dot and the arm of the ring, are coupled via capacitors $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ to the external circuit. The external circuit is described by its impedance $`Z_{ext}`$. The potential at the capacitor $`C_1`$ is denoted by $`V_0`$, the charge by $`Q_0`$. Likewise, we write the potential and the charge on the capacitor $`C_2`$ as $`V_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`Q_{\mathrm{}}`$.

## II Langevin equation

To be specific, we consider a purely resistive external impedance, $`Z_{ext}=R`$. The fluctuations generated by this resistor can be represented as a noise source in parallel with the resistor as shown in Fig. 2. The current $`\delta V/R`$ through the resistor must be equal to the sum of the current of the noise source $`\delta I(t)`$ and of the current through the ring-dot structure. In terms of the potential difference $`\delta VV_0V_{\mathrm{}}`$ across the ring-dot structure we find that the coupling between the ring-dot structure and the external circuit is described by

$$\delta V/R=C_0\delta \dot{V}+\frac{C_0}{C_i}\dot{Q}_d+\delta I(t).$$
(1)
Here we introduce the capacitance $`C_0^1C_i^1+C_e^1`$ which is the series capacitance of the internal capacitance $`C_iC_L+C_R`$ and the external capacitance $`C_e^1C_1^1+C_2^1`$, and the charge on the dot $`Q_d`$. A detailed consideration of the circuit equations leading to Eq. (1) is given in Appendix A. The noise source in parallel to the resistor generates a current noise spectrum, $`\delta I(\omega )\delta I(\omega ^{})2\pi \delta (\omega +\omega ^{})S_{II}(\omega )`$, given by

$$S_{II}(\omega )=\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{R}\mathrm{coth}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2kT}\right),$$
(2)
where $`k`$ is the Boltzmann constant, and $`T`$ is the temperature. To complete the description of this system, we need to investigate the dynamics of the ring in the presence of the fluctuating external voltage $`\delta V(t)`$.

First, we consider the effect of the external circuit in linear response. Since we are only interested in the weak coupling limit, we can choose the ground state of the ring-dot system in the absence of an external circuit as a state around which we can expand. What we need is the linear response relation between $`\delta Q_d(t)`$ (the deviation of the charge away from a reference state) as a function of the external voltage $`\delta V(t)`$. Note that both of these variables are in fact operators. Here, we proceed as in the random phase approximation and use a linear response function to describe the connection between these two quantities. In linear response we can Fourier transform $`\delta Q_d(t)`$ and $`\delta V(t)`$. The linear response coefficient gives the increment of the charge on the dot in response to a variation of an external voltage: It is thus a dynamic capacitance which we denote by $`C_d(\omega )=\delta Q_d(\omega )/\delta V(\omega )`$. Similarly, the relation between the charge $`\delta Q_0`$ piled up on the external capacitor $`C_1`$ and the applied voltage is determined by the overall capacitance of the ring dot-structure vis-a-vis the external circuit, and is denoted by $`C_\mu (\omega )=\delta Q_0(\omega )/\delta V(\omega )`$. From circuit theory (see Appendix A) it follows that these two capacitances are related

$$C_\mu (\omega )=C_0\frac{C_0}{C_i}C_d(\omega )$$
(3)
The noise source (see Fig. 2) sees a total impedance $`Z(\omega )`$ which consists of this capacitance and the resistance

$$\frac{1}{Z(\omega )}=\left[\frac{1}{R}i\omega C_\mu (\omega )\right].$$
(4)
With these response coefficients Eq. (1) leads to

$$\delta V(\omega )=Z(\omega )\delta I(\omega )=\left[1i\omega RC_\mu (\omega )\right]^1R\delta I(\omega )$$
(5)
and the spectrum of the external voltage is thus

$$S_{VV}(\omega )=\frac{R\mathrm{}\omega \mathrm{coth}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2kT}\right)}{\left[1+\omega ^2(RC_\mu (\omega ))^2\right]}$$
(6)
Our next task is now to find explicit expressions for the capacitances $`C_\mu (\omega )`$ and $`C_d(\omega )`$.

### A The dynamics of the ring

The dynamics of the charge on the dot, determined by $`\widehat{Q}_d`$, is in the Heisenberg picture given by

$$\frac{}{t}\widehat{Q}_d=\frac{\mathrm{}}{i}[\widehat{H}_{ring},\widehat{Q}_d],$$
(7)
where $`\widehat{H}_{ring}`$ is the Hamiltonian of the ring in an applied external potential $`\delta V`$.

We assume that the tunneling amplitudes are much smaller in magnitude than the level spacing in the dot and the level spacing in the arm. Moreover, we assume the electrons to be spinless. As discussed in Refs.  a spin singlet appears in the case of electrons with spin, and the tunneling amplitude is enhanced by a factor of $`\sqrt{2}`$. Our choice of parameters excludes the Kondo effect, also if the electron spin is taken into account. As a matter of fact, the Kondo effect appears only at a tunneling amplitude comparable to or larger than the mean level spacing. We note that the number of charge carriers in the ring is conserved. Following Büttiker and Stafford, we consider hybridization between the topmost occupied electron level in the arm and the lowest unoccupied electron level in the dot, $`ϵ_{aM}`$ and $`ϵ_{d(N+1)}`$ only. To simplify the notation, we denote the tunneling amplitudes between the levels $`ϵ_{aM}`$ and $`ϵ_{d(N+1)}`$ by $`t_L`$ for tunneling through the left junction and by $`t_R`$ for tunneling through the right one, and introduce the total tunneling amplitude

$$\frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{2}=\sqrt{t_L^2+t_R^2\pm 2t_Lt_R\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi \mathrm{\Phi }}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}},$$
(8)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=hc/e`$ is the flux quantum, and the sign in front of the cosine depends on the parity of the number of electrons in the ring. The sign is positive, if the number of electrons is odd, and negative if the number is even. In the model introduced above, we are considering only two states, namely the topmost electron being in the dot, which we represent by the vector $`(1,0)`$, and the topmost electron being in the arm of the ring, written as $`(0,1)`$. The dynamics of these two states is described by a time dependent Hamiltonian

$$\widehat{H}_{ring}=\frac{\mathrm{}\epsilon (t)}{2}\sigma _z\frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{2}\sigma _x+\frac{\mathrm{}\nu (t)}{2}\mathrm{𝟏},$$
(9)
where $`\sigma _z`$ and $`\sigma _x`$ are Pauli matrices, and $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ is the identity matrix. The prefactor $`\mathrm{}\nu (t)=C_0\delta V^2(t)`$ is a global shift in energy. We split up the detuning $`\epsilon (t)`$ into a time independent and a time dependent part $`\epsilon (t)=\epsilon _0+\delta \epsilon (t)`$, with

$`\mathrm{}\epsilon _0`$ $``$ $`ϵ_{d(N+1)}ϵ_{aM}+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2(NN_++1/2)}{C}}{\displaystyle \frac{C_e}{C}}V_0`$ (10)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{C}}\left(Q_dQ_{d0}\right),`$ (11)
$`\delta \epsilon (t)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{C_0}{C_i}}\delta V(t).`$ (12)
The effective background charge on the dot is $`Q_{d0}=eN_++C_eV_0`$, where the first term is a built in background charge and the second term can be externally controlled by applying a static voltage across the ring-dot structure. If coherent tunneling is neglected the ground states of the ring with $`N`$ and $`N+1`$ carriers are degenerate if the polarization charge is equal to

$$Q_de\left(N+\frac{1}{2}\right)+\frac{C}{e}\left(ϵ_{d(N+1)}ϵ_{aM}\right).$$
(13)
Thus $`Q_{d0}=Q_d`$ is the (classical) condition at which the Coulomb blockade is lifted. Quantum mechanically the state in the ring and the state in the arm of the ring are in resonance when $`Q_{d0}=Q_d`$ and the persistent current exhibits a peak. Our simple two-level picture is applicable when $`\epsilon _0`$ is small, that is, in the vicinity of a resonance.

We want to find the time evolution of a state $`\psi (t)`$, which we write as

$$\psi =e^{i\chi /2}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta }{2}e^{i\phi /2}}{\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}e^{i\phi /2}}\right),$$
(14)
with $`\theta `$, $`\phi `$ and $`\chi `$ real. This is the most general form of a normalized complex vector in two dimensions. In terms of $`\theta `$, $`\phi `$ and the global phase $`\chi `$, the time dependent Schrödinger equation reads

$`\dot{\phi }`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _0\delta \epsilon (t)\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{cot}\theta \mathrm{cos}\phi ,`$ (15)
$`\dot{\theta }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{sin}\phi ,`$ (16)
$`\dot{\chi }`$ $`=`$ $`\nu +\mathrm{\Delta }_0{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\phi }{\mathrm{sin}\theta }}.`$ (17)
Note that Eq. (17) describing the dynamics of the global phase $`\chi `$ is special in the sense that it is driven by $`\varphi `$ and $`\theta `$ but it has no back-effect onto them. Moreover, $`\chi `$ is irrelevant for expectation values, like the persistent current or the charge on the dot. It plays an important role, however, in the discussion of phase diffusion times, see Sec. IV. The system of the two equations for $`\phi `$ and $`\theta `$, Eqs. (1516), is closed by Eq. (1),

$$\dot{Q}_d=\frac{d}{dt}\psi (t)|\widehat{Q}_d|\psi (t),$$
(18)
with $`\psi (t)`$ defined above, and

$$\widehat{Q}_d=e\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)+eN_+,$$
(19)
We find

$$\dot{Q}_d=e\frac{d}{dt}\psi (t)|\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)|\psi (t)=\frac{e}{2}\mathrm{sin}\theta \dot{\theta }.$$
(20)
Using this result and Eq. (1), gives

$$\delta V=C_0R\delta \dot{V}\frac{C_0}{C_i}\frac{e}{2}\mathrm{sin}\theta \dot{\theta }+R\delta I(t).$$
(21)
Eqs. (1516) and (21) form a closed system of equations in which the external circuit is incorporated in terms of a fluctuating current $`\delta I(t)`$ and of an ohmic resistor $`R`$. In the next section, we investigate Eqs. (1516) and (21) to find the effect of zero-point fluctuations on the persistent current of the ring.

### B Expansion around a stationary state

First, let us discuss the stationary states of the system of differential equations, Eqs. (15, 16) and (21) in the absence of the noise term $`\delta I(t)`$. We take $`0\phi <2\pi `$ and $`0\theta <\pi `$. This gives immediately $`\mathrm{sin}\phi =0`$ and consequently a stationary state has $`\phi \phi _0`$, with $`\phi _0=0`$ or $`\phi _0=\pi `$. With this it is easy to show that in the stationary state we must have $`\theta \theta _0`$, with

$$\mathrm{cot}\theta _0=\pm \frac{\epsilon _0}{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}.$$
(22)
The lower sign applies for $`\phi _0=0`$. This is the ground state for the ring-dot system at fixed $`\epsilon (t)\epsilon _0`$, and the upper sign holds for $`\phi _0=\pi `$. The energy of the ground state is $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_0/2`$, thus the global phase is $`\chi _0(t)=\mathrm{\Omega }_0t`$. Here

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_0^2\epsilon _0^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2$$
(23)
is the resonance frequency of the (decoupled) two-level system. We also introduce the “classical” relaxation time $`\tau _{RC}RC_0`$, and a relaxation rate

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }\pi \alpha \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }_0}$$
(24)
which as we shall see in Sec. II E is a relaxation rate due to the coupling of the ring-dot system to the external circuit. Here $`\alpha `$ is a dimensionless coupling constant

$$\alpha \frac{R}{R_K}\left(\frac{C_0}{C_i}\right)^2$$
(25)
with $`R_Kh/e^2`$ the quantum of resistance. We will immediately see the usefulness of these definitions.

Now, we switch on the noise $`\delta I(t)`$. We seek $`\phi (t),\theta (t)`$, $`\chi (t)`$ and $`\delta V(t)`$ in linear order in the noise current $`\delta I(t)`$. We expand $`\phi (t)`$ and $`\theta (t)`$ to first order around the ground state, $`\phi =0`$ and $`\theta =\theta _0`$. For $`\delta \phi (t)=\phi (t)\phi _0`$, $`\delta \theta (t)=\theta (t)\theta _0`$, we find in Fourier space,

$`i\omega \delta \phi `$ $`=`$ $`\delta \epsilon +{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_0^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}}\delta \theta ,`$ (26)
$`i\omega \delta \theta `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0\delta \phi ,`$ (27)
$`i\omega \delta \epsilon `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _{RC}}}\left[\delta \epsilon \mathrm{\Gamma }\delta \phi +{\displaystyle \frac{e}{\mathrm{}}}R{\displaystyle \frac{C_0}{C_i}}\delta I\right].`$ (28)
We also expand the global phase $`\chi (t)`$ around its evolution in the ground state $`\chi _0(t)=\mathrm{\Omega }_0t`$, and define $`\delta \chi (t)=\chi (t)\chi _0(t)`$. In Fourier space, Eq. (17) becomes

$$i\omega \delta \chi =\mathrm{\Omega }_0\frac{\epsilon _0}{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}\delta \theta .$$
(29)
We note that there is no effect of the global shift in energy, $`\mathrm{}\nu (t)`$, as it is quadratic in the voltage $`\delta V`$, and we are only interested in effects up to linear order in $`\delta V`$.

In the following section, we evaluate the linear response of the ring, described by Eqs. (2627) to an applied external potential $`\delta V(\omega )`$, giving the frequency dependent capacitance $`C_\mu (\omega )`$.

### C Capacitance of the ring and impedance

We evaluate $`\delta Q_d(\omega )`$ to first order in $`\delta V(\omega )`$, using Eqs. (2627), which gives the dynamic capacitance $`C_d(\omega )=\delta Q_d(\omega )/\delta V(\omega )`$,

$$C_d(\omega )=C_0\frac{e^2/(2C_i)}{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_0}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2}{\omega ^2\mathrm{\Omega }_0^2}.$$
(30)
The frequency dependent capacitance as seen from the external circuit reads, see Eq. (3),

$$C_\mu (\omega )=C_0\left(1\frac{e^2/(2C_i)}{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_0}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2}{\omega ^2\mathrm{\Omega }_0^2}\right).$$
(31)
The frequency dependent capacitance $`C_\mu `$ contains in addition to the geometrical capacitance $`C_0`$ a term which arises from the dynamic polarizability of the ring. In the low frequency regime the polarizability enhances the capacitance,

$$C_\mu (0)=C_0\left(1+\frac{e^2/(2C_i)}{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_0}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }_0^2}\right)=C_0+\left(\frac{C_0}{C_i}\right)^2\frac{2e^2|t_\pm |^2}{\left\{\left[e(Q_{d0}Q_d)/C\right]^2+4|t_\pm |^2\right\}^{3/2}}.$$
(32)
The zero frequency capacitance has already been obtained by Stafford and one of the authors. The zero-frequency (electro-chemical) capacitance Eq. (32) can be obtained as a second order derivative of the grand canonical potential with respect to the voltage applied across the ring dot-system or as a dynamic response to a slowly varying voltage across the ring-dot system. Since the tunneling amplitude $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ depends periodically on the magnetic flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, see Eq. (8), $`C_\mu (\omega )`$ can be modulated by varying $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. The electro-chemical capacitance exhibits a peak as the bias $`V_0`$ is varied. The peak shows up at resonance, $`Q_{d0}=Q_d`$, corresponding to $`\epsilon _0=0`$. At the same point, there is also a peak in the persistent current. A recent experiment by Deblock et al. demonstrated indeed a flux dependent polarizability of mesoscopic rings.

At high frequencies the polarization cannot follow the external voltage and the capacitance Eq. (31) is smaller than the geometrical capacitance. At $`\omega =\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ the capacitance exhibits a resonance characteristic for dielectric functions. The ring by itself has no damping mechanism, therefore the resonance shows up as a pole. The damping is provided by the dissipation in the external circuit.

From Eqs. (4) and (31), we find

$$\frac{1}{Z(\omega )}=\frac{1}{R}\frac{\omega ^2\mathrm{\Omega }_0^2i\omega \tau _{RC}\left(\omega ^2\mathrm{\Omega }_0^2\mathrm{\Gamma }/\tau _{RC}\right)}{\omega ^2\mathrm{\Omega }_0^2}.$$
(33)
This expression for the impedance seen by the noise source contains all the information needed to calculate the various spectral densities.

### D Spectral densities

We solve Eqs. (26)–(28) for $`\delta \phi `$ by eliminating $`\delta \theta `$ and $`\delta \epsilon `$, and obtain after some algebra

$$\delta \phi =\frac{e}{\mathrm{}}\frac{C_0}{C_i}\frac{(i\omega )Z(\omega )}{\omega ^2\mathrm{\Omega }_0^2}\delta I.$$
(34)
It follows immediately that $`\delta \phi (\omega )=\delta \theta (\omega )=0`$ and that $`\delta \epsilon (\omega )=0`$. The spectral densities of $`\delta \phi (\omega )`$, $`\delta \theta (\omega )`$ and their cross-correlations can all be expressed in terms of the current noise spectral density. We have $`S_{\theta \theta }(\omega )=(\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2/\omega ^2)S_{\phi \phi }(\omega )`$, $`S_{\phi \theta }(\omega )=i(\mathrm{\Delta }_0/\omega )S_{\phi \phi }(\omega )`$, and

$`S_{\phi \phi }(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{\mathrm{}^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{C_0}{C_i}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2|Z(\omega )|^2}{\left(\omega ^2\mathrm{\Omega }_0^2\right)^2}}S_{II}(\omega ).`$ (35)
We will relate the reduction of the persistent current to $`S_{\phi \phi }(\omega )`$ in Sec. III. While the spectral densities for $`\delta \phi `$ and $`\delta \theta `$ are finite at zero frequency, the spectral density of the global phase $`\delta \chi `$ is not. We have $`S_{\chi \chi }(\omega )=(\mathrm{\Omega }_0^2\epsilon _0^2/\omega ^4)S_{\phi \phi }(\omega )`$, see Eq. (29), therefore it exhibits a $`\omega ^2`$-pole in the vicinity of $`\omega =0`$ for finite temperatures

$$S_{\chi \chi }(\omega )2\pi \alpha \frac{2kT}{\mathrm{}}\frac{\epsilon _0^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }_0^2}\frac{1}{\omega ^2},(\omega 0),$$
(36)
whereas in the quantum limit $`T=0`$ the order of the pole is reduced by one,

$$S_{\chi \chi }(\omega )2\pi \alpha \frac{\epsilon _0^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }_0^2}\frac{1}{|\omega |},(\omega 0),$$
(37)
see Fig. 3. These two last results do not affect the persistent current, but they are of great importance in the discussion of the rates of phase diffusion in Sec. IV.

### E Weak coupling

Within the approach out-lined above, we can expect to reproduce the exact result for the reduction of the persistent current only in the limit of weak coupling between the ring-dot system and the external circuit. This means that the potential fluctuations of the system and the external circuit are only weakly coupled. Thus weak coupling between the ring and the external circuit is achieved by letting the capacitances coupling the two systems become very small, $`C_1,C_20`$, for a fixed resistance $`R`$. This entails $`C_00`$, thus the coupling strength $`\alpha `$ between the ring and the external circuit, Eq. (25), is small against 1. Note that in this approximation the RC-time $`\tau _{RC}`$ becomes very small as well.

In the following paragraph, we calculate the poles of $`Z(\omega )`$, in the approximation $`C_00`$. The small parameters in this case are $`\tau _{RC}C_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }C_0^2`$. The equation $`[Z(\omega )]^1=0`$ has one solution behaving as $`C_0^1`$. To leading order in $`C_0`$, it reads

$$\omega _3=\frac{i}{\tau _{RC}}.$$
(38)
Thus in the weak coupling limit charge relaxation across the mesoscopic system becomes instantaneous. The other two solutions, $`\omega _\pm `$, are of zeroth order in $`C_0`$. Up to and including corrections of order $`C_0^2`$, they are

$$\omega _\pm =\pm \mathrm{\Omega }_0i\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2},$$
(39)
with a relaxation rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ introduced in Eq. (24). The rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ describes the relaxation of perturbations with a frequency close to the eigenfrequency of the isolated ring-dot system. In Sec. IV it is shown that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is also related to a phase diffusion time. The denominator in Eq. (35) can now be written as

$$\frac{\left(\omega ^2\mathrm{\Omega }_0^2\right)^2}{|Z(\omega )|^2}=\frac{\tau _{RC}^2}{R^2}\left(\omega ^2+\frac{1}{\tau _{RC}^2}\right)\left[\left(\omega \mathrm{\Omega }_0\right)^2+\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }/2\right)^2\right]\left[\left(\omega +\mathrm{\Omega }_0\right)^2+\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }/2\right)^2\right].$$
(40)
For frequencies, $`\omega \tau _{RC}1`$, the denominator takes the form

$$\frac{\left(\omega ^2\mathrm{\Omega }_0^2\right)^2}{|Z(\omega )|^2}=\frac{1}{R^2}\left[\left(\omega \mathrm{\Omega }_0\right)^2+\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }/2\right)^2\right]\left[\left(\omega +\mathrm{\Omega }_0\right)^2+\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }/2\right)^2\right].$$
(41)
Since in the quantum limit it is always necessary to introduce a cut-off, Eq. (41) is valid over the entire range of frequencies of interest, if only $`1/\tau _{RC}`$ is larger than the cut-off frequency. The spectral density $`S_{\phi \phi }(\omega )`$, Eq. (35), reads therefore

$$S_{\phi \phi }(\omega )=\frac{2\pi \alpha \omega ^3\mathrm{coth}\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2kT}}{\left[\left(\omega \mathrm{\Omega }_0\right)^2+\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }/2\right)^2\right]\left[\left(\omega +\mathrm{\Omega }_0\right)^2+\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }/2\right)^2\right]},$$
(42)
where the coupling strength $`\alpha `$ between the ring and the external circuit is defined in Eq. (25). Note that $`S_{\phi \phi }(\omega )`$ goes to zero at the origin $`\omega =0`$ like $`|\omega |^3`$ in the extreme quantum case ($`T=0`$), and like $`\omega ^2`$ for finite temperatures, see Fig. 4. For $`|\omega |\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$, it behaves like $`|\omega |^1`$ for small temperatures and like $`\omega ^2`$ for large temperatures. Analogous formulæ hold for $`S_{\theta \theta }(\omega )`$ and for $`S_{\phi \theta }(\omega )`$. We mention that the spectral density $`S_{\theta \theta }(\omega )`$ behaves for small $`\omega `$ like $`|\omega |`$ at $`T=0`$ and goes to a constant for finite $`T`$. All the three spectral densities exhibit peaks of width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ at $`\pm \mathrm{\Omega }_0`$.

The spectral density of the global phase $`S_{\chi \chi }(\omega )`$, Fig. 3, exhibits peaks at $`\omega =\pm \mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ as well. More important, however, is the fact that it has a pole at $`\omega =0`$, as already pointed out in the previous section.

## III Persistent current

In the following, we calculate the persistent current as a quantum and statistical average of the operator of the circulating current

$$\widehat{I}_c=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 𝒥\\ 𝒥^{}& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(43)
where $`𝒥`$ is given by

$$𝒥=\frac{e}{\mathrm{}}\left(t_L^2+t_R^2\pm 2t_Lt_R\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi \mathrm{\Phi }}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}\right)^{1/2}\left\{\pm t_Lt_R\mathrm{sin}\frac{2\pi \mathrm{\Phi }}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}i\left[\frac{C_R}{C_i}t_L^2\frac{C_L}{C_i}t_R^2\pm \frac{C_RC_L}{C_i}t_Lt_R\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi \mathrm{\Phi }}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}\right]\right\}.$$
(44)
Here the first term is a pure particle current contribution, whereas the second term is a consequence of interactions. For the average persistent current of interest here, it is only the first term which contributes. A derivation of Eq. (44) and a discussion of the relationship between $`I_c`$ and the magnetization is given in Appendix B.

The expectation value of the persistent current for the state given in Eq. (14) reads

$$I(t)\psi (t)|\widehat{I}_c|\psi (t)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Re}𝒥\mathrm{sin}\theta e^{i\phi }.$$
(45)
We are, however, interested in the statistically averaged of the persistent current $`I(t)`$, given by

$$\psi (t)|\widehat{I}_c|\psi (t)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Re}\left(𝒥\mathrm{sin}\theta e^{i\phi }\right),$$
(46)
where the double bracket indicates a quantum and statistical average. Therefore, we have to calculate the correlator $`\mathrm{sin}\theta e^{i\phi }`$. First, we observe that there are no correlations between $`\delta \phi `$ and $`\delta \theta `$,

$$\delta \phi (t)\delta \theta (t)=0,$$
(47)
as the spectral density $`S_{\phi \theta }(\omega )`$ is an odd function of $`\omega `$. Thus we have

$$\mathrm{sin}\theta e^{i\phi }=\mathrm{sin}\theta e^{i\phi },$$
(48)
to second order in $`\delta I`$, that is, the probability distributions for $`\phi `$ and $`\theta `$ are decoupled up to second order in $`\delta I`$. Second, it can be shown that the second order corrections to $`\phi `$ and $`\theta `$ vanish on the average. Finally, we assume that the correlations in $`\delta \phi `$ are Gaussian, which allows us to write

$$e^{i\phi (t)}=e^{i\phi _0}e^{i\delta \phi (t)}=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\delta \phi ^2(t)}{2}\right),$$
(49)
where we have used that $`\phi _0=0`$. In the weak coupling limit, see Sec. II E, and in the extreme quantum limit, $`T=0`$, we find for the time averaged mean square fluctuations

$$\delta \phi ^2(t)=_0^{\omega _c}\frac{d\omega }{\pi }S_{\phi \phi }(\omega )2\alpha \mathrm{ln}\frac{\omega _c}{\mathrm{\Omega }_0},$$
(50)
where the cut-off frequency $`\omega _c`$ is taken to be larger than all frequency scales (except $`\tau _{RC}^1`$), and $`\alpha `$ is the coupling strength between ring and external circuit, see Eq. (25). In the limit $`\omega _c\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$, we can neglect $`\delta \theta ^2(t)=_0^{\omega _c}(d\omega /\pi )S_{\theta \theta }(\omega )`$ against $`\delta \phi ^2(t)`$. We insert $`\delta \phi ^2(t)`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _0=\mathrm{\Delta }_0/\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ into $`\mathrm{sin}\theta e^{i\phi }`$, and observe that

$$\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Re}𝒥=\frac{\mathrm{}c}{2}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{\Phi }}.$$
(51)
Put together, we obtain the noise averaged current in the ring

$$I(t)=\frac{\mathrm{}c}{2}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{\Omega }_0}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_0}{\omega _c}\right)^\alpha .$$
(52)
Eq. (52) is a key result of this work. For $`\alpha 1`$, corresponding to weak coupling between the ring and the external circuit, the power law for the persistent current obtained in Eq. (52), as well as the exponent $`\alpha `$, Eq. (25), are the same as the one obtained when the external circuit is treated quantum mechanically as well. In a recent work, the authors in collaboration with Ponomarenko have shown that if the external circuit is represented by a transmission line, the persistent current at resonance, $`\epsilon =0`$, has for $`\alpha <1`$ the power law behavior

$$I(\epsilon =0)\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\omega _c}\right)^{\frac{\alpha }{1\alpha }}.$$
(53)
For a very small coupling parameter, $`\alpha 1`$, the Bethe ansatz result Eq. (53), goes over to the power law of Eq. (52). Thus the simplified discussion presented here leads at least in the weak coupling limit to the same result as the one obtained in Ref. .

We emphasize that the persistent current is a property of the ground state of a system. In our case, the persistent current is, however, carried by only a part of the system. Due to the coupling to the external circuit this subsystem is subject to fluctuations which even at zero temperatures suppress the persistent current. If we keep the capacitances fixed, Eqs. (52) and (53) give a persistent current which decreases with increasing external resistance $`R`$. The spectral density of the voltage fluctuations across the ring dot system increases with $`R`$ (see Eq. (6)). We next characterize the fluctuations of the ring-dot subsystem in more detail.

## IV Phase Diffusion Times

In this work we are concerned with the effect of an external circuit on the ground state properties of the system and in particular on the persistent current of the ring-dot subsystem. In transport experiments which reveal phase-coherent contributions or in experiments which investigate the evolution of an initial state, we can describe the effect of an environment with the help of dephasing rates. On the other hand, it is not a priori clear that the coherence properties of the ground state of a system, can be equally expressed in terms of dephasing rates. After all the persistent current investigated here exists quite independently on how long we let the system evolve. Here we consider the state in the ring and investigate its evolution away from an initial state. Below we show that this evolution is diffusive at least for times short enough such that we remain within the limit of validity of the calculation.

We have seen in Sec. II E that the dynamics of the ring strongly affects the spectral densities $`S_{\phi \phi }(\omega )`$ and $`S_{\theta \theta }(\omega )`$ in the vicinity of the characteristic frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$. The characteristic frequency describes the free dynamics of a ring which is disconnected from the external circuit, described by the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_{ring}`$, Eq. (9), without the time dependent terms $`\delta \epsilon (t)`$ and $`\nu (t)`$,

$$\widehat{H}_0=\frac{\mathrm{}\epsilon _0}{2}\sigma _z\frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{2}\sigma _x.$$
(54)
This Hamiltonian can be viewed as describing a spin in a magnetic field of strength proportional to $`(\epsilon _0^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2)^{1/2}=\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$, forming an angle $`\theta _0`$ with the $`z`$-axis. The angle $`\theta _0`$ has been defined in Sec. II B and is related to $`\epsilon _0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ by $`\mathrm{cot}\theta _0=\epsilon _0/\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$. The eigenstates of the time independent Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_0`$ are the ground state $`\psi _{}=(\mathrm{cos}\theta _0/2,\mathrm{sin}\theta _0/2)`$, with eigenvalue $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_0/2`$, and the excited state $`\psi _+=(\mathrm{sin}\theta _0/2,\mathrm{cos}\theta _0/2)`$ with eigenvalue $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_0/2`$. The evolution due to $`\widehat{H}_0`$ of a spin prepared in a state which is not an eigenstate corresponds to a rotation of the expectation value of the spin about the direction of the magnetic field with a frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$. Let us now return to the full problem in which polarization fluctuations modify the free evolution of the decoupled system. In the weak coupling limit, we are interested in the time evolution which is long compared to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0^1`$. Therefore, we switch to the “rotating frame” picture, where the wave function $`\psi (t)`$ of the ring, Eq. (14), reads $`\psi _R(t)\mathrm{exp}(i\widehat{H}_0t/\mathrm{})\psi (t)`$. We consider the projection $`c_\pm (t)\psi _\pm |\psi _R(t)`$ of the wave function $`\psi _R(t)`$ onto the states $`\psi _\pm `$. If the state $`\psi (t)`$ evolves under the influence of the time independent Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_0`$, the projections $`c_\pm (t)`$ are constant in time. The moduli of the projections, averaged over the noise, $`|c_\pm (t)|^2`$ are also independent of time if the evolution is determined by $`\widehat{H}_{ring}`$ which includes the fluctuating potential. The phase of the projections $`c_\pm (t)`$, however, shows diffusive behavior. On the average, we have $`|c_\pm (t)c_\pm (0)|^2t/\tau _\pm `$ for sufficiently long times $`t`$. We shall see below that $`\tau _{}`$ is related to the phase diffusion of the global phase $`\chi `$, whereas $`\tau _+`$ is related to the diffusion of the internal phases $`\phi `$ and $`\theta `$, see Eq. (14). It is a known feature of two-level systems that they exhibit two distinct dephasing times. The difference between $`\tau _{}`$ and $`\tau _+`$ is particularly pronounced in the low temperature limit. The phase breaking time $`\tau _{}`$ diverges at zero temperature, whereas the time $`\tau _+`$ saturates to a finite value for temperatures $`kT`$ below $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$.

We expand the wave function $`\psi _R`$ to first order in $`\delta \epsilon `$, that is, to first order in $`\delta \phi `$, $`\delta \theta `$ and $`\delta \chi `$,

$$\psi _R(t)=\left[1+i\left(\frac{\delta \chi (t)}{2}\frac{\epsilon _0}{\mathrm{\Omega }_0}\frac{\delta \phi (t)}{2}\right)\right]\psi _{}+\left[\frac{\delta \theta (t)}{2}i\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{\Omega }_0}\frac{\delta \phi (t)}{2}\right]e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }_0t}\psi _+.$$
(55)
From this expression, we immediately obtain the projections $`c_{}(t)=1+i[\delta \chi (t)/2(\epsilon _0/\mathrm{\Omega }_0)\delta \phi (t)/2]`$ and $`c_+(t)=1/2(\delta \theta (t)i(\mathrm{\Delta }_0/\mathrm{\Omega }_0)\delta \phi (t))`$ $`\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{\Omega }_0t)`$. As the averages $`\delta \phi ^2(t)`$, $`\delta \theta ^2(t)`$ and $`\delta \chi ^2(t)`$ as well as all the “crossed” averages of the type $`\delta \phi (t)\delta \theta (t)`$ are constant in $`t`$, the moduli $`|c_\pm (t)|^2`$ are indeed independent of time. The mean squared displacement of the projections $`c_\pm (t)`$ read respectively

$`\left|c_{}(t)c_{}(0)\right|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{2\pi }\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\omega t}{2}\left[S_{\chi \chi }(\omega )+\frac{\epsilon _0^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }_0^2}S_{\phi \phi }(\omega )\right]},`$ (56)
$`\left|c_+(t)c_+(0)\right|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{2\pi }\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\omega t}{2}\left[S_{\theta \theta }(\omega +\mathrm{\Omega }_0)+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }_0^2}S_{\phi \phi }(\omega +\mathrm{\Omega }_0)\right]}.`$ (57)
The long time behavior of Eq. (56) is dominated by the frequencies near $`\omega =0`$. The spectral density $`S_{\phi \phi }(\omega )`$ vanishes like $`\omega ^2`$ for finite temperatures or even like $`|\omega |^3`$ in the zero temperature limit. The spectral density $`S_{\chi \chi }(\omega )`$, however has a pole at $`\omega =0`$. For finite temperatures the pole is of order $`\omega ^2`$, see Eq. (36), entailing a long time behavior of the type $`|c_{}(t)c_{}(0)|^2t/\tau _{}`$, with a dephasing time

$$\tau _{}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2\pi \alpha kT}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_0^2}{\epsilon _0^2}.$$
(58)
We stress again that $`\tau _{}`$ determines the diffusion time of the global phase $`\chi `$ as it is given in terms of the spectral function $`S_{\chi \chi }(\omega )`$. In the quantum limit $`T=0`$, the phase diffusion time $`\tau _{}`$ diverges. Furthermore, it follows from Eq. (58) that $`\tau _{}`$ is tunable, since $`\epsilon _0`$ may be varied by an external DC-bias. In particular, at resonance $`\epsilon _0=0`$, the phase diffusion time $`\tau _{}`$ diverges for any temperature.

The long time behavior of Eq. (57), on the other hand, is determined by the frequencies near $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$. In the vicinity of this characteristic frequency, $`S_{\phi \phi }(\mathrm{\Omega }_0+\omega )`$ as well as $`S_{\theta \theta }(\mathrm{\Omega }_0+\omega )`$ show a $`\omega ^2`$ behavior at finite as well as at zero temperature, which is cut off by the relaxation rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, defined in Eq. (24) at very small frequencies $`\omega \mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$. In summary, we have, for $`|\omega |\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$

$$S_{\phi \phi }(\mathrm{\Omega }_0+\omega )\frac{2\pi \alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_0\mathrm{coth}\frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_0}{2kT}}{\omega ^2+(\mathrm{\Gamma }/2)^2},$$
(59)
and $`S_{\theta \theta }(\mathrm{\Omega }_0+\omega )(\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2/\mathrm{\Omega }_0^2)S_{\phi \phi }(\mathrm{\Omega }_0+\omega )`$. The time evolution of Eq. (57) for times much larger than the inverse of the characteristic frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$, yet smaller than the inverse of the relaxation rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, is therefore linear in time with a characteristic time $`\tau _+`$, where

$$\tau _+=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\mathrm{tanh}\frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_0}{2kT}.$$
(60)
Note that Eq. (60) holds for finite temperatures as well as in the quantum limit. The phase diffusion time $`\tau _+`$ is inversely proportional to $`T`$ at high temperatures,

$$\tau _+=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_0}{2kT},(kT\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_0),$$
(61)
just as the other characteristic time $`\tau _{}`$. In the low temperature or quantum limit, however, it saturates to a value

$$\tau _+^{(0)}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }},(kT\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_0),$$
(62)
see also Fig. 5. The crossover from high temperature behavior to the quantum limit behavior takes place at $`kT\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$. We point out that $`\tau _+`$ is related to the spectral densities $`S_{\phi \phi }(\omega )`$ and $`S_{\theta \theta }(\omega )`$ of the internal phases $`\phi `$ and $`\theta `$. This indicates that there is a relation between dephasing (at finite temperature) and the reduction of the persistent current at zero temperature which is determined by $`S_{\phi \phi }(\omega )`$.

We point out that Eq. (56) and Eq. (57) do not hold for arbitrarily long times. In reality the mean square displacements $`|c_\pm (t)c_\pm (0)|^2`$ are bounded since the wave function $`\psi _R(t)`$ is normalized to 1. The fact that $`|c_{}(t)c_{}(0)|^2`$, Eq. (56), grows without bounds is an artifact of the linearization of Eqs. (15)–(17) and Eq. (21).

In summary, we find two characteristic phase diffusion times $`\tau _{}`$ and $`\tau _+`$, related to the projection of the equilibrium state $`\psi (t)`$ onto the ground state and the excited state. The time $`\tau _{}`$, associated with the projection on the ground state, is related to the loss of coherence in the global phase $`\chi `$ and diverges as the temperature goes to zero. The time $`\tau _+`$, on the other hand, characterizes the loss of coherence in the internal phases $`\phi `$ and $`\theta `$, and saturates to a finite value in the limit of zero temperature. This indicates that even at zero temperature, coupling to the external circuit causes excitations of the ring into the excited state. In the zero-temperature limit these excitations still decay in a finite time.

## V Conclusion

We have investigated the persistent current in a normal metal ring coupled to a resistive external circuit using a Langevin equation approach. We have shown that the quantum fluctuations in the external circuit suppress the persistent current at zero temperature, thus confirming an earlier Bethe ansatz result. Within the same framework, but at finite temperature, we have derived two dephasing times $`\tau _{}`$ and $`\tau _+`$, which are the phase diffusion times of the projections of the wave function of the ring to ground state and the excited state, respectively, of a ring which is disconnected from the external circuit. We show that $`\tau _+`$ is related to the spectral densities of the “internal” phases $`\phi `$ and $`\theta `$ of the wave function of the ring, which are also responsible for the reduction of the persistent current. While $`\tau _{}`$ diverges in the zero temperature limit, $`\tau _+`$ saturates to a finite value.

## A Coulomb interactions and displacement currents

In this Appendix, we briefly discuss the electrical coupling of the ring and the external circuit. The fluctuations of the charge in the ring and the external circuit are not arbitrary but are connected by the flow of a displacement current between the ring and the external circuit. We can express the coupling between the ring and external circuit in terms of the displacement current. Since the coupling between these subsystems is crucial, we present first a discussion of the displacement currents.

In our model the charges and potentials are related via

$`Q_0`$ $`=`$ $`C_1(V_0U_d),`$ (A1)
$`Q_d`$ $`=`$ $`C_1(U_dV_0)+C_i(U_dU_a),`$ (A2)
$`Q_a`$ $`=`$ $`C_2(U_aV_{\mathrm{}})+C_i(U_aU_d),`$ (A3)
$`Q_{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`C_2(V_{\mathrm{}}U_a),`$ (A4)
where we have introduced the parallel capacitance $`C_iC_L+C_R`$. In the following, we shall also need the external (serial) capacitance $`C_e^1C_1^1+C_2^1`$, as well as the parallel and the serial total capacitances $`CC_i+C_e`$ and $`C_0^1C_i^1+C_e^1`$. The whole structure, that is, the ring together with the external circuit is charge neutral. As a matter of fact, it follows from Eqs. (A1)–(A4) that $`Q_0+Q_d+Q_a+Q_{\mathrm{}}=0`$. The ring and the external circuit taken separately, however, do not need to be neutral. The total charge of the ring $`Q_d+Q_a`$ is balanced by the charge on the external capacitors $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$, $`Q_0+Q_{\mathrm{}}=(Q_d+Q_a)`$, as follows from Eqs. (A1)–(A4). As the ring and the external circuit do not exchange particles, the charges on the ring and in the external circuit are conserved, and it is more convenient to consider the deviations from a reference state. We denote these deviations by $`\delta Q_d`$ on the dot and by $`\delta Q_a`$ on the arm, and similarly by $`\delta Q_0`$ and $`\delta Q_{\mathrm{}}`$ for the external circuit. They obey the relations $`\delta Q_d+\delta Q_a=\delta Q_0+\delta Q_{\mathrm{}}=0`$. For time derivatives, it is of course irrelevant whether we consider total charges or deviations.

The current flowing out from the capacitor $`C_1`$ is a pure displacement current

$$I_1=\dot{Q}_0=C_1\frac{}{t}\left(U_dV_0\right),$$
(A5)
whereas the currents flowing through the right and the left junction, respectively, are particle currents $`I_{L/R}^p`$ augmented by displacement currents

$`I_L`$ $`=`$ $`I_L^p+C_L{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}(U_dU_a),`$ (A6)
$`I_R`$ $`=`$ $`I_R^p+C_R{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}(U_dU_a).`$ (A7)
The particle currents are related to the charge on the dot by $`I_L^p+I_R^p=\dot{Q}_d`$. At each node we have $`I_1+I_L+I_R=I_2(I_L+I_R)=0`$, and thus $`I_1+I_2=0`$. These equations correspond to the law of current conservation at the nodes of an electrical network.

We can express all electrical quantities of interest in terms of the external bias $`\delta VV_0V_{\mathrm{}}`$ and the charge deviation, $`\delta Q_d`$. We combine Eqs. (A2) and (A3) and the condition $`\delta Q_d+\delta Q_a=0`$ to obtain the potential difference inside the ring

$$U_dU_a=\frac{C_e}{C}\delta V+\frac{\delta Q_d}{C}.$$
(A8)
The charge deviation $`\delta Q_0`$ on the capacitor $`C_1`$ is found from Eqs. (A1), (A4) and (A8),

$$\delta Q_0=C_0\delta V\frac{C_0}{C_i}\delta Q_d,$$
(A9)
where we have used the identity

$$\frac{C_e}{C}=\frac{C_0}{C_i},$$
(A10)
whence we obtain for the current flowing in the external circuit

$$I_1=\frac{C_0}{C_i}\dot{Q}_dC_0\delta \dot{V}.$$
(A11)
In the circuit containing a current noise source, see Fig. 2, the current $`I_1`$ flowing out of the circuit augmented by the current $`\delta I`$ coming from the noise source must equal the current through the resistor $`I=\delta V/R`$, namely

$$\delta V/R=I_1+\delta I.$$
(A12)
Together with Eq. (A11), this gives Eq. (1).

## B The circulating current

The equilibrium persistent current $`I`$ is a quantum and statistical average which can be obtained from the derivative of the free energy $`I=cF/\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Some discussion is required, if we are, as in Ref.  concerned with current fluctuations. Naively, we might want to investigate the fluctuations of the persistent current by considering the second order derivative of the thermodynamic potential. However, such a procedure works only if the observable of interest commutes with the Hamiltonian. Moreover, as pointed out above, the true and physically relevant currents is the total current (particle current plus displacement current). Whereas the displacement current needs not to be considered as long as we are interested in average quantities only, this is not true, if we consider fluctuations of the current. For the model considered here, we can derive expressions for the current operators which are particle operators weighted according to the distribution of the geometrical capacitances of the system.

Consider first for a moment the electrically isolated loop. In this case the capacitances to the exterior circuit are $`C_1=C_2=0`$. From Eq. (A2) we find $`Q_d=C_i(U_dU_a)`$ and thus we can also write the currents through the left and right junctions, Eqs. (A6) and (A7), in terms of the charge on the dot as, $`I_L=I_L^p+(C_L/C_i)dQ_d/dt`$ and $`I_R=I_R^p+(C_R/C_i)dQ_d/dt`$. Using particle conservation, $`I_L^p+I_R^pdQ_d/dt=0`$, to eliminate the time-derivative of the charge we find immediately that the current circulating in this loop is, $`\widehat{I}_c\widehat{I}_L=\widehat{I}_R`$ with

$$\widehat{I}_c=\frac{C_R\widehat{I}_L^pC_L\widehat{I}_R^p}{C_i},$$
(B1)
where $`C_i=C_L+C_R`$. The circulating current is thus in general not determined by the particle currents but by an average of these currents weighted according to the Coulomb interaction (capacitance ratios). Expressions of this type are familiar form the dynamic transport through double barriers, but seem to be novel for persistent currents. We emphasize that Eq. (B1) does not mean that the particle currents can now be calculated from the non-interacting problem. The dynamic particle currents depend on the self-consistent potential distribution. For an illustration of this point we refer the reader to Ref.  where dynamic current noise spectra for double barriers are compared based on calculations using the particle currents of the non-interacting problem and calculations using the particle currents of the interacting problem.

Next let us consider the system coupled to the external circuit. In this case $`C_1>0`$ and $`C_2>0`$. We can proceed as above. We first express the time derivative of potential difference $`U_dU_a`$ in terms of the time derivative of the charge on the dot and the current $`I_1=dQ_0/dt=C_1d(V_0U_d)/dt`$ (see Eq. (A1)). Using current conservation, $`I_1=I_L+I_R`$ and particle conservation $`I_L^p+I_R^pdQ_d/dt=0`$ we can again eliminate the time derivative of the charge $`Q_d`$ and find for the currents through the left and right barrier,

$$\widehat{I}_L=\widehat{I}_c+(C_L/C_i)I_1,$$
(B2)
$$\widehat{I}_R=\widehat{I}_c+(C_R/C_i)I_1,$$
(B3)
with $`\widehat{I}_c`$ as given in Eq. (B1). The current $`I_1`$, which can be induced with the help of the external circuit, is divided onto the two branches of the ring-dot sample also according to a capacitance ratio.

What is observed in a measurement of the magnetization? It is important to note, that the external circuit (see Fig. 1) also forms a current loop and depending on the geometry of the circuit also contributes to the fluctuation of the magnetization. Suppose, the circuit of Fig. 1 is a planar structure in the $`x`$-$`y`$-plane. Let the ring with the in-line dot enclose an area $`A_r`$ and let the external circuit (excluding the ring) enclose an area $`A_e`$. For this circuit the magnetic moment can be viewed as being generated by a current $`I_L`$ enclosing the area $`A_1`$ and by a current $`I_1`$ enclosing the area $`A_e`$. The magnetic moment is thus $`m=(1/c)(I_LA_rI_1A_e)`$. Of course the topology of the current distribution matters: If we consider the external circuit to be above the ring dot structure instead of below as shown in Fig. 1, the magnetization is $`m=(1/c)(I_RA_r+I_1A_e)`$. In these two circuits the external circuit gives magnetization contribution into opposite directions. The average magnetization of the two circuits is just $`m=(1/c)I_cA_e`$. A third circuit which permits to investigate the magnetization of the ring and the external circuit separately is a structure in which the ring lies in the $`x`$-$`y`$-plane and the external circuit say in the $`x`$-$`z`$-plane. Then the magnetization is $`m_z=(1/c)I_cA_r`$ and $`m_y=(1/c)I_1A_e`$. $`I_c`$ appears as the most natural generalization of the equilibrium persistent current. In Ref.  we have investigated the fluctuations of $`I_c`$.

All the above expressions are based on linear relations between currents, charges and potentials. All the above expressions are thus valid also for operators. We now present a specific expression for the operator of the circulating current used in Ref. . Let us consider the particle current operators $`\widehat{I}_L^p`$ through the left and $`\widehat{I}_R^p`$ through the right tunnel barrier. In terms of the Hamilton operators $`\widehat{H}_L`$ and $`\widehat{H}_R`$ responsible for the tunneling across the left and the right tunnel barrier, respectively, they read $`\widehat{I}_{L/R}^p=i/\mathrm{}[\widehat{H}_{L/R},\widehat{Q}_d]`$. In other words, they are equal to the decrease of the charge on the dot per unit of time through the right and left junction. For the two-level system, in a basis in which the Hamiltonian is real (see Eq. (9)) we have

$`\widehat{I}_L^p`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pm t_Lt_R\mathrm{sin}(2\pi \mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }_0)\sigma _x+[t_L^2\pm t_Lt_R\mathrm{cos}(2\pi \mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }_0)]\sigma _y}{\sqrt{t_L^2+t_R^2\pm 2t_Lt_R\mathrm{cos}(2\pi \mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }_0)}}},`$ (4)
$`\widehat{I}_R^p`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pm t_Lt_R\mathrm{sin}(2\pi \mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }_0)\sigma _x[t_R^2\pm t_Lt_R\mathrm{cos}(2\pi \mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }_0)]\sigma _y}{\sqrt{t_L^2+t_R^2\pm 2t_Lt_R\mathrm{cos}(2\pi \mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }_0)}}}.`$ (5)
Using the particle current operators in Eq. (B1) leads to the operator given by Eq. (43). With the help of this operator we can investigate the average persistent current and the fluctuations (see Eq. (7) of Ref. ).