text:
# Untitled Document

On the Minimum Energy Configuration of a Rotating Barotropic Fluid

Ramesh Narayan and James E. Pringle

1. Introduction

In a recent paper (astro-ph/0207561, posted on July 25, 2002), Fromang & Balbus (2002, hereafter FB02) claim that the minimum energy configuration of a rotating fluid depends critically on whether or not any part of the fluid rotates supersonically. They state that “a uniformly rotating barotropic fluid in an external potential attains a true energy minimum if and only if the rotation profile is everywhere subsonic. If regions of supersonic rotation are present, fluid variations exist that could take the system to states of lower energy.”

We present here a simple counter-example which demonstrates that the stablity criterion presented in FB02 is incorrect.

2. Minimum Energy Equilibria

We first repeat part of their analysis. Following FB02, we consider a barotropic fluid in which the pressure is a unique function of the density. To further simplify matters, and to be consistent with the analysis in the next section, we consider a polytropic equation of state in which the pressure $`P`$ and the density $`\rho `$ are related as

$$P=K\rho ^\gamma .$$
$`(1)`$
Here $`K`$ is a constant throughout the fluid and is not allowed to vary in any perturbation. Thus we exclude thermal effects. Furthermore, in line with FB02, we consider only perturbations that are adiabatic, which excludes convective instabilties.

For such a fluid, the internal energy per unit volume $`ϵ`$, the enthalpy per unit mass $`H`$, and the adiabatic sound speed $`a`$, are given by

$$ϵ=\frac{P}{\gamma 1},H=\frac{\gamma }{\gamma 1}\frac{P}{\rho },a^2=\frac{\gamma P}{\rho }.$$
$`(2)`$
We assume that the mass $`M`$ and the total angular momentum $`J`$ of the system are held fixed:

$$M=\rho 𝑑V=\mathrm{constant},$$
$`(3)`$
$$J=\rho Rv𝑑V=\mathrm{constant},$$
$`(4)`$
where $`R`$ is the cylindrical radius as measured perpendicular to the rotation axis and $`v(R)`$ is the azimuthal velocity of the gas at radius $`R`$. Note that, as do FB02, we take account throughout only of the azimuthal component of the velocity. The implication of this is that we restrict stability considerations to axi-symmetric perturbations alone.

We are interested in minimizing the energy, $`E`$, of the system,

$$E=\left(\frac{1}{2}\rho v^2+ϵ+\rho \varphi \right)𝑑V,$$
$`(5)`$
where $`\varphi `$ is the (time-independent) external potential in which the fluid is confined. (Following FB02, we neglect self-gravity of the fluid.) The minimiziation of $`E`$ subject to the constraints (3) and (4) is a standard problem that can be solved by variational methods. We minimize

$$I=E\zeta M\mathrm{\Omega }J=\left(\frac{1}{2}\rho v^2+ϵ+\rho \varphi \zeta \rho \mathrm{\Omega }\rho Rv\right)𝑑V,$$
$`(6)`$
where $`\zeta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are Lagrange multipliers. To find an extremum of the energy, we set the first order variation of $`I`$ with respect to changes in $`\rho (R)`$ and $`v(R)`$ to zero:

$$\delta I=\left[\left(\frac{1}{2}v^2\mathrm{\Omega }Rv+H+\varphi \zeta \right)\delta \rho +\rho (v\mathrm{\Omega }R)\delta v\right]𝑑V=0,$$
$`(7)`$
where we have used equation (1) to set $`dϵ/d\rho =H`$. Since $`\delta I`$ should vanish for arbitrary choices of $`\delta \rho (R)`$ and $`\delta v(R)`$, the coefficients of $`\delta \rho (R)`$ and $`\delta v(R)`$ in the integrand of (7) should individually vanish at each $`R`$. This gives the following two conditions:

$$v=\mathrm{\Omega }R,$$
$`(8)`$
$$\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }^2R^2+H+\varphi =\zeta =\mathrm{constant}.$$
$`(9)`$
The first condition states that a polytropic fluid in an energy-extremum configuration must be in a state of uniform rotation, a well-known result (e.g. Landau & Lifshitz). The second condition is nothing other than the condition of hydrostatic balance, as can be verified by taking the gradient of equation (9). We thus find that a polytropic fluid with fixed $`M`$ and $`J`$ and with an extremum in $`E`$ has uniform rotation and is in hydrostatic equilibrium.

The analysis is identical to that in FB02, with the sole difference that we have specialized to the case of a polytropic equation of state. Following the above steps, FB02 proceed to take second differences of the energy, on the basis of which they reach the conclusions stated above in §1. We do not repeat their analysis since their final conclusions are incorrect, as we now demonstrate by means of a counter-example.

3. A Simple Counter-Example

We consider a polytropic fluid rotating around the $`z`$ axis in a quadratic potential

$$\varphi (R,z)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_K^2(R^2+z^2).$$
$`(10)`$
We assume that the fluid is in an energy extremum state which, by the analysis of the previous section, means that the fluid rotates with a constant angular velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and is in hydrostatic equilibrium, satisfying equation (9). Let us assume that the fluid extends from $`R=0`$ to a maximum radius $`R_0`$ on the equatorial plane. (Such a maximum radius always exists for $`\gamma >1`$.) At the point $`(R,z)=(R_0,0)`$, the enthalpy of the gas vanishes. This enables us to determine the constant $`\zeta `$ in equation (9), using which we can show that

$$H(R,z)=\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Omega }_K^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2)\left[R_0^2R^2\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_K^2}{(\mathrm{\Omega }_K^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2)}z^2\right].$$
$`(11)`$
Not surprisingly, the fluid takes the form of a flattened spheroid, with equatorial radius $`R_0`$ and “vertical” radius

$$Z_0=\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_K^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }_K^2}\right)^{1/2}R_0.$$
$`(12)`$
From the expression for $`H`$, we may calculate the density $`\rho `$ of the fluid,

$$\rho (R,z)=\left[\frac{(\gamma 1)H}{\gamma K}\right]^n,$$
$`(13)`$
where we have defined the polytropic index $`n`$ in the usual way:

$$n=\frac{1}{\gamma 1}.$$
$`(14)`$
The vertically integrated surface density of the fluid is then

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(R)=C(R_0^2R^2)^{n+1/2},$$
$`(15)`$
$$C=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+3/2)}\left(\frac{\gamma 1}{2\gamma K}\right)^n\frac{(\mathrm{\Omega }_K^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2)^{n+1/2}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_K}.$$
$`(16)`$
Through equation (16), the angular velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ defines the parameter $`C`$. Thus this simple model has two free parameters, $`R_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. For a given value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ we may determine the radius $`R_0`$ by applying the mass constraint

$$M=\mathrm{\Sigma }(R)2\pi R𝑑R=\frac{\pi }{(n+3/2)}CR_0^{2n+3}.$$
$`(17)`$
We then determine $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ by applying the angular momentum constraint,

$$J=\mathrm{\Sigma }(R)\mathrm{\Omega }R^22\pi R𝑑R=\frac{1}{(n+5/2)}M\mathrm{\Omega }R_0^2.$$
$`(18)`$
From equations (16) and (17) we see that for a given mass, $`R_0^2`$ increases with increasing $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and thus from equation (18) it is clear that $`J`$ is also a monotonically increasing function of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. We conclude that for given values of $`M`$ and $`J`$, there is one and only one energy extremum configuration.

All possible fluid configurations in the model have a positive energy, since all the terms in equation (5) are positive. Therefore, we are guaranteed that the system has a well-defined global energy minimum. Since we have shown that for given values of mass $`M`$ and angular monentum $`J`$, there is only one configuration that is an energy extremum, that particular configuration must correspond to the absolute energy minimum state and must be stable.

In this simple analytical model, the orbital velocity $`v(R)`$ increases monotonically with radius $`R`$, from $`v=0`$ at $`R=0`$ to a maximum at $`R=R_0`$, while the sound speed $`a(R,z)`$ decreases from a maximum at $`R=0,z=0`$ to $`a=0`$ all over the surface (and specifically at the outer edge $`R=R_0,z=0`$):

$$v(R)=\mathrm{\Omega }R,a^2(R,z)=(\gamma 1)H(R,z)\left(1\frac{R^2}{R_0^2}\frac{z^2}{Z_0^2}\right).$$
$`(19)`$
It is evident that the model includes both subsonic and supersonic zones, and should therefore be unstable according to the criterion given by FB02. And yet, as proved above, the fluid is in an energy minimum state and is stable. The model is thus an explicit counter-example to the result claimed in FB02 — supersonic rotation does not imply that the fluid has neighboring states with a lower energy.

4. A Final Comment

In astrophysics, one is generally interested in fluids with free surfaces at zero pressure rather than fluids confined between walls. Since FB02 claim that the only stable barotropic configurations are those that rotate uniformly and are subsonic at all radii, it is interesting to ask whether such fluid configurations are at all possible in the first place. The answer is that, if we leave out the strictly non-rotating case ($`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$) and if we restrict ourselves to fluids with polytropic indices $`n>0`$, there are no isolated configurations that meet FB02’s requirements. (We thank Martin Rees for pointing this out.)

For instance, if the fluid extends to an infinite radius (as can happen for an isothermal gas), then the rotation velocity $`v(R)\mathrm{}`$ at large $`R`$ whereas the sound speed remains finite. The fluid at large radius is thus guaranteed to be supersonic. On the other hand, if the fluid has an edge at a finite radius, as in the simple model described in §3, then $`v`$ is finite at the edge whereas the sound speed goes to zero. Once again, the fluid near the outer edge rotates supersonically.

Thus, all uniformly rotating configurations for a wide class of fluids have supersonic motions. Since, surely, all of these fluids must possess stable minimum energy equilibria, the result claimed by FB02 must be incorrect. The example discussed in §3 is a specific example that explicitly demonstrates this.


format: text

text:
# Current in narrow channels of anisotropic superconductors

## Abstract

We argue that in channels cut out of anisotropic single crystal superconductors and narrow on the scale of London penetration depth, the persistent current must cause the transverse phase difference provided the current does not point in any of the principal crystal directions. The difference is proportional to the current value and depends on the anisotropy parameter, on the current direction relative to the crystal, and on the transverse channel dimension. An experimental set up to measure the transverse phase is proposed.

In isotropic superconductors the supercurrent density is proportional to the gradient of the gauge invariant phase $`\phi =\chi +2\pi 𝐀/\varphi _0`$, where $`\chi `$ is the phase of the order parameter $`\psi =|\psi |e^{i\chi }`$, $`\varphi _0=\pi \mathrm{}c/|e|`$ is the flux quantum, and $`𝐀`$ is the vector potential:

$$𝐣=\frac{2e\mathrm{}}{M}|\psi |^2\phi ;$$
(1)
$`M`$ is the carrier mass. If the cross-section of a superconducting channel has small dimensions compared with the London penetration depth $`\lambda `$, both $`𝐣`$ and $`\phi `$ have the only nonzero components along the channel. For straight channels with the long dimension along $`x`$, $`_y\phi =_z\phi =0`$, i.e., the phase is constant in the transverse directions.

This, however, is not the case for anisotropic superconductors, where

$$j_i=2e\mathrm{}M_{ik}^1|\psi |^2_k\phi .$$
(2)
Here, $`M_{ik}`$ is the mass tensor, and summation is implied over repeated indices. It is convenient to normalize the masses: $`m_{ik}=M_{ik}/(M_aM_bM_c)^{1/3}=M_{ik}/\overline{M}`$. Then the eigenvalues of $`m_{ik}`$ are related by $`m_am_bm_c=1`$. In the uniaxial case which we consider for simplicity, $`m_a^2m_c=1`$; the masses then are expressed in terms of a single parameter, the anisotropy ratio $`\gamma ^2=m_c/m_a`$: $`m_a=\gamma ^{2/3}`$, $`m_c=\gamma ^{4/3}`$.

We invert Eq. (2) to obtain

$$_i\phi =\frac{\overline{M}}{2e\mathrm{}|\psi |^2}m_{ik}j_k,$$
(3)
which shows that the phase gradient $`\phi `$ and the current $`𝐣`$ are not parallel unless both of them point in a principal crystal direction.

Consider a channel of a rectangular cross-section and denote by $`W`$ and $`d`$ its width in the $`y`$ direction and the thickness in the $`z`$ direction. To further simplify the problem, we take $`z`$ as one of principal crystal directions, say $`b`$. The axes $`c`$ and $`a`$ are then situated in the $`xy`$ plane as shown in Fig. 1. Denoting by $`\theta `$ the misalignment angle between the $`c`$ axis and $`x`$, we readily obtain:

$`m_{xx}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma ^{2/3}(\mathrm{sin}^2\theta +\gamma ^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta ),`$
$`m_{yy}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma ^{2/3}(\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +\gamma ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ),`$ (4)
$`m_{xy}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma ^{2/3}(\gamma ^21)\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta ,`$
whereas $`m_{zz}=m_b=\gamma ^{2/3}`$ and $`m_{zx}=m_{zy}=0`$.

Let a small supercurrent $`I`$ be fed into the channel along $`x`$. Then, Eq. (3) yields the only non-zero transverse component of $`\phi `$:

$$_y\phi =\frac{\overline{M}}{2e\mathrm{}|\psi |^2}m_{yx}\frac{I}{Wd}.$$
(5)
Therefore, the side faces of the channel at $`y=0,W`$ should possess the phase difference of

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\phi =\frac{\overline{M}}{2e\mathrm{}|\psi |^2}m_{xy}\frac{I}{d}$$
(6)
for any fixed $`x`$.

In principle, this phase difference can be recorded by attaching a superconducting wire between the points $`\{x,0\}`$ and $`\{x,W\}`$. If the wire carries the Josephson junction, the current in the wire is

$$I_w=I_0\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\overline{M}m_{xy}}{2e\mathrm{}|\psi |^2d}I\right),$$
(7)
where $`I_0`$ is the maximum Josephson current. Thus, the current $`I_w`$ in the wire oscillates as a function of the driving current $`I`$ in the channel with the period

$$\mathrm{\Delta }I=\frac{4\pi e\mathrm{}|\psi |^2d}{\overline{M}m_{xy}}.$$
(8)
Near the critical temperature $`T_c`$, the domain for which the above formulas are written, the equilibrium order parameter $`\psi `$ in clean materials is related to the carrier density $`n_e`$: $`|\psi |^2n_e\tau `$, $`\tau =1T/T_c`$. This estimate holds provided $`II_{dp}`$ where $`I_{dp}(c\varphi _0/16\pi ^2\lambda ^2\xi )Wd`$ is the depairing current.

To find out conditions under which the current oscillations can be seen near $`T_c`$, we require that both $`I`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }I`$ are small relative to $`I_{dp}`$. Taking $`W\lambda (T)\lambda _0/\sqrt{\tau }\overline{M}c^2/4\pi e^2n_e\sqrt{\tau }`$ and $`\xi \xi _0/\sqrt{\tau }`$, we obtain:

$$m_{xy}16\pi /\kappa ,$$
(9)
where $`\kappa =\lambda _0/\xi _0`$. Since $`m_{xy}m_c=\gamma ^{4/3}`$, this inequality can be satisfied for strongly anisotropic materials with large Ginzburg-Landau parameter $`\kappa `$.

At low $`T`$’s one can use the London expression for the current density instead of Eq. (2):

$$j_i=\frac{c\varphi _0}{4\pi ^2\lambda ^2}m_{ik}^1\left(\chi +\frac{2\pi }{\varphi _0}𝐀\right)_k,$$
(10)
where $`\lambda =(\lambda _a^2\lambda _c)^{1/3}`$. We, therefore, can replace in the above formulas $`2e\mathrm{}|\psi |^2/\overline{M}`$ with $`c\varphi _0/4\pi ^2\lambda ^2`$. In particular, we have

$$\mathrm{\Delta }I=\frac{c\varphi _0d}{2\pi \lambda ^2m_{xy}}.$$
(11)
We then obtain a condition $`m_{xy}8\pi /\kappa `$ similar to (9) in the whole temperature domain; if this condition is not satisfied, the window of driving currents $`I`$ for the oscillations of $`I_w`$ to occur becomes narrow or disappears.

Thus, the period $`\mathrm{\Delta }I`$ is proportional to the channel thickness $`d`$ and to $`\tau `$, the temperature distance from $`T_c`$. Taking for an estimate realistic values of $`\lambda =2000`$Å, $`d=1000`$Å, and $`\gamma =10`$, we obtain $`\mathrm{\Delta }I1`$mA for low temperatures; the period shrinks on approaching $`T_c`$.

It is worth noting that for the effect to be observable, the wire contacts must be small relative to $`W`$. Otherwise the variation of the phase along the channel will destroy the quantum coherence. On the other hand, if the point contacts are fixed at different values of $`x`$, an additional phase difference

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }\phi )_x=(\mathrm{\Delta }\phi )_y\frac{m_{xx}}{m_{xy}}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }x}{W}$$
(12)
enters the argument of the sine in Eq. (7); here $`\mathrm{\Delta }x=|x_2x_1|`$ and $`x_{1,2}`$ are the contacts positions. This contribution changes the period $`\mathrm{\Delta }I`$ of the Josephson current oscillations, but the very fact of periodic dependence of $`I_w`$ on $`I`$ persists.

If the driving current $`I`$ changes with time, so does the phase difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }\phi `$. Then, the junction in the wire is subject to a voltage

$$V=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2e}_t\mathrm{\Delta }\phi =\frac{2\pi \lambda ^2}{c^2d}m_{xy}_tI\frac{2\pi \lambda ^2}{c^2d}m_{xy}\omega I,$$
(13)
where $`\omega `$ is the driving frequency. For the parameters used above and $`\omega 10^9`$Hz, the voltage may reach values of a few $`\mu `$V; this estimate improves if thinner samples and higher temperatures are used: $`V1/\tau d`$.

Writing the driving ac current as $`I=I_a\mathrm{sin}\omega t`$, we readily obtain:

$`I_w`$ $`=`$ $`I_0\mathrm{sin}(\phi _a\mathrm{sin}\omega t)`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`2I_0{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}J_{2n+1}(\phi _a)\mathrm{sin}(2n+1)\omega t`$
where $`J`$’s are the Bessel functions and

$$\phi _a=\frac{4\pi ^2\lambda ^2m_{xy}}{c\varphi _0d}I_a.$$
(15)
For small amplitudes $`I_a`$ of the driving current, one can keep only the term $`n=0`$ in the series (14): $`I_w=I_0\phi _a\mathrm{sin}\omega t`$, i.e., the junction response is linear. Since the voltage in this case is $`V=(\varphi _0\phi _a/2\pi c)\omega \mathrm{cos}\omega t`$, one can say that the junction is loaded with an inductance $`L=c\varphi _0/2\pi I_0`$. This simple interpretation does not hold if the condition $`\phi _a1`$ is violated; the junction then should generate odd harmonics.

We have considered a particular case of a misalignment between the supercurrent direction and the crystal. Of course, situations different from that of Fig. 1 can be readily treated. Our aim is to turn the community attention to the “transverse” phase difference which must accompany supercurrents as long as they are not parallel to principal crystal directions. We believe that effects related to the transverse phase in anisotropic materials and their complexity are not exhausted by simple examples we describe. In particular, we did not consider details of the electric field penetration into the channel (implicitly assuming the penetration length $`\mathrm{}_EW`$). Given richness of time dependent Josephson phenomena, one may envisage a host of time dependent effects related to the transverse phase. It should also be stressed that phenomena we describe, happen on the scale of the London $`\lambda `$, which might be large as compared to the coherence length $`\xi `$, the scale relevant to the well-studied phase slips.

We are thankful to A. Larkin for an encouraging discussion and to S. Bud’ko and U. Welp for the interest in the subject. The work of V.K. is supported by the Director of Energy Research, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, U. S. Department of Energy. The work of V.P. is supported in part by the NSF Grants DMR 0072115 and DMR 0103455.


text:
# Core-level spectroscopy of Si/SiO2 quantum wells: evidence for confined states

## Abstract

We present an experimental and theoretical study of the conduction states of crystalline Si films confined within amorphous SiO2 barriers, using the Si-$`2p`$ core-level excitations. The spectral peaks near the conduction band minimum are compared with the bulk silicon spectrum. In the Si quantum wells, it is found that the conduction band minimum and the low-lying peaks undergo a blue shift while all higher peaks *remain unshifted*. The experimental results are supported by calculations using recent first-principles structural models for Si/SiO2 superlattices. The experimental results suggest that all conduction states up to a given conduction band offset become confined and blue-shifted while those at higher energies are not confined and undergo no shift. These results provide unambiguous evidence that the visible-light emitting properties of Si/SiO2 structures depend strongly on electron confinement effects.

The discovery of luminescence in porous silicon set off strong efforts towards the fabrication of Si-based light-emitting nanostructures. Thus, Si-nanocrystallites, wires, layers, as well as Si/Ge superlattices have been studied in this context.mrs97  A study of luminescence in Si/SiO2 quantum wells (QWs) was reported by Lu *et al*., where evidence for quantum confinement was presented.llb  Many studies of Si-luminescence have led to similar or quite different conclusions involving explanations in terms of surface defect centers, self-trapped excitons, siloxene derivatives and so forth.kanemistu ; mrs95  On the theory side, while several studies have established the importance of electron confinement in Si by the SiO2,pcarDBM ; pcarMRS ; garoufalis ; jap ; pcarFRM  others have emphasized the role of interface statesKageshima  and some even questioned the relevance of confinement in these structures containing amorphous barriers. Also, experimental studies which attempted to probe the conduction band density of states (DOS) failed to see clear evidence of electron confinement in Si/SiO2 QW structures. Meanwhile, the local-energy gap on the SiO2 side has been probed using electron energy-loss spectroscopy (EELS) by Neaton *et al*.neaton

We report in this Letter experimental Si-$`2p`$ core-level spectroscopy results coupled with first-principles calculations of atomistically-detailed Si/SiO2 QW structures to demonstrate electron confinement and the resulting blue shifting. Confined states are directly relate to the width of the Si-layer, as opposed for instance to impurity states that are uncorrelated to any geometric parameter. In Si/SiO2 QWs, only states found within the energy range of an effective conduction-band offset (CBO) are expected to be confined, while band states above should remain unconfined. This scenario is analysed from both experiment and theory sides.

Very recently, the fabrication of *crystalline* SiO2/Si/SiO2 QWs have been reported by Lu and Grozea.lg  The QWs having various thicknesses were examined using a synchrotron source; X-ray photoelectron spectra (XPS) as well as X-ray absorption near-edge spectra (XANES) were recorded. The valence-band maxima (VBM) and conduction-band minima (CBM) were deduced respectively from the XPS and the XANES. All data were calibrated according to an assumed null VBM for crystalline silicon (c-Si), corresponding to the limit of an infinitely thick silicon well. The results for the energy shifts of the VBM and the CBM as a function of the Si well width are summarized in Fig. 1(a). The energy gaps were obtained by summation of the reference energy gap of c-Si (1.12 eV) with the relative CBMs and VBMs. The resulting energy gaps are compiled in Fig. 1(b). The bandgaps are compared with two theoretical models obtained within the density-functional theory (DFT) and the local density approximation (LDA), where all bandgaps are raised by 0.6 eV (corresponding to the difference between the LDA and experimental bandgaps of c-Si). The theoretical energy gaps for the QWs are found to be in good agreement with the experiments.

We have carried out atomistically-detailed calculations using a first-principles-based energy optimized Si/SiO2 interface model, where Si-well layers are coupled to “amorphized” SiO2 layers. The structure is based on one of the Si/SiO2/vacuum interface models of Pasquarello et al,alfredo1  extended to a SiO2/Si/SiO2 system by Tit and Dharma-wardana,jap  and finally fully optimized by Carrier, Lewis, and Dharma-wardana,pcarFRM  wherein can be found calculations of the electronic states, optical matrix elements and densities of states. The detailed atomic structure of the 1.1 nm QWs is shown in Fig. 2. Definitions of the VBM, CBM and the corresponding energy gap ($`E_g`$) evaluated in Fig. 1, as well as definitions of the CBO and VBO, are also schematized. The three suboxide Si atomic species (Si1+, Si2+, and Si3+) are present at the interfaces, as indicated in Fig. 2. Complete details about structural deformations from the bulk can be found in Ref. pcarFRM, .

Consider now a piece of matter which is in an initial state with total energy $`E_i`$ together with a probe photon of energy $`h\nu _i`$. The interaction leaves the system in a final state of energy $`E_f`$ together with an emitted photon of energy $`h\nu _f`$. The process involves the absorption of a photon of energy $`h\omega `$ = $`h(\nu _f\nu _i)`$ if no free electrons are emitted in the final state. By sweeping the probe photon energy so that transitions from the $`2p`$ core-states of Si are excited to the empty states in the conduction band of Si, the energies of the electronic states in the conduction band can be determined. The energy change $`h\omega =E_fE_i`$ includes all initial-state as well as final-state interactions and can be calculated using DFT, since the latter provides an approach to accurate total energies. On the other hand, within the Fermi Golden rule, the absorption spectrum of the probe photon is given in terms of matrix elements $`|M_{2p,final}|^2`$ and joint densities of states (jDOS) $`J(\omega )`$ obtained by a convolution of the initial and final densities of states, $`J(\omega )=𝑑\nu D_i(\nu )D_f(\nu +\omega ).`$ In our case the initial-DOS $`D_i`$ is that of the Si-$`2p`$ core-state at the energy $`ϵ_{2p}`$. This is a discrete relativistic doublet of states, and hence a sum of $`\delta `$-functions. Thus, the jDOS is essentially proportional to the sum of pure conduction electron densities of states. The matrix element connecting the initial and final states will select only the final states which have $`s`$\- and $`d`$-symmetries.fuggle  The transition rate $`T`$ is thus determined, first, by:

$`T(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`|M_{2p,s}(\omega )|^2D_s(ϵ_{2p}+\omega )`$
$`+|M_{2p,d}(\omega )|^2D_d(ϵ_{2p}+\omega ).`$
Second, the electron binding energies of the $`2j_{1/2}`$ and $`2j_{3/2}`$ core-states are separated by 0.6 eV (98.8 - 98.2 eV).fuggle  The final expression for the Si-$`2p`$ core-level absorption is thus obtained by summation of shifted transitions rate $`T`$:

$$A_{2p}=\frac{2}{6}T(ϵ_{2p}+\omega )+\frac{4}{6}T(ϵ_{2p}+\text{0.6 eV}+\omega ).$$
(1)
The $`s`$\- and $`d`$-DOS calculated in a straightforward way using Kohn-Sham methods will have several shortcomings: (a) The absolute position of the DOS peaks would not be correct due to the well known underevaluation of the bandgap; (b) the effect of final-state interactions would not be contained in the standard calculation of the DOS; (c) the type of photon renormalization effects arising from time-dependent response is not contained in the standard DOS evaluation.zangwill  Some of these shortcomings can be overcome by using fairly simple modifications to the DOS evaluation, e.g., the Slater-transition-states (STS) method.tian ; DreizlerGross

Figure 3 shows the measured XANES derivative combined with two theoretical Si-$`2p`$ absorption derivatives, one obtained from the STS and the other from the ground states (GS), all for c-Si. Both calculations are performed within the all-electron, linearized-augmented-plane-waves (LAPW) framework.WIEN  The STS calculation is set by simultaneously reducing and increasing by one-half the electronic charge of the 2$`p`$ core level and the total number of valence electrons, for a Si atom in the FCC cell. This is imposed during the whole iterative process. In this way, the excess valence electron gets promoted to *some* conduction levels The $`s`$\- and $`d`$-DOS’s of c-Si are then combined with their matrix elements. The latter are shown to vary slowly and monotonically as $`|M_{2p,d}(\omega )|^20.086773+0.0027173\mathrm{}\omega `$ and $`|M_{2p,s}(\omega )|^20.041455+0.00060321\mathrm{}\omega `$ for energies above the Fermi level, up to $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ 8 eV. This is in contrast to the results of Buczko *et al.*Buczko  where a constant and much lower ratio $`|M_{2p,d}(\omega )|^2/|M_{2p,s}(\omega )|^2`$ is reported.

We first observe from Fig. 3 that above the Fermi level (at $``$100 eV) up to 102 eV, the STS and the XANES are in very good agreement. Thus the STS is clearly an improvement on the GS calculation as expected from equi-ensemble DFT.DreizlerGross  Second, the sharp peak at 102.7 eV in the XANES derivative is downshifted to 102.2 eV in the STS (as well as for the GS based calculation). One should remark that the XANES intensities get significantly damped for energies high above the threshold (due to an acute angle of the photon probe tangent to the sample), while no damping is included in the calculations. Finally, we observe that, in spite of several shifts of the energy peaks in the GS, the general aspect of the GS and STS theoretical curves resemble. However, the GS is clearly expanded in the near-edge region of the spectrum (from 99.5 to 102 eV) compared to the STS, in agreement with previous calculations (see Ref. Buczko,  and reference therein); moreover, above 102.5 eV, the GS shows several features not visible in the STS. This comparison of the STS and GS theoretical approaches for c-Si is essential to the analysis that follows, applied to the Si/SiO2 QWs (solely in the GS, owing to their large size as can be appreciated from Fig. 2; and hence no STS results are available).

Figure 4(a) depicts the XANES derivatives of two QWs, 1.1 nm and 1.6 nm thick, as well as for c-Si. The lowest energy edges at the Si-conduction band minimum ($``$ 100 eV) shifts to the blue as we go from c-Si to the 1.1 nm Si well. This trend continues until we reach peaks at and above $``$ 102.7 eV. The first peaks above are seen to be *unshifted* with respect to the c-Si peaks. This is easily explained if we assume that the Si/SiO2 interfaces are associated with a CBO of $``$ 2.7 eV. However, given the $``$ 9 eV bandgap of crystalline SiO2 and the 1.1 eV bandgap of c-Si, this leads to a VBO of about 3.95 eV, as commonly assumed.williams  Thus the XANES suggests that a large reduction in the CBO has occurred.

In order to evaluate the electronic properties of the confined states, a calculation of $`A_{2p}`$ obtained from Eq. (1) has been applied to Si atoms inside two Si wells. The matrix elements are deduced from c-Si, calculated within the LAPW and the STS approaches given above, while the $`s`$\- and $`d`$-DOS’s are evaluated in the GS, within the projector-augmented-waves (PAW) approach.VASP  Thus, in this procedure, we assume that the matrix elements of Si0 atoms (i.e., Si atoms inside only the Si well) are equivalent to their counterpart in c-Si. This assumption is justified by the observed slow variation with $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ of the two matrix elements $`|M_{2p,d}(\omega )|^2`$ and $`|M_{2p,s}(\omega )|^2`$, as discussed before. Figure 4(b) shows the mean (lorentzian) derivatives of $`A_{2p}`$ for Si0 atoms in the 1.1 nm and 1.7 nm Si/SiO2 QWs, as well as for c-Si. The Si-$`2p`$ absorption of the QWs are presented for energies that correspond to the $`2p`$CBM region.

We first observe from Fig. 4(b) that the absorption intensities in the near-edge region, from 100 eV to $``$102.7 eV, for both QWs, are much higher than for c-Si (with their respective energy gaps preserved) leading to enhanced absorption propertiespcarFRM  and strong confinement effects in this region. Second, a comparison of the two QWs together in the “band states” region from $``$103.5 eV to higher energies gives in general good agreement between each other. However, a complete correspondence between any of the QWs with c-Si only appears at energies above $``$105.7 eV; for instance, some features appearing in both QWs (e.g., a triplet of decreasing peaks at 105 eV) are not present in c-Si. Thus, the electronic properties of silicon in confined structures are modified high above the CBO. In the region between 102.7 eV and 105.7 eV, both QWs show rather similar features, while no complete agreement lies between any of the QWs with c-Si. This suggests a “transition domain” for the band states region where the QWs together have similar electronic properties but different from c-Si.

Thus, within the GS, two main regions are observed in the QWs, as from the XANES: one having strong confined states, and another region of band states constituted of a transition domain where their electronic properties are slightly different from c-Si and for much higher energies a region of pure c-Si band states. It is important to recall that the absorption calculations presented in Fig. 4(b) for the QWs (and c-Si) do not incorporate any approximations for the excited states, such as the STS approach used for c-Si as shown in Fig. 3; informations contained in Fig. 4(b) thus remain qualitative.

In summary, the detailed electronic structures within confined crystalline wells have been measured for the first time. The XANES data show rich electron states in these crystalline silicon wells, in dramatic contrast to featureless XANES from amorphous silicon wells.llb  The data show dramatic blue shift for electron states at the band edge (i.e., the bottom of the well). The magnitude of the shift decreases as the energy levels increase and eventually there is no shift for states above $``$2.7 eV from CBM, as one would expect from elementary quantum mechanics for a finite-well system. On the theory side, we have built detailed atomic models for the SiO2/Si/SiO2 system. Based on such realistic models, we have developed theoretical methodologies to calculate XANES data. Ground states calculations for the theoretical QWs give a confined states region much higher in energy than in experiment, with a transition domain where electronic properties of the QWs are together alike but different from c-Si. Strong confinement has been confirmed both from experiment and the present ground-state study, that provides qualitative insights on the electronic properties, i.e., for excited states. An excited states description applied to the quantum wells, such as the Slater-transition-state theory applied here to the c-Si, would provide further accurate knowledge of the confinement effects in these Si nanostructures.

Acknowledgments – This work is supported by grants from the NSERC of Canada and the FCAR of the Province of Québec. We are indebted to the RQCHP for generous allocations of computer resources. We thank CANNON ELTRAN for providing us the SOI wafers.


text:
# Pressure dependence of the magnetization in the ferromagnetic superconductor UGe2

\[

## Abstract

The recent discovery that superconductivity occurs in several clean itinerant ferromagnets close to low temperature magnetic instabilities naturally invites an interpretation based on a proximity to quantum criticality. Here we report measurements of the pressure dependence of the low temperature magnetisation in one of these materials, UGe2. Our results show that both of the magnetic transitions observed in this material as a function of pressure are first order transitions and do not therefore correspond to quantum critical points. Further we find that the known pressure dependence of the superconducting transition is not reflected in the pressure dependence of the static susceptibility. This demonstrates that the spectrum of excitations giving superconductivity is not that normally associated with a proximity to quantum criticality in weak itinerant ferromagnets. In contrast our data suggest that instead the pairing spectrum might be related to a sharp spike in the electronic density of states that also drives one of the magnetic transitions.

\]

The possible co-existence of superconductivity and ferromagnetism, although considered as a theoretical possibility for idealised weak itinerant ferromagnets over 20 years ago  has only recently been demonstrated to occur experimentally . The theoretical calculations assumed the superconductivity to be mediated by an abundance of low-energy small-wavevector magnetic excitations. These excitations become prevalent near a ferromagnetic quantum critical point (QCP), that is at the value of the pressure (or another control parameter) at which a second order transition is driven to zero temperature and at which the longitudinal magnetic susceptibility becomes singular. More recent theoretical work suggests that in an isotropic material a coupling between transverse and longitudinal excitations, which is present only in the ferromagnetic phase, should give a much higher superconducting transition in the ferromagnetic state . The presence of crystalline anisotropy has also been considered, and was shown to circumvent the depression of the superconducting critical temperature exactly at the QCP itself .

For UGe2 it has already been established that in the limit of zero temperature the transition from ferromagnetism to paramagnetism as the pressure is increased through $`p_c15.8`$ kbar is first order . This transition therefore does not correspond to a QCP. However, at lower pressures the temperature dependence of the magnetisation shows a sharp change at a pressure dependent temperature $`T_x(p)`$ well below the Curie temperature. $`T_x`$ decreases with $`p`$ and vanishes at $`p_x12.2`$ kbar. The superconducting transition temperature, $`T_s`$, and superconducting coupling parameter are largest at pressures close to $`p_x`$ . This would be naturally explained in the spirit of the above theory if $`T_x`$ were to correspond to a second order transition, with $`p_x`$ a QCP for this transition. A detailed explanation along these lines has indeed been proposed  in which $`T_x`$ is identified with the formation of a simultaneous charge and spin density wave (CSDW). Theoretically the formation of a CSDW would lead to a change in the temperature evolution of the magnetic moment, as well as an enhancement of the longitudinal magnetic susceptibility  similar to that near to a simple ferromagnetic QCP. Although band structure calculations  indicate that a spin-majority Fermi-surface sheet could become nested as a function of the magnetic polarisation, a necessary condition for a CSDW to arise, extensive neutron diffraction studies  have as yet failed to detect any static order due to a CSDW.

In this Letter we establish for the first time that the low $`T`$ ordered moment (i.e. the ferromagnetic order parameter) and therefore a first order derivative of the free energy changes abruptly at $`p_x`$. Thus there is unambiguously a first-order transition between two ferromagnetic phases at $`p_x`$ and therefore no QCP. We will refer to the high pressure phase as FM1 and the low pressure phase as FM2.

Although the low-field low-temperature uniform longitudinal susceptibility undergoes a large change between FM1 and FM2, we show that it is almost pressure independent within each phase and is thus not correlated with $`T_s(p)`$ far away from $`p_x`$. Above $`p_x`$ the transition FM1$``$ FM2 can be induced by a magnetic field. We find that the field at which the transition occurs, $`H_x`$, depends on $`p`$ but the magnetic polarisation at $`H_x`$ is only weakly $`p`$ dependent. This shows that the FM1$``$FM2 transition occurs at a particular spin splitting between the majority and minority spin bands as would occur when the Fermi energy passes through a sharp maximum in the electronic density of states for one spin direction. If virtual excitations to states at this maximum were also associated with the superconducting pairing mechanism a pairing spectrum peaked at finite energy (in the extreme limit an Einstein spectrum) would result. We show that this provides a natural relationship between $`T_s`$ in zero field and the field necessary to induce the transition between the two magnetic phases for $`p>p_x`$. Thus the pressure dependence of $`T_s`$, which was the motivation for previously supposing that there was a QCP at $`p_x`$, can be explained without invoking a QCP.

Two different single crystals cut by spark erosion from larger crystals grown by the Czochralski technique were studied. The larger was a cylinder of diameter 2.4 mm and length 5 mm parallel to the easy magnetic $`a`$-axis, while the smaller was a plate also parallel to this axis (glued to a small washer to fix its orientation in the pressure cell). Other parts of the larger crystal had previously been studied and found to have residual resistivity ratios of order 100 (current parallel to the $`b`$ axis) . The larger sample was also confirmed to become superconducting under pressure in a separate a.c. susceptibility measurement . Here we do not distinguish further between the two samples since they gave equivalent results, with only small differences in the widths of the various transitions. The d.c. magnetization was measured with a non-magnetic Cu:Be clamp cell using a methanol:ethanol (1:4) pressure transmitting medium in a commercial vibrating sample magnetometer (VSM). The pressure was determined from the superconducting transition of Sn. The empty pressure cell generated a very weakly $`T`$ and $`H`$ dependent background contribution that was smaller than two percent of the signal from the larger sample in the ferromagnetic state at low temperature. The data shown have been corrected for this background. The samples were seen to float freely within the pressure medium before and after the experiment, while their orientation was constrained by the bore of the teflon sealing capsule in the cell (internal diameter 2.5 mm, external diameter 3.0 mm). Systematic errors in the overall calibration of the magnetometer when using the pressure cell mean that the absolute accuracy in determining the magnetisation is only about 5 percent. We have therefore scaled the data for each sample by a constant factor close to unity to give the correct ordered moment of 1.5 $`\mu _B`$/formula at zero pressure. The experimental error in measuring the relative changes of magnetisation is in contrast much smaller, and smaller than the size of the data points used in the various figures.

In Fig. 1 the temperature dependence of the ordered magnetic moment, $`\mu (T)`$, in zero field at different pressures is shown (we use the symbol $`\mu `$ for the ordered moment extrapolated to zero field and $`M`$ more generally for the magnetisation in a field). A clear change in the $`T`$ dependence of $`\mu (T)`$ occurs at $`T_x`$, as has been previously reported , where $`T_x`$ decreases with increasing $`p`$ and disappears as $`pp_x12.2`$ kbar. While $`T_C`$ can be conveniently defined as the point where $`dM/dT`$ is a maximum in a small field (we used 0.02 T) the determination of $`T_x`$ is slightly more subjective and is taken as the position of a local maximum of $`d\mu /dT`$. The resulting $`p`$ versus $`T`$ phase diagram for UGe2 constructed from the present measurements is shown in Fig. 2(a) along with $`T_s(p)`$ taken from reference . $`T_x`$ cannot be assigned from the present magnetisation measurements below $``$ 6 kbar. The position of a peak in the temperature derivative of the resistivity reported by Oomi et al.  can however be used to extend the $`T_x`$ line to give $`T_x30`$ K at $`p=0`$. In the following we focus on the pressure dependence of the magnetisation at low $`T`$.

The $`p`$ dependence of the low $`T`$ ordered moment $`\mu `$ at 2.3 K is shown in Fig. 2(b). Striking features are the abrupt changes of $`\mu (p)`$ on crossing $`p_x`$ and $`p_c`$, respectively. This is the main new result. It shows that the transition from FM2 $``$ FM1 at $`p_x`$ is a first-order transition in the limit of $`T=0`$, and confirms that the transition from the ferromagnetic state FM1 to the paramagnetic phase at $`p_c`$ is also first order .

The field dependence of the magnetisation at 2.3 K for different $`p`$ is shown in Fig. 3. For pressure $`p>p_x`$ a large increase of nearly 50 % in the magnetisation is observed at a field $`H_x`$, ($`H_x`$, defined as the field at which $`dM/dH`$ has a local maximum is plotted as a function of pressure in Fig. 2(c)). For $`p>p_c`$ the magnetisation undergoes a second increase at a lower field $`H_m`$ corresponding to the transition from the paramagnetic phase to FM1. Interestingly, the uniform susceptibility given by the slope dM/dH has almost constant values independent of the pressure within each phase; in the FM1 phase it is greater than in the FM2 phase but less than in the paramagnetic state above $`p_c`$

The existence of metamagnetic behavior just above $`p_x`$ is in itself an indication that the transition between the two magnetic phases is first order. We now consider further the transitions at $`H_x`$. Hysteresis loops of the d.c. magnetisation in low fields show that the sample is already mono-domain in a field of 0.02 Tesla and therefore no hysteresis would normally be expected at much higher fields of several Tesla. However we observe hysteresis of a few mT (not visible on the scale of Fig. 3) at both $`H_m`$ and $`H_x`$ in careful measurements. The evidence for such hysteresis at $`H_x`$ and $`H_m`$ is demonstrated unambiguously by comparing the present data to measurements of the a.c. susceptibility, $`\chi _{ac}`$. In the inset of Fig. 3, $`\chi _{ac}`$ is shown as a function of field in the vicinity of $`H_x`$ at a pressure of 15.7 kbar (from reference ). The amplitude of the peak in the a.c. susceptibility at 3 K is smaller than the derivative of the uniform magnetisation $`dM/dH`$ at $`H_x`$, despite the fact that the peak in the a.c. measurement is slightly sharper than the d.c. transition width. Further, $`dM/dH`$ at Hx, decreases with increasing $`T`$, whereas the amplitude of the peak in $`\chi _{a.c.}`$ increases with $`T`$ (at least up to 5 K). This shows that the a.c. measurement traces minor hysteresis loops in the vicinity of $`H_x`$ that become wider at lower $`T`$. The same result is also found for the transition at $`H_m`$ . The observation of hysteresis supports our previous conclusion that the transition between the FM1 and FM2 phases is first order at low temperature; for a first order transition a phase can exist metastably in a limited region beyond that in which it is thermodynamically stable.

We now discuss the maximum of $`T_s(p)`$ near $`p_x`$, which was previously the main motivation to suppose that $`p_x`$ marked a QCP. We focus on the FM1 phase (i.e. $`p_x<p<p_c`$) where the superconducting transitions are much sharper. For ferromagnetically mediated pairing $`T_s`$ can be estimated as $`T_s=\theta e^{\gamma /g\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma `$ is that part of the linear temperature dependence of the normal state electronic heat capacity, $`\gamma `$, associated with the excitations responsible for pairing . $`\theta `$ is the characteristic energy of these excitations and g the effectiveness of this pairing channel (we consider the superconductivity to be non s-wave with $`g<1`$ and constant). In the usual description of itinerant ferromagnetism the spectrum of longitudinal magnetic excitations is assumed to be a Lorentzian peaked at zero energy ($`\omega `$) and wavevector transfer ($`q`$) . For such a spectrum and conventional $`q`$\- and $`\omega `$-independent mode-mode coupling $`\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma `$ is directly related to the $`T`$ dependence of $`\mu ^2`$ at low $`T`$. Our experiment shows that the temperature dependence is much weaker for pressures just above $`p_x`$ than just below $`p_c`$ (Fig. 1). $`\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma `$ is therefore expected to increase significantly with $`p`$ even though the static longitudinal susceptibility defined as $`dM/dH`$ (Fig. 3) is experimentally almost independent of $`p`$ between $`p_x`$ and $`p_c`$. The latter point could still be reconciled with a Lorentzian spectrum if the width of the spectrum increases either in $`q`$ or $`\omega `$. However, experimentally $`\gamma `$ is known to be almost constant between $`p_x`$ and $`p_c`$  and thus $`T_s(p)`$ would also increase with $`p`$ if superconductivity was indeed due to a Lorentzian spectrum of excitations. This is in stark contrast with the observed decrease of $`T_s`$ with p. Thus a simple spectrum of longitudinal magnetic excitations of the type usually considered near a ferromagnetic QCP cannot account for our experimental observations.

In the following we outline a mechanism that qualitatively explains the observed pressure dependence of $`T_s`$ consistently with first order transitions at $`p_x`$ and $`H_x`$. The mechanism is based on our observation that the FM1$``$FM2 transition occurs at a constant magnetisation independent of the pressure. This strongly suggests that the transition takes place when the Fermi-energy crosses a sharp maximum in the electronic density of states (DOS) for one spin-polarisation. In the FM1 phase an applied field parallel to the easy magnetic axis leads to an additional Zeeman splitting between the majority and minority spin bands, which drives the Fermi-energy through this maximum. $`\mu _BH_x`$ is then proportional to the energy of the maximum in the DOS relative to the Fermi-energy in zero field. If we suppose that the superconducting pairing involves virtual excitations that access the same feature in the DOS the pairing strength and therefore $`\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma `$ decrease strongly as the feature becomes more remote from the Fermi-surface. Thus, for example, the decrease of $`T_s`$ with p in the FM1 phase is a naturally linked with the increase in $`H_x`$. Further support that the excitations responsible for pairing have a spectrum peaked at a finite energy proportional to $`H_x`$ comes from the measured upper critical field for fields along the c-axis (i.e. perpendicular to the easy axis). It has previously been shown that the temperature dependence of the upper critical field is well modelled by a strong coupling calculation assuming an Einstein spectrum for the pairing interaction ; the position of the peak in the spectrum obtained by fitting the measured upper critical field to this model increases with pressure in the FM1 phase as we have described.

Spectroscopic measurements capable of detecting a sharp peak in the DOS have not yet been reported. Quantum oscillation measurements as a function of $`p`$ were however recently published  and so we briefly examine whether these can be reconciled with a sharp peak in the D.O.S. The striking feature in the quantum oscillation data is that the electronic masses of all the detected orbits are much higher in the FM1 phase than in the FM2 phase (some frequencies remain similar while others differ substantially). Large mass renormalisations in heavy fermion materials are usually attributed to a Kondo-like mechanism where narrow f-electron bands in the pure ordered system play the roles of the Kondo impurity states lying just below the Fermi energy in the original Kondo analysis . Assuming a similar mechanism is responsible for the large effective masses observed in the FM1 phase of UGe2 the much smaller masses in the FM2 phase require a destruction of the mechanism. Such a destruction would indeed occur if the Fermi level were to cross one of the narrow bands responsible for the resonant mass enhancement.

To conclude, we note that understanding the emergence of new physical behaviours close to quantum criticality represents one of the central themes in contemporary studies of correlated electron physics. The case of a ferromagnetic QCP is particularly important since the order parameter is directly measurable by macroscopic techniques. However we have shown that although superconductivity in UGe2 is intimately related to a proximity to a magnetic phase transition there is no quantum criticality associated with the suppression of this transition to zero temperature at pressure $`p_x`$. The implication is that new ground states (in this case non-conventional superconductivity) can emerge in strongly correlated electron systems due to a much wider range of circumstances than has hitherto been supposed.

Discussions with J. Flouquet, H. v. Löhneysen, G. G. Lonzarich, V. Mineev, K. Miyake, E. Ressouche, A. Rosch, J. P. Sanchez, M. Uhlarz and R. Vollmer are gratefully acknowledged. We also acknowledge financial support from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, CEA - Direction des Sciences de la Matière, and the European Science Foundation FERLIN program.


text:
# Untitled Document

Modifications of Schrödinger’s Equation Complying with

the Effect of Earth’s Rotation on Quantum Energy in Atoms

and with the Electromagnetic Force

Ching-Chuan Su

Department of Electrical Engineering

National Tsinghua University

Hsinchu, Taiwan

Abstract – Recently, we have presented a local-ether wave equation incorporating a nature frequency and the electric scalar potential, from which the speed-dependences in the angular frequency and wavelength of matter wave, in the mass of particle, and in the energy of quantum states are derived. These relations look like the postulates of de Broglie and the Lorentz mass-variation law, except that the particle speed is referred specifically to a geocentric inertial frame and hence incorporates earth’s rotation for earthbound particles. Further, the wave equation is extended by connecting the scalar potential to the augmentation operator which is associated with a velocity difference between involved particles. Then the electromagnetic force law is derived, which under some ordinary conditions reduces to the modified Lorentz force law. In this investigation, the interaction of atoms with electromagnetic radiation is explored. Then it is shown that the time evolution equation derived from the wave equation is substantially identical to Schrödinger’s equation incorporating the vector potential, if the latter is observed in the atom frame and if the source generating the vector potential is electrically neutralized, as in common practice.

1. Introduction

Recently, we have presented a wave equation which incorporates a natural frequency $`\omega _0`$ and the electric scalar potential and is proposed to govern the matter wave associated with a charged particle . For a harmonic-like wavefunction, the wave equation leads to a first-order time evolution equation similar to Schrödinger’s equation. Then it has been found that the energies of quantum states in an atom decrease with the atom speed by the famous Lorentz speed-dependent mass-variation factor. The propagation of matter wave as well as electromagnetic wave is supposed to follow the local-ether model . Accordingly, the position vectors, time derivatives, and velocities in this wave equation are all referred specifically to an ECI (earth-centered inertial) frame for earthbound phenomena. Thus the atom speed incorporates the linear velocity due to earth’s rotation. Consequently, the quantum state energy and the transition frequency of an earthbound atom depend on earth’s rotation, but are entirely independent of earth’s orbital motion around the Sun or others. This effect of earth’s rotation on atomic quantum properties has been used to account for the east-west directional anisotropy in the atomic clock rate which in turn has been demonstrated in the Hafele-Keating experiment with circumnavigation clocks. It also accounts for the synchronism and the clock-rate adjustment in GPS (global positioning system) and the spatial isotropy in the Hughes-Drever experiment .

Furthermore, from the local-ether evolution equation, the velocity and then the acceleration of a charged particle under the influence of the electric scalar potential have been derived. Thus the electrostatic force is derived in conjunction with the consequence that the natural frequency $`\omega _0`$ is related to the rest mass $`m_0`$ of the particle in the familiar form of $`m_0=\mathrm{}\omega _0/c^2`$ . Further, the local-ether wave equation is extended in such a way that the electric scalar potential is made to connect to the augmentation operator which in turn is associated with the momentum operator and the velocity of source practices. Then the electromagnetic force law is derived. Under the low-speed condition, this law reduces to the modified Lorentz force law .

In this investigation, we derive the effect of the augmentation operator in the interaction of atoms with electromagnetic radiation. Then the relation between the local-ether evolution equation and Schrödinger’s equation incorporating the vector potential is explored.

2. Schrödinger’s Equation with Vector Potential

To begin with, we review the famous Schrödinger’s equation and its consequences. It is well known that in the presence of the scalar potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and the vector potential $`𝐀`$, Schrödinger’s equation reads

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{}{t}\psi (𝐫,t)=\frac{1}{2m_0}[𝐩q𝐀(𝐫,t)]^2\psi (𝐫,t)+q\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫,t)\psi (𝐫,t),$$
$`(1)`$
where the operator $`𝐩=i\mathrm{}`$. The incorporation of the vector potential corresponds to the understanding in classical mechanics that the mechanical momentum in the Hamiltonian is given by the canonical momentum $`𝐩`$ minus $`q𝐀`$.

It is known that in the presence of an external magnetic field, an individual spectral line of atoms will split into a set of closely spaced lines, known as the Zeeman splitting. The Zeeman effect has been accounted for by using quantum mechanics. For this familiar case of interaction of a hydrogen-like atom with the electromagnetic radiation from an external source, Schrödinger’s equation becomes

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{}{t}\psi =\frac{1}{2m_0}𝐩^2\psi +q\mathrm{\Phi }_a\psi \frac{q}{m_0}𝐀𝐩\psi +\frac{1}{2m_0}(q𝐀)^2\psi ,$$
$`(2)`$
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_a`$ is the electric scalar (Coulomb) potential due to the nucleus of the atom itself and $`𝐀`$ is the vector potential due to the external source. As in the literature, we have made use of $`𝐩(𝐀\psi )=𝐀𝐩\psi `$ since $`𝐩𝐀`$ is taken to be zero. Physically, the Coulomb gauge $`𝐀=0`$ implies that the source generating the vector potential is electrically neutralized, as it is ordinarily. If the term $`𝐩𝐀`$ does not vanish, one has $`𝐩𝐀/m_0=(i\mathrm{}/m_0c^2)\mathrm{\Phi }/t`$ from the Lorenz gauge, where potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is due to the charge associated with the non-neutralized current generating potential $`𝐀`$. The angular frequency of an ordinary time-harmonic potential is much lower than $`m_0c^2/\mathrm{}`$. Therefore, the term $`𝐩𝐀/m_0`$ is much weaker than the corresponding potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and hence is not expected to have an appreciable physical consequence even if it does exist. In our understanding, the reference frame of the position vector in wavefunction and potentials and that of the time derivative are not specified in Schrödinger’s equation.

Moreover, from the generalized Ehrenfest’s theorem, the electromagnetic force exerted on an unbounded charged particle due to the scalar and vector potentials can be given in terms of the expectation values as

$$𝐅=m_0\frac{d^2𝐫}{dt^2}=q\mathrm{\Phi }q\frac{𝐀}{t}+\frac{1}{2m_0}q\left\{(𝐩q𝐀)\times 𝐁𝐁\times (𝐩q𝐀)\right\},$$
$`(3)`$
where the magnetic flux density $`𝐁=\times 𝐀`$. As noted in , in this formula the operator $`𝐩`$ in $`(𝐩q𝐀)`$ does not commute with field $`𝐁`$. Thus the preceding force formula does not agree exactly with the Lorentz force law. The discrepancy between these two force formulas is expected to be $`(i\mathrm{}q/2m_0)\times 𝐁`$. Although this discrepancy may be small in magnitude, it has not yet solved to our knowledge.

3. Local-Ether Wave Equation and its Consequences

We then go on to consider the local-ether wave equation. It is postulated that under the influence of the electric scalar potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, the matter wave $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ of a charged particle is governed by the nonhomogeneous wave equation proposed to be

$$\left\{^2\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{^2}{t^2}\right\}\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫,t)=\frac{\omega _0^2}{c^2}\left\{1+\frac{2}{\mathrm{}\omega _0}q\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫,t)\right\}\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫,t),$$
$`(4)`$
where the natural frequency $`\omega _0`$ as well as the charge $`q`$ is an inherent constant of the particle, and the position vector $`𝐫`$ and the time derivative are referred to the associated local-ether frame, which is an ECI frame for earthbound particles.

If the potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is weak, the wavefunction $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ tends to be close to a space-time harmonic $`e^{i𝐤𝐫}e^{i\omega t}`$, where $`\omega ^2=\omega _0^2+c^2k^2`$. Thus it has been shown that the velocity of the particle is given by $`𝐯=𝐤c^2/\omega `$ and hence the angular frequency can be given by $`\omega =\omega _0/\sqrt{1v^2/c^2}`$, where the velocity $`𝐯`$ is referred specifically to the local-ether frame. As the natural frequency $`\omega _0`$ is shown to be related to the rest mass $`m_0`$, the speed-dependent mass $`m`$ related to the frequency $`\omega `$ is then given by the familiar form of $`m=m_0/\sqrt{1v^2/c^2}`$ . It is noted that these relations of the speed-dependent angular frequency and wavelength of matter wave and of the speed-dependent mass of particle look like the postulates of de Broglie and the Lorentz mass-variation law, except that the particle speed $`v`$ is referred specifically to the local-ether frame. Thereafter, by introducing the reduced wavefunction $`\psi `$ given by $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫,t)=\psi (𝐫,t)e^{i𝐤𝐫}e^{i\omega t}`$ and by expanding the Laplacian and the time derivative in the d’Alembertian operator, it has been shown that the preceding wave equation in $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ reduces to the first-order time evolution equation in $`\psi `$ . That is,

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\omega }{\omega _0}\frac{}{t}\psi (𝐫,t)=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m_0}^2\psi (𝐫,t)+q\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫,t)\psi (𝐫,t)i\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{m_0}𝐤\psi (𝐫,t).$$
$`(5)`$
Again, the position vector $`𝐫`$ here is referred to the local-ether frame.

Consider a hydrogen-like atom which is moving at a velocity $`𝐯_a`$ with respect to the local-ether frame. It is expected that the electric scalar potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }_a`$ due to the nucleus of the atom will move with this atom. Accordingly, this potential is stationary in the atom frame with respect to which the atom is stationary, while it is moving in the local-ether frame. Under Galilean transformations, the potential comoving with the atom can be written as $`\mathrm{\Phi }_a(𝐫)`$ or as $`\mathrm{\Phi }_a(𝐫𝐯_at)`$, where the position vector $`𝐫`$ is referred to the atom or to the local-ether frame, respectively. The average value of the velocity of the electron bounded in the atom should be identical to the atom velocity $`𝐯_a`$; otherwise, the electron tends to escape from the atom. Thus the spatial and temporal variation of the wavefunction of the bounded electron can be expected to be close to the factored-out harmonic $`e^{i𝐤𝐫}e^{i\omega t}`$ and then the reduced wavefunction is governed by the preceding evolution equation, where the propagation vector $`𝐤=m𝐯_a/\mathrm{}`$, the speed-dependent mass $`m=m_0/\sqrt{1v_a^2/c^2}`$, the potential is given by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_a(𝐫𝐯_at)`$, and the position vector $`𝐫`$ is referred to the local-ether frame.

Remark the Galilean transformation

$$\left(\frac{f}{t}\right)_a=\frac{f}{t}+𝐯_af,$$
$`(6)`$
where $`/t`$ and $`(/t)_a`$ denote the time derivatives with respect to the local-ether and the atom frames and are taken under constant $`𝐫`$ and ($`𝐫𝐯_at`$), respectively, as $`𝐫`$ is referred to the local-ether frame. Thereby, for the electron bounded in the moving atom, the time evolution equation observed in the atom frame becomes

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\omega }{\omega _0}\frac{}{t}\psi (𝐫,t)=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m_0}^2\psi (𝐫,t)+q\mathrm{\Phi }_a(𝐫)\psi (𝐫,t),$$
$`(7)`$
where the position vector $`𝐫`$ and hence the time derivative are referred to the atom frame, instead of the local-ether one. It is noted that the time derivative connects with an extra multiplying term of $`\omega /\omega _0`$ which is just the mass-variation factor $`1/\sqrt{1v_a^2/c^2}`$. However, except for this factor, the time evolution equation as well as the potential is independent of the motion of atom if the atom frame is adopted as the reference frame. Consequently, the solutions for the eigenfunction $`\psi `$ and the eigenvalue $`\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\omega }(\omega /\omega _0)`$ of this equation in the atom frame will be independent of the atom speed $`v_a`$. Accordingly, as compared to that of a stationary atom, the energy $`\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\omega }`$ of each quantum state will decrease with the inverse of the mass-variation factor when the atom is moving at speed $`v_a`$ with respect to the local-ether frame.

The frequency of light emitted from or absorbed by an atom is known to be equal to the transition frequency which in turn is proportional to the difference in energy between two involved quantum states. Thus the transition frequency $`f`$ is determined by the energy $`\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\omega }`$ and then decreases with increasing atom speed by the inverse of the mass-variation factor. That is,

$$f=f_0\sqrt{1v_a^2/c^2},$$
$`(8)`$
where the atom speed $`v_a`$ is referred specifically to the local-ether frame and $`f_0`$ is the rest transition frequency of the atom when it is stationary in this frame. Consequently, the transition frequency and hence the clock rate of earthbound atomic clocks depend on earth’s rotation, but are entirely independent of earth’s orbital motion. Thereby, the atomic clock flying westward tends to have a lower speed and tick at a faster rate than the one flying eastward. Thus the preceding formula accounts for the east-west directional anisotropy in atomic clock rate demonstrated in the Hafele-Keating experiment with circumnavigation clocks. On the other hand, for a geostationary atom or an atom onboard an earth’s satellite moving in a circular orbit, the speed $`v_a`$ and hence the transition frequency $`f`$ remain unchanged with the passage of time. Thus the preceding formula also accounts for the high synchronism among the various GPS atomic clocks moving in nearly circular orbits and for the spatial isotropy in transition frequency in the Hughes-Drever experiment with geostationary atoms .

Moreover, in order to derive the whole electromagnetic force, it is proposed that the wave equation is modified by connecting the potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to a dimensionless operator $`U`$. For the electric scalar potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ due to source particles of a given velocity $`𝐯_s`$ with respect to the local-ether frame, it is postulated that the local-ether wave equation incorporates the operator $`U`$ . That is,

$$\left\{^2\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{^2}{t^2}\right\}\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫,t)=\frac{\omega _0^2}{c^2}\left\{1+\frac{2}{\mathrm{}\omega _0}q\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫,t)(1+U)\right\}\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫,t),$$
$`(9)`$
where operator $`U`$ is derived from the Laplacian operator and is given by

$$U=\frac{1}{2c^2}\left(i\frac{c^2}{\omega _0}𝐯_s\right)^2.$$
$`(10)`$
The operator $`U`$ tends to enhance the effect of the electric scalar potential and hence is called the augmentation operator. Again, the local-ether wave equation can lead to a first-order time evolution equation in terms of the reduced wavefunction $`\psi `$. When the particle speed is low and then the propagation vector $`𝐤`$ in the factored-out harmonic is taken to zero, the evolution equation reads

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{}{t}\psi (𝐫,t)=\frac{1}{2m_0}𝐩^2\psi (𝐫,t)+q\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫,t)(1+U)\psi (𝐫,t),$$
$`(11)`$
where the position vector $`𝐫`$ is referred to the local-ether frame. By evaluating the velocity and then the acceleration of the charged particle under the influence of the electric scalar potential connected to the augmentation operator in a quantum-mechanically approach, the electromagnetic force exerted on the particle has been derived .

Consider the force law for the ordinary case where the source particles are drifting in a matrix and the ions which constitute the matrix tend to electrically neutralize the mobile particles, such as electrons in a metal wire. Suppose the neutralizing matrix is of an arbitrary charge density $`\rho _m`$ and moves as a whole at a velocity $`𝐯_m`$ with respect to the local-ether frame, while the mobile source particles are of charge density $`\rho _v`$ and move at $`𝐯_s`$ with respect to this frame. Under the ordinary low-speed condition where all the involved particles move slowly with respect to the local-ether frame and the sources drift very slowly with respect to the matrix frame, the electromagnetic force law for a particle of charge $`q`$ and inertial mass $`m_0`$ can be given in terms of the local-ether potentials $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`𝐀`$ . That is,

$$𝐅(𝐫,t)=q\left\{\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫,t)\left(\frac{}{t}𝐀(𝐫,t)\right)_m+𝐯_{em}\times \times 𝐀(𝐫,t)\right\},$$
$`(12)`$
where the time derivative $`(/t)_m`$ is referred to the matrix frame, the velocity difference $`𝐯_{em}=𝐯_e𝐯_m`$, and $`𝐯_e`$ is the velocity of the charged particle with respect to the local-ether frame. The electric scalar potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and the magnetic vector potential $`𝐀`$ in turn are given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫,t)=\frac{1}{ϵ_0}\frac{\rho _n(𝐫^{},tR/c)}{4\pi R}𝑑v^{}$$
$`(13)`$
and

$$𝐀(𝐫,t)=\frac{1}{ϵ_0c^2}\frac{𝐉_n(𝐫^{},tR/c)}{4\pi R}𝑑v^{},$$
$`(14)`$
where potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is due to the net charge density $`\rho _n=\rho _v+\rho _m`$, potential $`𝐀`$ is due to the neutralized current density $`𝐉_n=𝐯_{sm}\rho _v`$, $`𝐯_{sm}`$ ($`=𝐯_s𝐯_m`$) is the Newtonian relative velocity of the source particle with respect to the matrix, and $`R=|𝐫𝐫^{}|`$. It has been pointed out that the formula (12) is identical to the Lorentz force law, if the latter is observed in the matrix frame, as done tacitly in common practice .

4. Modifications of Schrödinger’s Equation

In what follows, we derive from the local-ether wave equation the evolution equation for the interaction of atoms with electromagnetic radiation. Consider an atom which is moving at a velocity $`𝐯_a`$ with respect to the local-ether frame. Again, the spatial variation of the wavefunction $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ of the bounded electron is expected to be close to the space harmonic $`e^{i𝐤𝐫}`$, where the position vector $`𝐫`$ is referred to the local-ether frame. Thus the Laplacian becomes

$$^2\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫,t)=\left\{^2\stackrel{~}{\psi }(𝐫,t)+i2𝐤\stackrel{~}{\psi }(𝐫,t)k^2\stackrel{~}{\psi }(𝐫,t)\right\}e^{i𝐤𝐫},$$
$`(15)`$
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫,t)=\stackrel{~}{\psi }(𝐫,t)e^{i𝐤𝐫}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }`$ is a weak function of space. The term associated with $`k^2`$ is neglected hereafter, as the atom speed $`v_a`$ is supposed to be much lower than $`c`$. Thereby, the local-ether wave equation (9) becomes

$$\left\{^2\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{^2}{t^2}\right\}\stackrel{~}{\psi }(𝐫,t)=\frac{\omega _0^2}{c^2}\stackrel{~}{\psi }(𝐫,t)+\frac{2\omega _0}{\mathrm{}c^2}q\mathrm{\Phi }(1+U_k)\stackrel{~}{\psi }(𝐫,t)i2𝐤\stackrel{~}{\psi }(𝐫,t),$$
$`(16)`$
where the augmentation operator $`U_k`$ is defined as

$$U_k=\frac{1}{2c^2}\left(\frac{𝐩}{m_0}+\frac{\mathrm{}𝐤}{m_0}𝐯_s\right)^2.$$
$`(17)`$
It is seen that the incorporation of $`𝐤`$ is owing to the manipulation that the space harmonic $`e^{i𝐤𝐫}`$ is factored out from $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$.

Consider the ordinary case where the scalar potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ as well as the spatial rate of variation of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is weak. Thus the temporal variation of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }`$ is close to that of the harmonic $`e^{i\omega _0t}`$ and then the wavefunction can be given as $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }(𝐫,t)=\psi (𝐫,t)e^{i\omega _0t}`$, where $`\psi `$ is a weak function of space and time. Then its second time derivative becomes

$$\frac{^2}{t^2}\stackrel{~}{\psi }(𝐫,t)=\left\{\frac{^2}{t^2}\psi (𝐫,t)i2\omega _0\frac{}{t}\psi (𝐫,t)\omega _0^2\psi (𝐫,t)\right\}e^{i\omega _0t}.$$
$`(18)`$
As the temporal variation of $`\psi `$ is relatively weak, the second derivative $`^2\psi /t^2`$ can be neglected. Then we have the first-order time evolution equation in terms of the reduced wavefunction $`\psi `$

$$\frac{}{t}\psi (𝐫,t)=i\frac{c^2}{2\omega _0}^2\psi (𝐫,t)i\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}q\mathrm{\Phi }(1+U_k)\psi (𝐫,t)\frac{c^2}{\omega _0}𝐤\psi (𝐫,t).$$
$`(19)`$
We then go on to rearrange the evolution equation to express it in the atom frame, instead of the local-ether frame. The last term in the preceding equation can be written as $`𝐯_a\psi `$, since the propagation vector can be given by $`𝐤=m_0𝐯_a/\mathrm{}`$. Thus, by using the Galilean transformation (6) again, the time evolution equation for the electron bounded in a moving atom becomes

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{}{t}\psi (𝐫,t)=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m_0}^2\psi (𝐫,t)+q\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫,t)(1+U_k)\psi (𝐫,t),$$
$`(20)`$
where the position vector $`𝐫`$ and hence the time derivative are referred to the atom frame. As the potential in the preceding equation is given simply by $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫,t)`$ with $`𝐫`$ being referred to the atom frame, it has to be given by $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫𝐯_at,t)`$ in (19) with $`𝐫`$ being referred to the local-ether frame.

Ordinarily, the electromagnetic radiation in the interaction of atoms comes from a neutralized source. The electric scalar potential is supposed to be composed as $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_a+\mathrm{\Phi }_s+\mathrm{\Phi }_m`$, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_a`$ is due to the nucleus of the atom, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_s`$ to the mobile charged particles forming the current in an external source, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_m`$ to the matrix in this neutralized source. Under complete neutralization, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_s=\mathrm{\Phi }_m`$. Further, suppose the source is stationary in the atom frame, that is, $`𝐯_m=𝐯_a`$. Thus the Doppler frequency shift is not involved. Then it is easy to show that

$$(\mathrm{\Phi }_s+\mathrm{\Phi }_m)(1+U_k)=\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_s}{2c^2}\left\{\left(\frac{𝐩}{m_0}𝐯_{sm}\right)^2\left(\frac{𝐩}{m_0}\right)^2\right\}=\frac{1}{m_0}𝐀𝐩+\frac{1}{2}𝐀𝐯_{sm},$$
$`(21)`$
where the vector potential due to the neutralized source is given according to (14) as

$$𝐀=\frac{1}{c^2}𝐯_{sm}\mathrm{\Phi }_s.$$
$`(22)`$
Thus the atom-frame evolution equation becomes

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{}{t}\psi (𝐫,t)=\frac{1}{2m_0}𝐩^2\psi (𝐫,t)+q\mathrm{\Phi }_a(𝐫)\psi (𝐫,t)\frac{q}{m_0}𝐀𝐩\psi +\frac{1}{2}q𝐀𝐯_{sm}\psi ,$$
$`(23)`$
where the augmentation operator connected to potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }_a`$ is neglected as the effect of its influence on the quantum states is small in the interaction. Again, the potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }_a`$ is supposed to move with the atom and is stationary in the atom frame, while it is moving in the local-ether frame. It is noted that the time evolution equation as well as the potential is independent of the motion of atom if the atom frame is adopted as the reference frame.

The preceding evolution equation then looks like Schrödinger’s equation (2), except the last term and the reference frame. The last term in the preceding equation is of the second order of normalized speed $`v_{sm}/c`$ and is very weak as the drift speed $`v_{sm}`$ is very low, while the corresponding one in Schrödinger’s equation is a quadratic term of $`q𝐀`$. It is seen that the latter is smaller in magnitude than the former by a factor of $`|q\mathrm{\Phi }_s|/m_0c^2`$ which in turn is much less than unity. Anyway, this second-order interaction is commonly ignored in analysis  and no quantitative measurements are reported, to our knowledge. However, one fundamental difference is that the position vector, the time derivative, and the drift velocity are referred specifically to the atom frame. In the perturbational treatment of interaction, the quantum states of the unperturbed system are usually taken from the solutions of Schrödinger’s equation with a stationary potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }_a`$. By so doing, one has actually adopted the atom frame as the reference frame tacitly, although the result can be frame-independent. Thereby, the preceding evolution equation is identical to Schrödinger’s equation, if the latter is observed in the atom frame as done tacitly in common practice. In other words, Schrödinger’s equation (2) with a stationary potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }_a`$ has some hidden restrictions. That is, the reference frame is actually the atom frame, the atom speed is low in the local-ether frame, the source generating the interacting potential is electrically neutralized and is stationary in the atom frame, and the drift speed in the source is very low in this frame. However, these conditions are so common as to be ignored easily.

The evolution equation (11), (20), or (23) then presents modifications of Schrödinger equation, referred specifically either to the local-ether or to the atom frame. It is noted that the atom-frame evolution equation (23) is independent of the atom velocity itself. Therefore, its consequences comply with Galilean relativity and hence are independent of earth’s motions. However, this is owing to the approximation that the $`k^2`$ term in (15) is omitted. When this second-order term is retained and hence the restriction of low atom speed is removed, the effect of earth’s rotation resumes as in the consequences of (7).

5. Conclusion

Based on the local-ether wave equation incorporating a nature frequency, the electric scalar potential, and the augmentation operator, the first-order time evolution equation is derived for a harmonic-like wavefunction. Then the effect of the augmentation operator in the interaction of atoms with electromagnetic radiation is discussed. Except a small second-order term, this evolution equation can be identical to Schrödinger’s equation with the vector potential, if the latter is observed in the atom frame. In common practice, this frame has been adopted tacitly as the reference frame, as the scalar potential due to the atom is taken to be stationary. The predicted second-order interaction is stronger than the one in Schrödinger’s equation and might provide a means to test the modified equation.

Besides, the local-ether wave equation leads to the speed-dependences in the angular frequency and wavelength of matter wave, in the mass of particle, and in the energy of quantum states. Thus it provides the physical origin of the postulates of de Broglie and the Lorentz mass-variation law. Moreover, it accounts for the east-west directional anisotropy in the Hafele-Keating experiment, the synchronism in GPS, and for the spatial isotropy in the Hughes-Drever experiment. It also leads to the electromagnetic force law in conjunction with the physical origin of the inertial mass. Thus the local-ether wave equation and the modified Schrödinger equation account for a variety of phenomena in a consistent way.

References

* C.C. Su, Eur. Phys. J. B 24, 231 (2001).
* C.C. Su, Eur. Phys. J. C 21, 701 (2001); Europhys. Lett. 56, 170 (2001).
* C.C. Su, “A local-ether wave equation and the consequent electromagnetic force law,” J. Electromagnetic Waves Applicat. (in press); in IEEE Antennas Propagat. Soc. Int. Symp. Dig. (2001), vol. 1, p. 216; in Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. (Mar. 2001), p. 1144.
* L.I. Schiff, Quantum Mechanics (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1968), sects. 24 and 44.
* E. Merzbacher, Quantum Mechanics (Wiley, New York, 1998), ch. 19.