text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Additional heavy $`Z^{}`$ gauge bosons  are predicted in many superstring  and grand unified  theories, and also in models of dynamical symmetry breaking . If present at a scale of a TeV or so they could provide a solution to the $`\mu `$ problem  and other problems of the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) . Current limits from collider  and precision  experiments are model dependent, but generally imply that $`M_Z^{}>(500800)`$ GeV and that the $`ZZ^{}`$ mixing angle is smaller than a few $`\times 10^3`$. There are even hints of deviations in atomic parity violation 111The interpretation of these results is controversial. For recent discussion, see .. and the NuTeV experiment , which could be an early indication of a $`Z^{}`$ . A $`Z^{}`$ lighter than a TeV or so should be observable at Run II at the Tevatron. Future colliders should be able to observe a $`Z^{}`$ with mass up to around 5 TeV and perform diagnostics on the couplings up to a few TeV .

An electroweak or TeV-scale $`Z^{}`$ would have important implications for theories of neutrino mass. If the right-handed neutrinos carry a non-zero $`U(1)^{}`$ charge, then the $`U(1)^{}`$ symmetry forbids them from obtaining a Majorana mass much larger than the $`U(1)^{}`$-breaking scale, and in particular would forbid a conventional neutrino seesaw model . In this case, it might still be possible to generate small Majorana masses for the ordinary (active) neutrinos by some sort of TeV-scale seesaw mechanism in which there are additional mass suppressions . However, another possibility is that there are no Majorana mass terms, and that the neutrinos have Dirac masses which are small for some reason, such as higher dimensional operators  or volume suppressions in theories with large extra dimensions . In this case, the model would contain three additional right-handed partners of the ordinary neutrinos, which would be almost massless. Such light Dirac neutrinos (i.e., with mass less than an eV or so) in the standard model or MSSM are essentially sterile, except for the tiny effects associated with their masses and Higgs couplings, which are much too small to produce them in significant numbers prior to nucleosynthesis or in a supernova. However, the superweak interactions of these states due to their coupling to a heavy $`Z^{}`$ (or a heavy $`W^{}`$ in the $`SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)`$ extension of the standard model ) might be sufficient to create them in large numbers in the early universe  or in a supernova . In this paper, we consider the constraints following from big bang nucleosynthesis on $`Z^{}`$ properties in a class of $`E_6`$-motivated models.

It is well known that any new relativistic particle species that were present when the temperature $`T`$ was a few MeV would increase the expansion rate, leading to an earlier freeze-out of the neutron to proton ratio and therefore to a higher $`{}_{}{}^{4}He`$ abundance . Their contribution is usually parametrized by the number $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$ of additional neutrinos with full-strength weak interactions that would yield the same contribution to the energy density. The primordial $`{}_{}{}^{4}He`$ abundance is still rather uncertain, but typical estimates of the upper limit on $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$ are in the range222 The limit can be weakened by invoking an excess of $`\nu _e`$ with respect to $`\overline{\nu }_e`$, which lowers the $`n/p`$ ratio. $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu <(0.31)`$ . Of course, the $`Z`$-width does not allow more than 3 light active neutrinos , so $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$ should be interpreted as an effective parameter describing degrees of freedom that do not couple with full strength to the $`Z`$.

In 1979, Steigman, Olive, and Schramm  described the implications of a superweakly interacting light particle, such as a right-handed neutrino coupling to a heavy $`Z^{}`$. Because of their superweak interactions, such particles decoupled earlier than ordinary neutrinos. As the temperature dropped further, massive particles such as quarks, pions, and muons subsequently annihilated, reheating the ordinary neutrinos and other particles in equilibrium, but not the superweak particles. One must also take into account the transition between the quark-gluon phase and the hadron phase.

A simple estimate of the decoupling temperature is obtained as follows . Ordinary neutrinos have cross-sections $`\sigma _WG_W^2T^2`$, where $`G_W`$ is the Fermi constant, and interaction rates

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_W(T)=n\sigma _WvG_W^2T^5,$$
(1)
where $`n`$ is the density of target particles. The Hubble expansion parameter varies as $`HT^2/M_P`$, where $`M_P`$ is the Planck scale, so the decoupling temperature $`T_d`$ at which $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is equal to $`H`$ becomes

$$T_d(G_W^2M_P)^{1/3}.$$
(2)
Putting in the coefficients, $`T_d(\nu _L)1`$ MeV for the ordinary neutrinos333More detailed studies  obtain $`T_d(\nu _L)3`$ MeV. We will obtain $`T_d(\nu _R)`$ by an explicit calculation, so the difference is irrelevant for our purposes.. Similarly, a superweakly interacting particle such as a right-handed neutrino with a cross-section $`\sigma _{SW}G_{SW}^2T^2`$, would decouple at

$$T_d(\nu _R)\left(\frac{G_W}{G_{SW}}\right)^{2/3}T_d(\nu _L).$$
(3)
If in the specific model, the effective superweak coupling constant $`G_{SW}`$ is proportional to $`M_{SW}^2`$, where $`M_{SW}`$ is the mass of a superweak gauge boson, the decoupling temperature can be written as

$$T_d(\nu _R)\left(\frac{M_{SW}}{M_W}\right)^{4/3}T_d(\nu _L),$$
(4)
where $`M_W`$ is the $`W`$ mass. It is then straightforward to calculate the dilution by the subsequent quark-hadron transition and the annihilations of heavy particles, and the corresponding $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$ from the superweak particles.

Of course, the estimate in (4) is very rough. In particular, the detailed couplings of the $`Z^{}`$ to the $`\nu _R`$ and to all of the other relevant particles must be considered for a precise estimate444Detailed calculations were carried out in  for the $`\eta `$ model (see Section 2), in  for more general $`E_6`$ models, and in  for a model with generators $`T_{3R}`$ and $`BL`$. However, these studies considered only $`\nu _R\overline{\nu _R}(e^+e^{},\nu _L\overline{\nu _L})`$. In the present paper we include the interactions with all of the particles in equilibrium at a given temperature. This leads to a lower $`T_d(\nu _R)`$ and more stringent limits. Constraints on extended technicolor models were considered in . In this paper, we do this for a class of $`Z^{}`$ models with couplings motivated by $`E_6`$ grand unification . (The full structure of $`E_6`$ is not required.) We define the $`U(1)^{}`$ model in Section 2. The implications of superweakly coupled particles for nucleosynthesis and the uncertainties from the quark-hadron transition temperature $`T_c`$ are summarized in Section 3. Section 4 deals with the calculation of the decoupling temperature. We present our results and numerical analysis for $`T_d`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$ for three right-handed neutrinos as a function of the $`Z^{}`$ mass and couplings for various assumptions concerning the$`ZZ^{}`$ mixing and $`T_c`$ in Section 5. The discussion and conclusion follows in Section 6.

## 2 $`Z^{}`$ in $`E_6`$-motivated models

A general model with an extra $`Z^{}`$ is characterized by the $`Z^{}`$ mass; the $`ZZ^{}`$ mixing angle; the $`U(1)^{}`$ gauge coupling; the $`U(1)^{}`$ chiral charges for all of the fermions and scalars, which in general may be family non-universal, leading to flavor changing neutral currents ; and an additional parameter associated with mixing between the $`Z`$ and $`Z^{}`$ kinetic terms . Furthermore, most concrete $`Z^{}`$ models involve additional particles with exotic standard model quantum numbers, which are required to prevent anomalies. It is difficult to work with the most general case, so many studies make use of the $`U(1)^{}`$ charges and exotic particle content associated with the $`E_6`$ model, as an example of a consistent anomaly-free construction555 The full structure of $`E_6`$ grand unification is not required, and in fact the $`E_6`$ Yukawa coupling relations must not be respected in order to prevent rapid proton decay .. Explicit string constructions  often lead to other patterns of couplings and exotics, but these are very model dependent.

$`E_6`$ actually yields two additional $`U(1)^{}`$ factors when broken to the standard model (or to $`SU(5)`$), i.e.,

$$E_6SO(10)\times U(1)_\psi SU(5)\times U(1)_\chi \times U(1)_\psi .$$
(5)
It is usually assumed that only one linear combination survives to low energies, parametrized by a mixing angle $`\theta _{E6}`$. The resultant $`U(1)^{}`$ charge is then666We ignore the possibility of kinetic mixing .

$$Q=Q_\chi \mathrm{cos}\theta _{E6}+Q_\psi \mathrm{sin}\theta _{E6}.$$
(6)
A special case that is often considered is $`U(1)_\eta `$, which corresponds to $`\theta _{E6}=2\pi \mathrm{tan}^1\sqrt{\frac{5}{3}}=1.71\pi `$. We list the charges of $`U(1)_\chi `$ and $`U(1)_\psi `$ that we need in Table 1. The quantum numbers of the associated exotic particles are given in . It is conventional to choose $`\theta _{E6}`$ to be in the range $`(0,\pi )`$, since the charges merely change sign for $`\theta _{E6}\theta _{E6}+\pi `$. With this convention one must allow both positive and negative values for the $`ZZ^{}`$ mixing angle $`\delta `$. In this paper, we find it convenient to choose a different convention in which $`\theta _{E6}`$ varies from $`0`$ to $`2\pi `$, but for which $`\delta 0`$. That is, the range $`0\pi `$ corresponds to the $`E_6`$ models with negative mixing, while $`\pi 2\pi `$ corresponds to positive mixing. The $`\nu _R`$ charge is nonzero, precluding an ordinary seesaw, except for $`\theta _{E6}0.42\pi `$ and $`1.42\pi `$. We will always assume that the neutrinos are Dirac and that the three right-handed neutrinos are therefore very light. (In fact, the non-zero Dirac masses play no role in the analysis.) There could be additional sterile states, such as the $`SO(10)`$-singlet states occurring in the 27-plet of $`E_6`$. If these involve nearly-massless fermions they could also contribute to the expansion rate prior to nucleosynthesis. We assume that these additional neutralinos acquire electroweak scale masses from the gauge symmetry breaking .

Let $`Z`$ and $`Z^{}`$ represent the Standard Model and $`U(1)^{}`$ gauge bosons, respectively, and $`Z_{1,2}`$ the mass eigenstate bosons, related by

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}Z_1\\ Z_2\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\delta & \mathrm{sin}\delta \\ \mathrm{sin}\delta & \mathrm{cos}\delta \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}Z\\ Z^{}\end{array}\right),$$
(7)
where $`\delta `$ is the $`ZZ^{}`$ mixing angle. As stated in the Introduction, the limits on $`M_{Z_2}M_Z^{}`$ depend on $`\theta _{E6}`$ and also on the masses of any exotics and superpartners to which the $`Z^{}`$ couples, but are typically in the range $`M_Z^{}>(500800)`$ GeV. The limits on $`\delta `$ are correlated with those for $`M_Z^{}`$ and are asymmetric under $`\delta \delta `$. However, for $`M_Z^{}1`$ TeV the constraints are less sensitive to $`\theta _{E6}`$ and are approximately symmetric, with $`|\delta |<0.002`$ giving a reasonable approximation for all $`\theta _{E6}`$. For larger $`M_Z^{}`$ there are two theoretical constraints on the mixing, corresponding to equations (6) and (5) of . The first is a theoretical relation between the mass and mixing,

$$\delta =C\frac{g_Z^{}}{g_Z}\frac{M_{Z_1}^2}{M_{Z_2}^2},$$
(8)
where $`g_Z\sqrt{g_1^2+g_2^2}`$ and $`g_Z^{}`$ is the $`U(1)^{}`$ gauge coupling constant. The value of $`g_Z^{}`$ depends on the embedding and breaking of the underlying theory. We will choose $`g_Z^{}=\sqrt{\frac{5}{3}}g_Z\mathrm{sin}\theta _W`$, which corresponds to a unification of $`g_Z^{}`$ with the other gauge couplings for the exotic particle quantum numbers of supersymmetric $`E_6`$. In (8) $`C`$ depends on the charges of the scalar fields which lead to the mixing (see Table III of ). However, for the typical cases in which the mixing is induced by scalars in an $`E_6`$ 27 or $`\overline{27}`$-plet, it is a reasonable approximation to take $`1<C<1`$ for all $`\theta _{E6}`$. (One can have a slightly more restrictive range for some $`\theta _{E6}`$.) The assumption $`|C|<1`$ corresponds to $`|\delta |<0.0051/M_{Z_2}^2`$, where $`M_{Z_2}`$ is in TeV. The second theoretical constraint is the requirement that the mixing should not change the mass of the lighter $`Z`$ more than is allowed by the data. It is equivalent to

$$|\delta |\sqrt{\rho _01}\frac{M_{Z_1}}{M_{Z_2}},$$
(9)
where $`M_{Z_1}=M_Z`$, and the $`\rho _0`$ parameter, defined precisely in , should be exactly 1 in the standard model. The precision data imply $`\rho _0<1.001`$. Hence, $`|\delta |<0.0029/M_{Z_2}`$, where $`M_{Z_2}`$ is again in TeV. We will consider the following cases:

$`(\mathrm{A0})\delta `$ $`=`$ $`0(\mathrm{no}\mathrm{mixing})`$
$`(\mathrm{A1})|\delta |`$ $`<`$ $`0.0051/M_{Z_2}^2(\mathrm{theoretical}\mathrm{mass}\mathrm{mixing}\mathrm{relation})`$
$`(\mathrm{A2})|\delta |`$ $`<`$ $`0.0029/M_{Z_2}(\rho _0\mathrm{constraint})`$
$`(\mathrm{A3})|\delta |`$ $`=`$ $`0.002(\mathrm{maximal}\mathrm{mixing}\mathrm{allowed}\mathrm{for}\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{Z}_2}1\mathrm{TeV}).`$ (10)
A1 is more stringent than A2 and A3 in the large mass range, so we will mainly focus on A0 and A1.

The lagrangian for the massive neutral current coupling to fermion $`f`$ is

$`_{\mathrm{𝑖𝑛𝑡}}`$ $`=`$ $`g_ZQ_Z(f_L)\overline{f}_L\gamma ^\mu f_LZ_\mu +g_ZQ_Z(f_R)\overline{f}_R\gamma ^\mu f_RZ_\mu `$ (11)
$`+g_Z^{}Q(f_L)\overline{f}_L\gamma ^\mu f_LZ_\mu ^{}+g_Z^{}Q(f_R)\overline{f}_R\gamma ^\mu f_RZ_\mu ^{}`$
where

$`Q_Z(f_L)T_f^3q_f\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W,`$
$`Q_Z(f_R)q_f\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W,`$ (12)
and $`Q(f_{L,R})`$ is given by (6). The annihilation cross-section through $`Z^{}`$ has both (light) $`Z_1`$ and (heavy) $`Z_2`$ contributions unless $`\delta =0`$ and is calculated in Section 4.

## 3 Nucleosynthesis

As described in the Introduction, the observed $`{}_{}{}^{4}He`$ abundance constrains the energy density at the time of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis , with most recent estimates  of the number of equivalent new active neutrino types in the range $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu <(0.31)`$.

The contribution of new relativistic species can be written

$$\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu =\frac{8}{7}\underset{B}{}\frac{g_B}{2}\left(\frac{T_B}{T_{BBN}}\right)^4+\underset{F}{}\frac{g_F}{2}\left(\frac{T_F}{T_{BBN}}\right)^4,$$
(13)
where $`g_B`$ and $`g_F`$ are degrees of freedom of new bosons (B) and new fermions (F), respectively, $`T_{B,F}`$ are their effective temperatures, and $`T_{BBN}1`$ MeV is the temperature at the time of the freeze-out of the neutron to proton ratio. In particular, the contribution of three types of right-handed neutrinos is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu =31\left(\frac{T_{\nu _R}}{T_{BBN}}\right)^4=3\left(\frac{g(T_{BBN})}{g(T_d(\nu _R))}\right)^{4/3}$$
(14)
where $`T_d(\nu _R)`$ is the decoupling temperature of the right-handed neutrinos. $`g(T)`$ is the effective number of degrees of freedom at temperature $`T`$. Neglecting finite mass corrections, it is given by $`g_B(T)+\frac{7}{8}g_F(T)`$, where $`g_{B,F}(T)`$ are the number of bosonic and fermionic relativistic degrees of freedom in equilibrium at temperature $`T`$ . In particular, $`g(T_{BBN})=43/4`$ from the three active neutrinos, $`e^\pm `$, and $`\gamma `$, and $`g(T)`$ increases (in this approximation) as a series of step functions at higher temperature as more particles are in equilibrium. The second equality in (14) comes from entropy conservation  in the heavy particle decouplings and quark-hadron transition subsequent to the $`\nu _R`$ decoupling. Therefore, the $`\nu _R`$ are not included in our definition of $`g(T)`$. (They will be included in the expansion rate formula prior to decoupling.)

In calculating $`g(T)`$ one must also take into account the QCD phase transition at temperature $`T_c`$. Above $`T_c`$ the $`u`$ and $`d`$ (and possibly $`s`$) quarks and the gluons were the relevant hadronic degrees of freedom, while below $`T_c`$ they are replaced by pions . The value of $`T_c`$ is poorly known, but is usually estimated to be in the range $`(150400)`$ MeV . This range is estimated in quark and hadron potential models as the temperature above which hadrons start to overlap (lower end) or as the temperature below which the quark gas in no longer ideal (upper end). A related uncertainty is whether to use current or constituent quark masses. At very high temperatures the quarks can be considered as asymptotically free and current masses are appropriate, while around $`T_c`$ constituent effects become important777One can alternatively argue that the current masses are appropriate above a temperature $`T_{chiral}`$, above which chiral symmetry is restored, and constitutent masses below $`T_{chiral}`$. One would expect $`T_c`$ and $`T_{chiral}`$ to be comparable, but their precise relation is uncertain.. The range of estimates for $`T_c`$ is essentially unchanged if one simply fixes the quark masses at either value .

Figure 1 shows the explicit values of $`g(T)`$ from the more detailed analysis of Ref. , which includes finite mass and other corrections, and uses the two values $`T_c=150`$ MeV and 400 MeV. We will also use these values for our numerical analysis. The sharp increase in $`g(T)`$ above $`T_c`$ (because of the large number of quark and gluon degrees of freedom) is extremely important for relaxing the constraints on the $`Z^{}`$ mass.

The QCD phase transition does not occur instantaneously or at one temperature but rather smoothly (meaning both quarks and hadrons exist at the same temperature) for a period of time around $`T_c`$, as illustrated by the smooth curves in Figure 1. Risking a small inconsistency, we approximate our calculation of the interaction rate by simply switching from quarks to hadrons for temperatures below $`T_c`$. We will take the values $`T_c`$ = 150 and 400 MeV to illustrate the range of hadronic uncertainties. Above $`T_c`$, the interaction rate depends in principle on the quark masses, especially for low $`T_c`$. However, we have found in practice that the results are almost identical for constituent and current masses, so we will mainly display them for the constituent case (both will be shown for the $`\eta `$ model).

The calculation of the right-handed neutrino decoupling temperature, $`T_d(\nu _R)`$ in terms of the $`Z^{}`$ parameters is discussed in the next section.

## 4 The expansion and interaction rates

A particle is decoupled from the background when its interaction rate drops below the expansion rate of the universe. In this section, we present the the cosmological expansion rate $`H(T)`$ along with the explicit form of the interaction rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(T)`$ for $`\overline{\nu _R}\nu _R`$ annihilating into all open channels888As long as equilibrium is maintained, the $`\nu _R`$ annihilation and production rates are the same. It is more convenient to estimate the annihilation rate of $`\overline{\nu _R}\nu _R`$ into massive particles, because the final state mass effects are easily incorporated in the cross section formulae, whereas for the production rate one must explicitly consider the suppressed number density for the massive particles., and estimate the decoupling temperature $`T_d`$ of a right-handed neutrino by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(T_d)H(T_d)`$.

The Hubble expansion parameter is given by

$$H(T)=\sqrt{\frac{8\pi G_N\rho (T)}{3}}=\sqrt{\frac{4\pi ^3G_Ng^{}(T)}{45}}T^2$$
(15)
where $`G_N=M_P^2`$ is the Newton constant and $`\rho (T)`$ is the energy density. We define $`g^{}(T)=g(T)+\frac{21}{4}`$, where the $`21/4`$ reflects the 3 massless right-handed neutrinos.

The cross-section $`\sigma _i(s)\sigma (\overline{\nu _R}\nu _R\overline{f_i}f_i)`$ for a massless right-handed neutrino pair to annihilate into a fermion pair through the $`Z^{}`$-channel is

$`\sigma _i(s)=N_C^i{\displaystyle \frac{s\beta _i}{16\pi }}\left\{\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _i^2}{3}}\right)\left((G_{RL}^i)^2+(G_{RR}^i)^2\right)+2\left(1\beta _i^2\right)G_{RL}^iG_{RR}^i\right\}`$ (16)
where (for $`sM_{Z_1}^2,M_{Z_2}^2`$)

$`G_{RX}^i`$ $`=`$ $`g_Z^2Q(\nu _R)Q(f_{iX})\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\delta }{M_{Z_1}^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}^2\delta }{M_{Z_2}^2}}\right)`$ (17)
$``$ $`g_Z^{}g_ZQ(\nu _R)Q_Z(f_{iX})\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\delta \mathrm{cos}\delta }{M_{Z_1}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\delta \mathrm{cos}\delta }{M_{Z_2}^2}}\right),`$
where $`X=L`$ or $`R`$, $`\beta _i\sqrt{14m_{f_i}^2/s}`$ is the relativistic velocity for the final particles, and $`N_C^i`$ is the color factor of particle $`f_i`$.

In the limit of no-mixing $`(\delta =0)`$ and massless final particles $`(\beta _i=1)`$, the cross-section simplifies to

$$\sigma _i(s)N_C^i\frac{s}{12\pi }\left(\frac{g_Z^2}{M_Z^{}^2}\right)^2Q(\nu _R)^2\left(Q(f_{iL})^2+Q(f_{iR})^2\right),$$
(18)
consistent with the earlier estimate $`\sigma _{SW}G_{SW}^2T^2`$ with $`G_{SW}\frac{g_Z^2}{M_Z^{}^2}`$ and $`T\sqrt{s}`$.

For temperatures less than the quark-hadron transition temperature $`T_c=150400`$ MeV, we replace the quark degrees of freedom with hadrons. The only relevant annihilation channels are into charged pions. We approximate the cross-section of $`\overline{\nu _R}\nu _R`$ annihilating into $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ by using the $`\rho `$ dominance model .

$`\sigma _\pi (s)\sigma (\overline{\nu _R}\nu _R\pi ^+\pi ^{})={\displaystyle \frac{s\beta _\pi ^3}{96\pi }}|F_\pi (s)|^2\left(G_{RL}^u+G_{RL}^{\overline{d}}+G_{RR}^u+G_{RR}^{\overline{d}}\right)^2`$ (19)
which is basically obtained by using $`Q(f_{iL})=Q(u_L)+Q(\overline{d}_L)`$ and $`Q_Z(f_{iL})=Q_Z(u_L)+Q_Z(\overline{d}_L)`$ for $`G_{RL}^i`$ and likewise for $`G_{RR}^i`$. The pion form factor999More complicated form factors are known to fit the experimental data better , but (20) is adequate for our purposes. is

$$F_\pi (s)=\frac{m_\rho ^2}{sm_\rho ^2+im_\rho \mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho },$$
(20)
with $`m_\rho =771`$ MeV and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho =149`$ MeV.

The interaction rate per $`\nu _R`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(T)=\underset{i}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_i(T)=\underset{i}{}\frac{n_{\nu _R}}{g_{\nu _R}}\sigma v(\overline{\nu _R}\nu _R\overline{f_i}f_i,\pi ^+\pi ^{}),$$
(21)
where $`n_{\nu _R}`$ is the number density of a single flavor of massless right-handed neutrinos plus antineutrinos, $`g_{\nu _R}=2`$ is the number of degrees of freedom, and $`\sigma v`$ is the thermal average of the cross-section times velocity.

We use the same masses (Table 2) used in the calculation  of $`g(T)`$ in Figure 1, except for the value $`m_b=4200`$ MeV of the $`b`$ quark current mass . We include the contributions of all particles up to the $`b`$ quarks. The contributions from the top quark and heavy particles from new physics, such as squarks, sleptons, and exotics would only be relevant when the decoupling temperature is close to the electroweak scale or higher. This only occurs when $`\theta _{E6}`$ is extremely close to the values for which the $`\nu _R`$ decouples from the $`Z^{}`$.

For a massless right-handed neutrino pair colliding with 4-momenta $`p^\mu (p,𝐩)`$ and $`k^\mu (k,𝐤)`$ with relative angle $`\theta `$, the interaction rate per neutrino is

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i(T)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\nu _R}}{n_{\nu _R}(T)}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3𝐩}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{d^3𝐤}{(2\pi )^3}f_\nu (p)f_\nu (k)\sigma _i(s)v_M}`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\nu _R}}{8\pi ^4n_{\nu _R}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}p^2𝑑p{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}k^2𝑑k{\displaystyle _1^1}d\mathrm{cos}\theta {\displaystyle \frac{\left(1\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)}{\left(e^{k/T}+1\right)\left(e^{p/T}+1\right)}}\sigma _i(s),`$
where $`f_\nu (k)=(e^{k/T}+1)^1`$ is the Fermi-Dirac distribution with

$$n_{\nu _R}(T)=g_{\nu _R}\frac{d^3𝐤}{(2\pi )^3}f_\nu (k)=2\frac{3}{4\pi ^2}\zeta (3)T^3,$$
(23)
$`v_M=pk/pk=1\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ is the Møller velocity, and $`s=2pk(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$ is the square of the center-of-mass energy.

A root-finding method was used to calculate the decoupling temperature, for which $`H=\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. A several percent error was allowed in the numerical result to calculate the roots efficiently. Finite temperature effects, such as changes in the phase space due to interactions with the thermal bath, can increase the ordinary neutrino decoupling temperature by several percent . Analogous effects for the $`\nu _R`$ are too small to significantly affect our results.

## 5 Numerical results

In this section, we present the numerical results from the calculation. The marked points in Figures 2-5 are the results of the actual calculation, while the curves interpolate.

Figures 2 and 3 show how the right-handed neutrino decoupling temperature $`T_d`$ and the equivalent number of extra neutrino species $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$ change with $`M_{Z_2}`$ for $`\theta _{E6}=2\pi \mathrm{tan}^1\sqrt{\frac{5}{3}}1.71\pi `$ (the $`\eta `$ model) for constituent and current masses, respectively, for $`T_c=`$ 150 and 400 MeV and the various assumptions concerning the $`ZZ^{}`$ mixing listed in (10). The no-mixing curves (A0) exhibit an approximate $`T_d(M_{Z_2}/M_Z)^{4/3}`$ dependence, in agreement with the simple estimate in the Introduction . This is to be roughly expected because of the $`M_{Z_2}^4`$ dependence of the cross section for no mixing, but is not exact because additional channels which affect both the expansion and interaction rates open up at higher temperatures. The no-mixing curves in Figures 2 and 3 are reasonably described by (4) for $`T_d(\nu _L)`$ 3 MeV for the $`\eta `$ model, but the coefficients in front of $`(M_{Z_2}/M_Z)^{4/3}`$ are strongly model dependent, as is apparent in Figures 4-5. $`T_d`$ is usually lower in the cases involving $`ZZ^{}`$ mixing, because the $`Z`$ annihilation channel yields a contribution proportional to $`\delta ^2`$ even for infinite $`M_{Z_2}`$. That is why the (theoretically unrealistic) curves A3 for fixed $`|\delta |=0.002`$ are asymptotically flat for large $`M_{Z_2}`$. Case A1, in which $`|\delta |0.0051/M_{Z_2}^2`$, also has $`T_d(M_{Z_2}/M_Z)^{4/3}`$, though with a smaller coefficient than for no mixing101010The coefficient is smaller for most but not all values of $`\theta _{E6}`$., while A2, with $`|\delta |=0.0029/M_{Z_2}`$, has $`T_d(M_{Z_2}/M_Z)^{2/3}`$. For case A1, $`T_d`$ is asymmetric under $`\delta \delta `$ for all $`M_{Z_2}`$, as is apparent from (10) and (17). The difference vanishes asymptotically for A2 and A3, but even for $`M_{Z_2}=`$ 5 TeV there is still a difference, especially for A2.

The decoupling temperature is slightly lower for $`T_c=`$ 400 MeV than for 150 MeV, provided it is in the range for which the two curves in Figure 1 differ. Both the expansion and annihilation rates are smaller for $`T_c=`$ 400 MeV, but the effect on the expansion rate is more important because of the gluonic degrees of freedom. Similarly, $`T_d`$ is smaller for current quark masses than for constituent masses, provided $`T_d>T_c`$, because of the larger annihilation rate111111The difference between current and constituent masses would be reduced if their effects in the annihilation rate were properly correlated with those in the expansion rate. However, as described in Section 3, the effect on $`g(T)`$ is small compared with the uncertainty from $`T_c`$, and will be neglected..

The $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$ curves change rapidly when $`T_d`$ reaches the quark-hadron phase transition temperature $`T_c`$, where $`g(T)`$ changes significantly. That is why $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$ is so much larger for $`T_c`$ = 400 MeV than for 150 MeV. For the no-mixing case, the difference is significant for $`M_{Z_2}\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}`$ 4 TeV, and it persists to even higher masses for the mixing cases (and to infinite mass for maximal mixing). The only significant difference between the constituent and current quark masses is in the maximal mixing case with $`T_c=`$ 150 MeV. That is because $`T_d`$ is very close to $`T_c`$, and even a small change in $`T_d`$ leads to a significant change in $`g(T)`$, as can be seen in Figure 1.

It is apparent from Figures 2 and 3 that the $`\eta `$ model leads to a significant $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$ for all of the cases and parameter ranges considered. Even the very conservative constraint $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu <1`$ implies $`M_{Z_2}>1.52.2`$ TeV for $`T_c=150`$ MeV, or, limiting ourselves to the most realistic cases A0 and A1, $`M_{Z_2}>1.51.9`$ TeV. For $`T_c=400`$ MeV one finds $`M_{Z_2}>3.34`$ TeV for A0 and A1, $`M_{Z_2}>5`$ TeV for A2 and no allowed values for A3. All of these are much more stringent than the direct laboratory limit of 620 GeV  or the indirect limits from precision electroweak data . The more stringent limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu <0.3`$ is satisfied for cases A0 and A1 for $`M_{Z_2}>2.53.2`$ TeV for $`T_c=150`$ MeV, and $`M_{Z_2}>4.04.9`$ TeV for $`T_c=400`$ MeV. It is not satisfied for case A2 with $`T_c=`$ 400 MeV until extremely high masses, and never for (fixed) maximal mixing unless one takes a mixing much smaller than the present accelerator limit ($`|\delta |<0.0024`$) .

Figures 4 and 5 display the results for the class of $`E_6`$ models parametrized by the angle $`\theta _{E6}`$ defined in (6), for constituent masses and $`T_c=`$ 150 MeV and 400 MeV, respectively. Each figure includes the no-mixing case and the mixing assumption A1 defined in (10), which is the most stringent and realistic. The limits in the presence of $`ZZ^{}`$ mixing are asymmetric under $`\delta \delta `$. This is represented in the right-handed graphs by taking $`\delta <0`$ but allowing $`\theta _{E6}`$ to run from 0 to $`2\pi `$, so that the $`(\pi 2\pi )`$ range for $`\delta <0`$ is equivalent to $`(0\pi )`$ with $`\delta >0`$. The top graphs display $`T_d`$ as a function of $`\theta _{E6}`$ for fixed values $`M_{Z_2}=`$ 500, 1000, 1500, 2000, 2500, 3500, 4000, and 5000 GeV, with larger $`M_{Z_2}`$ corresponding to higher $`T_d`$. The middle graphs show $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$ as a function of $`\theta _{E6}`$ for the same values of $`M_{Z_2}`$, with larger $`M_{Z_2}`$ corresponding to smaller $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$. The bottom figures show the lower bounds on $`M_{Z_2}`$ for $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu <0.3`$, $`0.5`$, $`1.0`$ and $`1.2`$, with larger $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$ corresponding to smaller $`M_{Z_2}`$.

It is seen that $`T_d`$ becomes very large and the $`M_{Z_2}`$ limits essentially disappear as $`\theta _{E6}`$ approaches $`\theta _{E6}0.42\pi `$ or $`1.42\pi `$, for which $`\nu _R`$ decouples completely ($`Q(\nu _R)=0`$), but the details depend on the new physics at the electroweak and higher scales (we only explicitly included particles up to the $`b`$ quark). $`\theta _{E6}=1.71\pi `$ corresponds to the $`\eta `$ model with $`\delta <0`$, while $`\theta _{E6}=0.71\pi `$ corresonds to $`\delta >0`$. It is seen from the figures that $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$ is larger for values of $`\theta _{E6}`$ closer to 0 (the $`\chi `$ model), but are weaker near $`\theta _{E6}=\pi /2`$ (the $`\psi `$ model).

From the figures it is apparent that requiring $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu 1`$ excludes much of the interesting parameter space for $`T_c=`$ 150 MeV, except for large $`Z_2`$ masses or regions very close to the $`\nu _R`$ decoupling angles $`0.42\pi `$ and $`1.42\pi `$. In particular, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu 1`$ constraint is satisfied for all values of $`\theta _{E6}`$ for $`M_{Z_2}\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}2.2`$ TeV if there is no mixing, with a slightly more stringent constraint $`M_{Z_2}\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}2.4`$ TeV for mixing assumption A1. The corresponding $`M_{Z_2}`$ limits for $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu 0.3`$ are 3.8 and 4.3 TeV. The constraints for $`T_c=`$ 400 MeV are even more stringent, essentially requiring $`\nu _R`$ decoupling or very large $`Z_2`$ masses. One has $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu 1(0.3)`$ for all $`\theta _{E6}`$ for cases A0 and A1 for $`M_{Z_2}\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}5.1(6.1)`$ TeV.

## 6 Discussion and Conclusion

Many theories beyond the standard model predict the existence of additional $`Z^{}`$ gauge bosons at the TeV scale. The associated $`U(1)^{}`$ gauge symmetry often prevents the large Majorana masses needed for an ordinary neutrino seesaw model. One possibility is that the neutrino masses are Dirac and small. In that case, there is a possibility of producing the sterile “right-handed” neutrino partners $`\nu _R`$ via $`Z^{}`$ interactions prior to nucleosynthesis , leading to a faster expansion and additional $`{}_{}{}^{4}He`$.

We have studied the right-handed neutrino decoupling temperature $`T_d`$ in a class of $`E_6`$-motivated $`U(1)^{}`$ models as a function of the $`Z^{}`$ mass and couplings (determined by an angle $`\theta _{E6}`$) for a variety of assumptions concerning the $`ZZ^{}`$ mixing angle $`\delta `$, the quark-hadron transition temperature $`T_c`$, and the nature (constituent or current) of the quark masses. We have taken all relevant channels (quark, gluon, lepton, and hadron) into account, not only in the expansion rate $`H(T)`$ and entropy, but also in the rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(T)`$ for a massless right-handed neutrino pair to annihilate into a fermion or pion pair via the ordinary or heavy $`Z`$ bosons. We therefore obtain a larger annihilation rate, and thus a lower decoupling temperature and more stringent constraints, than earlier calculations, which only included annihilation into $`e^+e^{}`$ and $`\nu _L\overline{\nu _L}`$.

From the decoupling temperature and entropy conservation as quarks and gluons are confined or as various heavy particle types decouple and annihilate, one can obtain the number of right-handed neutrinos at nucleosynthesis, expressed in terms of the equivalent number $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$ of new ordinary neutrino species, for various sets of model parameters $`M_{Z_2}`$, $`\delta `$, $`\theta _{E6}`$, and $`T_c`$. Most recent studies of the primordial abundances obtain upper limits on $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$ in the range (0.3–1) . As can be seen in Figures 4-5, this implies rather stringent constraints on the $`Z^{}`$ parameters for most values of $`\theta _{E6}`$. For $`T_c=`$ 150 MeV, the constraint $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu <0.3(1)`$ is satisfied for all $`\theta _{E6}`$ for $`M_{Z_2}\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}3.8(2.2)`$ TeV for no $`ZZ^{}`$ mixing, and for $`M_{Z_2}\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}4.3(2.4)`$ TeV allowing the range of mixing angles $`\delta `$ obtained approximately when one assumes that the scalar fields responsible for the mixing are contained in the 27 or $`\overline{27}`$-plet of $`E_6`$ (case A1 in (10)). For $`T_c=`$ 400 MeV the constraints are much stronger, $`M_{Z_2}\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}6.1(5.1)`$ TeV for $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu <0.3(1)`$. The strong dependence on $`T_c`$ is due to the large increase in the number of degrees of freedom for temperatures $`\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}T_c`$ (Figure (1)), so that the number density of $`\nu _R`$ is strongly diluted for $`T_d\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}T_c`$. The constraints are strongest for $`\theta _{E6}`$ close to 0 or $`\pi `$, i.e., near the $`\chi `$ model, which corresponds to $`SO(10)SU(5)\times U(1)_\chi `$, and are very weak near the $`\psi `$ model corresponding to $`E_6SO(10)\times U(1)_\psi `$, $`\theta _{E6}=\pi /2`$. They disappear entirely at the values $`\theta _{E6}=0.42\pi `$ and $`1.42\pi `$, for which the $`\nu _R`$ decouple from the $`Z^{}`$. The often considered $`\eta `$ model, $`\theta _{E6}=2\pi \mathrm{tan}^1\sqrt{\frac{5}{3}}=1.71\pi `$ (or $`0.71\pi `$ for $`Z_\eta `$) is somewhere in between, with the constraints shown in more detail in Figures 2 and 3.

Except near the $`\nu _R`$ decoupling angles, the $`Z^{}`$ mass and mixing constraints from nucleosynthesis are much more stringent than the existing laboratory limits from searches for direct production or from precision electroweak data, and are comparable to the ranges that may ultimately be probed at proposed colliders. They are qualitatively similar to the limits from energy emission from Supernova 1987A , but somewhat more stringent for $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu <0.3`$, and have entirely different theoretical and systematic uncertainties.

There are several ways to evade the nucleosynthesis constraints on an extra $`Z^{}`$. One possibility is to generate small Majorana neutrino masses for the ordinary neutrinos by invoking an extended seesaw model , in which the extra sterile neutrinos are typically at the TeV scale. Another possibility is that the $`\nu _R`$ decouple from the $`Z^{}`$, in which case the constraints disappear. This can in fact occur naturally in classes of models in which one combination of the $`\chi `$ and $`\psi `$ charges is broken at a large scale associated with an $`F`$ and $`D`$-flat direction , leaving a light $`Z^{}`$ which decouples from the $`\nu _R`$121212A large Majorana mass for the $`\nu _R`$ may still be forbidden in the model.. Yet another possibility is to weaken the observational constraint on $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$ by allowing a large excess131313Several authors  have recently argued that the observed atmospheric and solar neutrino mixing (for the large mixing angle solution) would equilibrate the $`\nu _e,\nu _\mu `$, and $`\nu _\tau `$ asymmetries. They obtain stringent constraints on the asymmetry if one requires a balance between the effects on the $`\nu _ene^{}p`$ and expansion rates. However, these limits do not apply in the present case because of the additional contribution to the expansion rate from the $`\nu _R`$. of $`\nu _e`$ with respect to $`\overline{\nu }_e`$. This would, however, require a somewhat fine-tuned cancellation between the effects of the $`\nu _R`$ and the $`\nu _e\overline{\nu }_e`$ asymmetry.

Similar constraints on the $`W^{}`$ and $`Z^{}`$ properties in $`SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)`$ models  are under investigation .

## Acknowledgments

This research was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under Grants No. EY-76-02-3071 and No. DE-FG02-95ER40896, and in part by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation. VB thanks the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics at the University of California in Santa Barbara for hospitality.


format: text

text:
# Andreev Bound States in Ferromagnet - Superconductor Nanostructures

## 1  Introduction

When a non-magnetic normal metal is in contact with a superconductor it acquires superconducting properties. This effect, known as the proximity effect , has extensively been studied for almost $`40`$ years, and is rather well understood in terms of Andreev reflections . On the other hand the proximity effect between a ferromagnet ($`FM`$) and a superconductor ($`SC`$) is less understood. However recent advance in nanofabrication made it possible to produce high quality $`FM`$/$`SC`$ interfaces  and hence there is much current interest in the study of the interplay between magnetism and superocnductivity in heterostructures involving such surfaces -.

It is widely accepted that ferromagnetism is destructive for superconductivity. Thus one expects that the proximity effect in a ferromagnet should be very short ranged. Indeed, it has been predicted  that Andreev reflections are suppressed due to the fact that impinging electrons and reflected holes occupy bands with different spin orientations. Surprisingly, some of the experiments seem to be in contradiction with the short range nature of the proximity effect. For instance, it was found  that the transition temperature $`T_c`$ of the $`FM`$/$`SC`$ multilayers oscillates as a function of the $`FM`$ thickness. This curious behavior has been attributed to the formation of an effective $`\pi `$-junction .

In general a system is in the $`\pi `$-phase if the $`SC`$ order parameter changes its sign across the junction. The $`\pi `$-junction behavior has been extensively studied in connection with the high-$`T_c`$ superconductors , where $`SC`$ order parameter changes its sign under $`\pi /2`$ rotation. This has tremendous consequences as it leads to the zero energy Andreev states , zero bias conductance peaks, paramagnetic Meissner effect and spontaneously generated currents.

Some other experiments show oscillatory behavior of the $`T_c`$, even though a $`\pi `$-junction cannot be realized in the geometry investigated. The example is a $`FM`$/$`SC`$/$`FM`$ trilayer , where only one $`SC`$ layer is present. Recently oscillations of the density of states with $`FM`$ thickness in a $`FM`$/$`SC`$ bilayer has been also observed . Evidently a conventional $`\pi `$-junction is also impossible in this case. Interestingly, such unusual behavior can be explained in terms of a Fulde - Ferrell - Larkin - Ovchinnikov ($`FFLO`$) - like state , forming in the proximity conditions.

Usually, when the exchange field is increased, one would expect that either the field is too weak to break Cooper pairs or it leads through first order phase transition to the normal state. However as it was noted in , for certain values of the exchange field a new superconducting state can be realized. This $`FFLO`$ state features a spatially dependent order parameter and the current flow in the ground state. The total current consists of two contributions: one, which is due to the normal unpaired electrons and the other one, which is a supercurrent. These two parts cancel each other, so the Bloch theorem: no current in the ground state, is satisfied.

Similarly in the $`FM`$/$`SC`$ heterostructures: the oscillations of the pairing amplitude have been predicted - as well as spontaneously generated current in the ground state . These features give a strong evidence that the $`FFLO`$ state is really realized in $`FM`$/$`SC`$ nanostructures.

In the present paper we attempt to provide further insights into the physics of $`FFLO`$ state in $`FM`$/$`SC`$ heterostructures. In particular we investigate the properties of the Andreev bound states, pairing amplitude and the spontaneous current when the temperature is varied. We suggest that temperature measurements of various experimentally accessible quantities can contribute much to the understanding of the superconductivity in $`FM`$/$`SC`$ bilayers. The paper is organized as follows: In the section 2 we introduce a simple model which can handle the main properties of $`FM`$/$`SC`$ systems. Some technical details concerning numerical implementation can be found in a subsequent paper . In sec. 3 the nature of the Andreev bound states is discussed. We also show calculated temperature dependences of various quantities characterizing our system. In particular the density of states, which can be measured experimentally, can unambiguously confirm the current flowing in the ground state. Finally, the conclusions are given in sec. 4.

## 2  The model and the formal structure of the theory

To study the properties of $`FM`$/$`SC`$ system we have adopted the $`2D`$ Hubbard model featuring the exchange splitting in the ferromagnet and an electron - electron attraction in superconductor. The Hamiltonian is:

$`H={\displaystyle \underset{ij\sigma }{}}\left[t_{ij}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}E_{ex}\sigma \mu \right)\delta _{ij}\right]c_{i\sigma }^+c_{j\sigma }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i\sigma }{}}U_in_{i\sigma }n_{i\sigma }`$ (1)
where in the presence of a vector potential $`\stackrel{}{A}(\stackrel{}{r})`$, the hopping integral is given by $`t_{ij}=te^{ie_{\stackrel{}{r}_i}^{\stackrel{}{r}_j}\stackrel{}{A}(\stackrel{}{r})𝑑\stackrel{}{r}}`$ for nearest neighbor lattice sites, whose positions are $`\stackrel{}{r}_i`$ and $`\stackrel{}{r}_j`$, and zero otherwise. The exchange splitting $`E_{ex}`$ is only non-zero on the $`FM`$ side, unlike as $`U_i`$ (electron \- electron attraction) being non-zero only in $`SC`$. $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential, $`c_{i\sigma }^+`$, ($`c_{i\sigma }`$) are the usual electron creation (annihilation) operators and $`\widehat{n}_{i\sigma }=c_{i\sigma }^+c_{i\sigma }`$.

In the following we shall work within Spin - Polarized - Hartree - Fock - Gorkov ($`SPHFG`$) approximation  assuming periodicity in the direction parallel to the interface while working in a real space in the direction perpendicular. Labelling the layers by integer $`n`$ and $`m`$ at each $`k_y`$ point of the Brillouin zone we shall solve the following $`SPHFG`$ equation:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{m^{},\gamma ,k_y}{}}H_{nm^{}}^{\alpha \gamma }(\omega ,k_y)G_{m^{}m}^{\gamma \beta }(\omega ,k_y)=\delta _{nm}\delta _{\alpha \beta }`$ (2)
where the only non-zero elements are: $`H_{nm}^{11}`$ and $`H_{nm}^{22}=(\omega \frac{1}{2}\sigma E_{ex}\pm \mu \pm tcos(k_yeA(n)))\delta _{nm}\pm t\delta _{n,n+1}`$ for the upper and lower sign respectively, $`H_{nm}^{33}=H_{nm}^{11}`$ and $`H_{nm}^{44}=H_{nm}^{22}`$ with $`\sigma `$ replaced by $`\sigma `$ and $`H_{nm}^{12}=H_{nm}^{21}=H_{nm}^{34}=H_{nm}^{43}=\mathrm{\Delta }_n\delta _{nm}`$ and $`G_{nm}^{\alpha \beta }`$ is corresponding Green’s function ($`GF`$).

As usual, the self-consistency is assured by the relations determining the $`FM`$ ($`m_n`$) and $`SC`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$) order parameters, current ($`J_{y()}(n)`$) and the vector potential ($`A_y(n)`$) respectively:

$`m_n=n_nn_n={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{ky}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu =0}{\overset{2N1}{}}}\mathrm{Re}\left\{(G_{nn}^{11}(\omega _\nu ,k_y)G_{nn}^{33}(\omega _\nu ,k_y))e^{(2\nu +1)\pi i/2N}\right\}`$ (3)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_n=U_n{\displaystyle \underset{k_y}{}}c_n(k_y)c_n(k_y)={\displaystyle \frac{2U_n}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{ky}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu =0}{\overset{2N1}{}}}\mathrm{Re}\left\{G_{nn}^{12}(\omega _\nu ,k_y)e^{(2\nu +1)\pi i/2N}\right\}`$ (4)
$`J_{y()}(n)={\displaystyle \frac{4et}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{k_y}{}}sin(k_yeA_y(n)){\displaystyle \underset{\nu =0}{\overset{2N1}{}}}\mathrm{Re}\left\{G_{nn}^{11(33)}(\omega _\nu ,k_y)e^{(2\nu +1)\pi i/2N}\right\}`$ (5)
$`A_y(n+1)2A_y(n)+A_y(n1)=4\pi J_y(n)`$ (6)
The details of the calculations can be found in .

## 3  Results and discussion

Since we have determined the $`FM`$ (3) and the $`SC`$ (4) order parameters on both sides of the interface fully self-consistently, we were able to study both $`FM`$ and $`SC`$ proximity effects. The $`FM`$ order parameter (spin polarization) shows the usual Meissner - like behavior in the $`SC`$ , while the $`SC`$ pairing amplitude oscillates as we increase the thickness of the $`FM`$ slab -. Similar oscillations are found if we fix the thickness of the $`FM`$ sample and change the exchange splitting . So this is the first confirmation of the $`FFLO`$ state in $`FM`$/$`SC`$ heterostructures .

The interesting physics of such proximity structures is the formation of the Andreev bound states . They are ‘particle in a box’ like states due to the finite thickness of the $`FM`$ and have been discussed extensively . For a normal metal in contact with superconductor these states are symmetrically located with the respect to the Fermi energy $`\epsilon _F`$. When the normal metal is replaced by ferromagnet the position of these states is shifted due to the exchange splitting in $`FM`$ . This gives a possibility to shift such state to the zero energy ($`\epsilon _F`$). Of course we should talk about Andreev bands rather than single states because in the $`2D`$ system we are studying, there are the Andreev reflections for different angles with respect to the normal to the interface. In such a situation when the pairing amplitude at the end of the $`FM`$ slab ($`FM`$/vacuum interface) is equal to zero, spontaneous current is generated . The current flowing in the system produces a magnetic field, which splits this zero energy state thereby lowering the total energy of the system. If we follow the position of one particular state, forming an Andreev band, as the exchange splitting is increased, there is an additional (Doppler) shift when the current flows. The situation is schematically shown in the Fig. 1. In $`2`$ or $`3D`$ geometry the whole Andreev band is split. The energy of such Doppler splitting is determined by the vector potential and in our model is given by $`\delta 2et\overline{A}_y`$, where the layer averaged vector potential is given by $`\overline{A}_y=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{nFM}A_y(n)/N_F`$ for $`N_F`$ layers.

The splitting of the Andreev bands due to the current flowing can be seen if we plot the surface ($`FM`$/vacuum) density of states at the Fermi energy ($`\rho _{tot}(\epsilon _F)`$). This quantity can be directly measured experimentally using planar tunneling spectroscopy . The example of $`\rho _{tot}(\epsilon _F)`$ is shown in the Fig. 2. There is a dramatic difference between solution with or without the current (in the later case the spontaneous current is constrained to be zero). In calculations it is readily ascertained but experimentally it would be very difficult to judge if there is a current or not. However a plot of the temperature dependence of the $`\rho _{tot}(\epsilon _F)`$ for fixed thickness clearly delineates this difference. At the thicknesses of $`FM`$ for which the current flows there is a huge drop in the $`\rho _{tot}(\epsilon _F)`$ at characteristic temperature $`T^{}(\xi _S/\lambda )T_c`$, where $`\xi _S`$ and $`\lambda `$ are coherence length and penetration depth respectively. $`T^{}`$ simply indicates the temperature at which magnetic instability, which leads to the generation of the current, takes the place. Such behavior is depicted in the Fig. 3 and should be observable experimentally. If there is no current the $`DoS`$ is due to the Andreev band and is almost constant (we are well below $`T_c`$), and as soon as the current starts to flow the Andreev band splits so we observe a drop in $`\rho _{tot}(\epsilon _F)`$. The important point is that $`T^{}`$ and $`T_c`$ are different temperatures.

As we already mentioned, the spontaneous current generates the magnetic field, which can also be measured experimentally by $`SQUID`$ techniques. Such spontaneous magnetic flux per unit area in the $`y`$ direction, parallel to the interface, is defined by $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Sigma }_n\mathrm{\Phi }(n)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_n(A_y(n+1)A_y(n))`$ and is shown in the Fig. 4 as a function of the thickness of the $`FM`$ sample. We see that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is larger when $`FM`$ thickness is smaller and is of order of $`10^210^1\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=h/2e`$ is the flux quantum. Moreover it seems to show an exponential decay with increasing of the number of $`FM`$ layers. Similarly, in this case temperature measurement can provide information on the existence of the spontaneous current. Fig. 5 shows spontaneous magnetic flux for a number of thicknesses of the $`FM`$ slab. It is worthwhile to note that the behavior of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ recalls the temperature dependence of the $`SC`$ order parameter in the $`BCS`$ theory.

Before closing the present discussion the following remark concerning the ferromagnet itself is in order. In general we should take into account the effect of the magnetic field coming from the localized moments of ferromagnet. These produce magnetic flux as well as surface currents. This effect could be important when the magnetization is perpendicular to the interface, as in our case. However if we deal with the weak ferromagnet or the sample has short lattice constant, the magnetic flux generated by local moments is much smaller than spontaneous one, and we can neglect this effect. In the present calculations we have taken the exchange splitting $`E_{ex}=\mathrm{\Delta }_S/2`$, so this effect is of minor importance.

## 4  Conclusions

In conclusion we have studied properties of the ferromagnet - superconductor bilayer. We have shown that such a structure supports Andreev bound states forming Andreev bands, the position of which can be tuned by thickness of the $`FM`$ sample. When a band crosses the Fermi energy, spontaneous current and magnetic flux is generated. We have found that the state with the current flowing can be experimentally detected measuring the temperature dependence of the density of states or the magnetic flux. We have argued that such current carrying state is a realization of the $`FFLO`$ state in $`FM`$/$`SC`$ proximity system.


text:
# Flaring X-ray Emission from HST-1, a Knot in the M87 Jet

## 1. Introduction

With the advent of Chandra X-ray observations of radio jets, evidence supporting the synchrotron process for the origin of the X-ray emission from the jets of low luminosity radio galaxies has grown. One line of evidence is the similarity of the X-ray morphology to the radio and optical structures which are most likely synchrotron emission because of the detection of linear polarization. Another argument is that the values of the spectral index of power law fits to the X-ray spectra are generally steeper than the radio spectra whereas inverse Compton (IC) models predict $`\alpha _x\alpha _r`$111The spectral index, $`\alpha `$, is defined by flux density, S $`\nu ^\alpha `$. (e.g. Hardcastle et al. 2002; Harris & Krawczynski, 2002).

In this paper we exploit another fundamental difference between IC and synchrotron emission: the variability time scale. Although the injection of new relativistic electrons can produce the same rise time for both processes, the characteristic loss timescales are vastly different. All IC models require relatively low energy relativistic electrons. For synchrotron self Compton (SSC) models, Lorentz energy factors, $`\gamma `$, are normally comparable to the values of a few thousand which are responsible for the observed radio emission. For IC scattering between the relativistic electrons and photons of the cosmic microwave background (IC/CMB), $`\gamma `$1000 (Harris & Krawczynski 2002). Synchrotron models however require $`\gamma 10^7`$ with corresponding half-lives of order a year for the sorts of magnetic field strengths commonly estimated for features in radio jets.

Our data show strong intensity variability from the unresolved core and HST-1. We use the flux doubling time to derive an upper limit to the source size and the decay time to constrain the timescale for E2 losses, and in turn, $`\delta `$. We take the distance to M87 to be 16 Mpc so that one arcsec = 77pc.

## 2. The X-ray monitoring observations

In 2002 we obtained five observations of 5ks each on Jan16, Feb12, Mar30, Jun08, and Jul24. To minimize pileup, we used a readout time of 0.4s for the standard 1/8th subarray on the ACIS-S3 chip (PUG 2001). Data reduction followed the ’threads’222http://asc.harvard.edu/ciao/threads/ (CIAO2.2). To recover the inherent resolution of Chandra, we removed pixel randomization and rebinned the data to 0.1 native ACIS pixels. For 3 energy bands (soft, S=0.2-0.75keV, medium, M=0.75-2keV, and hard, H=2-6keV) flux maps were obtained by standard procedures; a correction was applied for degradation of the quantum efficiency by measurement of fixed regions of hot gas emission near the jet. A wide band image was made by adding the 3 energy bands and fig. 1 shows the result of averaging our fluxmaps.

Our monitoring shows striking variability in both HST-1 and the unresolved core (which could well come from jet segments closer than 0.4′′ to the nucleus). The other knots show weak or no variability and will be analyzed in a future paper. Contour diagrams of the core and HST-1 for each observation can be found in Harris (2003a); here we show lightcurves for the core and HST-1 (fig. 2). The photometry was obtained by taking small circles with radii 0.44′′ and subtracting the background from rectangles above and below the jet (with a total area of 13.6 arcsec2).

The largest increase occurs for HST-1 between Mar and Jul with over a factor of two brightening in 116d333A brightening was also seen in our HST monitoring between 2001 July and 2002 July. Those data will be analyzed in a separate paper (Biretta et al. 2003, in preparation). This implies that the emitting volume of the variable component has a characteristic size $``$ the light travel time444Although see Protheroe (2002) for caveats. which is 0.1pc for a stationary source. The brightening in the core between our last two observations showed a similar rate of increase with a 20% gain in 46 days.

The relative increases in the three energy bands demonstrate a hardening of the spectrum for HST-1 between March and July 2002 (compare the rates of increase in each band in fig. 2). The intensity increase was a factor of 2.7$`\pm `$0.3 for the hard, 1.7$`\pm `$0.1 for the medium, and 1.6$`\pm `$0.1 for the soft band. Although we defer spectral analysis to a later paper, this hardening produced a change in the X-ray spectral index from $`\alpha _x1.35\pm 0.1`$ (prior to 2002 May) to $`\alpha _x=1.05\pm 0.07`$ (for 2002 July).

The ’cleanest’ drop occurs for HST-1 between the 2002 January and February observations. The intensity ratios (Feb over Jan) for these 27 days are: 0.79$`\pm `$0.09 (H), 0.83$`\pm `$0.04 (M), and 0.87$`\pm `$0.05 (S). While these values are the same within the errors, there is a progression consistent with expectations for E2 losses (but contrary to that of increased absorption): the hard band is dropping faster than the soft band. A similar effect is seen in the core decay between Mar and Jun: the hard band dropped 32$`\pm `$7% while the medium band dropped 14$`\pm `$5%.

All of these timescales are subject to considerable error. Although the statistical errors for the flux values are less than 10%, there will always be some flux present which is not part of the variable component and our sampling interval is not small enough to determine shorter variations.

Variability of a synchrotron source can result from a number of effects such as changes in any of the absorption along the line of sight, the magnetic field strength, B, the number of particles contributing to the radiation in a given band, or the beaming factor (Protheroe 2002).

Adiabatic compression or expansion is particularly effective in changing the radiated power since the electrons gain or lose energy and at the same time, B changes to augment the effect. Given a power law electron energy distribution N(E)$``$E-p, there should be no change in p. On the other hand, if the effects of a high energy cutoff extend down to the energy range of interest, a compression would cause an increase of intensity accompanied by a spectral hardening since the emission from a fixed observing band would come from lower energy electrons and the spectral curvature would be shifted to higher energies. However, for the remainder of this paper we focus on an alternative synchrotron model based on changes to the number of radiating particles.

For this model, increased intensity arises from the injection of new radiating particles with a spectrum flatter than that which existed previously. The spectral softening which accompanies flux decline comes from normal $`E^2`$ losses. The chief difference in these models is that the compression/expansion model requires that N(E) departs from a power law. Our data allow spectral curvature but the statistics are not good enough to demand curvature.

## 3. The Spectral Energy Distribution of HST-1

In order to derive synchrotron model parameters, we need to know the overall spectral distribution of the emitted energy. Both the radio and optical morphologies of the inner jet are shown in fig. 3 of Perlman et al. (1999) with 0.2′′ resolution. At higher resolution (fig. 1 of Biretta, Zhou, & Owen 1995) it can be seen that there are a series of several knots between 0.8′′ and 1.2′′ from the core. HST data demonstrate that the brightest upstream knot is slowly moving but the downstream knots are moving with an apparent speed of 6c (Biretta, Sparks, & Macchetto 1999). Our feature ’HST-1’ (fig. 1) corresponds to the upstream, optically brighter part of this segment of the jet. We take the radio flux density corresponding to the X-ray knot to be 3.8 mJy, as measured on the high resolution 15 GHz map. From a new VLA observation,555We obtained a short observation in 2002 October as a result of an ad hoc proposal. The VLA was in C array with a beamsize of 0.5′′. we derive an upper limit of 2 mJy at 43 GHz.

The optical flux densities come from the detailed spectral analysis at 0.15′′ resolution based on data obtained in 1998 February by Perlman et al. (2001). The spectrum is shown in fig. 3, and for the purposes of sec. 4, we approximate these data with a single power law between 109 and 1018 Hz with $`\alpha `$=0.68 and amplitude determined by S(2keV)=100nJy, parameters which describe the observables to within a factor of two.

## 4. A ’modest beaming’ Synchrotron Model for HST-1

Previous analyses have demonstrated that the X-ray jet emission of M87 is not thermal emission (Wilson & Yang 2002; Marshall et al. 2002; Biretta, Stern, & Harris 1991); is not SSC emission (ibid.); and is not IC/CMB emission because of the large values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and small angles to the line of sight required (Harris & Krawczynski 2002). The X-ray spectra of the knots are much steeper than in the radio or optical and strongly favor synchrotron radiation (Wilson & Yang 2002), confirming the conclusion of Biretta, Stern, & Harris (1991). Our variability data is fully consistent with X-ray synchrotron emission and it remains only to demonstrate that plausible physical parameters can be found with a simple model which posits that the jet has a relativistic bulk velocity, as implied by the one-sided emission at all frequencies. In this section, we do that for HST-1.

Using the time required for the flux to double provides an upper limit to the source size. To use the observed decline, we take the observed variables back to the jet frame, calculate the properties of the synchrotron source assuming equipartition conditions (Pacholczyk 1970), and then evaluate the halflife of the electrons responsible for the X-ray emission, both in the jet frame and as observed at the Earth. We also compare energy densities in the magnetic field and in the synchrotron photons. We performed these calculations for 8 values of $`\delta `$ between 1 and 16. For converting various quantities to the jet frame and back, we used expressions from the appendix of Harris and Krawczynski (2002). The results for representative values of $`\delta `$ are shown in Table 1.

We have made model specific estimates of how to relate an observed decline of 21% (in the hard band in 27 days) to the effects of E2 losses on the electron distribution (Harris 2003b). We find consistency for $`\delta `$ in the range 2 to 5. However, the main conclusion is that regardless of the precise model and the actual values found for the rate of decline, the observed timescales for decay are fully consistent with the beaming parameters for a jet angle of order 10 to 17 (to the line of sight) suggested by the HST proper motion studies of Biretta et al. (1999) in their Table 3. Larger beaming factors imply weaker fields and longer halflives, and vice-versa. A recent HST observation shows the varying region to be unresolved in the optical/UV, independently placing an upper limit of $`0.02^{\prime \prime }`$ (1.5pc) on its size (cf. Table 1).

Values of $`\delta `$ in the range 2 to 5 involve very modest synchrotron luminosities in the jet frame, equipartition magnetic field strengths of order 1 mG, and a total energy stored in particles and fields which can be supplied by a low drain on the jet kinetic energy, $`10^{40}`$erg s-1, a value $``$1% of the jet power estimated by Young, Wilson, & Mundell (2002). With these parameters, the effective energy density of the CMB as seen by the jet is less than the synchrotron energy density for most choices of allowed $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and the combined photon energy density $``$0.2 of that in the magnetic field for all $`\delta `$2. Thus the bulk of the energy loss is via the synchrotron, not the IC channel. The model predicts that the optical emission will decay with a timescale of order ten times longer than that we observe for the X-rays since $`\tau _{\frac{1}{2}}\frac{1}{\gamma }`$. For a straight jet, an angle to the line of sight of $`\theta =10^{}`$ implies a total jet length of just under 10 kpc.

These estimates are based on decay timescales and our results would change if the actual decay time is shorter than our current estimate, in which case we would choose a smaller value of $`\delta `$; if the magnetic field is substantially less than the equipartition value and thus $`\tau _{\frac{1}{2}}`$ would be larger than calculated because of the weaker field and we would again choose a smaller $`\delta `$; or if the source size is substantially less than the light travel time which would mean that the field is larger than calculated, halflives would be shorter, and we would select a larger $`\delta `$.

## 5. Conclusions

We find that a synchrotron model with a beaming factor of $`\delta `$=2-5 gives a good fit to our observations for HST-1 and is compatible with radio and optical interpretations. It remains to be seen if similar models can be constructed for powerful jets such as that in 3C 273. Many of the gross features such as the progressions of X-ray emission being stronger close to the core, whereas the radio intensity increases moving out along the jet; and the slight shifts in brightness (radio brighter downstream of the X-ray peak for some knots) are the same in M87 and 3C273. It is also worth noting that if M87 were further away or observed with poor resolution, the variability which we now know arises from a knot in the jet might well be ascribed to conditions very close to the black hole (as in blazar variability studies). We shall continue to monitor the jet of M87 with Chandra between 2002 November and 2003 July with 8 observations and the jet will also be monitored at similar intervals with the HST. These data should provide refined estimates of variability timescales, spectral evolution for the core and HST-1, and variability in the other knots.

We thank the VLA and HST staffs for accommodating our ad hoc requests on short notice. The National Radio Astronomy Observatory is operated by Associated Universities, Inc., under contract with the National Science Foundation. We thank O. Stohlman for assistance in the data reduction and the referee for intelligent suggestions for improvement. Work at SAO was supported by NASA contract NAS8-39073 and grant GO2-3144X, and at U. Maryland by NASA grants NAG81027 and NAG81755.


text:
# An extended correction to “Combinatorial Scalar Curvature and Rigidity of Ball Packings,” (by D. Cooper and I. Rivin).

## Introduction

Let us first recall the setup of \[CR97\]. In that paper we study *conformal* simplices. These are simplices $`T(r_1,r_2,r_3,r_4)`$ in $`3`$-dimensional spaces of constant curvature such that there are positive numbers $`r_1,r_2,r_3,r_4,`$ such that the length $`l_{ij}`$ of the edge joining the $`i`$th and the $`j`$th vertex of the simplex is given by $`l_{ij}=r_i+r_j.`$

On the set of conformal simplices we define a function $`S,`$ as follows:

$$S(r_1,r_2,r_3,r_4)=\{\begin{array}{cc}_{i=1}^4r_iS_i\text{for simplices in }𝔼^3,\hfill & \\ 2\mathrm{v}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{l}T+_{i=1}^4r_iS_i\text{for simplices in }^3,\hfill & \end{array}$$

where $`\mathrm{vol}`$ stands for the hyperbolic volume of the simplex, and $`S_i`$ stands for the solid angle at the $`i`$-th vertex: if $`\alpha _{ij}`$ is the dihedral angle at the edge joining the $`i`$th and the $`j`$th vertices, then

(1)
$$S_i=\pi +\underset{ji}{}\alpha _{ij}.$$

The key property of the function $`S`$ is, as shown in \[CR97\], that

(2)
$$H(S)_{ij}=\frac{^2S}{r_ir_j}=\frac{S_i}{r_j},$$

where we use $`H(S)`$ to denote the Hessian matrix of $`S.`$ Lemma 1.2 states that $`H(S)`$ is negative semi-definite for simplices in $`𝔼^3,`$ with the zero direction spanned by the vector $`(r_1,r_2,r_3,r_4),`$ and corresponding to the rescaling deformation of the simplex. Lemma 3.2 states that $`H(S)`$ is negative definite for simplices in $`^3.`$

## 1. Proofs of the Lemmas

The proofs given in \[CR97\] work without modification when all the radii are equal ($`r_1=r_2=r_3=r_4.`$) Since the set of all conformal simplices is connected (as shown in \[CR97\]), it suffices to show that the rank of $`H(S)`$ always equals $`3`$ in the Euclidean case and $`4`$ in the hyperbolic case. The proof will rest on the following observations:

* (a) Define a function $`R`$ on the set of all simplices by

$$R(l_{12},l_{13},l_{14},l_{23},l_{24},l_{34})=\{\begin{array}{cc}_{i<j}l_{ij}(\pi \alpha _{ij}),\text{Euclidean,}\hfill & \\ _{i<j}l_{ij}(\pi \alpha _{ij})+2\mathrm{v}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{l}T,\text{hyperbolic.}\hfill & \end{array}$$

and define the map

$$i(r_1,r_2,r_3,r_4)=(r_1+r_2,r_1+r_3,r_1+r_4,r_2+r_3,r_2+r_4,r_3+r_4).$$

As noted in \[CR97\],

(3)
$$S=i^{}R.$$

Also as noted in \[CR97\],

(4)
$$\frac{R}{l_{ij}}=\alpha _{ij},$$

and so

(5)
$$\frac{^2R}{l_{ij}l_{kl}}=\frac{\alpha _{ij}}{l_{kl}}.$$
* (b) Since simplices are infinitesimally rigid, the Hessian matrix of $`R`$ is nonsingular in the hyperbolic case, and nonsingular when restricted to the cone $`_{i<j}l_{ij}=1,l_{ij}>0`$ in the Euclidean case (the implication is given by Eq. (5).) In particular, the Hessian matrix is nonsingular when restricted to the image of $`i.`$ By Eq. (3) and linearity of the map $`i,`$ it follows that $`S`$ is nonsingular (on the cone $`r_i=1`$, in the Euclidean case).

It follows that to check the convexity of $`S,`$ we need only do it at one point. As pointed out above, the argument given in \[CR97\] works without modification for regular simplices, and so the convexity of $`S`$ follows.