text:
# Sphaleron relaxation temperatures

## 1 Introduction

Sphaleron processes are important for baryogenesis . This is obviously true in the case of electroweak baryogenesis because the weak sphalerons are the only processes that violate baryon number. But is also the case of leptogenesis mechanisms , where weak sphalerons are responsible for converting part of the generated $`BL`$ asymmetry into a baryon asymmetry. In this case the effect of weak sphalerons can be reduced to a mere constraint on a linear combination $`\eta _\mathrm{w}`$ of quark and lepton chemical potentials  of the form $`\eta _\mathrm{w}=0`$. But the constraint only applies when sphalerons are in thermal equilibrium in a range of temperatures from around $`10^{12}\mathrm{GeV}`$ to the electroweak phase transition. It is important to know well this temperature range when designing a lepto-baryogenesis mechanism, as well as all the other reactions in thermal equilibrium at every moment as the Universe cools down, because too many constraints enforce a trivial particle asymmetry result. On the other hand, the surviving baryon asymmetry depends quantitatively on the consecutive sets of constraints applying at and after the epoch of baryogenesis or leptogenesis.

The weak sphaleron frequency equalizes the Hubble expansion rate at a certain temperature. However, it cannot be identified with the relaxation temperature of the sphaleron chemical potential constraint. It is the main purpose of this paper to study the evolution of $`\eta _\mathrm{w}`$ and evaluate its relaxation temperature as well as for the QCD sphaleron  degeneracy parameter, $`\eta _\mathrm{s}`$. It is also argued that the running of the weak and strong coupling constants with the energy scale leads to smaller values of the sphaleron rates at very high energies, specially in the case of strong sphalerons. In the next section we establish the general relation between charge violation rates and sphaleron diffusion rates using standard scattering theory considerations. In the subsequent sections we specialize to the cases of weak and strong sphalerons obtaining general results for the damping rates of the parameters $`\eta _\mathrm{w}`$ and $`\eta _\mathrm{s}`$. We calculate also the respective relaxation temperatures in the standard model case and in a typical leptogenesis scenario. In section 4 we analyze the interplay between weak sphalerons, bottom quark an tau lepton Yukawa couplings while they approach thermal equilibrium and derive the appropriate system of coupled equations. In section 6 we extend the study to the context of supersymmetric standard model versions and in the last section summarize the conclusions.

## 2 Sphaleron processes

The rate per unit of volume of any reaction with one or more particles $`a_i`$ in the initial state and $`b_j`$ in the final state, $`a_ib_j`$, depends on the transition amplitude $`𝒯`$ and particle distribution functions $`f_\alpha `$ as follows :

$`\gamma _+={\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Phi }|𝒯|^2f_{a_i}(1\pm f_{b_j})},`$ (1)
where a product over $`i`$ and $`j`$ is implicit. $`d\mathrm{\Phi }`$ stands for the phase space element and $`1\pm f_{b_j}`$ are the final state boson stimulated emission and/or fermion Pauli blocking factors. The evolution of any charge asymmetry depends on the difference between the rates of $`a_ib_j`$ and its inverse reaction $`b_ja_i`$, $`\gamma _+`$ and $`\gamma _{}`$ respectively. Using Bose-Einstein and Fermi-Dirac distribution functions and assuming that the transition amplitude is invariant under time reversal, one obtains to first order in the chemical potentials,

$`\gamma _+\gamma _{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\gamma _++\gamma _{}){\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _\alpha }{T}}\mathrm{\Delta }N_\alpha ,`$ (2)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\alpha `$ is $`+1`$ ($`1`$) for each of the outgoing (incoming) particles. An observable $`Q`$ that varies $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q=Q_\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }N_\alpha `$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }Q`$) in a single reaction $`a_ib_j`$ ($`b_ja_i`$) suffers a net violation per unit of time in a total volume $`V`$ equal to $`dQ/dt=(\gamma _+\gamma _{})V\mathrm{\Delta }Q`$.

Sphalerons processes produce or destroy fermion particles and are characterized by a Chern-Simons number increase $`\mathrm{\Delta }N`$ whose sign changes with the direction of the reaction as any other charge. Then, the violation rate of any charge $`Q`$ is obtained by summing over all $`\mathrm{\Delta }N`$ numbers as follows:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dQ}{dt}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Delta }N}{}}\gamma _{\mathrm{\Delta }N}\mathrm{\Delta }Q{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _\alpha }{T}}\mathrm{\Delta }N_\alpha V.`$ (3)
It happens that the fermion number variations $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\alpha `$ are directly proportional to the Chern-Simons number variation $`\mathrm{\Delta }N`$, so that $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q/\mathrm{\Delta }N`$ and the degeneracy parameter

$$\eta =\underset{\alpha }{}\frac{\mu _\alpha }{T}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }N_\alpha }{\mathrm{\Delta }N}$$
(4)
are independent of $`\mathrm{\Delta }N`$. This gives

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dQ}{dt}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }Q}{\mathrm{\Delta }N}}\mathrm{\Gamma }\eta V,`$ (5)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }={\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Delta }N}{}}\gamma _{\mathrm{\Delta }N}(\mathrm{\Delta }N)^2,`$ (6)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is nothing but the sphaleron Chern-Simons number diffusion rate calculated in the literature ,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\underset{V,t\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{(N(t)N(0))^2}{Vt}}.`$ (7)
## 3 Weak sphalerons

Weak sphaleron processes of Chern-Simons number variation $`\mathrm{\Delta }N`$ produce fermion number violations  equal to $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{l_i}=\mathrm{\Delta }N`$ per lepton doublet $`l_i`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{q_i}=\mathrm{\Delta }N`$ per quark doublet and colour state $`q_i`$, where $`i`$ denotes the fermion generation. Specializing the general expressions (4) and (5) to weak sphalerons, one derives the baryon and lepton number violation rates per generation,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dB_{q_i}}{dt}}={\displaystyle \frac{dL_{l_i}}{dt}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{w}\eta _\mathrm{w}V,`$ (8)
where the degeneracy parameter,

$`\eta _\mathrm{w}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{T}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(3\mu _{q_i}+\mu _{l_i}),`$ (9)
is a function of the quark and lepton doublet chemical potentials, degenerate in colour and isospin during the electroweak symmetric phase. One recovers so the known result for the baryon number violation rate  (notice that $`\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{w}`$ represents the average between the forward ($`\mathrm{\Delta }N>0`$) and backward sphaleron rates).

The detailed balance equation $`\eta _\mathrm{w}=0`$ holds if weak sphalerons are in thermal equilibrium, but not otherwise. $`\eta _\mathrm{w}`$ is a dynamical damped quantity whose relaxation time is much larger than the age of the Universe when sphalerons are not in equilibrium and much smaller when they are. The $`\eta _\mathrm{w}`$ evolution depends not only on sphalerons but also on all the other reactions occurring at that moment. The rapid reactions enforce detailed balance equations that reduce the number of independent chemical potentials. The latter have a one-to-one relation with an equal number of independent quantum numbers that are either conserved or are violated solely by reactions not fast enough to be in full thermal equilibrium. Without loss of generality, one can choose the independent quantum numbers as the baryon number $`B`$ and a set of charges, $`Q_\alpha `$, that are conserved by weak sphalerons: if a given quantum number is violated by weak sphalerons there is always a linear combination with $`B`$, for example $`BL`$, that is conserved by them. $`\eta _\mathrm{w}`$ can be written in terms of $`B`$ and $`Q_\alpha `$ as

$`\eta _\mathrm{w}T^3V=aB+b_\alpha Q_\alpha .`$ (10)
After reheating the total entropy is conserved and so is the product $`T^3V`$, whenever the number of relativistic degrees of freedom is stable. Under these conditions, and taking the usual approximate expressions, linear in the chemical potentials, of the particle anti-particle number asymmetries, the coefficients $`a`$ and $`b_\alpha `$ are well defined constants that only depend on the kind of particles and reactions in thermal equilibrium. They are thus model dependent but do not depend on the origin of the particle asymmetries.

Let us assume that at the temperature range of interest weak sphalerons are the only processes that violate baryon number and that all reactions besides them can be classified as either rapid or negligible slow. The first enforce the chemical potential constraints, the latter do not contribute to flavour or any other quantum number violation rates. In this case the charges $`Q_\alpha `$ are exactly conserved quantities by construction, whose values are determined by the initial conditions and particular baryogenesis or leptogenesis mechanism. Then, one derives from equations (8) and (10) that for 3 fermion generations,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\eta _\mathrm{w}}{dt}}={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}a{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{w}}{T^3}}\eta _\mathrm{w}.`$ (11)
The sphaleron rate goes as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{w}T^4`$ and in a radiation dominated Universe the Hubble expansion rate behaves as $`H=1/2tT^2`$. Hence, $`T_\mathrm{w}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{w}T^2H^1`$ is a constant quantity. $`T_\mathrm{w}`$ may be naively considered as the sphaleron equilibrium temperature because $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{w}T^3=H`$ at $`T=T_\mathrm{w}`$, but this is an oversimplification. In fact, one obtains that $`\eta _\mathrm{w}`$ has a relaxation temperature equal to $`T_\mathrm{w}^{}=3/2aT_\mathrm{w}`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\eta _\mathrm{w}}{dT^1}}={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}aT_\mathrm{w}\eta _\mathrm{w}.`$ (12)
The parameter $`\eta _\mathrm{w}`$ decays exponentially as $`e^{T_\mathrm{w}^{}/T}`$ and its initial value follows from equation (10) with the initial baryon number asymmetry. As $`\eta _\mathrm{w}`$ decays, $`B`$ converges to the value that annihilates the right-hand member of equation (10).

The coefficients $`a`$ and $`b_\alpha `$ are model dependent. They depend on the particle content and reactions in equilibrium. The standard model interactions that enter in equilibrium before the $`10^{12}\mathrm{GeV}`$ temperature scale are the gauge interactions, implying zero gauge boson chemical potentials and fermion chemical potentials degenerate in colour and isospin, QCD sphalerons , and the top quark Yukawa coupling ($`q_tt_R^c\varphi `$). They put the following constraints on the Higgs doublet $`\varphi `$, up and down quark isosinglets $`u_i=u_R,c_R,t_R`$, $`d_i=d_R,s_R,b_R`$, and quark doublets $`q_i=q_u,q_c,q_t`$ defined as having diagonal Yukawa couplings with the up quarks:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(2\mu _{q_i}\mu _{u_i}\mu _{d_i})=0,`$ (13)
$`\mu _{q_t}\mu _{t_R}+\mu _\varphi =0,`$ (14)
The other constraint is the initial condition of zero hypercharge,

$$\underset{i}{}(\mu _{q_i}+2\mu _{u_i}\mu _{d_i}\mu _{l_i}\mu _{e_i})+2\mu _\varphi =0,$$
(15)
to first order in the chemical potentials and neglecting thermal masses. Above the $`10^{12}\mathrm{GeV}`$ temperature scale the other quark and lepton Yukawa couplings are negligible and the gauge interactions, including sphaleron processes, conserve several flavour quantum numbers, namely: lepton numbers $`L_{e_i}`$ of $`e_i=e_R,\mu _R,\tau _R`$; differences between the baryon numbers of right-handed charm or down quarks and the $`u_R`$ baryon number, $`B_{c_R}B_{u_R}`$ and $`B_{d_i}B_{u_R}`$; differences between the total lepton or baryon numbers of different generations, $`L_iL_j`$ and $`B_iB_j`$; $`BL`$. While $`BL`$ and $`L_iL_j`$ are conserved by all standard model interactions the other quantum numbers are violated by Yukawa couplings. The up quark is singled out because it has the smallest quark Yukawa coupling. As the Universe cools down and the smaller Yukawas enter in equilibrium the various flavour charges cease to be conserved and get constrained by the new detailed balance equations.

If there are non-standard interactions in equilibrium, such as lepton number violating heavy neutrino Majorana masses, more constraints apply and less independent charges subsist. The remaining conserved charges at any given moment, $`Q_\alpha `$, are determined by the particular baryogenesis or leptogenesis mechanism, but their values do not affect the $`\eta _\mathrm{w}`$ damping rate (not even the zero hypercharge condition). It only depends on the constraints enforced by the interactions in full equilibrium. Assuming that only the standard model gauge interactions, strong sphalerons and top quark Yukawa coupling are in thermal equilibrium, one obtains $`a=15/2`$ for the coefficient $`a`$ in equation (10). It follows that the $`\eta _\mathrm{w}`$ relaxation temperature is $`T_\mathrm{w}^{}=45/4T_\mathrm{w}`$, one order of magnitude larger than $`T_\mathrm{w}`$.

The sphaleron diffusion rate has been shown  to depend on the temperature and weak coupling constant as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{w}26\alpha _\mathrm{w}^5T^4`$. At this point we argue that the effective coupling constant runs with the energy scale and therefore varies with the temperature 111I thank M. Shaposhnikov and D. Bödeker for discussions on this point.. At the $`10^{12}\mathrm{GeV}`$ energy scale $`\alpha _\mathrm{w}1/41`$ which gives $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{w}2\times 10^7T^4`$, about 5 times smaller than the rate calculated with the $`M_Z`$ scale value $`\alpha _\mathrm{w}1/30`$. For a Hubble rate $`H=1.66g_{}^{1/2}T^2/M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ with $`g_{}107`$ effective number of degrees of freedom the $`T_\mathrm{w}`$ and relaxation temperature values are respectively $`T_\mathrm{w}1.6\times 10^{11}\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`T_\mathrm{w}^{}1.8\times 10^{12}\mathrm{GeV}`$.

Leptogenesis is a mechanism that has been actively investigated . It is based on the addition of extra sterile neutrinos $`N_a`$ with very heavy Majorana masses and complex Yukawa couplings, $`l_iN_a\varphi `$, with the standard Higgs and lepton doublets. They cause lepton flavour and total lepton number violating processes that stay in thermal equilibrium for a certain period of time. During that period the following constraints apply:

$$\mu _{l_i}+\mu _\varphi =0.$$
(16)
The quantum numbers $`L_iL_j`$ and $`BL`$ are then rapidly violated and consequently they are excluded from the set of charges $`Q_\alpha `$ in equation (10). After applying these new constraints one obtains for the coefficient $`a`$ the value $`a=261/44`$ and the slightly reduced relaxation temperature $`T_\mathrm{w}^{}1.4\times 10^{12}\mathrm{GeV}`$.

## 4 $`b_R`$ and $`\tau _R`$ Yukawa couplings and sphalerons

The weak sphaleron relaxation temperature falls in the vicinity of the equilibrium temperatures of the $`b_R`$ and $`\tau _R`$ Yukawa couplings. Our estimates of the $`b_R`$ and $`\tau _R`$ Yukawa production rates $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_b`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\tau `$ i.e., reactions where $`b_R`$ and $`\tau _R`$ are produced in the final state, yield equilibrium temperatures equal to $`T_b=\mathrm{\Gamma }_bTH^12\times 10^{12}\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`T_\tau =\mathrm{\Gamma }_\tau TH^110^{12}\mathrm{GeV}`$. This shows that one cannot neglect the violation of $`Q_bB_{b_R}B_{u_R}`$ and $`L_{\tau _R}`$ when weak sphalerons approach thermal equilibrium. The violation rates obtained from the basic expression (2) are given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dQ_b}{dt}}=2\mathrm{\Gamma }_bn_{\mathrm{eq}}\eta _{Y_b}V,`$ (17)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dL_{\tau _R}}{dt}}=2\mathrm{\Gamma }_\tau n_{\mathrm{eq}}\eta _{Y_\tau }V,`$ (18)
where $`n_{\mathrm{eq}}=0.90T^3/\pi ^2`$ denotes the ultra relativistic fermion equilibrium density and the degeneracy parameters are defined as

$`\eta _{Y_b}=\eta _{b_R}+\eta _\varphi \eta _{q_t},`$ (19)
$`\eta _{Y_\tau }=\eta _{\tau _R}+\eta _\varphi \eta _{l_\tau }.`$ (20)
This goes in parallel with the baryon number violation rate,

$$\frac{dB}{dt}=\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{w}\eta _\mathrm{w}V,$$
(21)
assuming that $`B`$ is only significantly violated by sphalerons.

The above equations have the general form,

$$\frac{dQ_\mu }{dt}=\gamma _\mu \eta _\mu V,$$
(22)
where $`Q_\mu =(B,Q_b,L_{\tau _R})`$ and $`\eta _\mu =(\eta _\mathrm{w},\eta _{Y_b},\eta _{Y_\tau })`$. The charges $`Q_\mu `$ and the set of conserved quantum numbers $`Q_\alpha `$ have a one-to-one relation with the independent chemical potentials left unconstrained by the detailed balance equations. One can thus write the degeneracy parameters $`\eta _\mu `$ as linear combinations of $`Q_\mu `$ and $`Q_\alpha `$:

$$\eta _\mu T^3V=a_\mu ^\nu Q_\nu +b_\mu ^\alpha Q_\alpha .$$
(23)
The differentiation against time yields the general result

$$\frac{d\eta _\mu }{dt}=a_\mu ^\nu \gamma _\nu T^3\eta _\nu .$$
(24)
In a radiation dominated Universe this coupled system of equations leads to:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\eta _\mu }{dT^1}}=T_\mu ^\nu \eta _\nu ,`$ (25)
$`T_\mu ^\nu =a_\mu ^\nu \gamma _\nu T^2H^1,`$ (26)
where $`T_\mu ^\nu `$ is the relaxation temperature matrix.

If all interactions in equilibrium at around $`10^{12}\mathrm{GeV}`$ are standard model interactions, the conserved charges $`Q_\alpha `$ entering in equation (23) are: $`L_{e_R}`$, $`L_{\mu _R}`$, $`B_{c_R}B_{u_R}`$, $`B_{s_R}B_{u_R}`$, $`B_{d_R}B_{u_R}`$ and $`B_iB_j`$, only negligibly violated by Yukawa couplings, and the exactly conserved numbers $`L_iL_j`$ and $`BL`$. The constraints imposed by the $`t_R`$ Yukawa processes, strong sphalerons and gauge interactions determine the coefficients $`a_\mu ^\nu `$ and $`b_\mu ^\alpha `$. In particular,

$$a_\mu ^\nu =6\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \frac{5}{4}& \hfill 0& \hfill \frac{1}{2}\\ \hfill 0& \hfill \frac{40}{23}& \hfill \frac{1}{23}\\ \hfill \frac{1}{6}& \hfill \frac{12}{23}& \hfill \frac{38}{23}\end{array}\right).$$
(27)
The estimates of the reaction rates in equations (17)-(22) given above and at the end of the previous section produce the following relaxation temperature matrix:

$$T_\mu ^\nu \left(\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill 2& \hfill 0& \hfill \frac{1}{2}\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 4& \hfill \frac{1}{20}\\ \hfill \frac{1}{4}& \hfill 1& \hfill 2\end{array}\right)\times 10^{12}\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(28)
The elements 11 of these two matrices coincide with the values of the coefficient $`a`$ in equation (10) and the sphaleron relaxation temperature calculated in the previous section, where the $`b_R`$ and $`\tau _R`$ Yukawa couplings were neglected. Now, $`\eta _\mu =\eta _\mathrm{w}`$, $`\eta _{Y_b},\eta _{Y_\tau }`$ obey the coupled system of equations (25). It can be integrated in closed form: diagonalizing $`T_\mu ^\nu `$ with a non-orthogonal matrix $`V`$, the general solution is, in matrix notation, $`\eta =Ve^{T^{}(T_0^1T^1)}V^1\eta _0`$, where $`T^{}`$ is the diagonalized relaxation temperature. The $`\eta _\mu `$ parameters oscillate into each other as they decay but the outcome of this complex evolution is clear: weak sphalerons, $`b_R`$ and $`\tau _R`$ Yukawa couplings enter in equilibrium at the same time with relaxation temperatures in the range $`(24)\times 10^{12}\mathrm{GeV}`$.

This exercise can be repeated for periods characteristic of leptogenesis in which lepton number is rapidly violated by heavy neutrino Majorana masses. Then, the additional constraints (16) are enforced and the conserved charges $`Q_\alpha `$ in equation (23) reduce to: $`L_{e_R}`$, $`L_{\mu _R}`$, $`B_{c_R}B_{u_R}`$, $`B_{s_R}B_{u_R}`$, $`B_{d_R}B_{u_R}`$ and $`B_iB_j`$. Now, the results for the coefficients $`a_\mu ^\nu `$ and relaxation temperature matrix are

$$a_\mu ^\nu =\frac{3}{22}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \frac{87}{2}& \hfill 36& \hfill 21\\ \hfill 4& \hfill 64& \hfill 8\\ \hfill 7& \hfill 24& \hfill 58\end{array}\right),$$
(29)
$$T_\mu ^\nu \left(\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \frac{3}{2}& \hfill 2& \hfill \frac{1}{2}\\ \hfill \frac{1}{8}& \hfill 3& \hfill \frac{1}{5}\\ \hfill \frac{1}{5}& \hfill 1& \hfill \frac{3}{2}\end{array}\right)\times 10^{12}\mathrm{GeV},$$
(30)
in the same range of temperatures as the pure standard model case.

## 5 QCD sphalerons

The value of the QCD sphaleron diffusion rate, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{s}`$, is still uncertain but there are indications  that it scales with the weak sphaleron rate as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{s}12\alpha _\mathrm{s}^5/\alpha _\mathrm{w}^5\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{w}`$. At high energies the strong and weak coupling constants converge to each other: $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}1/37`$ and $`\alpha _\mathrm{w}1/42`$ at $`10^{13}\mathrm{GeV}`$, which gives $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{s}4\times 10^6T^4`$, only 20 times larger than $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{w}`$. The reference temperature in a radiation dominated Universe, $`T_\mathrm{s}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{s}T^2H^1`$, takes the value $`T_\mathrm{s}3\times 10^{12}\mathrm{GeV}`$. Again, this is not the relaxation temperature, $`T_\mathrm{s}^{}`$, of the strong sphaleron degeneracy parameter,

$`\eta _\mathrm{s}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{T}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(2\mu _{q_i}\mu _{u_i}\mu _{d_i}).`$ (31)
In order to study the $`\eta _\mathrm{s}`$ dynamical evolution one needs the rates of chiral charge violation induced by QCD sphalerons. A sphaleron with a Chern-Simons number increase $`\mathrm{\Delta }N`$ induces a chiral charge variation $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q_5=2\mathrm{\Delta }N`$ for each of the 6 Dirac quarks , defining chiral charge as $`+1`$ for left-handed and $`1`$ for right-handed quarks, which means a quark number increase $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\alpha =\pm \mathrm{\Delta }N/3`$ per colour and chiral state. Employing the general result of equations (4), (5) and (6), the violation rates of left-handed ($`q_L`$) and right-handed ($`q_R`$) quark number asymmetries are

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dN_{q_L}}{dt}}={\displaystyle \frac{dN_{q_R}}{dt}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{s}\eta _\mathrm{s}V,`$ (32)
per isospin state (summing over colours). This is in agreement with ref.  (again, $`\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{s}`$ represents the average between forward and backward sphaleron rates).

Neglecting thermal mass corrections, $`\eta _\mathrm{s}`$ is directly related with the total chiral charge as $`Q_5=\frac{1}{2}\eta _\mathrm{s}T^3V`$, but that is not enough to determine the $`\eta _\mathrm{s}`$ evolution from equation (32) because the third generation chiral charge is rapidly violated by the top quark Yukawa coupling. It is more convenient to express $`\eta _\mathrm{s}`$ in terms of the right-handed up quark baryon number $`B_{u_R}=N_{u_R}/3`$, for example ($`u_R`$ is the quark with smallest Yukawa coupling), and a set of independent quantum numbers $`Q_\alpha `$ conserved by strong sphalerons: the baryon number $`B`$ and other charges conserved by both strong and weak sphalerons:

$`\eta _\mathrm{s}T^3V=aB_{u_R}+b_\alpha Q_\alpha .`$ (33)
The coefficients $`a`$, $`b_\alpha `$ and the set of charges $`Q_\alpha `$ depend on which interactions are in thermal equilibrium. However, if all processes that are not in full thermal equilibrium including weak sphalerons can be considered negligibly slow, the charges $`Q_\alpha `$ are conserved in first approximation and only $`B_{u_R}`$ is violated in the right-hand side of equation (33). One derives

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\eta _\mathrm{s}}{dt}}={\displaystyle \frac{a}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{s}}{T^3}}\eta _\mathrm{s},`$ (34)
which implies a relaxation temperature equal to $`T_\mathrm{s}^{}=aT_\mathrm{s}/6`$ in a radiation dominated Universe:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\eta _\mathrm{s}}{dT^1}}={\displaystyle \frac{a}{6}}T_\mathrm{s}\eta _\mathrm{s}.`$ (35)
If no interactions beyond standard model are in thermal equilibrium, the chemical potential constraints are determined by the gauge interactions, top quark Yukawa coupling and the condition $`Y=0`$ (equations (14) and (15)). The approximately or exactly conserved charges $`Q_\alpha `$ in equation (33) are $`B`$, $`BL`$, $`L_{e_i}`$, $`B_{c_R}B_{u_R}`$, $`B_{d_i}B_{u_R}`$, $`L_iL_j`$ and $`B_iB_j`$. In that case one calculates $`a=184/3`$ and the consequent relaxation temperature is $`T_\mathrm{s}^{}=10.2T_\mathrm{s}3\times 10^{13}\mathrm{GeV}`$. It compares with the value obtained if we had ignored the top quark Yukawa coupling, $`T_\mathrm{s}^{}=12T_\mathrm{s}`$.

$`\eta _\mathrm{s}`$ decays as $`e^{T_\mathrm{s}^{}/T}`$ and its initial value is obtained from equation (33) with the initial $`B_{u_R}`$ value. As $`\eta _\mathrm{s}`$ decays, $`B_{u_R}`$ converges to the value that annihilates the right-hand side of equation (33). When the weak sphalerons enter in equilibrium at around $`2\times 10^{13}\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`\eta _\mathrm{s}`$ is already suppressed by $`e^{T_\mathrm{s}^{}/T}e^{15}`$, which justifies the approximation of taking the relaxed value $`\eta _\mathrm{s}=0`$ as we did in the two previous sections.

## 6 Supersymmetric models

Baryogenesis and leptogenesis have been also studied in the context of supersymmetric theories. The supersymmetry breaking terms decouple at a certain temperature $`T_{\mathrm{ss}}10^7\mathrm{GeV}`$ and supersymmetry becomes a good symmetry above $`T_{\mathrm{ss}}`$. As a result, other global symmetries become effective at high temperatures namely, in the case of the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM), the Peccei-Quinn, U(1)A, and U(1)R symmetries. It was shown  that in addition to $`BL`$ another linear combination, $`R^{}`$, of $`A`$, $`R`$, $`B`$ and $`L`$ is anomaly free under the gauge groups SU(3) and SU(2). Thus, $`R^{}`$ and $`BL`$ are unconstrained conserved quantum numbers even if all reactions including sphaleron processes are in thermal equilibrium. Then, a net baryon number asymmetry requires non-zero values of either $`R^{}`$ or $`BL`$ but not necessarily both of them, in contrast with the non-supersymmetric case where a non-zero $`BL`$ is needed.

But at very high temperatures there are in fact other approximate symmetries because some of the lepton and quark Yukawa couplings are thermally decoupled as discussed in the previous sections. In addition, as we prove in the following, supersymmetry adds two and not just one SU(3) and SU(2) anomaly free conserved quantum numbers.

The exact supersymmetric part of MSSM comprises the SU(3)$`\times `$SU(2)$`\times `$U(1)Y gauge interactions and the Yukawa couplings specified by the superpotential

$$W=\lambda _uH_2qu^C+\lambda _dH_1qd^C+\lambda _eH_1le^C,$$
(36)
where the flavour indices are omitted. In the case of supersymmetric leptogenesis  one adds heavy sterile neutrinos $`N_a`$ with Majorana masses $`M_a`$ and the superpotential

$$W_N=\frac{1}{2}MNN+\lambda _NH_2lN.$$
(37)
The MSSM interactions conserve $`B`$ and $`L`$ and two other quantum numbers, $`A`$ and $`R`$, of the global Peccei-Quinn and U(1)R symmetries. The particle quantum numbers are specified in table 1 ($`R`$ as defined in ). $`\stackrel{~}{H}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}_2`$ are the Higgsino fields and $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ stand for the left-handed components of the gauginos $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$.

The $`R`$ charges of the Higgs fields $`H_1`$, $`H_2`$ and scalar superpartners of $`q`$, $`u^C`$, $`d^C`$, $`l`$, $`e^C`$, $`N`$ exceed the respective fermion superpartner charges by 1 unit so that the superpotential carries 2 units. The gauge bosons $`W`$, $`B`$ and $`g`$ have zero $`A`$ and $`R`$ charges. $`R_M`$ is the linear combination

$$R_M=3R+\frac{7}{2}B\frac{3}{2}L,$$
(38)
defined in such a way as to be non-anomalous under SU(3) and SU(2), and conserved by sterile neutrino Majorana masses and Yukawa couplings, if applicable. The $`R_M`$ charges of the Higgs and matter scalar particles exceed their fermion superpartner charges by 3 units and the superpotential carries 6 $`R_M`$ units.

The last three columns of table 1 represent the anomalies under the standard model gauge groups SU(3), SU(2) and U(1)Y, respectively, normalized to coincide with the quantum number variations per unit of Chern-Simons number, $`\mathrm{\Delta }N`$. For example, the baryon number varies as $`\mathrm{\Delta }B=3\mathrm{\Delta }N`$ under SU(2) weak sphalerons while $`\mathrm{\Delta }A=\mathrm{\Delta }N`$. The Higgsinos and gauginos contribute to the anomalies as follows: the Higgsino fermion numbers vary as $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\stackrel{~}{H_1}}=\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\stackrel{~}{H_2}}=\mathrm{\Delta }N`$ under weak sphalerons and the Wino left-handed components as $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\stackrel{~}{W}}=4\mathrm{\Delta }N`$. The gluino left-handed components vary as $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=6\mathrm{\Delta }N`$ under SU(3) QCD sphalerons. As a result the chemical potential constraints enforced by weak and strong sphaleron processes when they are in thermal equilibrium are modified with respect to the standard model. Equations (9) and (31) are replaced with

$`\eta _\mathrm{w}={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(3\eta _{q_i}+\eta _{l_i})+\eta _{\stackrel{~}{H_1}}+\eta _{\stackrel{~}{H_2}}+4\eta _{\stackrel{~}{W}},`$ (39)
$`\eta _\mathrm{s}={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(2\eta _{q_i}\eta _{u_i}\eta _{d_i})+6\eta _{\stackrel{~}{g}}.`$ (40)
In order to determine the $`\eta _\mathrm{w}`$ and $`\eta _\mathrm{s}`$ damping rates it is necessary to identify the quantum numbers conserved by the respective sphaleron processes. Besides the hypercharge and $`BL`$ there are flavour dependent quantum numbers that are conserved by both weak and strong sphalerons. Within the standard model the partial lepton numbers of the lepton iso-singlets, $`L_{e_i}`$, the differences between the right-handed charm or down quarks baryon numbers and the $`u_R`$ baryon number, $`B_{c_R}B_{u_R}`$ and $`B_{d_i}B_{u_R}`$, the differences between total lepton and baryon numbers of different generations, $`L_iL_j`$ and $`B_iB_j`$ are only violated by Yukawa couplings. At high enough temperatures these are out of equilibrium and the respective flavour quantum numbers are conserved to a very good approximation. This remains true in the supersymmetric version of the standard model simply by extending the partial lepton and baryon numbers to the s-leptons and s-quarks scalar superpartners. But there are two more conserved charges. One is $`R_M`$ as discussed above. The Peccei-Quinn charge $`A`$, on the contrary, is not conserved by strong sphalerons, nor any combination of $`A`$, $`B`$ and $`L`$. However, a combination like

$$A_u=A\frac{1}{3}B9B_{u_R}$$
(41)
is not anomalous under SU(3) and SU(2) and is conserved as long as the up quark Yukawa coupling remains out of equilibrium, which happens at temperatures above $`10^8\mathrm{GeV}`$. Thus, supersymmetry adds two new conserved charges, $`A_u`$ and $`R_M`$, at very high temperatures.

Another significant consequence of supersymmetry is a different evolution of the gauge coupling constants which reflects on the sphaleron rates that scale with the fifth powers of $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}`$ and $`\alpha _\mathrm{w}`$. At $`10^{12}\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`\alpha _\mathrm{w}1/26`$ instead of the standard model value $`\alpha _\mathrm{w}1/41`$. It makes the weak sphaleron diffusion rate 10 times larger than in the non-supersymmetric case: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{w}25\alpha _\mathrm{w}^5T^42\times 10^6T^4`$. A similar increase occurs for QCD sphalerons. At $`10^{14}\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}1/21.5`$ yields a diffusion rate, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{s}300\alpha _\mathrm{s}^5T^46\times 10^5T^4`$, 15 times larger than in standard model case ($`\alpha _\mathrm{s}1/39`$).

### 6.1 QCD sphalerons

The determination of the strong sphaleron degeneracy parameter $`\eta _\mathrm{s}`$ proceeds like in the standard model case. One writes down the chemical potentials in terms of a set of independent global quantum numbers that are conserved by all significant processes with the possible exception of QCD sphalerons and obtains a relation like (33) for the quantity defined in equation (40):

$$\eta _\mathrm{s}T^3V=aB_{u_R}+b_\alpha Q_\alpha .$$
(42)
$`Q_\alpha `$ are all charges conserved in a temperature range around $`10^{14}\mathrm{GeV}`$. If the MSSM interactions are the only ones in thermal equilibrium, the charges $`Q_\alpha `$ are the baryon number $`B`$, only marginally violated by weak sphalerons, and the anomaly free $`BL`$, $`R_M`$, $`A_u`$, $`L_{e_i}`$, $`B_{c_R}B_{u_R}`$, $`B_{d_i}B_{u_R}`$, $`L_iL_j`$ and $`B_iB_j`$. If other non-standard interactions are in equilibrium new constraints apply and the number of conserved charges is reduced. In any case the variation of $`\eta _\mathrm{s}T^3V`$ is always the one of $`B_{u_R}`$ times the factor $`a`$. Equation (34) and (35) still hold and the relaxation temperature is given by $`T_\mathrm{s}^{}=aT_\mathrm{s}/6`$. What are different are the coefficients $`a`$ and $`b_\alpha `$, which depend on the actual degrees of freedom and interactions in equilibrium.

The gauge and gaugino interactions put constraints of the general form

$$\mu _{\stackrel{~}{f}_L}=\mu _{f_L}+\mu _{\stackrel{~}{A}},$$
(43)
where $`f_L`$ stands for any of the left-handed fermion particles $`q_i`$, $`u_i^C`$, $`d_i^C`$, $`l_i`$, $`e_i^C`$, $`\stackrel{~}{H}_1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{H}_2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{f}_L`$ is the respective scalar superpartner. $`\mu _{\stackrel{~}{A}}=\mu _{\stackrel{~}{g}}=\mu _{\stackrel{~}{W}}=\mu _{\stackrel{~}{B}}`$ is the common (left-handed) gaugino chemical potential whereas the gauge bosons have zero chemical potentials. The other constraints are enforced by the top quark Yukawa coupling,

$$\mu _{q_t}\mu _{t_R}+\mu _{H_2}=0,$$
(44)
and the condition of zero total hypercharge. In the usual linear approximation this amounts to:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(\mu _{q_i}+2\mu _{u_i}\mu _{d_i}\mu _{l_i}\mu _{e_i})+\mu _{\stackrel{~}{H_2}}\mu _{\stackrel{~}{H_1}}`$
$`+2{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(\mu _{\stackrel{~}{q}_i}+2\mu _{\stackrel{~}{u}_i}\mu _{\stackrel{~}{d}_i}\mu _{\stackrel{~}{l}_i}\mu _{\stackrel{~}{e}_i})+2(\mu _{H_2}\mu _{H_1})=0.`$ (45)
The constraint equations can be used to express all chemical potentials in terms of $`B_{u_R}`$ and the conserved quantities $`Q_\alpha `$ of equation (42). If no interactions beyond the MSSM are in equilibrium one obtains the coefficient $`a=9440/429`$ and the relaxation temperature $`T_\mathrm{s}^{}=3.67T_\mathrm{s}`$. The temperature $`T_\mathrm{s}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{s}T^2H^1`$ calculated with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{s}300\alpha _\mathrm{s}^5T^4`$, $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}1/21.5`$, and an effective number of degrees of freedom $`g_{}229`$ ($`H=1.66g_{}^{1/2}T^2/M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$) amounts to $`T_\mathrm{s}3\times 10^{13}\mathrm{GeV}`$. It makes the relaxation temperature, $`T_\mathrm{s}^{}10^{14}\mathrm{GeV}`$, 4 times larger than in the non-supersymmetric case.

### 6.2 Weak sphalerons

When the weak sphalerons approach thermal equilibrium the strong sphaleron processes are already very rapid and the respective degeneracy parameter is damped down by several orders of magnitude. One applies then the constraint $`\eta _\mathrm{s}=0`$ on the expression (40) and the constraints (43) and (44). The particle chemical potentials and the weak sphaleron degeneracy parameter $`\eta _\mathrm{w}`$ of equation (39) can be written in terms of the baryon number and a set of quantum numbers $`Q_\alpha `$ conserved by both weak and strong sphalerons:

$$\eta _\mathrm{w}T^3V=aB+b_\alpha Q_\alpha .$$
(46)
If no other than MSSM interactions are in thermal equilibrium the $`Q_\alpha `$ charges are $`BL`$, $`R_M`$, $`A_u`$, $`L_{e_i}`$, $`B_{c_R}B_{u_R}`$, $`B_{d_i}B_{u_R}`$, $`L_iL_j`$ and $`B_iB_j`$. As a first estimate of the $`\eta _\mathrm{w}`$ relaxation temperature one ignores the violation of $`L_{\tau _R}`$ and $`B_{b_R}B_{u_R}`$ by the tau and quark Yukawa couplings. Then, the time derivative of $`\eta _\mathrm{w}T^3V`$ is just $`adB/dt`$ and the results (11) and (12) follow from there. We obtain $`a=8179/4720`$ and the relaxation temperature $`T_\mathrm{w}^{}=\frac{3}{2}aT_\mathrm{w}=2.60T_\mathrm{w}`$. Taking a diffusion rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{w}26\alpha _\mathrm{w}^5T^4`$ with $`\alpha _\mathrm{w}1/26`$, one gets $`T_\mathrm{w}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{w}T^2H^110^{12}\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`T_\mathrm{w}^{}3\times 10^{12}\mathrm{GeV}`$. Although $`T_\mathrm{w}`$ is 7 times larger than in the standard model, the relaxation temperature $`T_\mathrm{w}^{}`$ is just less than 2 times larger. It remains so in the vicinity of the $`b_R`$ and $`\tau _R`$ Yukawa coupling relaxation temperatures causing the same phenomenon discussed in section 4 of damped oscillations of $`\eta _\mathrm{w}`$ and the other two degeneracy parameters.

## 7 Conclusions

Weak and strong sphaleron processes enforce chemical potential constraints at high temperatures but the respective relaxation temperatures are not the ones where the sphaleron frequencies $`\mathrm{\Gamma }T^3`$ coincide with the Hubble expansion rate. They are larger than that for both kind of sphalerons but the exact factors depend on the set of reactions in thermal equilibrium at the relevant epoch: they are 10 times larger in the case of the standard model and around 3 in the case of supersymmetric models. These numbers do not depend on the origin of the asymmetries i.e., on the particular lepto-baryogenesis mechanism, except if exotic particles or interactions are in thermal equilibrium at the time considered.

One aspect that has been overlooked so far concerns the evaluation of the sphaleron diffusion rates themselves. The $`\alpha _\mathrm{w}`$ and $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}`$ gauge coupling constants run with the energy scale and this causes the weak and strong sphaleron rates to approach each other at very high temperatures and to be model dependent on the other hand. The weak sphaleron rate is about 10 times larger in supersymmetric model extensions than in the standard model while the strong sphaleron rate is enhanced by a factor of 15. Our calculations yield the relaxation temperature values of $`2\times 10^{12}\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`3\times 10^{13}\mathrm{GeV}`$ for weak and strong sphalerons, respectively, in the standard model case and $`3\times 10^{12}\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`10^{14}\mathrm{GeV}`$ in the supersymmetric version.

Weak sphalerons enter in equilibrium in the same period as the bottom and tau Yukawa couplings. We shown that the respective degeneracy parameters obey a coupled system of equations and oscillate into each other as they are damped away.

I thank D. Bödeker, G. Moore and M. Shaposhnikov for discussions. This work was partially supported by the FCT grant CERN/FNU/43666/2001.

## References


format: text

text:
# Noised induced phase transition in an oscillatory system with dynamical traps

## I Introduction

The ability of noise to produce order in systems, in particular, to induce phase transitions is well established (see, e.g., Refs In1 ; In2 ). Such a phase transition manifests itself in the phase-space density of the system changing its structure, for example, the number of maxima. Noised-induced phase transitions are distinguished from the classical ones by the fact that their cause is not only the features of regular “forces” but also the action of random Langevin “forces”. As a result, in particular, the maxima of the distribution function describing the noise-induced phases are not necessarily related to the zero value of the regular “forces”.

System of elements with motivated behavior, e.g., fish and bird swarms, car ensembles on highways, stock markets, etc. often display noise-induced phase transitions. The formation of a new phase is caused by noise action (for a review see Ref. Hel1 ). The theory of these phenomena is far from being developed well.

The present Letter considers a certain class of such systems whose dynamics can be described by two variables $`x`$, $`v`$ which perform a damped harmonic oscillation near the equilibrium point $`\{x=0,v=0\}`$. However, the system “cost” of deviation from the equilibrium can differ substantially for these variables. For example, in driving a car the control over the relative velocity $`v`$ is of prime importance in comparison with the correction of the headway distance $`x`$. So, under normal conditions a driver should eliminate the relative velocity between her car and a car ahead first and only then correct the headway. In markets the deviation from the supply-demand equilibrium reflecting in price changes also has to exhibit faster time variations than, e.g., the production cost determined by technology capabilities. In physical systems this situation can be also met, e.g., in Pd-metal alloys charged with hydrogen where the structure relaxation exhibits non-monotonic dynamics K1 ; K2 . In these alloys hydrogen atoms and nonequilibrium vacancies form long lived complexes affecting essentially the structure relaxation. Their generation and disappearance governed, in turn, by the structure evolution causes the non-monotonic dynamics which can be described in terms of dynamical traps.

These observations lead to the concept of dynamical traps, a certain “low” dimensional region in the phase space where the main kinetic coefficients specifying the characteristic time scales of the system dynamics become sufficiently large in comparison with their values outside the trap region we1 ; we2 . A trap region is not necessarily to be bounded in all the dimensions and, in this case, it itself cannot lead to the formation of new phases. Moreover, the equilibrium point can be absolutely stable, so without noise there is only one phase in the system. The present Letter analyzes the effect of noise on such a system and demonstrates that additive noise in a system with dynamical traps is able to give rise to new phases. It should be noted that in most models the phase transitions are caused by multiplicative noise, however, additive noise also can give rise to these phenomena WN0 ; WN1 ; WN2 .

## II Noised oscillatory system with dynamical traps

By way of example, the following system typically used to describe the harmonic oscillatory dynamics is considered

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`v,`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dv}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _0^2\mathrm{\Omega }(v)\left[x+{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{\omega _0}}v\right]+ϵ_0\xi _v(t).`$ (2)
Here $`x`$ and $`v`$ are the dynamical variables usually treated as a coordinate and velocity of a certain particle, $`\omega _0`$ is the circular frequency of oscillations provided the system is not affected by other factors, $`\sigma `$ is the damping decrement, and the term $`ϵ_0\xi _v(t)`$ in equation (2) is a random Langevin “force” of intensity $`ϵ_0`$ proportional to the white noise $`\xi _v(t)`$,

$$\xi _v(t)=0,\xi _v(t)\xi _v(t^{})=\delta (tt^{}),$$
(3)
with unit amplitude. The function $`\mathrm{\Omega }(v)`$ describes the dynamical trap effect arising in the vicinity of zero value velocity. For this function, the following simple Ansatz can be used

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(v)=\frac{v^2+\mathrm{}^2\vartheta _t^2}{v^2+\vartheta _t^2},$$
(4)
where the parameter $`\vartheta _t`$ characterizes the thickness of the trap region and the parameter $`\mathrm{}1`$ measures the trapping efficacy. When $`\mathrm{}=1`$ the dynamical trap effect is ignorable, for $`\mathrm{}=0`$ it is most effective.

The characteristic features of the given system are illustrated in Fig. 1. The shadowed domain shows the trap region where the regular “force”, the former term in Eq. (2), is depressed. The latter is described by the factor $`\mathrm{\Omega }(v)`$ taking small values in the trap region (for $`\mathrm{}1`$). Inside the trap region the system is mainly governed by the random Langevin “force”. Outside the trap region it is approximately harmonic.

In order to analyze the system dynamics a dimensionless time $`t`$ and the dynamical variables $`\eta `$ and $`u`$ are used. Namely, the time $`t`$ is measured in units of $`1/\omega _0`$, i.e., $`tt/\omega _0`$ and the units of the coordinate $`x`$ and the velocity $`v`$ are $`\vartheta _t/\omega _0`$ and $`\vartheta _t`$, respectively. So, by introducing the new variables

$$\eta =\frac{x\omega _0}{\vartheta _t}\text{and}u=\frac{v}{\vartheta _t}$$

the dynamical equations (1), (2) read (for the dimensionless time $`t`$)

$$\frac{d\eta }{dt}=u,\frac{du}{dt}=\mathrm{\Omega }[u]\left(\eta +\sigma u\right)+ϵ\xi (t),$$
(5)
where the noise $`\xi (t)`$ obeys conditions like equalities (3), the parameter $`ϵ=ϵ_0/(\sqrt{\omega _0}\vartheta _t)`$, and the function

$$\mathrm{\Omega }[u]=\frac{u^2+\mathrm{}^2}{u^2+1}.$$

Without noise, this system has only one stationary point $`\{\eta =0,u=0\}`$ being stable because it possesses a Liapunov function

$$(\eta ,u)=\frac{\eta ^2}{2}+\frac{u^2}{2}+\frac{1\mathrm{}^2}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{u^2+\mathrm{}^2}{\mathrm{}^2}\right).$$
(6)
This Liapunov function attains the absolute minimum at the point $`\{\eta =0,u=0\}`$ and obeys the inequality

$$\frac{d(\eta ,u)}{dt}=\sigma u^2<0\text{for}u0.$$
(7)
In particular, if $`\sigma =0`$ and $`ϵ=0`$ then function (6) is the first integral of the system. In what follows, the values $`\sigma `$ and $`ϵ`$ will be treated as small parameters.

The present Letter demonstrates the fact that the noise $`\xi (t)`$ can cause a phase transition in the given system. It manifests itself in that the distribution function $`𝒫(\eta ,u)`$ changes form from a unimodal to a bimodal one. The dynamics of system (5) was analyzed numerically using a high order stochastic Runge-Kutta method RK1  (see also Ref. RK2 ). The distribution function $`𝒫(\eta ,u)`$ was calculated numerically by finding the cumulative time during which the system is located inside a given mesh on the $`(\eta ,u)`$-plane for a path of a sufficiently long time of motion, $`t500000`$. The size of mesh was chosen to be about 1% of the dimension characterizing the system location on the $`(\eta ,u)`$-plane.

The evolution of the distribution function $`𝒫(\eta ,u)`$ is shown in Fig. 2 in the form of the level contours dividing the variation scale into ten equal parts. The upper window corresponds to the case of $`\mathrm{}=1`$ where the trap effect is absent and the distribution function is unimodal. The third window illustrates the case when the distribution function has the well pronounced bimodal shape shown also in Fig. 3. Comparing the three upper windows in Fig. 2 it becomes evident that there is a certain relation $`\mathrm{\Phi }_c(\mathrm{},\sigma ,ϵ)=0`$ between the parameters $`\mathrm{}`$, $`\sigma `$, and $`ϵ`$ when the system undergoes a second order phase transition which manifests itself in the change of the shape of the phase space density $`𝒫(\eta ,u)`$ from unimodal to bimodal. In particular, for $`\sigma =0.1`$ and $`ϵ=0.1`$ the critical value of the parameter $`\mathrm{}`$ is $`\mathrm{}_c(\sigma ,ϵ)0.5`$ as seen in the second window.

## III Mechanism of the phase transition

To understand the mechanism of the noised induced phase transition observed numerically in the given system, consider a typical fragment of the system motion through the trap region for $`\mathrm{}1`$ that is shown in Fig. 4. When it goes into the trap region $`𝒬_t`$, $`\vartheta _tv\vartheta _t`$, the regular “force” $`\mathrm{\Omega }[u]\left(\eta +\sigma u\right)`$ containing the trap factor $`\mathrm{\Omega }[u]`$ and governing the regular motion becomes small. So inside this region the system dynamics becomes random due to the remaining weak Langevin “force” $`ϵ\xi (t)`$. However, the boundaries $`_+𝒬_t`$ (where $`v\vartheta _t`$) and $`_{}𝒬_t`$ (where $`v\vartheta _t`$) are not identical in properties with respect to the system motion. At the boundary $`_+𝒬_t`$ the regular “force” leads the system inwards the trap region $`𝒬_t`$, whereas at the boundary $`_{}𝒬_t`$ it causes the system to leave the region $`𝒬_t`$. Outside the trap region $`𝒬_t`$ the regular “force” is dominant. Thereby, from the standpoint of the system motion inside the region $`𝒬_t`$, the boundary $`_+𝒬_t`$ is “reflecting” whereas the boundary $`_{}𝒬_t`$ is “absorbing”.

As a result the distribution of the residence time at different points of the region $`𝒬_t`$ should be asymmetric, as schematically shown in Fig. 1(the right window). This asymmetry is also seen in the distribution function $`𝒫(\eta ,u)`$ obtained numerically. Its maxima are located at the points with non-zero values of the velocity, which is clearly visible in the lower window of Fig. 2. Therefore, during location inside the trap region the mean velocity of the system must be positive and it tends to go away from the origin. This effect gives rise to an increase in the “energy” $`(\eta ,u)`$. Outside the trap region the “energy” $`(\eta ,u)`$ decreases according to expression (7). So, when the former effect becomes sufficiently strong, i.e., the random “force” intensity $`ϵ`$ exceeds a certain critical value, $`ϵ>ϵ_c(\mathrm{},\sigma )`$, the distribution function $`𝒫(\eta ,u)`$ becomes bimodal.

The system location with respect to the velocity $`v`$ is due to the regular “force” being sufficiently strong outside the trap region, so the system spends the main time inside this region. Its location with respect to the coordinate $`x`$ is caused by the fact that the region where the Langevin “force” mainly affects the system dynamics decreases in thickness as the coordinate $`x`$ increases. The latter tendency takes place because the regular “force”, the first term in Eq. (2), is proportional to $`x`$. In fact, the thickness $`U(\eta )`$ of the trap region in the vicinity of the point $`\{\eta ,u=0\}`$ can be estimated using the condition of the equality of the characteristic times, $`\stackrel{~}{t}_s`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{t}_d`$, during which the system crosses the trap region under action of the regular “force” and the random Langevin “force”. So

$$\stackrel{~}{t}_s\frac{U}{\mathrm{\Omega }[U]\eta }\stackrel{~}{t}_d\frac{U^2}{ϵ^2}.$$

and setting for the sake of simplicity $`\mathrm{}=0`$ we get the estimate

$$U(\eta )ϵ^{2/3}\eta ^{1/3}.$$

Moreover, let the mean velocity in the trap region caused by the residence time asymmetry be about $`U(\eta )`$. Then the characteristic increase $`\delta \eta `$ of the coordinate $`\eta `$ got by the system when crossing the trap region is estimated as $`\delta \eta U\stackrel{~}{t}_s1/\eta `$. Thereby the dynamical trap effect becomes weaker as the “energy” $`(\eta ,u)`$ increases. By contrast, according to Exp. (7) the higher the “energy”, the stronger its dissipation caused by the regular “force”.

## IV Conclusion

The present paper has considered noise-induced phase transitions in systems with dynamical traps. By way of example, a simple oscillatory system $`\{x,v=\dot{x}\}`$ is studied when the trap region is located in the vicinity of the $`x`$-axis and without noise the stationary point $`\{x=0,v=0\}`$ is absolutely stable. For this system as shown numerically the additive white noise can cause the phase-space density to take the bimodal shape.

In contrast to the classical phase transitions the position of the new noise-induced phases is not specified by the zero-values of regular “forces” even approximately. The cause of the observed phase transition is the asymmetry of the residence time distribution inside the trap region. This asymmetry is due the cooperative effect of the regular “force” outside the trap region and the random Langevin “force” inside it. The regular “force” does not change the direction when crossing the trap region, inside this region it is depressed only. As a result, for the motion inside the trap region one of its boundaries is “reflecting”, whereas the other is “absorbing”, which induces the residence time asymmetry. The latter gives rise to increase in the system “energy”. Outside the trap region the regular “force” causes the “energy” to decrease.

###### Acknowledgements.

These investigations were supported in part by RFBR Grants 01-01-00389, 02-02-16537, INTAS Grant 00-0847, and Russian Program “Integration”, Project B0056.


text:
# Band-gap solitons in nonlinear optically-induced lattices

## Abstract

We introduce novel optical solitons that consist of a periodic and a spatially localized components coupled nonlinearly via cross-phase modulation. The spatially localized optical field can be treated as a gap soliton supported by the optically-induced nonlinear grating. We find different types of these band-gap composite solitons and demonstrate their dynamical stability.

Recent theoretical and experimental results demonstrated nonlinear localization of light in optically-induced refractive index gratings efrem ; fleischer . Such localized states can be treated as “discrete” and “gap” solitons observed in fabricated periodic photonic structures book , but supported by gratings induced by a complementary optical field. Optically induced lattices open up an exciting possibility for creating dynamically reconfigurable photonic structures in bulk nonlinear media. The physics of coherent light propagating in such structures can be linked to the phenomena exhibited by coherent matter waves (Bose-Einstein condensates) in optical lattices lenaPRA .

Among the most challenging problems in the physics of induced gratings is the creation of stable, uniform periodic optical patterns which can effectively modulate the refractive index of a nonlinear medium. Periodic modulation of the refractive index can be induced, for instance, by an interference pattern illuminating a photorefractive crystal with a strong electro-optic anisotropy efrem . Interfering plane waves modulate the space-charge field in the crystal, which relates to the refractive index via electro-optic coefficients. The latter are substantially different for the two orthogonal polarizations. As a result, the material nonlinearity experienced by waves polarized in the direction of the c \- axis of the crystal is up to two orders of magnitude larger than that experienced by the orthogonally polarized ones. When the lattice-forming waves are polarized orthogonally to the c \- axis, the nonlinear self-action as well as any cross-action from the co-propagating probe beam can be neglected. The periodic interference pattern propagates in the diffraction-free linear regime, thus creating a stationary refractive-index grating fleischer .

In this Letter, we develop the concept of optically-induced gratings beyond the limit of weak material nonlinearity and propose the idea of robust nonlinearity-assisted optical lattices, created by nonlinear periodic waves. Strong incoherent interaction of such a grating with a probe beam, through the nonlinear cross-phase-modulation (XPM) effect, facilitates the formation of a novel type of a composite optical soliton, where one of the components creates a periodic photonic structure, while the other component experiences Bragg reflection from this structure and can form gap solitons localized in the transmission gaps of the linear spectrum. The observation of nonlinear light localization in this type of optically-induced gratings can be achieved in photorefractive medium with two incoherently interacting beams of the same polarization. We study such a configuration in a saturable medium and demonstrate the existence and stable dynamics of these novel band-gap lattice solitons.

The propagation of two incoherently interacting beams in a photorefractive crystal can be approximately described by the coupled nonlinear Schrödinger (NLS) equations for the slowly varying envelopes $`E_n`$ ($`n=1,2`$),

$$i\frac{E_n}{z}+\frac{^2E_n}{x^2}+\sigma N(I)E_n=0,$$
(1)
where $`N(I)=I/(1+sI)`$ describes saturable nonlinearity, $`I=|E_n|^2`$ is the total light intensity, $`s`$ is the saturation parameter, and $`\sigma =\pm 1`$ stands for the focusing or defocusing nonlinearity, respectively. Stationary solutions are found in the form $`E_n=u_n(x)\mathrm{exp}(i\sigma k_nz)`$ where $`k_n`$ are the propagation constants of the components. We assume strong saturation regime, $`s=1`$, which is closer to realistic experimental conditions.

The induced waveguiding regime, well studied in the context of vector solitons book , corresponds to the case when the intensities of the two interacting fields are significantly different. Then the strong field (e.g., $`u_1`$) is described by a single (scalar) NLS equation, and the weaker field propagates in the effective linear waveguide induced by the stronger component via XPM. Here we assume that the effective waveguide (i.e. the grating) is created by a periodic nonlinear field $`u_1(x)`$ with the propagation constant $`k_1`$, described by the stationary wave-train solutions of a scalar equation (1) (see also Ref. kart ). Integrating the stationary form of Eq. (1) once, we introduce the effective potential $`P(u_1)=(\sigma /2)[(1k_1)u_1^2\mathrm{ln}(1+u_1^2)]`$, so that the general stationary solution $`u_1(x)`$ with the amplitude $`A`$ can be found by solving the equation $`P(A)=\frac{1}{2}(du_1/dx)^2+P(u_1)`$. Figure 1(a) shows the form of the potential $`P(u_1)`$ in both focusing ($`\sigma =+1`$, top) and defocusing ($`\sigma =1`$, bottom) cases. The minima of $`P(u_1)`$ correspond to a plane wave with the constant amplitude $`A_{\mathrm{cw}}^2=k_1/(1k_1)`$, whereas the bright soliton solutions correspond to the separatrix at $`A=A_s`$ with $`P(A_s)=0`$.

In the limit $`s0`$, exact analytical expressions for the nonlinear periodic waves $`u_1(x)`$ can be written down for $`\sigma =\pm 1`$, in terms of the elliptic Jacobi functions, $`\mathrm{cn}(x,\mu )`$, $`\mathrm{dn}(x,\mu )`$, and $`\mathrm{sn}(x,\mu )`$, with the modulus $`0\mu (k_1)1`$. They represent self-consistent solutions of the cubic NLS equations which coincide with well-studied Hill’s equation with associated Lamé potentials petn . It can be shown that the general structure of the periodic solutions is preserved for $`s0`$. For $`\sigma =+1`$, there exist two branches of the periodic (cnoidal) solutions shown through their induced refractive index modulation in Fig. 1(d), for $`A=A_1`$, $`A_{\mathrm{cw}}<A_1<A_s`$, and in Fig. 1(e), for $`A=A_2>A_s`$. The $`cn`$-type solutions of the branch $`A_2`$ have nodes, whereas the $`dn`$-type solutions of the branch $`A_1`$ are nodeless. In the defocusing case ($`\sigma =1`$), there exists only one branch of the $`sn`$-type periodic solutions for $`A=A_0<A_{\mathrm{cw}}`$, see Fig. 1(c). In a strongly nonlinear limit the large-period $`A_{1,2}`$ and $`A_0`$ solutions describe periodic trains of bright and dark solitons, respectively.

Having identified the stationary, nonlinear periodic solutions for the scalar field $`u_1(x)`$, we find that, in the induced waveguiding regime, the weak wave $`u_2`$ is scattered by an effectively fixed linear grating characterized by the potential $`N(I)`$, where $`I=u_1^2(x)`$. The guiding properties of such a linear grating are determined by the bandgap structure of the spectrum of the Hill’s equation: $`d^2u_2/dx^2=\sigma N(I)u_2+k_2u_2`$, where the eigenvalue $`k_2(A)`$ depends on the grating amplitude. The eigenfunctions satisfy the Bloch condition $`u_2(x)=\mathrm{exp}(iKL)u_2(x+L)`$, where $`L`$ is the period and $`K`$ is the momentum of the lattice. The spectrum consists of $`M`$ bands and a continuum band, with the total $`m=2M+1`$ band edges. The eigenfunction at the $`m`$-th band edge corresponds to a strictly periodic Bloch wave $`u_2^mb^m(x)=\pm b^m(x+L)`$, for which $`KL=0,\pi `$. Figure 2 shows an example of the bandgap spectrum $`k_2`$ generated by the scalar cnoidal wave $`u_1(x)`$, for $`k_1=0.5`$. The Bloch waves at the band edges $`m=1,2,3,4,5,\mathrm{}`$ have the propagation constants $`\sigma k_2^m\sigma k_2^{m+1}`$ and the period $`L,2L,2L,L,L,\mathrm{}`$. The Bloch wave $`b^m(x)`$ at the band edge $`k_2^m=k_1`$ coincides with the scalar cnoidal wave $`u_1(x)`$. In the case of a saturable nonlinearity some predictions of the number and position of the bands and gaps can be made using theory of Lamé-type equations lame\_b . For example, in the case of a defocusing nonlinearity, the grating potential can be well approximated by $`N(x)a(a+1)\mu \mathrm{sn}^2(x,\mu )`$, where $`a=1`$. Since the spectrum of the Lamé’s equation has $`M=a`$ bound bands, it is expected that the $`A_0`$-type grating generates single bound band followed by a semi-infinite band (as seen in Fig. 2 for $`A<A_{\mathrm{cw}}`$).

In the limit $`AA_s`$ the period of the cnoidal-wave solution diverges and the spectrum bands disappear, see Fig. 2. From the other hand, when the grating amplitude $`A`$ approaches the plane-wave amplitude $`A_{\mathrm{cw}}`$ in the focusing case, the periodic modulation of the refractive index vanishes and the gaps disappear, see Fig. 2.

To be useful for creation of robust dynamical photonic structures, nonlinear periodic waves should be stable. Previous studies of stability of periodic solutions kart ; stab ; bec1d  suggest that the solutions of the $`A_1`$-type are strongly unstable due to modulational instability (MI), whereas MI is suppressed for the $`A_2`$-type solutions in a saturable medium, and also for $`A_0`$-type solutions in the defocusing case. Our numerical studies have confirmed that the $`A_0`$-type grating in the defocusing case is both linearly and dynamically stable, and also demonstrated that the $`A_2`$-type solutions are only weakly (oscillatory) unstable. In contrast, the $`A_1`$-type lattice is quickly destroyed by strong symmetry-breaking instabilities; therefore we excluded it from our further consideration.

The localization of the probe field $`u_2`$ in the gaps of the linear spectrum of the periodic structure induced by the field $`u_1(x)`$ can occur in the nonlinear regime of the probe propagation through the grating. In this regime, the significant intensity of the probe beam does not permit to neglect its nonlinear self-action. When the back-action of the probe on the grating through XPM is ignored (e.g. in the case of a weak material nonlinearity for the grating wave), the physics of the localization is similar to the standard case of nonlinear waves in fixed periodic potentials, well studied in the context of both optical and matter waves sipe ; andrey ; bec1d ; lenaPRA . However, in our problem the grating and scattered wave are strongly nonlinearly coupled and, therefore, as in the case of two-component vector solitons book , we should expect the existence of self-consistent hybrid structures formed by a periodic wave and a localized gap mode.

Indeed, by solving vector Eq. (1) numerically, with a value of $`k_1`$ fixed to that of the scalar grating $`k_1=k_1^g`$, we have found different families of solutions of Eq. (1), consisting of the oscillatory ($`u_1`$) and localized ($`u_2`$) mutually trapped components. The propagation constant of the localized component always lies within the gaps of the linear spectrum. Therefore this component can be described as a gap soliton with even or odd symmetry andrey , centered at a maximum or minimum of the grating potential, respectively. Figure 3 shows some of examples of such a gap solitons for both defocusing and focusing cases. First, we note that the powers of discrete solitons with different symmetries coincide, i.e. these solitons belong to the same family. This indicates the absence of the Peierls-Nabarro potential barrier and good mobility of the localized states. Second, due to the nonlinear XPM interaction, the induced grating is strongly modified by the localized component, but recovers periodicity in the far field. Different cases of the gap solitons are summarized in Fig. 4 where we show the families of localized modes for both focusing and defocusing cases.

In agreement with the theory of gap solitons in nonlinear periodic structures andrey , the families of localized states originate at the edges of the bands with the numbers $`m=2`$ (for $`\sigma <0`$) or $`m=1,3,5\mathrm{}`$ (for $`\sigma >0`$), where the effective dispersion, $`(^2k_2/K^2)|_{k_2^m}`$, is correspondingly negative or positive. At the respective band edge, the low-power gap soliton is weakly localized, and can be described as a slowly varying envelope of the corresponding Bloch wave $`b^m(x)`$ sipe . In the defocusing case, only gap solitons \[(a) and (b)\] can exist in the induced grating, whereas in the focusing case, both gap \[(c) and (d)\] solitons and self-trapped \[(e) and (f)\] solitons in the semi-infinite gap are possible. Near the opposite gap edges, where the gap modes have high powers, the periodic wave of the grating acquires significant defects induced by the localized state, however both components still exist as a vector stationary state.

To understand the nature of this composite state, we consider the correction to the linear grating spectrum due to the low-amplitude gap mode in the $`u_2`$ component, which is bifurcating off the lower edge of the band II ($`m=3`$) in the focusing case, or upper edge of the band I ($`m=2`$) in the defocusing case. Near the bifurcation threshold, the nonlinear XPM coupling leads to the effective shift of the propagation constant of the periodic grating component: $`k_1=k_1^g+\mathrm{\Delta }k_1`$, where $`k_1^g`$ is the fixed propagation constant for the scalar grating $`u_1^g(x)`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }k_1\sigma u_2^2u_1^2(1+u_1^2)^2𝑑x`$. As a result, the band edges $`k_2^m`$ corresponding to the periodic Bloch modes $`b^m(x)=u_1^g(x)`$ shift into the gap. This means that the nonlinear mode $`u_1`$, coupled to the field $`u_2`$ and corresponding to the fixed propagation constant $`k_1=k_1^g`$ (i.e. fixed power), now lies within the band, and has an oscillatory, but not strictly periodic nature. Therefore, the localized low-power gap mode in the $`u_2`$ component is nonlinearly coupled to an in-band dark-like defect mode in the $`u_1`$ component, which is localized on the Bloch-wave background. Together, the two components form a novel band-gap composite soliton. In the deeply nonlinear regime, when the high-intensity gap mode induces a large defect in the grating wave, both components exist as a vector soliton in a mutually formed periodic waveguide $`N(I)`$, which now depends on both fields intensities, $`I=u_1^2+u_2^2`$. As $`k_2k_1`$, the gap mode’s amplitude approaches that of the grating, and both components of the band-gap soliton become oscillatory.

The crucial issue of stability of the gap solitons in the nonlinear induced gratings is therefore linked to the stability of the composite band-gap states. We have confirmed dynamical stability of band-gap solitons by numerical integration of the vector dynamical model (1). Figure 5 shows an example of the stationary propagation of an odd gap soliton \[family (a-b) in Fig. 4\] in an induced nonlinear grating for the defocusing case. Both components are initially perturbed by a random noise at $`20\%`$ of their peak amplitude \[Fig. 5 (b)\]. If the grating is removed, the localized gap mode can no longer be supported by the defocusing nonlinearity and strongly diffracts \[Fig. 5 (a)\]. Being coupled to the lattice, the gap mode generates a defect in the grating and coexists with it as a dynamically stable composite state, which is clearly robust to perturbations \[Figs. 5 (c,d)\].

In conclusion, we have introduced novel composite band-gap solitons where one of the components creates a periodic nonlinear lattice which localizes the other component in the form of a gap soliton. Nonlinear localization of this kind should be generic to models of nonlinearly interacting multi-component fields, where one of the components can exist in a dynamically stable self-modulated periodic state. Here, we considered a specific example of a spatial nonlinear photonic structure induced by optical beams in a photorefractive crystal. Another example is the dynamical Bragg gratings for optical pulses obtained through the cross-phase modulation in highly birefringent fibers pitois .

Authors appreciate the critical reading of the manuscript by A. Sukhorukov. AD gratefully acknowledges support from the Humboldt Foundation.


text:
# Lorentz Force Correction and Radiation Frequency Property of Charged Particles in Magnetic Dipole

## I Introduction

In view point of electrical charge density field Luo (a), Lorentz interaction of individual charge and magnetic field can happen only in a specified space — overlapped volume of the charge density field and magnetic field. When the volume is in compressed status or varies with a change of the charge internal potential energy due to energy exchange, the Lorentz force will be affected since the magnetic action amount is proportion to the volume; consequently the centrifugal force’s variation will result in the angular velocity’s variation and radiant power’s of the charged particle. By considering the charge’s internal structure and compressed status, Lorentz force correcting factor is studied. In addition, for the Lorentz force to work for causing electromagnetic radiation, there will be a corresponding property on the radiation frequency of a single particle during a single pass; however on the radiation property involving the particle’s radiant frequency, observer detecting frequency and radiant power, currently relevant study is not complete and explicit yet in some points for neglecting the charge’s micro-structure and undistinguishing the particle charge itself’s radiation in magnetic field from detecting radiation at observer location Humphries (1986); Cho (1999); D.A.Edwards and M.J.Syphers (1993), while it is one of our studying subjects following. Further based on the new results of Lorentz force correction and radiation frequency property for single charged particle in magnetic dipole, we give a qualitative interpretation on the relevant behavior or property of collectively charged particles or macro beam element during it passes through a magnetic dipole, and discuss verifying method on our theorem as well as important application.

## II Derivation of the Correct Relation and Inference

### II.1 Corrected Formula of Lorentz Force

For a micro charge element within a charge density field, where $`dq_i=\rho _i(t)dV_i(t)=\rho _{{}_{0}{}^{}i}(r_{{}_{0}{}^{}ic})dV_{0i}(r_{{}_{0}{}^{}ic})`$ and $`\underset{V(t)}{}\rho [r_{ic}(t)]𝑑V=\underset{V_0}{}\rho __0(r_{{}_{0}{}^{}ic})𝑑V_0(r_{{}_{0}{}^{}ic})=q`$ (Ref. Luo (a)), there exists a corrected Lorentz force exerted on the $`dq_i`$ as below:

$$d\stackrel{}{f}[r_{ic}(t)]=dq_i\stackrel{}{v}[r_{ic}(t)]\times \stackrel{}{B}[r_{ic}(t)]k_i[r_{ic}(t)]$$
(1)
$$k_i(t)=\frac{dV_i}{dV_0}=e^{\eta _i(t)}\eta _i[0,+\mathrm{})k_i(0,1]$$

Integrating Eq. (1)

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \stackrel{}{f}[r_{cc}(t)]& =\underset{V(\dot{t})}{}\rho [r_{ic}(t)]\stackrel{}{v}[r_{ic}(t)]\times \stackrel{}{B}[r_{ic}(t)]k[r_{ic}(t)]𝑑V[r_{ic}(t)]\hfill \\ & =\stackrel{}{v}_{cc}(t)\times \stackrel{}{B}(t)\overline{k}(t)q\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
where $`\overline{k}(t)`$ is average compression ratio and $`\overline{k}(t)=e^{\overline{\eta }(t)}`$ Luo (a).

### II.2 Consequent Inferences

#### A Angular velocity relation of a charged particle with mass $`m_q`$ in uniform magnetic dipole

From

$$\rho (t)\frac{d\stackrel{}{n}_\rho (t)}{dt}=\rho (t)\omega (t)\stackrel{}{n}_\rho (t)=\rho (t)\omega _\rho (t)\stackrel{}{n}_v(t)=v(t)\stackrel{}{n}_v(t)$$
(3)
Take derivative Eq. (3) with respect to $`t`$

$$\left[\dot{\rho }(t)\omega _\rho (t)+\rho (t)\dot{\omega }_\rho (t)\right]\stackrel{}{n}_v\rho \omega _\rho ^2(t)\stackrel{}{n}_\rho =\dot{v}(t)\stackrel{}{n}_v+v(t)\omega _\rho (t)\stackrel{}{n}_v$$
(4)
From Eq. (2) and Eq. (4) there

$$m_q\rho (t)\omega _\rho ^2(t)=\overline{k}(t)qv(t)B(t)$$
(5)
where $`\rho (t)`$ — curvature radius of the charge center of a charged particle in magnetic dipole, $`\stackrel{}{n}_\rho (t)`$, $`\stackrel{}{n}_v(t)`$ is unit vector of $`\stackrel{}{\rho }(t)`$, $`\dot{\stackrel{}{r}}(t)`$ respectively, $`\stackrel{}{\rho }=\rho \stackrel{}{n}_\rho `$, $`\dot{\stackrel{}{r}}=v\stackrel{}{n}_v`$; $`m_q`$ — rest mass of charged particle.

There

$$\omega _\rho (t)=\frac{\overline{k}(t)qB}{m_q}=\frac{qB}{m_q}\frac{1}{e^{\overline{\eta }(t)}}$$
(5)
That is, the particle’s angular or revolution frequency is inversely proportional to the internal potential energy of the particle or to the compression status of the charge density field.

And

$$\frac{d\omega _\rho (t)}{dt}=\frac{qB}{m_q}\frac{d\overline{k}(t)}{dt}=\frac{qB}{m_q}e^{\overline{\eta }(t)}\frac{d\overline{\eta }(t)}{dt}=\omega _\rho (t)\frac{d\overline{\eta }(t)}{dt}$$
(5′′)
#### B Resultant force exerted on the charged particle and derivation of the rate of curvature radius of charge center

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \stackrel{}{f}_q(t)& =m_q\dot{v}(t)\stackrel{}{n}_v+m_qv(t)\omega _\rho (t)\stackrel{}{n}_v\hfill \\ & =m_q(\dot{\rho }\omega _\rho +\rho \dot{\omega }_\rho )\stackrel{}{n}_v+m_q\rho \omega _\rho ^2\stackrel{}{n}_{ca}\hfill \\ & =m_q(\dot{\rho }\omega _\rho +\rho \dot{\omega }_\rho )\stackrel{}{n}_v+\overline{k}(t)q\dot{\stackrel{}{r}}(t)\times \stackrel{}{B}\hfill \\ & =f_v(t)\stackrel{}{n}_v(t)f_\rho \stackrel{}{n}_\rho (t)\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
In frame fixated on the particle, according to the fact that the rate of line velocity, denoted as $`a_{//}(t)`$, results from centrifugal acceleration $`a_{}(t)`$, in other words $`a_{//}(t)`$ is determined by $`a_{}(t)`$ and its value is just profile of the centrifugal acceleration on $`\stackrel{}{n}_\rho `$ direction.

So there

$$\frac{a_{//}(t)}{a_{}(t)}=\frac{\dot{v}(t)}{a_{}(t)}=\pm ^{}\tau \omega _\rho (t)$$
(7)
where $`{}_{}{}^{}\tau =1\text{ second}`$, and as $`\dot{v}>0`$, take the symbol as ”$`+`$”; as $`\dot{v}<0`$, take the symbol as ”$``$”.

to substitute $`a_{}(t)=v(t)\omega _\rho (t)`$ to Eq. (7), then

$$\dot{v}=\pm ^{}\tau v(t)\omega _\rho ^2(t)=\{\begin{array}{cc}{}_{}{}^{}\tau v\omega _\rho ^2\dot{v}>0\hfill & \\ ^{}\tau v\omega _\rho ^2\dot{v}<0\hfill & \end{array}$$
(7)
Resolve Eq. (4) by using Eq. (7)
thus

$$\dot{\rho }(t)=\frac{\dot{v}}{\omega _\rho }\rho \frac{\dot{\overline{k}}}{\overline{k}}=\pm ^{}\tau \frac{\overline{k}(t)qBv(t)}{m_q}\rho \frac{\dot{\overline{k}}}{\overline{k}}$$
(8)
#### C Radiation power formula

1. Radiant power formula of an electron in magnetic dipole

In case $`\dot{v}<0`$, $`\dot{\overline{k}}>0`$, by using Eq. (6) or $`P_k\mathrm{}=\stackrel{}{f}_q(t)\dot{\stackrel{}{r}}(t)=m_qv\dot{v}`$ and $`\dot{v}=^{}\tau v\omega _\rho ^2`$, $`E_p=\mu e(\mathrm{ln}\overline{k}^1+\overline{k}1)`$ \[Ref. Luo (a)\]

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill P_t\mathrm{}(t)& =P_r(t)\hfill \\ & =P_k\mathrm{}(t)+P_p\mathrm{}(t)\hfill \\ & =m_qv\dot{v}+\frac{dE_p(t)}{dt}\hfill \\ & =\frac{d\left[\frac{m_q}{2}v^2(t)+E_p(t)+E_0\right]}{dt}\hfill \\ & =^{}\tau m_qv^2\omega _\rho ^2\mu e\dot{\overline{k}}\frac{1\dot{\overline{k}}}{\overline{k}}\hfill \\ & =^{}\tau \frac{e^2B^2\overline{k}^2(t)v^2(t)}{m_q}\mu e\dot{\overline{k}}\frac{1\overline{k}}{\overline{k}}\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
$$P_r=^{}\tau m_qv^2\omega _\rho ^2+\mu e\dot{\overline{k}}\frac{1\overline{k}}{\overline{k}}$$
(10)
where $`P_r`$ — radiant power; $`P_t\mathrm{}`$ — power of electron’s total energy loss; $`P_k\mathrm{}`$ — power of electron’s kinetic energy loss; $`P_p\mathrm{}`$ — power of electron’s potential energy loss. $`E_p`$ — internal potential energy of electron’s charge density field; $`E_0`$ — electron’s intrinsic energy, and $`E_0=constant`$ Ref. Luo (a).
2. Detecting power

Ref. Luo (b) and suppose $`𝒥_{exc}(t^{})=0`$, $`𝒥_l(t^{})=0`$; there

$$P_0(t^{})=𝒥(t^{})=𝒥(t)\frac{dt}{dt^{}}=P_r(t)\left[1\frac{dT(t^{})}{dt^{}}\right]$$
(11)

## III Radiation Frequency Property for Single Pass of Single Particle

### III.1 Charge’s radiant frequency property

From

$$\dot{\rho }(t)=\overline{k}(t)\lambda _0\nu (t)=\pm ^{}\tau \frac{\overline{k}(t)qBv}{m_q}+\rho \frac{\dot{\overline{k}}}{\overline{k}}$$

get

$$\nu (t)=\pm \frac{{}_{}{}^{}\tau qBv(t)}{m_q\lambda _0}+\rho \frac{\dot{\overline{k}}}{\overline{k}^2\lambda _0}$$
(12)
and

$$\frac{d\nu (t)}{dt}=^{}\tau \frac{qB}{m_q\lambda _0}\dot{v}(t)+\frac{d(\rho \frac{\dot{\overline{k}}}{\overline{k}^2\lambda _0})}{dt}$$
(13)
and

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Delta }\nu _r& =\left[\pm \frac{{}_{}{}^{}\tau qBv(t)}{m_q\lambda _0}+\frac{1}{\lambda _0}\rho (t)\frac{\dot{\overline{k}}(t)}{\overline{k}^2(t)}\right]_{t_a}^{t_b}\hfill \\ & =\pm \frac{{}_{}{}^{}\tau qB}{m_q\lambda _0}|v(t_a)v(t_b)|+\frac{1}{\lambda _0}\left[\rho (t_a)\frac{\dot{\overline{k}}(t_a)}{\overline{k}^2(t_a)}\rho (t_b)\frac{\dot{\overline{k}}(t_b)}{\overline{k}^2(t_b)}\right]\hfill \end{array}$$
(14)
where $`\lambda _0`$ — diameter of intrinsic charge density field

Here there is continuous electromagnetic compression status in horizontal direction, $`\stackrel{}{n}_\rho (t)`$; it is resulted from a resultant electrical field action consisted of two induced electrical field in opposite directions; one in centrifugal direction for Lorentz deflection or Lorentz force to work, the other in opposite direction of the displacement for created radiant magnetic field to oppose against the Lorentz work and convert the work into horizontal polarized electromagnetic radiation in tangential direction of the particle’s trajectory.

### III.2 Observer detecting frequency property

Ref. Luo (c) there is a frequency transfer relation between the radiant source and observer as following

$$\nu (t^{})=\nu (t)\frac{dt}{dt^{}}=\nu (t)\left[1\frac{dT(t^{})}{dt^{}}\right]$$
(15)
here $`\frac{dT(t^{})}{dt^{}}<0`$, so $`1\frac{dT(t^{})}{dt^{}}>1`$ and $`\nu (t^{})>\nu (t)`$

Specifically in optical non-dispersion medium,

$$\nu (t^{})=\nu (t)\left[1+\frac{v(t^{})}{c}\right]$$
(16)
here suppose $`v_o(t^{})=0`$, where $`v_o(t^{})`$ — speed of observer.

In optical dispersion medium

$$\nu (t^{})=\nu (t)\left[1+\frac{v(t^{})+a_{sis}(t)T(t)}{ca_{sis}(t)T(t)}\right]$$
(17)
Furthermore Ref. Luo (c)

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill a_{sis}(t)=a_{im}(t)& =\frac{dv_{im}(t)}{dt}=\frac{dv_{im}}{d\omega }\frac{d\omega _{im}(t)}{dt}+\frac{dv_{im}}{dn}\frac{dn}{dr_s}v(t)\hfill \\ & =\frac{dv_{im}}{d\omega }\left[\frac{d\omega _s(t)}{dt}+\rho _{sp}(t,n)a_{sm}(t)\right]+\frac{dv_{im}}{dn}\frac{dn}{dr_s}v(t)\hfill \\ & =\frac{dv_{im}}{d\omega }\left[2\pi \frac{d\nu (t)}{dt}+\rho _{sp}(t,n)\dot{v}(t)\right]+\frac{dv_{im}}{dn}\frac{dn}{dr_s}v(t)\hfill \end{array}$$
(18)
| where | $`n`$ |  | refractive index of the dispersion medium |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | $`v_{im}`$ |  | velocity of electromagnetic wave with respect to medium |
|  | $`\rho _{sp}(t,n)`$ |  | phase density of radiant source at instant $`t`$ and in medium |
|  |  |  | with refractive index $`n`$ |

As the medium has same refractive index, then from Eq. (17)

$$a_{sis}(t)=\frac{dv_{im}}{d\omega }\left[2\pi \frac{d\nu (t)}{dt}+\rho _{sp}(t,n)\dot{v}(t)\right]$$
(19)
From Eq. (17) and (19), it is known that in even dispersion medium detected frequency at observer location is related to various information about the charged particle and signal transfer time $`T(t)=T(t^{})`$.

### III.3 Observing frequency width

According to Eq. (15) as for radiant source’s highest frequency $`\nu _h(t_h)`$ and lowest frequency $`\nu _l(t_l)`$ there exist the corresponding relations

$$\nu _h(t_h^{})=\nu _h(t_h)\left[1\frac{dT(t^{})}{dt^{}}|_{t_h^{}}\right]$$

and

$$\nu _l(t_l^{})=\nu _l(t_l)\left[1\frac{dT(t^{})}{dt^{}}|_{t_l^{}}\right]$$

then

$$\nu _h^{}(t_h^{})\nu _l^{}(t_l^{})=\nu _h(t_h)\left[1\frac{dT(t^{})}{dt^{}}|_{t_h^{}}\right]\nu _l(t_l)\left[1\frac{dT(t^{})}{dt^{}}|_{t_l^{}}\right]$$
(20)
Suppose $`\frac{dT(t^{})}{dt^{}}|_{t_h^{}}=\frac{dT(t^{})}{dt^{}}|_{t_l^{}}`$ and using Eq. (12)

$$\nu _h^{}\nu _l^{}=(\nu _h\nu _l)\left[1\frac{dT(t^{})}{dt^{}}|_{t_l^{}}\right]=\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _r\left[1\frac{dT(t^{})}{dt^{}}|_{t_l^{}}\right]$$
(21)
Therefore for non-dispersion medium

$$\nu _h^{}\nu _l^{}=(\nu _h\nu _l)\left[1+\frac{v(t^{})}{c}\right]=2\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _r=2\left\{\pm \frac{{}_{}{}^{}\tau qB}{m_q\lambda _0}|v(t_a)v(t_b)|+\frac{1}{\lambda _0}\left[\rho (t_a)\frac{\dot{\overline{k}}(t_a)}{\overline{k}^2(t_a)}\rho (t_b)\frac{\dot{\overline{k}}(t_b)}{\overline{k}^2(t_b)}\right]\right\}$$
(22)
for even or uniform dispersion medium, and combine Eq. (13), (19) with Eq. (21)

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \nu _h^{}\nu _l^{}& =(\nu _h\nu _l)\left[1+\frac{v(t^{})+a_{sis}(t)T(t)}{ca_{sis}(t)T(t)}\right]\hfill \\ & =\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _r\left\{1+\frac{c+\frac{dv_{im}}{d\omega }\left[{}_{}{}^{}\tau \frac{2\pi qB}{m_q\lambda _0}\dot{v}+\frac{d(\rho \frac{\dot{\overline{k}}}{\overline{k}^2\lambda _0})}{dt}+\rho _{sp}(t,n)\dot{v}\right]T(t)}{c\frac{dv_{im}}{d\omega }\left[{}_{}{}^{}\tau \frac{2\pi qB}{m_q\lambda _0}\dot{v}+\frac{d(\rho \frac{\dot{\overline{k}}}{\overline{k}^2\lambda _0})}{dt}+\rho _{sp}(t,n)\dot{v}\right]T(t)}\right\}\hfill \end{array}$$
(23)
## IV Discussion

### IV.1 Lorentz force, in a complete inertial frame, is particle’s total energy related

For a single charged particle, its energy $`E_q(t)=\frac{m_q}{2}v^2(t)+\overline{\mu }q[\mathrm{ln}\overline{k}^1(t)+\overline{k}(t)1]+E_{q0}=\frac{m_q}{2}v^2(t)+\overline{\mu }q[\overline{\eta }(t)+e^{\overline{\eta }(t)}1]+E_{q0}`$ (Ref. Luo and Zhang ) relates to corrected Lorentz force as centrifugal force $`\stackrel{}{f}_\rho (t)=\overline{k}(t)q\stackrel{}{v}(t)\times \stackrel{}{B}(t)`$; where $`\stackrel{}{v}(t)`$ reflects that the force is particle’s kinetic energy related, and $`\overline{k}(t)=e^{\overline{\eta }(t)}`$ shows the corrected force is also particle charge’s internal potential energy related.

For energy loss process of a charged particle in magnetic field, there $`\frac{\dot{v}}{a_{}}=^{}\tau \omega _\rho (t)`$, or $`\dot{v}=^{}\tau v\left(\frac{\overline{k}qB}{m_q}\right)^2`$. While for energy increase process of a charged particle in magnetic field from external electrical field, where its intensity is $`𝐄(t)`$, $`\frac{\dot{a}_{}}{\dot{v}}=\omega _\rho (t)`$, or $`\dot{a}_{}=(v\omega _\rho )^{}=\dot{v}\omega _\rho =\frac{𝐄(t)q}{m_q}\frac{\overline{k}qB}{m_q}`$.

### IV.2 Interpretation on behavior and radiation property of electron beam in magnetic dipole

#### A Beam’s horizontal size decreasing

This is because individual’s charge density field is compressed by two opposite electrical fields (Ref. III.1) along centrifugal direction or $`\stackrel{}{n}_r(t)`$. The compression contributes to decreasing space charge effect along this direction.

#### B Decreasing of beam’s longitudinal kinetic energy spread

This is because along $`\stackrel{}{n}_r(t)`$ there exists $`\frac{v(t,z)}{z}<0`$; thus along the longitudinal direction beam’s internal force increase, that help to improve the kinetic energy spread and increase internal potential energy.

#### C Observer’s frequency width is about two times of source itself’s frequency width

This is because there is derivative of frequency transfer relation Eq. (15)

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{d\nu (t^{})}{dt^{}}& =\frac{d\nu (t)}{dt}\left(\frac{dt}{dt^{}}\right)^2+\frac{d\nu (t)}{dt}\frac{d^2t}{dt^2}\hfill \\ & =\frac{d\nu (t)}{dt}\left\{\left[1\frac{dT(t^{})}{dt^{}}\right]^2\frac{d^2T(t^{})}{dt^2}\right\}\hfill \end{array}$$
(24)
or

$$d\nu (t^{})=d\nu (t)\left\{1\frac{dT(t^{})}{dt^{}}\left[1+\frac{dT(t)}{dt}\right]\frac{d^2T(t^{})}{dt^2}\right\}$$
(24)
For example in non-dispersion medium, $`\frac{d^2T(t^{})}{dt^2}=0`$, $`\frac{dT(t^{})}{dt^{}}=\frac{v(t^{})}{c}1`$

So from Eq. (24), there

$$d\nu (t^{})2d\nu (t)$$
(25)
For beam the observer frequency width will be wider than single’s due to energy spread of the electron beam.

### IV.3 Application

A. Corrected Lorentz force formula can be used to analyze the deflecting angle of the charge particles with different energy in magnetic dipole. Consequent gyral frequency formula can be used to analyze circling frequency of charge particle in storage ring or cyclotron directly, without supposing mass’s increasing or decreasing of particle as particle’s energy varies. (Ref. Eq. (5) (5′′))

B. The radiation frequency and power property can be applied to analyze radiant frequency and power property of synchrotron light sources. The property can also be used in analysis of light source of high red-shift astronomic observation.

## V Conclusion

Lorentz force in magnetic field is corrected by charge field’s compression factor which manifests charge density field’s internal potential energy status. The radiation frequency property of individual charged particle in magnetic field is consisted of two characteristics, radiant frequency property due to Lorentz deflection radiation and detecting or observing frequency property which is determined by time function of signal transportation between time domains of radiant source and observer. Consequently the behavior and radiation property of electron beam can be interpreted upon the behavior and radiation property of single charged particle. In addition based on the corrected Lorentz force formula, it is inferred that the angular frequency or velocity of a charged particle in magnetic dipole is timely independent to its mass but its total energy status or specifically its internal potential energy status that relates the charge field’s compression status.


text:
# On the Magnetic-Field Dependence of the Longitudinal Ultrasonic Attenuation in a Type-II Superconductor

## 1 Introduction

The temperature dependence of the ultrasonic attenuation in a superconductor is well described by the BCS theory . According to the BCS theory, the longitudinal ultrasonic attenuation coefficient in the superconducting state relative to that in the normal state is given by

$$\frac{\alpha _\text{s}}{\alpha _\text{n}}=\frac{2}{\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(T)}{k_BT}\right]+1}.$$
(1)
The energy gap parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }(T)`$ depends on the temperature.

However, the magnetic-field dependence has not been explained very well. Ikushima et al. performed an experiment about the magnetic-field dependence of the longitudinal ultrasonic attenuation in the mixed state of pure niobium . And they explained it theoretically. The spatial average of the energy gap, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(H,T)`$, was introduced and assumed to be proportional to the root mean square of the order parameter. Then $`\mathrm{\Delta }(H,T)`$ must be proportional to the square root of the magnetization, $`M`$, near the upper critical field, $`H_{c2}`$. They assumed this relation to be valid throughout the mixed state. And they calculated the attenuation coefficient in the mixed state, $`\alpha _\text{s}`$, with the measured magnetization. The results of calculation give the curve which is not in good agreement with the experimental data except near $`H_{c2}`$.

In this paper, we propose an original simple method to explain the magnetic-field dependence of the longitudinal ultrasonic attenuation, and compare it with conventional methods. First, we study the original method, which is to estimate the ratio of the space ocuppied with vortices. It gives a curve which is in good agreement with the experimental data, in paticular, near $`H_{c1}`$. We also study the conventional method, which is to calculate the order parameter by solving the Ginzburg-Landau (GL) equations. It gives a curve which is not in good agreement with experimental data near $`H_{c1}`$ but near $`H_{c2}`$. In each method, we use eq. (1), in which $`\mathrm{\Delta }(H,T)`$ is used instead of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(T)`$.

## 2 To estimate the ratio of the space occupied with vortices

We take $`\eta `$ to be the ratio of the space ocuppied with vortices. For example, if each vortex is assumed to be a cylinder whose radius is the coherence length $`\xi `$, $`\eta `$ can be written as

$$\eta =n\pi \xi ^2.$$
(2)
Here, $`n`$ is the number of vortices per unit area on the plane perpendicular to the magnetic field. We should notice that not only $`n`$ but also $`\xi `$ varies with the field . Let us assume that the energy gap vanishes in each vortex and equals $`\mathrm{\Delta }(T)`$ in the other area. Then we can introduce the following equation:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(H,T)=(1\eta )\mathrm{\Delta }(T).$$
(3)
Next, let us introduce a simple and phenomenological assumption: the increase in the magnetic-field energy equals that of the free energy when the field increases from $`H_{c1}`$ to $`H`$:

$$\frac{1}{8\pi }(H^2H_{c1}^2)=\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{s}(H)\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{s}(H_{c1}),$$
(4)
and the increase of the free energy should be related to $`\eta `$. Thus we have

$$\eta =A(H^2H_{c1}^2).$$
(5)
Here, A is a constant. Taking into account that $`\mathrm{\Delta }(H,T)`$ vanishes at $`H=H_{c2}`$, from eqs. (3) and (5) we have

$$A=\frac{1}{H_{c2}^2H_{c1}^2}.$$
(6)
Combining eqs. (3), (5) and (6), we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(H,T)=\left(1\frac{H^2H_{c1}^2}{H_{c2}^2H_{c1}^2}\right)\mathrm{\Delta }(T).$$
(7)
The solid curve in Fig. 1 is obtained from eqs. (1) and (7). It is in good agreement with the experimental data, particularly near $`H_{c1}`$.

## 3 To calculate the order parameter by solving the GL equations

Now, we calculate $`|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2`$. Here, $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is the order parameter: $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }_ofe^{i\gamma }`$; $`\mathrm{\Psi }_o`$ is the order parameter in the absence of field; $`f`$ and $`\gamma `$ are the normalized magnitude and phase of the order parameter. Hao et al.  solved the Ginzburg-Landau equations with a trial function,

$$f=\frac{r}{(r^2+\xi _v^2)^{1/2}}f_{\mathrm{}}.$$
(8)
Here, $`\xi _v`$ and $`f_{\mathrm{}}`$ are two variational parameters; $`r`$ is distance from a vortex axis. And, especially for $`\kappa 5`$, the parameters were approximated by the following formulas:

$`f_{\mathrm{}}^2=1\left({\displaystyle \frac{B}{\kappa }}\right)^4,`$ (9)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi _v}{\xi _{vo}}}\right)^2=1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{B}{\kappa }}\right)^4,`$ (10)
where $`B=2\pi /(\kappa A_{\mathrm{cell}})`$ is the averaged magnetic flux density; $`A_{\mathrm{cell}}`$ is the unit cell area of the vortex lattice; $`\xi _{vo}`$ is the value of $`\xi _v`$ at $`B=0`$. Using eqs. (8), and (9) and (10), the order parameter should be given by

$$\frac{|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2}{\mathrm{\Psi }_o^2}=\frac{1}{A_{\mathrm{cell}}}f^2𝑑S=\frac{1}{A_{\mathrm{cell}}}\frac{f_{\mathrm{}}^2r^2}{r^2+\xi _v^2}𝑑S.$$
(11)
Here, the integral is taken over one lattice cell, which is approximated by a circle centered at a vortex axis and has the same cell area. By calculating eq. (11), we find

$$\frac{|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2}{\mathrm{\Psi }_o^2}=f_{\mathrm{}}^2\left[1\frac{\xi _v^2}{R^2}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{R^2}{\xi _v^2}+1\right)\right],$$
(12)
where $`R`$ is the radius of the circle,

$$R^2=\frac{A_{cell}}{\pi }=\frac{2}{B\kappa }.$$
(13)
And, in order to write $`|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2`$ as a function of $`H`$, we assume that $`B`$ is related to $`H`$ by the following equation ,

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa f_{\mathrm{}}^2\xi _v^2}{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1f_{\mathrm{}}^2}{2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{B\kappa \xi _v^2}}+1\right){\displaystyle \frac{1f_{\mathrm{}}^2}{2+B\kappa \xi _v^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{f_{\mathrm{}}^2}{(2+B\kappa \xi _v^2)^2}}\right]`$ (14)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_{\mathrm{}}^2(2+3B\kappa \xi _v^2)}{2\kappa (2+B\kappa \xi _v^2)^3}}+B+{\displaystyle \frac{f_{\mathrm{}}}{2\kappa \xi _vK_1(f_{\mathrm{}}\xi _v)}}`$
$`\times `$ $`\left[K_0\left(\xi _v(f_{\mathrm{}}^2+2B\kappa )^{1/2}\right){\displaystyle \frac{B\kappa \xi _vK_1\left(\xi _v(f_{\mathrm{}}^2+2B\kappa )^{1/2}\right)}{(f_{\mathrm{}}^2+2B\kappa )^{1/2}}}\right],`$
Then, if we use the relation,

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(H,T)}{\mathrm{\Delta }(T)}=\sqrt{\frac{|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2}{\mathrm{\Psi }_o^2}}.$$
(15)
The solid curve in Fig. 2 is obtained from eqs. (1) and (9)-(15). It is not in good agreement with the experimental data near $`H_{c1}`$ but near $`H_{c2}`$.

## 4 Discussion

In this section, we discuss the validity for each of the approximations which are adopted to calculate the three theoretical curves.

The theoretical curve calculated by Ikushima et al.  was proposed to explain the experimental data particularly near $`H_{c2}`$. They used the approximation that $`\mathrm{\Delta }(H,T)`$ should be proportional to the square root of the magnetization $`M`$. It is valid near $`H_{c2}`$. However, it is not necessarily valid near $`H_{c1}`$.

In Section 2, we introduced simple and phenomenological assumptions and approximations. Equations (4) and (5) should be effective near $`H_{c1}`$, where the number of the vortices is small. However, they may be less effective near $`H_{c2}`$. Because the relation between the free energy and $`\eta `$, the ratio of the space occupied with vortices, may be more complex when the number of the vortices is large.

The approximation leading to eqs. (9) and (10) in Section 3 is not necessarily effective in explaining $`\mathrm{\Delta }(H,T)`$, on which the ultrasonic attenuation depends. It was originally adopted to explain the magnetization curves in ref. . The magnetization should be strongly dependent on the penetrarion depth $`\lambda `$. Also, the order parameter $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in Section 3 should be dependent on $`\lambda `$. On the other hand, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(H,T)`$ should be dependent on the coherence length $`\xi `$. In eq. (15), we assumed the behavior of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(H,T)`$ to be equivalent to that of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }|`$. In other words, we assumed the magnetic-field dependence of $`\lambda `$ to be equivalent to that of $`\xi `$. However, the magnetic-field dependence of $`\lambda `$ is generaly different from that of $`\xi `$ . Therefore the magnetic-field dependence of magnetization should be generaly different from that of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(H,T)`$. Equations (9) and (10) may be effective in explaining $`\mathrm{\Delta }(H,T)`$ not through the whole mixed-state region but only near $`H_{c2}`$.

## 5 Conclusion

The original method discussed in this paper gives the theoretical curve which is in good agreement with experimental data particularly near $`H_{c1}`$. On the other hand, the theoretical curves given by the two conventional methods are not in good agreement with experimental data near $`H_{c1}`$ but $`H_{c2}`$. Though the original method is simple and phenomenological, it may give some information on the conformation of the vortices in type-II superconductors particularly near $`H_{c1}`$.

## Acknowledgement.

The author wishes to thank Dr. T. Deguchi of Ochanomizu University for his advice.