text:
# The role of symmetry in the short-time critical dymamics

## I Introduction

The universal behavior occurring in the first steps of a Monte Carlo simulation, the short-time dynamics, has been amply investigated jan ; huse ; li0 ; li ; zheng ; zheng1 ; jaster  in the last years. According to renormalization group arguments jan  the early time behavior of the order parameter (the magnetization, for example, in the case of the Ising model) follows a power law with a critical universal exponent $`\theta `$. The numerical calculation of the exponent $`\theta `$ is performed by placing the system at the critical point and departing from a configuration where the order parameter $`m_0`$ is very small.

The purpose of this article is to show that it is possible to determine the exponent $`\theta `$ by starting with a configuration in which the order parameter is identically zero. In our approach we do not measure the order parameter itself, which is zero, but its time coorelation. If $`M(t)`$ denotes de instantaneous order parameter we show that the quantity

$$Q(t)=M(t)M(0)$$
(1)
follows a power law

$$Q(t)t^\theta $$
(2)
where the initial configuration is uncorrelated and such that

$$M(0)=0$$
(3)
This result is general and can be applied to any lattice system described by a Markovian process and such that the transition probability is invariant under a given group of symmetry operations. In this procedure, which was previously deduced for models with up-down symmetry mario . Here we generalize the scheme to inclued models with other types of symmetries. In particular we apply the method to systems with antiferromagnetic ordering and to the Baxter-Wu model in a triangular lattice baxter . Employing this procedure it was recently calculated by numerical simulations everaldo , with an excellent precision, the exponent $`\theta `$ associated to the Baxter-Wu model with triplet interactions in a triangular lattice.

We consider also the short-time behavior of intrinsic irreversible models with absorbing states, such as the contact process. In this case, we demonstrate here that it suffices to depart from a configuration with just one occupied site instead of starting from a configuration where the density of particles is finite and small. Therefore, the short-time behavior of the order parameter is identical to the behavior found by time-dependent simulations iwan ; marro  departing from a unique initial seed. In both methods it is necessary to place the system in its critical point.

## II Transition probability and symmetry

In this section and in the following we develop the formalism leading to the expression (1). For this purpose we consider the class of Markovian processes defined on a lattice whose probability distribution $`P(\sigma ,t)`$ satisfies the equation

$$P(\sigma ,t)=\underset{\sigma ^{}}{}T(\sigma ,\sigma ^{},t)P_0(\sigma ^{})$$
(4)
where $`T(\sigma ,\sigma ^{},t)`$ is the probability of reaching the configuration $`\sigma `$ from configuration $`\sigma ^{}`$ in an interval of time $`t`$ and $`P_0(\sigma ^{})`$ is the initial probability distribution. We use the notation $`\sigma =(\sigma _1,\sigma _2,\mathrm{},\sigma _N)`$ where $`N`$ is the number of sites in the lattice and $`\sigma _i`$ is the random variable attached to the $`i`$-th site and that takes two values.

If the system evolves in time according to a master equation (continuous time Markovian process)

$$\frac{d}{dt}P(\sigma ,t)=\underset{\sigma ^{}}{}\{W(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})P(\sigma ^{},t)W(\sigma ^{},\sigma )P(\sigma ,t)\}$$
(5)
then the transition probability $`T(\sigma ,\sigma ^{},t)`$ are the elements of the matrix $`T`$ given by

$$\widehat{T}=\mathrm{exp}\{t\widehat{W}\}$$
(6)
where $`\widehat{W}`$ is the matrix whose elements are

$$\widehat{W}(\sigma ^{},\sigma )=W(\sigma ^{},\sigma )\sigma ^{}\sigma $$
(7)
and

$$\widehat{W}(\sigma ,\sigma )=\underset{\sigma ^{}(\sigma )}{}W(\sigma ^{},\sigma )$$
(8)
Let $`R`$ be a symmetry operation that leaves the transition probability invariant, or, equivalently, the matrix $`W`$ invariant, that is

$$W(R\sigma ,R\sigma ^{})=W(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})$$
(9)
and by consequence

$$T(R\sigma ,R\sigma ^{},t)=T(\sigma ,\sigma ^{},t)$$
(10)
For simplicity, we will consider here only models in which the symmetry operation $`R`$ changes the sign of the order parameter, that is,

$$M(R\sigma )=M(\sigma )$$
(11)
and that $`M(\sigma )`$ is linear in $`\sigma `$, that is,

$$M(\sigma )=\underset{i}{}\mu _i\sigma _i$$
(12)
## III Time-dependent behavior

We will focus on the time-dependent behavior of the average

$$M(\sigma )_t=\underset{\sigma }{}M(\sigma )P(\sigma ,t)$$
(13)
of the order parameter $`M(\sigma )`$. Its time evolution is given by

$$M(\sigma )_t=\underset{\sigma }{}\underset{\sigma ^{}}{}M(\sigma )T(\sigma ,\sigma ^{},t)P_0(\sigma ^{})$$
(14)
where the initial state $`P_0(\sigma )`$ is uncorrelated with a nonzero magnetization. That is, the initial magnetization

$$M(\sigma )_0=\underset{\sigma }{}M(\sigma )P_0(\sigma )=Nm_0$$
(15)
is nonzero, where $`N`$ is the number of sites of the lattice and $`m_0`$ is a small quantity. As stated by the short-time scaling theory, the order parameter folows, at the critical point, a power law behavior

$$M(\sigma )_tm_0t^\theta $$
(16)
for small values of $`m_0`$. According to this theory yet the initial state is prepared in such a way that all sites are uncorrelated with a nonzero (and small) initial order parameter $`m_0`$. In order to set up such an initial state, one attributes to each site a magnetization $`m_i=m_0\mu _i`$. Or equivalentely, the spin of the $`i`$-th site will be $`\sigma _i=\mu _i`$ with probability $`(1+m_0)/2`$ and will be $`\sigma _i=\mu `$ with probability $`(1m_0)/2`$. The initial probability $`P_0(\sigma )`$ can then be written as

$$P_0(\sigma )=\mathrm{\Phi }_0\underset{i}{}\{1+m_0\mu _i\sigma _i\}$$
(17)
where

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_0=\frac{1}{2^N}$$
(18)
Notice that using equation (12) and (17) we can trivially find that

$$M(\sigma )_0=\underset{\sigma }{}M(\sigma )P_0(\sigma )=Nam_0$$
(19)
where $`a`$ is the constant

$$a=\frac{1}{N}\underset{j}{}[\mu _j]^2$$
(20)
For small values of $`m_0`$, the expansion of the initial probability $`P_0(\sigma )`$ in powers of $`m_0`$ gives, up to linear terms in $`m_0`$ the following expression

$$P_0(\sigma )=\mathrm{\Phi }_0\{1+m_0M(\sigma )\}$$
(21)
Substituting this expression in equation (14) we get

$$M(\sigma )_t=\underset{\sigma }{}\underset{\sigma ^{}}{}M(\sigma )T(\sigma ,\sigma ^{},t)\mathrm{\Phi }_0+$$

$$+\underset{\sigma }{}\underset{\sigma ^{}}{}M(\sigma )T(\sigma ,\sigma ^{},t)\mathrm{\Phi }_0m_0M(\sigma ^{})$$
(22)
Now, the first term on the right hand side vanishes identically due to the following reasoning. Since the symmetry operation $`R`$ leaves the transition probability invariant but changes the sign of the order parameter, we have

$$\underset{\sigma }{}\underset{\sigma ^{}}{}M(R\sigma )T(R\sigma ,R\sigma ^{},t)\mathrm{\Phi }_0=\underset{\sigma }{}\underset{\sigma ^{}}{}M(\sigma )T(\sigma ,\sigma ^{},t)\mathrm{\Phi }_0$$
(23)
By a change of variable, $`R\sigma \sigma `$, the left-hand side of this equation equals the first term of the right-hand side of equation (22) so that it vanishes. Therefore

$$Q(t)=\underset{m_00}{lim}\frac{M(\sigma )_t}{m_0}=\underset{\sigma }{}\underset{\sigma ^{}}{}M(\sigma )T(\sigma ,\sigma ^{},t)M(\sigma ^{})\mathrm{\Phi }_0$$
(24)
and, from equation (16) it follows that

$$Q(t)t^\theta $$
(25)
## IV Applications

### IV.1 Models with up-down symmetry

We begin with a simple example, namely the ferromagnetic Ising model coupled to a stochastic dynamics such as the Metropolis algorithm. The order parameter is defined by

$$M(\sigma )=\underset{i}{}\sigma _i$$
(26)
where the summation is over all sites of the lattice. For the present case $`\mu _i=+1`$ for all sites of the lattice. Here the symmetry operation $`R`$, with the properties given by equations (10) and (11), is the one in which the up-down symmetry is observed, that is, the operation that changes the sign of each spin variable $`\sigma _i\sigma _i`$.

The short-time behavior for the Ising model has been already studied through the present formalism mario . Besides, using this formalism, it has been possible to determine the short-time behavior for several irreversible models (i. e., lacking detailed balance) mario ; td ; tania  with up-down symmetry dynamics. These include for instance the majority vote model and similar nonequilibrium models mario ; mendes .

### IV.2 Models with antiferromagnet ordering

In this case the system is divided into two sublattices $`A`$ and $`B`$. The order parameter is defined by

$$M(\sigma )=\underset{iA}{}\sigma _i\underset{iB}{}\sigma _i$$
(27)
Therefore, for this case one has $`\mu _i=+1`$ if $`iA`$ and $`\mu _i=1`$ if $`iB`$. The symmetry operation $`R`$ is a translation such that a given site of one sublattice goes into a site of the other sublattice.

### IV.3 Baxter-Wu model

We consider in this subsection the Baxter-Wu model with triplet interactions defined on a triangular lattice baxter ; everaldo . The lattice is composed of three sublattices which we denote by $`A`$, $`B`$, and $`C`$. The Baxter-Wu model does not have a global symmetry but semi-global symmetries. The Hamiltonian of the model and a fortiori the transition probability is invariant if we change the signs of two sublattices leaving the third invariant. It is convenient therefore to define three symmetry operations, denoted by $`R_A`$, $`R_B`$ and $`R_C`$. The symmetry operation $`R_A`$ changes the signs of the spins belonging to the sublattices $`B`$ and $`C`$ and leaves the signs of the spins of sublattice $`A`$ invariant. Similar definitions can be stated for $`R_B`$ and $`R_C`$. Each of these symmetry operations leaves the Baxter-Wu Hamiltonian invariant and a fortiori the transition probability invariant.

We take as the order parameter the magnetization of one of the sublattices, say, sublattice $`A`$, given by

$$M_A(\sigma )=\underset{iA}{}\sigma _i$$
(28)
Comparing it with equation (12) we have that $`\mu _i=1`$ if $`iA`$ and $`\mu _i=0`$ if $`iB`$ or $`iC`$. The symmetry operation $`R_B`$ (or $`R_C`$) changes the sign of $`M_A(\sigma )`$ and leaves the transition probability invariant. According to the formalism developed in the previous section we conclude that

$$Q_A(t)=\underset{m_00}{lim}\frac{M_A(\sigma )_t}{m_0}=\underset{\sigma }{}\underset{\sigma ^{}}{}M_A(\sigma )T(\sigma ,\sigma ^{},t)M_A(\sigma ^{})\mathrm{\Phi }_0$$
(29)
will behave as

$$Q_A(t)t^\theta $$
(30)
Equivalently, we may demonstrate that the analogous quantities $`Q_B(t)`$ and $`Q_C(t)`$ related to the magnetizations $`M_B(\sigma )`$ and $`M_C(\sigma )`$ of sublattices $`B`$ and $`R_C`$, respectively, will behave as $`t^\theta `$.

We may also use as the order parameter the total magnetization

$$M(\sigma )=\underset{i}{}\sigma _i$$
(31)
which we write as the sum of the magnetizations of the three sublattices

$$M(\sigma )=M_A(\sigma )+M_B(\sigma )+M_C(\sigma )$$
(32)
which leads to

$$Q(t)=\underset{\sigma }{}\underset{\sigma ^{}}{}M(\sigma )T(\sigma ,\sigma ^{},t)M(\sigma ^{})\mathrm{\Phi }_0$$
(33)
Substituting (32) into (33) we see that $`Q(t)`$ is a sum of nine terms. The terms that involve magnetizations of distinct sublattices will vanish. For instance, the term that involve $`M_A`$ and $`M_B`$ will change sign by the use o the symetry operation $`R_A`$. The nonvanishing terms are the three terms that involve the same magnetization. One concludes that the quantity

$$Q(t)=Q_A(t)+Q_B(t)+Q_C(t)$$
(34)
and therefore will behave as $`t^\theta `$. This procedure was used everaldo  to determine the exponent $`\theta `$. The numerical results give very precise values for the exponent when compared with the results coming from simulations with nonzero initial magnetization.

## V Contact model

Now we discuss the short-time behavior fo models with an absorbing state. These models do not possess symmetry operations like the ones defined in the preceeding sections. Due to this fundamental difference we need to proceed by introducing another approach. The simplest example of this type of model is the contact process marro . Such model is defined in a lattice and each microscopic state is identified with $`\sigma =(\sigma _1,\sigma _2,\mathrm{},\sigma _N)`$ where $`\sigma _i=0`$ or $`1`$ according wether the site $`i`$ is empty or occupied by a particle. It evolves in time according to local Markovian rules where particles are catalitically created and spontaneously anihilated.

The initial probability is such that all sites are uncorrelated and such that the average $`\sigma _i=\rho _0`$, that is,

$$P_0(\sigma )=\underset{i}{}\{a(1\sigma _i)+b\sigma _i\}$$
(35)
where

$$a=1\rho _0b=\rho _0$$
(36)
is the total number of sites in the lattice.

Following the short-time scaling theory the order parameter $`n(\sigma )`$ given by

$$n(\sigma )_t=\underset{\sigma ^{}}{}\underset{\sigma }{}n(\sigma )T(\sigma ,\sigma ^{},t)P_0(\sigma ^{})$$
(37)
where

$$n(\sigma )=\underset{i}{}\sigma _i$$
(38)
is the number of particle, behaves, at the critical point, as

$$n(\sigma )\rho _0t^\theta $$
(39)
Consequently the quantity

$$Q(t)=\frac{1}{N}\underset{\rho _00}{lim}\frac{n(\sigma )_t}{\rho _0}$$
(40)
has a similar behavior in the early time regime

$$Q(t)t^\theta $$
(41)
For small values $`\rho _0`$ of we have

$$P_0(\sigma )=a^N\mathrm{\Phi }_0(\sigma )+a^{N1}b\underset{j}{}\mathrm{\Phi }_j(\sigma )$$
(42)
where

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_0(\sigma )=\underset{i}{}(1\sigma _i)$$
(43)
is the probability distribution such that the configuration $`(0,0,0,\mathrm{},0)`$ (all sites empty) has probability $`1`$ and the other configurations have zero probability,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_j(\sigma )=\sigma _j\underset{i(j)}{}(1\sigma _i)$$
(44)
is the probability distribution such that the configuration $`(0,0,\mathrm{},1,\mathrm{}0)`$ (a particle placed at the $`j`$-th site and all other sites empty) has probability $`1`$ and all other configurations have zero probability.

The average $`n(\sigma )_t`$ can then be written as a sum of two parts

$$n(\sigma )_t=a^N\underset{\sigma ^{}}{}\underset{\sigma }{}n(\sigma )T(\sigma ,\sigma ^{},t)\mathrm{\Phi }_0(\sigma ^{})+$$

$$+a^{N1}b\underset{j}{}\underset{\sigma ^{}}{}\underset{\sigma }{}n(\sigma )T(\sigma ,\sigma ^{},t)\mathrm{\Phi }_j(\sigma ^{})$$
(45)
Since the contact process has an abosrbing state devoided of particles, the first term vanishes identically because $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0(\sigma )`$ is the absorbing state. Therefore, using the translational invariance we obtain

$$Q(t)=\underset{\sigma ^{}}{}\underset{\sigma }{}n(\sigma )T(\sigma ,\sigma ^{},t)\mathrm{\Phi }_j(\sigma ^{})$$
(46)
To calculate numerically $`Q(t)`$, we start from a configuration with just one occupied site and determine the number of occupied sites at time $`t`$.

According to the scaling relations established for the time-dependent behavior of the contact model in which the simulation is started with just one occupied site, the average number of particles $`n_p(t)`$ behaves as iwan ; marro

$$n_p(t)t^\eta $$
(47)
As $`Q(t)`$ is identified with $`n_p(t)`$ so the exponent $`\theta `$ is identified with the exponent $`\eta `$ hinri .

Let us now calculate the time correlation of a given site, say the site $`j`$. It is given by

$$A(t)=\underset{\sigma ^{}}{}\underset{\sigma }{}\sigma _jT(\sigma ,\sigma ^{},t)\sigma _j^{}P_0(\sigma ^{})$$
(48)
and behaves, according to the short-time scaling theory, as

$$A(t)t^\lambda $$
(49)
Now

$$\sigma _jP_0(\sigma )=b\sigma _j\underset{i(j)}{}\{a(1\sigma _i)+b\sigma _i\}$$
(50)
where we have used the obvious relations $`\sigma _j(1\sigma _j)=0`$ and $`\sigma _j\sigma _j=\sigma _j`$. Therefore, in the limit $`\rho _00`$, we get

$$\underset{\rho _00}{lim}\frac{1}{\rho _0}\sigma _jP_0(\sigma )=\mathrm{\Phi }_j(\sigma )$$
(51)
Consequently,

$$B(t)=\underset{\rho _00}{lim}\frac{A(t)}{\rho _0}=\underset{\sigma ^{}}{}\underset{\sigma }{}\sigma _jT(\sigma ,\sigma ^{},t)\mathrm{\Phi }_j(\sigma ^{})$$
(52)
so that $`B(t)`$ behaves as

$$B(t)t^\lambda $$
(53)
Given that the initial particle seed is placed at a given site, the quantity $`B(t)`$ is the probability that this site be occupied at time $`t`$.

The exponent $`\lambda `$ is related to dynamic exponent $`z`$ by $`\lambda =d/z\theta `$ mario . Since the exponent $`\theta `$ was identified as the exponent $`\eta `$, it follows that $`\lambda =d/z\eta `$. Now, from the hyperscaling relation for the contact process we have $`d/z\eta =2\delta `$ marro  where $`\delta `$ is the exponent associated to the survival probability. Therefore it follows that $`\lambda =2\delta `$.

¿From the formalism developed here we conclude that the study of the short-time behavior of the contact process, discussed in reference hinri , is as a matter of fact equivalent to the study of this model by means of the time-dependent technique. Moreover, the critical exponents associated to the short time dynamics for the contact model, as well as the relation among them, are equivalent to those found for the time-dependent simulations.

## VI Conclusion

We have shown that the short-time critical exponent $`\theta `$ of several models invariant under a given group of symmetry can be calculated from the time correlation of the order parameter

$$Q(t)=M(t)M(0)$$
(54)
where $`f(t)g(0)`$ is a notation defined by

$$f(t)g(0)=\underset{\sigma }{}\underset{\sigma ^{}}{}f(\sigma )T(\sigma ,\sigma ^{},t)g(\sigma ^{})\mathrm{\Phi }_0$$
(55)
We have also obtained similar formula for the contact process and shown that the short-time critical exponent $`\theta `$ is equal to time-dependent critical exponent $`\eta `$. Finally, the results obtained here for the continuous time Markovian processes can be straitforwardly extended to the probabilistic cellular automata (discrete time Markovian process).

Acknowledgements

I am very grateful to J. R. Drugowich de Felício for useful and instigating discussions about this issue. This work was suported in part by the Brazilian agency CNPq.


format: text

text:
# References

Immirzi Ambiguity, Boosts and Conformal Frames for Black Holes

Luis J Garay and Guillermo A Mena Marugán

Centro de Física Miguel A Catalán, IMAFF, CSIC,
Serrano 121, 28006 Madrid, Spain

## Abstract

We analyze changes of the Immirzi parameter in loop quantum gravity and compare their consequences with those of Lorentz boosts and constant conformal transformations in black hole physics. We show that the effective value deduced for the Planck length in local measurements of vacuum black holes by an asymptotic observer may depend on its conformal or Lorentz frame. This introduces an apparent ambiguity in the expression of the black hole entropy which is analogous to that produced by the Immirzi parameter. For quantities involving a notion of energy, the similarity between the implications of the Immirzi ambiguity and a conformal scaling disappears, but the parallelism with boosts is maintained. PACS numbers:04.70.Dy, 04.60.Ds, 03.30.+p

Almost thirty years ago, a combination of classical and semiclassical arguments led to the conclusion that black holes possess thermodynamic properties -. In particular, a study of the mass change produced by infinitesimal variations of the black hole parameters revealed a close similarity with the first law of thermodynamics if one identifies the entropy $`S`$ and temperature $`T`$ with the area $`A`$ and surface gravity $`\kappa `$ of the black hole horizon . Based partly on these results, Bekenstein proposed to regard $`A`$ as really providing a gravitational entropy . At that time, however, no radiative process associated with a black hole was known from which one could infer a physical notion of temperature. Besides, the formula for the mass variation  allowed to assign the formal roles of temperature and entropy only up to an ambiguity in a constant . In this context, Hawking performed a semiclassical analysis using methods of quantum field theory in curved backgrounds . He proved that the presence of a black hole results in a thermal radiation with $`T=\kappa \mathrm{}/(2\pi c)`$. Here, $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`c`$ are the Planck constant and the speed of light (and the Boltzmann constant has been absorbed in the definition of $`T`$). Hence, a black hole has an entropy determined by the Bekenstein-Hawking (BH) formula $`S=A/(4l_P^2)`$, where $`l_P=\sqrt{\mathrm{}G/c^3}`$ is the Planck length and $`G`$ is the Newton constant.

A statistical explanation for this entropy has been only recently suggested in terms of the number of quantum states corresponding to a macroscopic black hole configuration . Among the explanations proposed, we will concentrate our attention on that inspired in loop quantum gravity . In this case, the states counted are spin networks compatible with the horizon geometry. It is generally admitted that this derivation of the entropy formula is affected by an ambiguity in a positive factor. In fact, loop gravity is based on the Ashtekar formulation of general relativity  in which the phase space is described by a real $`SU(2)`$ connection and a densitized triad. This real connection can be obtained as the difference between the spin connection of the triad and the extrinsic curvature (in triadic form) . Nonetheless, a completely equivalent classical description is reached if, in the above construction, one multiplies the extrinsic curvature by a positive constant $`\beta `$ and divides the densitized triad by the same factor. This factor is usually called the Immirzi parameter .

Regardless of the value of $`\beta `$, one can quantize the theory representing quantum states as spin networks . In this framework, one can promote the area of a surface to a positive operator that has a discrete spectrum and is well defined at least at the kinematical level . For black holes, the boundary conditions ensure that the operator for the horizon area is also dynamically consistent, providing an observable . The remarkable fact realized by Immirzi is that quantization procedures based on connections that differ in the value of $`\beta `$ lead to different area spectra . Actually, the Immirzi parameter appears as a global factor in the eigenvalues of the horizon area, and it is only the spectrum of $`A_\beta /\beta `$ that is independent of the selected quantization. We have introduced the notation $`A_\beta `$ to indicate that the area is calculated in the formulation with Immirzi parameter equal to $`\beta `$. The counting of quantum states then leads to the black hole entropy $`S=\beta _0A_\beta /(4\beta l_{}^2)`$ , where $`\beta _0=\mathrm{ln}2/(\pi \sqrt{3})`$ and the length $`l_{}`$ is determined by the fact that the Hilbert-Einstein (HE) term in the gravitational action is divided by $`16\pi l_{}^2/(c\mathrm{})`$. Given this definition, $`l_{}`$ is commonly identified with $`l_P`$. In any case, it is clear that one must demand $`\beta l_{}^2=\beta _0l_P^2`$ to recover the BH formula.

The roots and significance of the Immirzi ambiguity are not fully understood . As far as the kinematics of general relativity is concerned, it is equivalent to the ambiguity in a constant scale transformation, which can be viewed as a change of conformal frame with constant conformal factor . Nevertheless, this equivalence is broken when the Hamiltonian dynamics is taken into account. In addition, the Immirzi ambiguity has been argued to arise from the partial gauge fixing performed in Ashtekar gravity in terms of real connections, where a time gauge is chosen, reducing the gauge group from $`SO(3,1)`$ to $`SU(2)`$ . One of the reasons for the confusion about the origin of this ambiguity is that, while the black hole entropy depends on the Immirzi parameter in loop quantum gravity, no ambiguity seems to arise in the standard deduction of the BH formula . Our aim in this work is to show that, contrary to this belief, there exist in fact certain ambiguities which, rather than the value of the entropy, affect the empirical definition of the Planck length. As a result, this length becomes in practice an effective scale whose value (in terms of $`l_{}`$) may vary with the frame employed. We will consider frames that are related by constant conformal transformations and inertial frames in the asymptotic flat region of the black hole which are not at rest. We will analyze the role of these conformal transformations and boosts in black hole physics and compare them with a change of the Immirzi parameter in Ashtekar gravity.

Let us first study the effect of conformal transformations. We consider two frames with line elements related by $`d\stackrel{~}{s}^2=\mathrm{\Omega }^2ds^2`$, where the conformal factor $`\mathrm{\Omega }>0`$ is constant. Obviously, this factor can be absorbed by a dilatation of the unit of length, because the line element has dimension of area. Hence, we can think of $`ds^2`$ and $`d\stackrel{~}{s}^2`$ as representing the same spacetime but in systems of coordinates that simply differ in their length scale. One would thus expect that the predictions and measurements of two observers, each regarding his respective conformal frame as the physical one, were related just as dimensional analysis suggests. Let us show that this expectation holds for black holes.

It is trivial but lengthy to repeat the semiclassical derivation of the BH formula in the new conformal frame $`d\stackrel{~}{s}^2`$. Nonetheless, we can easily understand the main consequences of this change. Suppose $`ds^2`$ is the line element of a black hole spacetime with unit timelike Killing field $`\xi ^\mu `$ with respect to which we define the black hole mass $`M`$. In the new frame, the unit Killing field is $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }^\mu =\xi ^\mu /\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and, as a consequence of this new normalization, the mass transforms as $`\stackrel{~}{M}=M/\mathrm{\Omega }`$, i.e., exactly as a scaling of the unit of length would dictate (keeping $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`c`$ fixed). The Hawking temperature $`T`$, on the other hand, can be obtained, up to a constant factor, as the inverse of the period in imaginary time of the scalar Green functions for the black hole background . A conformal transformation of coordinates, and in particular of time, makes this period scale with $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Therefore, $`\stackrel{~}{T}=T/\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Note that the black hole mass and temperature transform in the same way, as expected since they both have dimensions of energy. The differential mass formula $`dM=TdS`$ (here restricted to the neutral non-rotating case for simplicity) and its counterpart for the new conformal frame then imply that the black hole entropy is invariant, $`\stackrel{~}{S}=S`$, confirming what one would anticipate on dimensional grounds.

Obviously, the horizon area scales as the line element under a constant conformal transformation, $`\stackrel{~}{A}=\mathrm{\Omega }^2A`$. Taking into account the invariance of the black hole entropy $`\stackrel{~}{S}=S=A/(4l_P^2)`$, we see that the effective value deduced for the Planck length in the new conformal frame is $`\stackrel{~}{l}_P=\mathrm{\Omega }l_P`$, just what one could expect from a dilatation. Assuming that $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`c`$ are fundamental constants, in the sense that they are frame-independent, we can view this transformation as a change in the effective dimensionful Newton constant. Actually, suppose that we define the gravitational action adopting a certain conformal frame as a universal frame of reference, e.g. $`ds^2`$. The coefficient of the HE term is $`D\mathrm{}c/(16\pi l_{}^2)`$, and the value of the Newton constant is $`G=c^4/(16\pi D)=l_{}^2c^3/\mathrm{}`$ in this frame. Under a constant scaling $`ds^2=d\stackrel{~}{s}^2/\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$, the HE term gets divided by $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$. The effective dimensionful Newton constant in the new conformal system is then $`\stackrel{~}{G}=\mathrm{\Omega }^2G`$, and hence $`\stackrel{~}{l}_P=\mathrm{\Omega }l_P`$.

This result may seem striking because it is frequently argued that the value of the Planck length is experimentally unambiguous (although there is an open debate about the significance of dimensionful constants in physics ). Let us analyze the determination of $`l_P`$ to clarify this issue. Accepting that $`c`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ are fundamental constants, we can introduce a system of units by only adopting a time unit (e.g. the second $`sec`$), because its product by $`c`$, and $`\mathrm{}/c^2`$ times its inverse, provide length and mass units. We may define the time unit as a multiple of the period of an atomic transition (e.g. between two hyperfine levels of the ground state of $`{}_{}{}^{133}\mathrm{Cs}`$). Then, we can measure the experimental value of Newton constant, which in our system of units will be given by a dimensionless number multiplied by $`(sec)^2c^5/\mathrm{}`$. If we change to another conformal frame, as we have discussed above, periods will get scaled by the conformal factor $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and, as a consequence, the time unit defined by the new observer will differ from the original one by this factor ($`\stackrel{~}{sec}=\mathrm{\Omega }sec`$). The measured dimensionful Newton constant (not its dimensionless value) will then be scaled by $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$, and the deduced Planck length will indeed be $`\stackrel{~}{l}_P=\mathrm{\Omega }l_P`$.

In conclusion, although a change of conformal frame that amounts to a constant scaling leaves invariant the value of the black hole entropy, it introduces a certain degree of ambiguity in the expression of this entropy as a function of the horizon area, namely $`S=\stackrel{~}{A}/(4\mathrm{\Omega }^2l_P^2)`$, where $`l_P`$ is the Planck length in the chosen frame of reference $`ds^2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ is the horizon area measured in the frame $`d\stackrel{~}{s}^2=\mathrm{\Omega }^2ds^2`$.

We now discuss the effect of boosts, for which we consider two observers $`O`$ and $`O^{}`$ in the asymptotic flat region of a black hole spacetime. Both observers employ systems of asymptotically Cartesian coordinates where they are at rest, $`(t,\stackrel{}{x})`$ and $`(t^{},\stackrel{}{x}^{})`$, with $`_t`$ being a Killing field. The observer $`O^{}`$ moves with constant velocity $`\stackrel{}{V}`$ with respect to $`O`$, so that the systems are related by a boost with parameter $`\gamma =1/\sqrt{1(V/c)^2}`$ , where $`V=|\stackrel{}{V}|`$ is the Cartesian norm of $`\stackrel{}{V}`$. In general, this Lorentz transformation leaves the spacetime metric invariant only in the asymptotic flat region. To study the consequences of Lorentz invariance, we will thus restrict our analysis to that region. Furthermore, we will disregard measurements that require an infinite amount of time for the transmission of the collected information to the observer (through the asymptotic flat region), because they are not feasible . In practice, this means that we will only consider local measurements. This rationale eliminates, for instance, observations of the black hole effects made from different angles in the asymptotic region, because such measurements would imply infinite spatial separations.

Local measurements in the asymptotic flat region that indicate the presence of a vacuum black hole are those that detect the outward flux of Hawking radiation. The two observers $`O`$ and $`O^{}`$ will see a thermal flux of particles, but their records will differ in the apparent temperature. The difference is due to the Doppler redshift that frequencies experiment in the boosted frame with respect to $`O`$ , i.e., with respect to the observer whose time coordinate corresponds to a Killing field. It is known that frequencies are shifted by a boost according to the law $`\nu ^{}=\alpha \nu `$ , where

$$\alpha =\gamma (1c^1V\mathrm{cos}\phi )$$
(1)
and $`\phi `$ is the angle formed by $`\stackrel{}{V}`$ and the direction of propagation in the rest frame of the source. In our case, Hawking radiation propagates radially and its rest frame corresponds to that of $`O`$. Note that, from our comments above, $`\phi `$ is a constant in the region where the observer $`O^{}`$ performs her (local) measurements. On the other hand, if we let $`\stackrel{}{V}`$ vary by analyzing different boosted observers, $`\alpha `$ may take any positive real value.

Owing to this redshift, the radiation detected by $`O^{}`$ possesses the apparent temperature $`T^{}=\alpha T`$. The same redshift affects also the energy density observed in the presence of the Hawking flux, $`\rho ^{}=\alpha \rho `$. To show this fact, we consider the stress-tensor in the Unruh vacuum that describes the Hawking evaporation process, $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ . Since $`_t`$ is a Killing field, $`T_{\mu t}`$ is a conserved quantity. The energy density seen by an observer with unit four-velocity $`u^\mu `$ is then $`u^\mu T_{\mu t}/c^2`$ (we express $`t`$ in units of time). For simplicity, we will analyze only black holes with spherical symmetry. In this case, the only non-vanishing components of $`T_{\mu t}`$ in the asymptotic region (adopting spherical coordinates for $`O`$) are $`T_{tt}=cT_{rt}=\pi cT^2/(12\mathrm{}l_P^2)`$ . The energy density for $`O`$ is determined by $`\rho =T_{tt}/c^2`$. On the other hand, since the four-velocity of $`O^{}`$ is $`(\gamma ,\gamma \stackrel{}{V})`$ \[in $`(t,\stackrel{}{x})`$ coordinates\], the density detected by the boosted observer is precisely $`\rho ^{}=\alpha \rho `$.

Suppose now that, given the fundamental constants $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`c`$, the observer $`O^{}`$ used the relation $`l_P^2=\pi T^2/(12\rho \mathrm{}c)`$ to determine the Planck length, but taking as experimental values of the energy density and the temperature its records $`\rho ^{}`$ and $`T^{}`$. She will arrive at the apparent Planck length $`l_P^{}=\sqrt{\alpha }l_P`$. On the other hand, if the black hole entropy has a statistical mechanical origin, its value must be given by the logarithm of the number of allowed quantum states. This number of degrees of freedom must not depend on the Lorentz frame considered, in the same way as we have shown that it is independent of the conformal frame. Then, $`O`$ and $`O^{}`$ must agree in the value of the entropy, $`S^{}=S`$. From this perspective, by using the BH formula the boosted observer would assign the effective area $`A^{}=\alpha A`$ to the black hole horizon.

It is worth remarking that $`A^{}`$ is only an effective, operationally defined area, that differs from $`A`$ as a result of the redshift caused by the boost. Actually, the true area of the black hole horizon in the boosted frame continues to be $`A`$, but this area is not directly observable from the asymptotic flat region. To see that the geometric area of the horizon does not change, let us analyze the most general stationary vacuum black hole, namely the Kerr solution, expressed in Boyer-Lindquist coordinates $`(t,r,\theta ,\varphi )`$ , where $`t`$ coincides with the time employed in the asymptotic region by $`O`$. The horizon has the topology of $`S^2\times `$. The sphere $`S^2`$ admits the coordinates $`\theta `$ and $`\psi =\varphi \mathrm{\Omega }_HtS^1`$, while $``$ is a null direction that can be described by the coordinate $`t`$. In this coordinate system, the degenerate metric on the horizon is diagonal and $`t`$-independent. Here, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_H`$ is the constant coordinate angular velocity on the horizon . The areas that we want to compare are those of the horizon sections of constant $`t`$ and $`t^{}`$ (for $`O`$ and $`O^{}`$). In principle, one might think of a possible discrepancy between these areas because, on the sections of constant $`t^{}`$, the coordinate $`t`$ might vary modifying the area element. However, this does not occur, since $`t`$ corresponds to a null direction. Hence, the geometric area remains indeed the same.

Summarizing, a boosted observer in the asymptotic flat region that could carry out only local measurements on the Hawking radiation would infer an effective value of the Planck length that is either contracted or dilated. The value of the black hole entropy, nonetheless, should be invariant. In addition, we emphasize that the boost does not affect the geometric area of the horizon, in contradistinction to the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction experimented by the area of surfaces in flat spacetime .

Finally, we consider changes of the Immirzi parameter in Ashtekar gravity. In terms of the spacetime metric, the change from the unit parameter to $`\beta `$ can be realized as the transformation from the element $`ds^2`$ (with induced three-metric $`h_{ij}`$, lapse $`N`$, and shift vector $`N^i`$) to

$$d\overline{s}^2=\beta ^2N^2dt^2+h_{ij}(dx^i+N^idt)(dx^j+N^jdt).$$
(2)
Since the induced metric is not modified, the transformation preserves the area of all constant-$`t`$ surfaces in the classical theory and, in particular, the geometric area $`A`$ of a black hole horizon. The scaling of the lapse has nevertheless an important consequence, namely, it changes the normalization of any (asymptotic) timelike Killing field. As a result, energies are affected by a redshift according to the Tolman relation $`\overline{E}=\sqrt{(g_{tt}/\overline{g}_{tt})}E`$, where $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ denotes the spacetime metric. In the case of Hawking radiation, the shifted temperature and energy density are then $`\overline{T}=\beta T`$ and $`\overline{\rho }=\beta \rho `$. Here, we have taken as reference values those of the original frame with unit Immirzi parameter. We therefore find a complete parallelism with the situation described for boosts if we identify the parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$. Note, in addition, that both parameters are positive but otherwise arbitrary.

In loop quantum gravity, as we have commented, the black hole entropy can be calculated counting quantum states, obtaining $`S=\beta _0A_\beta /(4\beta l_{}^2)`$. Although the horizon area $`A_\beta `$ is classically independent of the Immirzi parameter, its discrete quantum spectrum is proportional to this constant. From this viewpoint, the area eigenvalues transform under a change of $`\beta `$ exactly as the value of the effective area $`A^{}`$ under a change in the parameter $`\alpha `$ associated with Lorentz boosts. Furthermore, from the expression of the black hole entropy and the BH formula, each Immirzi description can be regarded as leading to a different effective value $`l_P(\beta )=l_{}\sqrt{\beta /\beta _0}`$ for the Planck length . Introducing the definition $`l_Pl_{}/\sqrt{\beta _0}`$ as a fixed reference value, we then get the transformation rule $`l_P(\beta )=\sqrt{\beta }l_P`$. In this way, the scaling laws for our effective quantities reproduce those deduced for boosts with the identification of parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$.

This parallelism suggests the possibility that distinct Immirzi formulations correspond in fact to descriptions associated with different boosted frames. In this sense note that, as remarked in Ref. , a Lorentz boost connects different canonical theories, just like a change of Immirzi description. According to our conjecture, each Immirzi representation in loop quantum gravity would provide an area spectrum measured in terms of a different effective Planck length. The definition of this effective length incorporates the gravitational redshift introduced by the Immirzi parameter. This redshift is the same that would affect the local measurements of a boosted observer in a locally flat region where Lorentz invariance can be regained. In this sense, the quantity that should be Lorentz invariant is not the apparent value of the area (for any surface determined in a dynamically consistent way), but rather the corresponding number of elementary “geometric excitations”, which is a dimensionless variable. This is exactly what happens with the Immirzi ambiguity, since the area spectrum differs only in the apparent value of the dimensionful quantum of area. It is precisely because of this property that the black hole entropy, when expressed as a dimensionless quantity, becomes independent of the selected Immirzi description.

Composing the above transformation laws, we can check that the introduction of the Immirzi parameter $`\beta `$ followed by a conformal scaling with factor $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\beta ^{1/2}`$ indeed leaves the kinematics of Ashtekar gravity invariant . The horizon area (spectrum) and the Planck length, which are quantities that can be defined in a kinematical context , remain unaltered by the composed transformation. The Hawking temperature and energy density are however modified, since they involve a concept of energy. This result and the analogy between boosts and changes of Immirzi description imply also that there must exist a composition of a boost and a conformal dilatation that preserves the value of the Planck scale, in agreement with recent works .

In conclusion, we have argued that the value of the Planck length determined by local measurements in a vacuum black hole spacetime depends on the conformal and Lorentz frame of the asymptotic observer. The value of the black hole entropy, on the other hand, must be frame-independent, because it only accounts for the number of quantum degrees of freedom compatible with the macroscopic configuration. Via the BH relation, the effective ambiguity in the Planck length then translates into an apparent ambiguity in the dimensionful magnitude of the horizon area. This ambiguity is similar to that caused by the Immirzi parameter in loop quantum gravity. We have seen that the kinematical effects produced in black hole physics by a boost, a constant conformal scaling, and a change of the Immirzi parameter are in fact analogous. For the case of the scaling, the analogy is broken as soon as dynamical considerations (such as measurements of energy) are brought into the scene. Remarkably, a complete parallelism is however encountered between the consequences of Lorentz boosts and transformations between Immirzi formulations. Based on this result, we have suggested the possibility that the various Immirzi representations of loop quantum gravity provide physical descriptions in different boosted frames, each of them associated with a different effective Planck length that takes into account the redshift introduced. We believe that this conjecture and its implications for Lorentz invariance and quantum gravity deserve further examination which will be carried out elsewhere.

Finally, note that our arguments have been restricted to vacuum black hole spacetimes, which possess an asymptotic flat region where invariance under boosts is attained. Such an asymptotic region needs not exist in more general spacetimes with a Killing horizon, e.g. when the spatial hypersurfaces are compact. In this latter case, however, the definitions of energies and temperatures are already affected by an ambiguity in a multiplicative constant at an early stage of the discussion, because there is no natural way to fix the normalization of any timelike Killing vector in the absence of the asymptotic region. Actually, this freedom in the normalization translates into the possibility of scaling the null normal to the horizon by a constant, a scaling that can be interpreted as the result of a boost, but now performed at the horizon.

The authors acknowledge DGESIC for financial support under Research Project No. BFM2001-0213.


text:
# Strong diamagnetic response and specific heat anomaly above 𝑇_𝑐 in underdoped "La"_{2-𝑥}"Sr"_𝑥"CuO"₄

## I introduction

The nature of the so-called $`T^{}`$-line in the high-$`T_c`$ cuprate superconductor phase diagram for $`T`$ vs. doping is among the most intensely debated issues in high-$`T_c`$ superconductor research in recent years. A pseudogap in the electronic excitation spectrum has been observed below $`T^{}`$ by many different techniques timusk . For most high-$`T_c`$ superconductors the pseudogap is strongest in underdoped samples and rapidly decreases with doping before terminating somewhere in the overdoped region fischer . For $`\text{La}_{2x}\text{Sr}_x\text{CuO}_4`$ however, a pseudogap has only been found in the underdoped region naeini . The connection between the superconducting gap and the pseudogap has been a point of discussion. Several groups have obtained result indicating that Cooper pairs exist between $`T^{}`$ and $`T_c`$, as a precursor to the Meissner phase. Recently Iguchi et.al. found diamagnetic regions above $`T_c`$ in thin film and single crystal of underdoped LSCO using a scanning SQUID microscope iguchi . Also, vortex-like excitations above $`T_c`$ in (LSCO) have been reported by Xu et. al. xu . Here we report on magnetic susceptibility measurements showing a strong diamagnetic response. In addition, we report an anomaly in the elastic constant $`c_{33}`$ at the temperature where we observe the onset of the diamagnetic response. This anomaly is thermodynamically related to a specific heat anomaly, on general grounds which will be discussed below. These findings have interesting implications for the understanding of underdoped high-$`T_c`$ superconductors in the temperature range between $`T_c`$ and $`T^{}`$.

## II experimental

Three samples of $`\text{La}_{2x}\text{Sr}_x\text{CuO}_4`$, all grown by the TSGZ method takashi , have been investigated. All three samples have a Strontium content close to the optimal value of $`x=0.15`$. As measured by EPMA the values for the three samples are 0.146, 0.145 and $`0.146\pm 0.002`$ assigned as sample 1, 2 and 3 respectively. The sample sizes were (2x2x2)mm for sample 1 and 2, and (1.5x1.5x1)mm for sample 3.

The AC susceptibility ($`\chi _{_{AC}}`$) measurements were performed using a PPMS from Quantum Design, which was modified in order to be able to measure at lower AC amplitudes, currently down to 0.18 mG. The temperature was stabilized at each measurement, and temperature fluctuations are less than $`\pm 0.03`$ K, which was sufficient for the present purpose. The 5-point measurement technique of the PPMS reduces background contributions to a minimum.

Magnetisation measurements were performed using the moving sample technique of the PPMS. For this type of measurements the temperature variations were less than $`\pm 5`$ mK.

The elastic stiffness data were obtained using a high resolution ($`10^6`$) ultrasonic continuous wave method bolef jorgen  operating at a carrier frequency of 95 MHz. In this case $``$1 mK temperature stabilization was obtained.

## III results

$`\chi _{_{AC}}`$ of each of the three samples was measured in a frequency range of 0.1-10 kHz and at AC field amplitudes of $`0.18`$ mG to 1 G with the field aligned along the c-axis. Results at 10 kHz and 0.18 mG are displayed in Fig. 1. Sample 3, which we suggest is slightly overdoped, shows the behavior typical for high amplitude (1-10 G) $`\chi _{_{AC}}`$ measurements. Sample 1 and 2, however, show a different behavior. At a temperature $`T^{}`$ well above $`T_c`$, it gives a strong diamagnetic response, before becoming perfectly diamagnetic at $`T_c`$. For sample 1 we see two steps above $`T_c`$ indicating that the sample consists of two domains with slightly different doping, this fact is also supported by the data in Fig. 3. The imaginary part of $`\chi _{_{AC}}`$ shows distinct peaks at $`T^{}`$, these are located at 39.2 K and 40.1 K for the two domains of sample 1 and at 39.5 K for sample 2, and match the steps in the real part of $`\chi _{_{AC}}`$. We suggest that this different behavior is due to slightly different doping levels with samples 1 and 2 being underdoped. For all three samples $`T_c`$ is between 37 and 38 K, indicating that their doping content is close to optimal doping.

To demonstrate that the diamagnetic response above $`T_c`$ is strongly dependent on the AC field amplitude we show in Fig. 2 data for $`\chi _{_{AC}}`$ of sample 1 measured with different amplitudes of the AC field. First, let us point out that the temperature at which a perfectly diamagnetic response is obtained rises slightly with decreasing amplitude. The ”onset” temperature of the diamagnetic response increases more rapidly, and for the lowest field measurements $`Re\left[\chi _{_{AC}}\right]`$ starts to develope a plateau above 38 K, with two distinct steps above $`T_c`$ due to the two domains of the sample. The peak in the imaginary part of $`\chi _{_{AC}}`$ at 37.7 K remains constant in temperature but reduces significantly in height with decreasing amplitude. Furthermore, another peak in $`Im\left[\chi _{_{AC}}\right]`$ separates from it and shifts towards higher temperatures as the amplitude is decreased. For all measurements, the peaks in the imaginary part are located at the same temperatures as the steps in the real part. The data obtained with 1 mG and 180 $`\mu `$G amplitudes (no markers on $`Re\left[\chi _{_{AC}}\right]`$ in Fig. 2) are practically indistinguishable, and imply that there is an intrinsic limiting low-amplitude behavior.

In contrast, if the AC field is directed perpendicular to the c-axis, we observe no diamagnetic response above $`T_c`$, as shown in Fig. (3). Here, we again see a double transition at $`T_c`$ indicating that sample 1 consists of two domains of slightly different doping.

$`\chi _{_{AC}}`$ in the $`\stackrel{}{H}\stackrel{}{c}`$ configuration was found to be almost frequency independent in the range 0.1-10 kHz as shown in Fig. (4). There is only a small difference for temperatures slightly below $`T^{}`$ for which the there is an increasing diamagnetic response with increasing frequency. However, the curves merge at the same level of the plateau between 38 K and 39 K. The frequency independence in this range shows that the screening currents have very long or infinite decay time. Due to increasing signal to noise ratio with increasing frequency, 10 kHz was chosen for all other measurements displayed in the figures.

The results in Fig. (1), Fig. (4) and Fig. (3) indicate that in the temperature range between $`T_c`$ and $`T^{}`$ it is possible to induce Meissner-like screening currents in the Cu-O planes, whereas this is not possible in the direction across the Cu-O planes.

In addition, we have investigated how a DC magnetic field influences $`\chi _{_{AC}}`$. The results displayed in Fig. 5 show that even though an AC field of 1 G completely suppresses the diamagnetism above $`T_c`$, a parallel DC field of 100 G only gives a small shift towards lower temperature of the transition at $`T^{}`$. We see that when increasing the DC field, $`T^{}`$ decreases faster than $`T_{irr}`$ ($`T_{irr}`$ being the temperature where $`\chi _{_{AC}}`$ reaches its value of perfect diamagnetism), and that at 10 kG the two have almost merged. We also note that the peak height at $`T_{irr}`$ in the imaginary part of $`\chi _{_{AC}}`$ increases when the field is increased.

When analysing large amplitude $`\chi _{_{AC}}`$ data, it is usually assumed that the response is near zero above the irreversibility line (IL), do to the free flow of vortex lines. In the vicinity of the IL we observe the onset of the diamagnetic response, and a peak in the imaginary part of $`\chi _{_{AC}}`$ caused by irreversible vortex motion. Far below the IL there is no (or very little) flow of vortices in and out of the sample, and hence the response is perfectly diamagnetic with zero imaginary part.

The diamagnetic response in the low amplitude $`\chi _{_{AC}}`$ measurement between $`T_c`$ and $`T^{}`$ indicate that vortices do not flow freely into the sample, and we suggest that there is a barrier to vortex penetration. The Bean-Livingston surface barrier bean-livingston  or the geometrical barriers discussed by Brandt brandt  and Zeldov et.al. zeldov  presents such barriers to penetration. The peak in the imaginary part of $`\chi _{_{AC}}`$ for low amplitude measurements at $`T^{}`$ is then caused by hysteresis due to this barrier.

It has been shown that the line tension of vortices vanish above a field dependent temperature, that in the zero field case is $`T_c`$kiet . This implies that point defects (such as Strontium sites) will not act as pinning centers. Therefore, surface barriers seem to be the only possible explanation for limitations to the vortex movement.

A very small increase in the magnetic field would induce the Cooper pairs to set up screening currents. If the magnetic field increase is not sufficient to overcome the barrier and change the number of vortices in the sample, the response will be diamagnetic. However, if the magnetic field increase is larger, vortices will be pushed into the sample, and no global diamagnetic response will be observed. This can explain the presence of a small frequency dependence in the temperature region just below $`T^{}`$. The surface barrier is lower at these temperatures due to lower cooper pair density, and thermally induced jumping of vortices over the barrier is facilitated. This will lead to a weaker diamagnetic response for lower frequencies.

The apparent position of $`T^{}`$ is then the temperature where the amplitude of the AC field becomes smaller than the field required to overcome the barrier. The apparent decrease in $`T^{}`$ with increasing fields is then possibly, at least in part, caused by a reduction of the vortex penetration barrier as shown by Bean and Livingston bean-livingston . Actually, it is the strong enhancement of the diamagnetic response below $`T_c`$ which is most surprising, we point to several possible explanations for this: i)A reduction of the Cooper pair density leading to weaker screening currents. ii)The presence of a thermally induced vortex tangle kiet  leading to weaker screening, because the currents associated with the vortices reduce the possible screening currents. iii)Only parts of the sample behaves diamagnetic above $`T_c`$ as indicated by the results obtained by Iguchi et.al.iguchi .

Measurements of the DC magnetisation were also done to probe the static behavior. Results obtained at 38 K for sample 1 are presented in Fig. 6. We find a clear hysteretic behavior, although the magnetic response is very weak. A background linear in $`H`$ arising from the sampleholder has been subtracted. This background shows no hysteresis, neigther does a similar measurement of the sample performed at 50 K. These result agree well with the AC results, and also further support our suggestion of a surface barrier.

From basic thermodynamic relations it follows, that under certain conditions, an anomaly in the specific heat at a phase transition results in a corresponding anomaly in the elastic constants testardi . This has been experimentally verified for the fluctuation peak in $`C_p`$ at $`T_c`$ for $`\text{La}_{2x}\text{Sr}_x\text{CuO}_4`$, sample 1 thisted . As can be seen in Fig. 7 there is an anomaly in $`c_{33}`$ at $`T^{}`$. The sharp minimum in $`c_{33}`$, seen in the inset of Fig. 7, is caused by critical fluctuations, which are transverse phase-fluctuations of the superconducting order parameter $`\psi =\left|\psi \right|e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }}`$kiet tesanovic kivelson . The transition at $`T^{}`$ is broad and smooth, consistent with non critical gaussian fluctuations of the amplitude of the order parameter.

In our view the observed doubble transition cannot be caused by impurities or multiple domains in the sample. The highest reported $`T_c`$ of $`\text{La}_{2x}\text{Sr}_x\text{CuO}_4`$ regardless of doping is 38 K, the transition at $`T^{}`$ in sample 1 is above 40 K, and for sample 2 just below 40 K. Furthermore, if the two transitions were caused by different domains we would expect to observe the following in the temperature region between 38 K and 40 K: i) A diamagnetic response for $`\stackrel{}{H}\stackrel{}{c}`$ not only for $`\stackrel{}{H}\stackrel{}{c}`$. ii) Only a weak amplitude dependence $`\chi _{_{AC}}`$. iii) A similar behaviour of the peak height at the two transitions with increasing background field. Since none of these effect are observed we conclude that the two transitions arise from different physical mechanism.

## IV conclusion

We have demonstrated that, by performing AC susceptibility with very low AC field amplitudes, it is possible to measure a diamagnetic response of weakly underdoped high-$`T_c`$ superconductors, above $`T_c`$. The diamagnetic response which has only been detected for fields along the c-axis exist up til a temperature $`T^{}`$ above which it drops to zero. In addition at $`T^{}`$ there is a step in the specific heat, as found through measurement of $`c_{33}`$.

Our results show a clear difference between the two transition at $`T_c`$ and $`T^{}`$. The changes in $`\chi _{_{AC}}`$ at $`T^{}`$ are sensitive to changes in the AC amplitude, while at $`T_c`$ they are almost independent of the AC field amplitude. At $`T^{}`$ there is a large peak in the loss component of $`\chi _{_{AC}}`$, whereas this is almost absent at $`T_c`$. We found that $`\chi _{_{AC}}`$ is frequency indepent except for temperatures just below $`T^{}`$. This is also supported by the observation of magnetic hysteresis above $`T_c`$ in DC magnetisation. Furthermore, the $`c_{33}`$ data show a peak due to critical fluctuations at $`T_c`$ distinctly different from the step at $`T^{}`$.

We have also shown that the diamagnetism above $`T_c`$ exists in the presence of a strong background field. We suggest that our data can be explained by the presence of phase incoherent Cooper pairs between $`T_c`$ and $`T^{}`$, and that there is a barrier to vortex penetration causing the difference between high and low amplitude $`\chi _{_{AC}}`$ measurements.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors would like to thank A. Sudbø for valuable discussions. This work is supported by the Research Council of Norway and The ESF Vortex programme.


text:
# Asymptotic Scaling of the Diffusion Coefficient of Fluctuating “Pulled” Fronts

## Abstract

We present a (heuristic) theoretical derivation for the scaling of the diffusion coefficient $`D_f`$ for fluctuating “pulled” fronts. In agreement with earlier numerical simulations, we find that as $`N\mathrm{}`$, $`D_f`$ approaches zero as $`1/\mathrm{ln}^3N`$, where $`N`$ is the average number of particles per correlation volume in the stable phase of the front. This behaviour of $`D_f`$ stems from the shape fluctuations at the very tip of the front, and is independent of the microscopic model.

Interest in the effect of fluctuations on propagating fronts has revived in recent years with the understanding that fronts which in the deterministic mean-field limit are of the so-called pulled type are surprisingly sensitive to fluctuation and discrete-particle effects. Pulled fronts are those that propagate into a linearly unstable state, and whose asymptotic front speed $`v_{\text{as}}`$ is simply the linear spreading speed $`v^{}`$ of infinitesimal perturbations around the linearly unstable state dee1 ; dee2 ; ebert . The propagation mechanism of such fronts is that they are being “pulled along” by the growth and spreading of small perturbations around the linearly unstable state. It was first established by Brunet and Derrida bd  and later confirmed in a variety of stochastic front equations bd ; vanzon ; kns ; levine ; bd3  that when pulled fronts are realized by stochastic moves of discrete particles on a lattice, such that the average number of particles per lattice site or correlation volume in the saturation phase of the front is $`N`$, $`v_{\text{as}}`$ approaches $`v^{}`$ from below extremely slowly: the convergence to $`v^{}`$ scales only as $`1/\mathrm{ln}^2N`$ when $`N\mathrm{}`$, with a known prefactor that depends on the model under consideration. The reason why a true pulled front is so sensitive to finite particle cutoff effects is the very fact that there is essentially no growth below the cutoff level of one “quantum” of particle. As a result, these discrete particle front realizations are actually weakly pushed PvS1 ; PvS2 ; PvS3 . To remind ourselves that they converge to pulled fronts in the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$, here we will refer to them as fluctuating “pulled” fronts.

The second important feature of fluctuating “pulled” fronts, namely the diffusive wandering of the front itself around its average position as a result of stochasticity in the microscopic dynamics, still remains very poorly understood. Of particular interest is the question how the front diffusion coefficient $`D_f`$ vanishes as $`N\mathrm{}`$. This scaling is particularly difficult to study numerically. Nevertheless, using a clever algorithm to take $`N`$ as large as $`10^{150}`$, Brunet and Derrida bd3  presented convincing numerical evidence that for the model they studied, $`D_f`$ scales as $`1/\mathrm{ln}^3N`$. Moreover, a “simplified model”, where the fluctuations are randomly generated only on the instantaneous foremost occupied lattice site (i.f.o.l.s.), was found to exhibit the same $`1/\mathrm{ln}^3N`$ asymptotic scaling of $`D_f`$ as the full stochastic model bd3 .

The microscopic dynamics of Brunet and Derrida’s (discrete-time) model bd3  closely resembles that of the (continuous-time) “clock model” vanzon . In both models, one considers a set of $`N`$ particles with integral “readings” $`k=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$. The number of particles with a certain reading $`k`$ at time $`t`$ is $`n_k(t)`$. With $`\varphi _k(t)=_{k^{}=k}^{\mathrm{}}n_k^{}(t)/N`$, in a computer simulation, the speed and the diffusion coefficient of the front in both models are measured by tracking the position of the centre of mass of the particle distribution (henceforth referred to as the centre of mass of the front itself) in individual realizations. For the particle distribution $`\{n_k(t)\}_\text{r}`$ of realization r at time $`t`$, in both models, the centre of mass of the front is located at

$`S_\text{r}(t)=N^1{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}kn_k(t)={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\varphi _k(t)`$ (1)
From there onwards, one defines $`D_f=lim_T\mathrm{}d[S_\text{r}(t+T)S_\text{r}(t)v_NT]^2/dT`$ and $`v_N=\dot{S}_\text{r}(t)`$. The angular brackets denote first an average over all possible updating random number sequences for a given front realization after time $`t1`$, and then a further average over the ensemble of (initial) front realizations at time $`t`$.

To the best of our knowledge, at present, there exists no analytical derivation of the $`1/\mathrm{ln}^3N`$ asymptotic scaling of $`D_f`$ for fluctuating “pulled” fronts. Our aim here is to provide a derivation for the stochastic Fisher-Kolmogorov-Petrovsky-Piscunov (sFKPP) equation

$$_t\varphi =_x^2\varphi +\varphi \varphi ^2+\sqrt{\varphi \varphi ^2}\eta (x,t)/\sqrt{N},$$
(2)
where the stochastic term $`\eta (x,t)`$ is interpreted in the Itô sense with the two following conditions:

$`\eta (x,t)_\eta =0,\eta (x,t)\eta (x^{},t^{})_\eta =\delta (xx^{})\delta (tt^{}).`$ (3)
We then argue that the same scaling of $`D_f`$ holds for the clock model vanzon  and for the microscopic model that Brunet and Derrida considered for their simulation bd3  — in other words, the asymptotic scaling of $`D_f`$ is independent of the microscopic model and is a generic property of fluctuating “pulled” fronts. The full flavour of this subtlety-riddled derivation appears elsewhere (Secs. 2.5 and 4.2, Ref. review ). Here we focus only on the main points and the main results.

From this perspective, it is therefore important to first summarize the Langevin-type field-theoretical approaches for general reaction-diffusion systems review ; lutz1 ; rocco1 ; armero . Starting with the Itô stochastic differential equation

$$_t\varphi =_x^2\varphi +f(\varphi )+\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }^{1/2}R(x,t),$$
(4)
with $`\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }1`$ and $`R(x,t)=g(\varphi )\eta (x,t)`$, in these approaches, one writes the corresponding front solution as $`\varphi (x,t)=\varphi ^{(0)}[xv_{\text{a}s}tX(t)]+\delta \varphi [xv_{\text{as}}tX(t)]`$ to separate the systematic and the fluctuating part of the front. The systematic part $`\varphi ^{(0)}(\xi )`$ satisfies the deterministic equation $`v_{\text{as}}_\xi \varphi ^{(0)}(\xi )=_\xi ^2\varphi ^{(0)}(\xi )+f[\varphi ^{(0)}(\xi )]`$. As for the fluctuating part, the idea behind writing $`\varphi (x,t)`$ in the above form is to separate the fluctuations in the front at two different time scales. Of these, the long time scale fluctuations are coded in the random wandering $`X(t)`$ of the Goldstone mode $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{G,R}(\xi )d\varphi ^{(0)}(\xi )/d\xi `$ of the front around its uniformly translating position $`xv_{\text{as}}t`$. On the other hand, the short time scale fluctuations manifest themselves through the fluctuations in the front shape around its instantaneous position $`xv_{\text{as}}tX(t)`$.

In this form, the Goldstone mode is in fact the right eigenvector of the linear stability operator $`_{v_{\text{as}}}=_\xi ^2+v_{\text{as}}_\xi +\delta _\varphi f(\varphi )|_{\varphi =\varphi ^{(0)}}`$ with zero eigenvalue PvS1 ; and its instantaneous position is defined by requiring that it be orthogonal to the front shape fluctuations, i.e., $`_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\xi \mathrm{\Phi }_{G,L}(\xi )\delta \varphi [\xi X(t),t]=0`$ at all times review ; lutz1 ; rocco1 ; armero . Here, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{G,L}(\xi )e^{v_{\text{as}}\xi }\mathrm{\Phi }_{G,R}(\xi )`$ is the left eigenvector of $`_{v_{\text{as}}}`$ corresponding to eigenvalue zero strict . When this orthogonality condition is used in linearized Eq. (4), one finds that the instantaneous speed of the Goldstone mode fluctuates (at long time scales) around $`v_{\text{as}}`$ by review ; lutz1 ; rocco1 ; armero

$`\dot{X}(t)=\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\xi \mathrm{\Phi }_{G,L}(\xi )R(\xi ,t)}{_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\xi \mathrm{\Phi }_{G,L}(\xi )\mathrm{\Phi }_{G,R}(\xi )}}.`$ (5)
Simultaneously, at short time scales, the shape fluctuations of the front around $`\varphi ^{(0)}`$ at the instantaneous position of the Goldstone mode are analyzed by defining the mutually orthonormal shape fluctuation modes $`\{\mathrm{\Psi }_m(\xi )\}`$ in the eigenspace of non-zero eigenvalues of the linear stability operator $`_{v_{\text{as}}}`$ as review ; rocco1

$`\delta \varphi (\xi ,t)={\displaystyle \underset{m0}{}}c_m(t)\mathrm{\Psi }_{m,R}(\xi ).`$ (6)
The $`c_m(t)`$’s are then easily seen to satisfy review ; rocco1

$`\dot{c}_m(t)=\tau _m^1c_m(t)+\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }^{1/2}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\xi \mathrm{\Psi }_{m,L}(\xi )R(\xi ,t),`$ (7)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{m,R}(\xi )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{m,L}(\xi )`$ are respectively the right and the left eigenvectors of $`_{v_{\text{as}}}`$ with eigenvalue $`\tau _m^10`$.

If the front position is defined by the position of its Goldstone mode, then the phenomenon of front diffusion arises due to the random speed fluctuations $`\dot{X}(t)`$ of the Goldstone mode around $`v_{\text{as}}`$. The diffusion coefficient of the Goldstone mode (which is identified with the diffusion coefficient of the front itself in this case) is then easily defined via the Green-Kubo relation review ; lutz1 ; rocco1 ; armero  as

$`D_G={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\xi e^{2v_{\text{as}}\xi }\mathrm{\Phi }_{G,R}^2(\xi )g^2[\varphi (\xi ,t)]_t}{\left[_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\xi e^{v_{\text{as}}\xi }\mathrm{\Phi }_{G,R}^2(\xi )\right]^2}}.`$ (8)
The angular brackets with a subscript $`t`$ denote an average over an ensemble of (initial) front realizations at time $`t`$.

On the other hand, if the front position is defined by the position of its centre of mass (1), then in continuum space, we have $`S(t)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x\varphi (x,t)`$, and for reaction-diffusion fronts (4) that satisfy $`\varphi ^{(0)}(\xi )1`$ for $`\xi \mathrm{}`$, $`\varphi ^{(0)}(\xi )0`$ for $`\xi \mathrm{}`$, and $`\delta \varphi (\xi )0`$ for $`\xi \pm \mathrm{}`$ review

$`\dot{S}(t)=\underset{b_1(t)}{\underset{}{{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\xi {\displaystyle \frac{f(\varphi )}{\varphi }}|_{\varphi ^{(0)}(\xi )}\delta \varphi (\xi ,t)}}+\underset{b_2(t)}{\underset{}{\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }^{1/2}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\xi R(\xi ,t)}}.`$ (9)
Thereafter \[having used Eqs. (3-4), (6) and the solution of (7)\], in the expansion of the product $`\dot{S}(t)\dot{S}(t+t^{})`$ of Eq. (10), $`b_1(t)b_2(t+t^{})`$ is seen not to contribute to

$`D_f={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\underset{T\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle _t^{t+T}}𝑑t^{}\dot{S}(t)\dot{S}(t+t^{})_\eta _t,`$ (10)
while $`D_f^{(1)}`$, $`D_f^{(2)}`$ and $`D_f^{(3)}`$, the respective contributions of $`b_2(t)b_2(t+t^{})`$, $`b_2(t)b_1(t+t^{})`$ and $`b_1(t)b_1(t+t^{})`$ to $`D_f\left(=_{i=1}^3D_f^{(i)}\right)`$ are given by review

$`D_f^{(1)}=D_f^{(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }}{2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\xi g^2[\varphi (\xi ,t)]_t,`$ (12)
$`\text{and}D_f^{(3)}={\displaystyle \underset{m,m^{}0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\tau _mc_m(t)c_m^{}(t)_t}{2}}\underset{\delta v_m}{\underset{}{{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\xi {\displaystyle \frac{\delta f(\varphi )}{\delta \varphi }}|_{\varphi ^{(0)}(\xi )}\mathrm{\Psi }_{m,R}(\xi )}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\xi ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta f(\varphi )}{\delta \varphi }}|_{\varphi ^{(0)}(\xi ^{})}\mathrm{\Psi }_{m^{},R}(\xi ^{}).`$
In general, in this formalism, $`g(\varphi )`$ cannot be replaced by $`g[\varphi ^{(0)}]`$ — after all, the value of $`\varphi `$ at any given time depends on its precise evolution history (i.e., noise realization chosen to evolve the front) at earlier times. However, in case the nonlinearities in $`f(\varphi )`$ make $`\varphi ^{(0)}`$ pushed, i.e., for fluctuating pushed fronts with internal noise, the decay times of the shape fluctuation modes are of the same order as the time scale set by $`1/v_{\text{as}}`$. In that case, the dependence of $`g(\varphi )`$ at any time on the precise evolution history of the front at earlier times can be neglected to replace $`g(\varphi )`$ by $`g[\varphi ^{(0)}]`$. This replacement makes the stochastic (noise) term in Eq. (4) additive in nature. Moreover, it converts Eq. (7) to that of a Brownian particle in a fluid with viscosity $`\tau _m^1`$, where the fluctuating force is given by $`\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }^{1/2}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\xi \mathrm{\Psi }_{m,L}(\xi )g[\varphi ^{(0)}(\xi )]\eta `$, implying that one can then use fluctuation-dissipation theorem to evaluate $`c_m(t)c_m^{}(t)_t=\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\xi \mathrm{\Psi }_{m,L}(\xi )\mathrm{\Psi }_{m^{},L}(\xi )g^2[\varphi ^{(0)}(\xi )]/(\tau _m^1+\tau _m^{}^1)`$ to further obtain review

$`D_f^{(3)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}D_f^{(1)}\text{i.e.,}D_f={\displaystyle \frac{5\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }}{4}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\xi g^2[\varphi ^{(0)}(\xi )]D_G={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\xi e^{2v_{\text{as}}\xi }\mathrm{\Phi }_{G,R}^2(\xi )g^2[\varphi ^{(0)}(\xi )]}{\left[_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\xi e^{v_{\text{as}}\xi }\mathrm{\Phi }_{G,R}^2(\xi )\right]^2}}.`$ (13)
We will see later that for fluctuating “pulled” front in the sFKPP equation too, $`D_f`$ and $`D_G`$ are not the same. Before we delve deeper into the sFKPP equation, here we take a short digression to mention that similar situation occurs for gas mixtures (see for example, Chap. 11.2 of Ref. groot ). Therein, the expression (and the value) of the diffusion coefficient depends on its precise definition, but these different expressions of the diffusion coefficient are (quite non-trivially) related by means of Onsager relations for the diffusion coefficients. As for fronts too, it should not be surprising that the precise values of $`D_f`$ and $`D_G`$ are not the same. Indeed what is important to note is that conceptually they are two entirely different quantities. Whether they could be related by any clever means or not is left here for future investigation.

For the fluctuating “pulled” front in the sFKPP equation, we make the ansatz that the front solution can be decomposed to a $`\varphi ^{(0)}`$ that is nothing but Brunet and Derrida’s cutoff solution, and its corresponding shape fluctuation modes $`\{\mathrm{\Psi }_m\}`$; i.e., at the (linearized) leading edge of the front, $`\varphi ^{(0)}(\xi )=\mathrm{ln}N\mathrm{sin}[q_0(\xi \xi _1)]e^{\lambda ^{}\xi }/\pi `$ bd  and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_m(\xi )\mathrm{sin}[q_m(\xi \xi _1)]e^{\lambda ^{}\xi }/\mathrm{ln}^{1/2}N`$ kns ; PvS1 . Here $`\lambda ^{}=1`$, $`q_j=(j+1)\pi /\mathrm{ln}Nj0`$, $`\xi _10`$ is the location of the left end of the leading edge where the nonlinear $`\varphi ^2`$ term in the sFKPP equation is non-negligible, and the cutoff is implemented at $`\xi _0\mathrm{ln}N`$ bd ; PvS1 . This ansatz is consistent with the compact support property of the front solution in the sFKPP equation compact1 , and it also satisfies the requirements for Eq. (9) \[i.e., we can safely use Eqs. (12-12) with this ansatz\].

Then, the $`1/\mathrm{ln}^6N`$ asymptotic scaling of $`D_G`$ for the fluctuating “pulled” front in the sFKPP equation is obtained very easily review . One simply has to notice that due to the exponential weight factor in the integrand of the numerator of Eq. (8), the numerator is practically determined within a distance of $`𝒪(1/\lambda ^{})`$ of $`\xi _0`$, where the integrand scales $`N`$ and cancels the $`1/N`$ prefactor. The denominator, on the other hand, asymptotically simply scales as $`\mathrm{ln}^6N`$.

As for $`D_f`$ of the fluctuating “pulled” front in the sFKPP equation, $`D_f^{(1)}`$ and $`D_f^{(2)}`$ are straightaway seen to be of $`𝒪(1/N)`$ from Eq. (12), while the evaluation of $`D_f^{(3)}`$ is no easy matter. Unlike pushed fronts, one cannot simply replace $`g(\varphi )`$ by $`g[\varphi ^{(0)}]`$ and arrive at Eq. (13) — for fluctuating “pulled” fronts, fluctuation modes decay very slowly kns ; PvS1  and as a result, the front configuration at any time depends strongly on the precise noise realization that has been used to evolve it at earlier times! This means that there is no other way forward than to evaluate $`D_f^{(3)}`$ in Eq. (12), and this is done in two steps.

At the first step, we argue that in Eq. (12) $`\delta v_m=s_m/\mathrm{ln}^{3/2}N`$ with $`s_m𝒪(1)`$ review  and obtain

$`D_f^{(3)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{m,m^{}0}{}}\tau _m{\displaystyle \frac{s_ms_m^{}}{\mathrm{ln}^3N}}c_m(t)c_m^{}(t)_t.`$ (14)
This scaling of $`\delta v_m`$ is obtained with the idea that for Brunet and Derrida’s cutoff solution $`\varphi ^{(0)}`$, the front speed $`_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\xi f[\varphi ^{(0)}(\xi )]2`$ is of $`𝒪(1)`$. Naturally, when the front shape $`\varphi (\xi ,t)`$ deviates from $`\varphi ^{(0)}(\xi )`$ by an amount $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{m,R}(\xi )`$, which is always a factor $`\mathrm{ln}^{3/2}N`$ weaker than $`\varphi ^{(0)}(\xi )`$ itself \[notice the prefactors of $`\varphi ^{(0)}(\xi )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{m,R}(\xi )`$ above\], the contribution of the $`m`$-th shape fluctuation mode to the fluctuation in the front speed $`\delta v_m`$ has to be of $`𝒪(\mathrm{ln}^{3/2}N)`$ as well review . Furthermore, since there are $`𝒪(\mathrm{ln}N)`$ number of shape fluctuation modes PvS1 ; review , the sum over $`m`$ and $`m^{}`$ in Eq. (14) runs from $`1`$ to $`\mathrm{ln}N`$.

At the second (and perhaps the trickiest) step, we determine the dependence of $`c_m(t)c_m^{}(t)_t`$ on $`\mathrm{ln}N`$, and evaluate the sums in Eq. (14). To this end, notice that for a given realization, $`c_m(t)`$ is expressed \[via Eq. (6)\] as $`c_m(t)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\xi \mathrm{\Psi }_{m,L}\delta \varphi (\xi ,t)`$ review . However, the presence of $`e^{\lambda ^{}\xi }`$ in $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{m,L}(\xi )`$ implies that $`c_m(t)`$ for a given realization is practically determined from the fluctuation characteristics at the tip of the front, and therefore, we retain the integral only over the leading edge of the front:

$`c_m(t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}^{1/2}N}}{\displaystyle _{\xi _1}^{\xi _0}}𝑑\xi e^{\lambda ^{}\xi }\mathrm{sin}[q_m(\xi \xi _1)]\delta \varphi (\xi ,t).`$ (15)
By virtue of $`\delta \varphi (\xi ,t)_t=0`$, Eq. (15) then yields $`c_m(t)_t=0`$ as it should, but in the absence of any statistics of the shape fluctuations of the front at time $`t`$, one cannot obtain an expression of $`c_m(t)c_m^{}(t)_t`$ from it. Moreover, since we cannot replace $`g(\varphi )`$ by $`g[\varphi ^{(0)}]`$ for fluctuating “pulled” fronts, one cannot use fluctuation-dissipation theorem in Eq. (7) to evaluate $`c_m(t)c_m^{}(t)_t`$ either — there is no generic fluctuation-dissipation theorem available for multiplicative noise vankampen . Nevertheless, we can still proceed with two approximations. The first one stems from the fact that although it is clear from Eq. (15) that $`c_m(t)`$ and $`c_m^{}(t)`$ ($`mm^{}`$) are correlated in general \[after all, for a given realization, all the $`c_m(t)`$’s are determined through the same $`\delta \varphi (t)`$\], these fluctuation modes will have a finite correlation “length”, i.e., $`c_m(t)c_m^{}(t)_t`$ will be negligibly small \[compared to $`\sqrt{c_m^2(t)_tc_m^{}^2(t)_t}`$\] when $`|mm^{}|`$ exceeds a certain threshold $`a\mathrm{ln}N`$. Based on this anticipation, our approximation is to choose $`a=0`$ for the extreme (and unrealistic) case to simplify the expression for $`D_f^{(3)}`$ to (see later for the discussion on non-zero values of $`a`$)

$`D_f^{(3)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{m0}{\overset{\mathrm{ln}N}{}}}\tau _m{\displaystyle \frac{s_m^2}{\mathrm{ln}^3N}}c_m^2(t)_t.`$ (16)
Then the second approximation is that due to the presence of the $`e^{\lambda ^{}\xi }`$ in the integrand of Eq. (15), only the value of $`\delta \varphi `$ within a distance $`1/\lambda ^{}=1`$ of the tip determines $`c_m(t)`$. This is seen in the following manner: typically the magnitude of $`\delta \varphi (\xi ,t)`$ is of order $`\sqrt{\varphi (\xi ,t)/N}`$; at the tip, $`e^{\lambda ^{}\xi _0}N`$ cancels $`\delta \varphi (\xi ,t)1/N`$ in Eq. (15), but further behind, the $`1/\sqrt{N}`$ factor of $`\sqrt{\varphi (\xi ,t)/N}`$ can no longer be compensated by $`e^{\lambda ^{}\xi }`$. We therefore use

$`|c_m(t)|{\displaystyle _{\xi _01}^{\xi _0}}𝑑\xi {\displaystyle \frac{|\mathrm{sin}[q_m(\xi \xi _1)]|}{\mathrm{ln}^{1/2}N}}{\displaystyle \frac{q_m}{\sqrt{\mathrm{ln}N}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi (m+1)}{\mathrm{ln}^{3/2}N}}.`$ (17)
In Eq. (17), $`\mathrm{sin}[q_m(\xi \xi _1)]`$ has been Taylor expanded around its value zero at $`\xi _0\mathrm{ln}N`$. Thereafter, with $`\tau _m=\mathrm{ln}^2N/[\pi ^2\{(m+1)^21\}]`$ kns ; PvS1 , we obtain

$`D_fD_f^{(3)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{m0}{\overset{\mathrm{ln}N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(m+1)^2s_m^2}{[(m+1)^21]\mathrm{ln}^4N}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}^3N}}.`$ (18)
We end this paper with five final observations: (i) Realistically, $`a0`$, but so long as $`a\mathrm{ln}N`$, which is what one expects in reality, Eqs. (12), (14), (15) and (17) show that the $`1/\mathrm{ln}^3N`$ asymptotic scaling of $`D_f`$ continues to hold. (ii) We have extensively used the left eigenvector of the stability operator $`_{v_{\text{as}}}`$ for reaction-diffusion systems. For clock model vanzon , or for the model that Brunet and Derrida considered for their simulation bd3 , construction of the left eigenvector for the corresponding $`_{v_{\text{as}}}`$, and repeating the same exercise (as in here) are nontrivial. Nevertheless, since all the arguments for the derivation of the $`1/\mathrm{ln}^3N`$ asymptotic scaling of $`D_f`$ in the sFKPP equation are concentrated on the leading edge (or more precisely, at the very tip of the front) where the (fluctuating “pulled”) front properties are model-independent, one expects to observe the same scaling for $`D_f`$ for these two models too. In view of this, the $`1/\mathrm{ln}^3N`$ asymptotic scaling of $`D_f`$ seems to be a generic property of fluctuating “pulled” fronts, independent of the microscopic model. (iii) In the clock model, one can only create non-local fluctuations in the front shape $`\varphi `$. The “collisions” between clocks are also non-local in nature vanzon ; review . In reality, however, these complications matter neither for the front speed, nor for $`D_f`$ — Brunet and Derrida showed bd3 , in a simplified version of their original microscopic model (which closely resembles the clock model), that the localized fluctuations in $`\varphi `$ at the very tip of the front is all that is needed for the $`1/\mathrm{ln}^3N`$ asymptotic scaling of $`D_f`$. (iv) $`D_G`$ and \[through the scaling of the $`c_m(t)`$’s\] $`D_f`$ are both determined only from the tip of the front. This is in perfect agreement with Brunet and Derrida’s “simplified model” bd3 . (v) Finally, the scalings of $`D_f`$ and $`D_G`$ have been obtained by means of an ansatz \[second paragraph below Eq. (13)\]. The integrity of the method used here to obtain these scalings can be tested by numerically obtaining the scaling of $`D_G`$ and the scaling properties of $`c_m(t)c_m^{}(t)_t`$ for the FKPP equation. It must also be noted that these numerical simulations involve extremely high values of $`N`$, and are notoriously difficult to perform.

I thank Henk van Beijeren, Jaume Casademunt, Wouter Kager, Esteban Moro, Bernard Nienhuis, Wim van Saarloos and Ramses van Zon for useful discussions. D. P. is financially supported by the Dutch research organization FOM (Fundamenteel Onderzoek der Materie).


text:
# Decoherence-Free Subspaces in Quantum Key Distribution

Quantum Imaging Laboratory homepage: \]http://www.bu.edu/qil

## Abstract

We demonstrate that two recent innovations in the field of practical quantum key distribution (one-way autocompensation and passive detection) are closely related to the methods developed to protect quantum computations from decoherence. We present a new scheme that combines these advantages, and propose a practical implementation of this scheme that is feasible using existing technology.

Decoherence has been a principal impediment in quantum information processing applications. In quantum computing, decoherence-induced deviations from the desired computational trajectory at the single-qubit level will quickly accumulate if left uncorrected. Thus, techniques such as decoherence-free subspaces (DFSs, for a review, see Ref. Lidar and Whaley (2003)) have been developed as tools for protecting quantum computations. In quantum key distribution (QKD, for a review, see Ref. Gisin et al. (2002)), single-qubit errors are also deleterious; however, sufficiently infrequent single-qubit errors are tolerable, since the resulting errors can be corrected by classical error correction protocols. This has led many QKD experimentalists to forego the complexity of decoherence-mitigation techniques such as DFSs in favor of more conventional methods to improve the precision of single-qubit operations (periodic alignment of polarization axes, temperature stabilization of interferometers, etc.). In this letter, we consider the applicability of DFSs to QKD.

This letter is organized as follows. We begin by demonstrating that a recently-proposed QKD implementation (one-way autocompensating quantum cryptography Walton et al. (2002)) is, in fact, equivalent to a well-known DFS. We then pursue a suggestion in Ref. Gisin et al. (2002) to consider a single-qubit, phase-time coding QKD scheme in which Bob is not required to actively switch between conjugate measurement bases. We show that both one-way autocompensation (OWA) and passive detection are achieved by embedding the logical Hilbert space in a larger physical Hilbert space. Next, we describe a new scheme that combines OWA and passive detection. Finally, we propose an experimental implementation of this new scheme that is feasible using existing technology.

Relating OWA and DFSs.—In Ref. Walton et al. (2002), Klyshko’s “advanced wave interpretation” Belinsky and Klyshko (1992) was used to describe OWA as a variation on round-trip autocompensation Muller et al. (1997); Bethune and Risk (1998). These schemes are called autocompensating because they allows high-visibility quantum interference without calibration or active stabilization of the receiver’s (Bob’s) apparatus. In the context of quantum computation theory Nielsen and Chuang (2001), a more natural explanation of OWA is provided by DFSs. Palma et al. Palma et al. (1996) have shown that a single logical qubit encoded in two physical qubits according to

$`|\overline{0}`$ $``$ $`|01`$
$`|\overline{1}`$ $``$ $`|10`$ (1)
will be protected against collective dephasing. Collective dephasing describes a noise model in which each physical qubit is subject to the same transformation

$`|0`$ $``$ $`|0`$
$`|1`$ $``$ $`e^{i\varphi }|1,`$ (2)
where $`\varphi `$ is an uncontrolled degree of freedom. Under this transformation, the states $`|\text{01}`$ and $`|\text{10}`$ acquire the same phase factor ($`e^{i\varphi }`$). Thus, a qubit encoded according to Eq. (1) will be immune to collective dephasing.

To link this DFS to OWA, we consider time-bin photonic qubits Brendel et al. (1999), in which the physical basis states $`|\text{0}`$ and $`|\text{1}`$ correspond to early ($`|\text{E}`$) and late ($`|\text{L}`$) single-photon wavepackets, respectively. Two-qubit states (e.g. $`|\text{EL}`$) may be created in which the two time-bin qubits are distinguished by some convenient degree of freedom (e.g. polarization, or a time delay much longer than that used to define the individual time-bin qubits themselves).

In OWA quantum cryptography, Alice superposes the two-qubit time-bin states $`|\text{EL}`$ and $`|\text{LE}`$ with one of four relative phases ($`0`$, $`\pi /2`$, $`\pi `$, $`3\pi /2`$) and sends the two-qubit state to Bob. Note that the superposition of $`|\text{EL}`$ and $`|\text{LE}`$ entails time-bin entanglement, an idea introduced in Ref. Brendel et al. (1999). Bob applies one of two relative phase shifts ($`0`$, $`\pi /2`$) to the superposed terms and makes his measurement. In this way, they may effect the familiar four-state QKD protocol (BB84) Bennett and Brassard (1984).

The equivalence of OWA and the DFS in Eq. (1) may be seen by carefully following Bob’s detection process. After applying his phase shift, Bob analyzes the state using a Mach–Zehnder interferometer (MZI) with optical delay equal to the time delay separating $`|\text{E}`$ and $`|\text{L}`$. Using the notation of Fig. 1, the action of the interferometer on a single time-bin qubit is

$`|\text{E}`$ $``$ $`i|a^{}+ie^{i\varphi }|b^{}e^{i\varphi }|b^++|a^+`$
$`|\text{L}`$ $``$ $`i|b^{}+ie^{i\varphi }|c^{}e^{i\varphi }|c^++|b^+,`$ (3)
where $`\varphi `$ is the relative phase along the two paths. Here, and for the remainder of this letter, normalizing constants and overall phase factors have been suppressed. By postselecting those cases in which both photons are detected at time slots corresponding to $`|b^+`$ or $`|b^{}`$, Bob achieves the following effective transformation:

$`|\text{EL}`$ $``$ $`|b^+b^++|b^{}b^{}+i(|b^+b^{}|b^{}b^+)`$
$`|\text{LE}`$ $``$ $`|b^+b^++|b^{}b^{}i(|b^+b^{}|b^{}b^+),`$ (4)
where a common factor of $`e^{i\varphi }`$ has no consequence.

The crucial assumption in going from Eq. (3) to Eq. (4) is that the MZI transforms each of the two time-bin qubits identically. For time-bin qubits distinguished by a time delay that is short compared to the characteristic time of interferometric drift (though long compared to the time separating $`|\text{E}`$ and $`|\text{L}`$), this assumption is certainly valid. The probability of Bob detecting two photons on the same output arm ($`|b^+b^+`$ or $`|b^{}b^{}`$) depends on the relative phase between the $`|\text{EL}`$ and $`|\text{LE}`$, and similarly for the probability of detecting two photons on different arms ($`|b^+b^{}`$ or $`|b^{}b^+`$). The critical point is that each of these probabilities is independent of the interferometer’s phase delay, $`\varphi `$. Thus, just as the DFS described in Eq. (1) protects a logical qubit encoded in two physical qubits from collective dephasing, OWA enables Bob to measure high-visibility two-photon interference with a MZI that does not require initial calibration or active phase stabilization.

Passive detection via enlarging the Hilbert space.—The two-photon quantum key distribution scheme described in Ref. Brendel et al. (1999) has the remarkable property that both Alice and Bob use passive detection (i.e. they are not required to switch between conjugate measurement bases). In Ref. Gisin et al. (2002), Gisin et al. suggest applying Klyshko’s advanced wave interpretation to generate an associated one-photon scheme. We present a specific implementation of this one-photon scheme here to show that it achieves passive detection by enlarging the Hilbert space (see Fig. 1). Let the advanced and delayed single-photon wavepackets be associated with the poles of the Poincaré sphere. The four states required for BB84 are typically taken from the equator, since a single MZI can be used to generate any of the equatorial states. Instead, we imagine using two antipodal points on the equator and the poles themselves. Bob analyzes the signal from Alice with a MZI, recording which detector fired (one of two possibilities) at which time (one of three possibilities). When Bob’s detection is in the first or third time positions, he can reliably distinguish between the pole states based on the time of detection. When his detection is in the second time position, he can reliably distinguish between the equatorial states based on which detector fired. Thus, Bob is no longer obliged to make an active change to his apparatus to effect the requisite change of basis 111The idea of using pole states is explored in Ref. Bechmann-Pasquinucci and Tittel (2000); however, that paper doesn’t mention the possibility of passive detection..

To see how this passive detection is derived from enlargement of the Hilbert space, consider the quantum state of Alice’s signal after Bob’s MZI. Alice’s four states of one qubit are mapped onto four mutually nonorthogonal states of a six-state quantum system (see Fig. 1). Thus, by mapping a two-state quantum system into a six-state quantum system, Bob is able to perform his part of the BB84 protocol with a fixed-basis measurement in the six-state Hilbert space 222A similar idea is presented in Ref. Inoue et al. (2002). In that paper, Alice uses four states of a three-state quantum system, and Bob achieves passive detection by mapping Alice’s three-state quantum system into an eight-state quantum system..

Combining OWA and passive detection.—OWA and passive detection have been previously presented in separate proposals (Refs. Walton et al. (2002) and Brendel et al. (1999), respectively). Here we present a new scheme that combines these two beneficial features in a single implementation (see Fig. 2). The new scheme follows from that presented in Ref. Walton et al. (2002), just as the preceding single-photon scheme follows from the traditional phase-coding implementation. Let the states $`|1`$ and $`|2`$ in Fig. 2 be associated with the poles of the Poincaré sphere. Instead of using equatorial states and forcing Bob to postselect those cases for which the advanced (delayed) amplitudes take the long (short) path, we use two equatorial points ($`|3`$ and $`|4`$) and the poles themselves to make up Alice’s four signal states. Signal states that are consistent with a given joint detection are presented in the chart. As seen in Fig. 1, each photon can lead to six different detection events. Thus, since the new protocol involves two photons, there are 36 possible detection events (see Fig. 2).

The protocol operates as follows. As in BB84, Alice and Bob publicly agree on an association of each of the four signal states (see Fig. 2) with logical values “0” or “1” (i.e., $`1`$ “0”, $`2`$ “1”, $`3`$ “0”, $`4`$ “1”). For each run of the experiment, Alice randomly chooses one of the four signal states and sends it to Bob. When Bob detects both photons in their respective middle time slots, he has effectively measured in the $`\{3,4\}`$ basis (the “phase” basis). When Bob detects both photons in their early time slots, or both photons in their late time slots, he has effectively measured in the $`\{1,2\}`$ basis (the “time” basis) 333On the occasions when Bob’s detection pattern is (early, middle), (middle, early), (middle, late), or (late, middle), he has also effectively measured in the time basis. However, to simplify the analysis by making the probability of successful bit-sharing independent of the basis in which Alice sent, we only consider the extreme cases (early, early) and (late, late) as valid time-basis detections.. After the quantum transmission, Alice and Bob publicly announce their bases. On the occasions when their bases match, Bob is able to infer the state that Alice sent, based on his detection pattern using the chart in Fig. 2. As in single-qubit BB84, the occasions in which their bases do not match are discarded. The scheme achieves passive detection (Bob is not required to make any active changes to his apparatus) and autocompensation (the phase delay in Bob’s interferometer does not affect any measured probabilities). The intrinsic efficiency of the scheme is $`1/4`$, compared to $`1/2`$ for single-qubit BB84.

A feasible implementation.—A proposed implementation for the source employed in Fig. 2 is presented in Fig. 3. First, a pair of noncollinear, polarization-entangled photons is produced via type-II spontaneous parametric down-conversion from a nonlinear crystal pumped by a brief pulse 444A femtosecond pump pulse is typically desired for experiments involving the simultaneous creation of multiple down-converted photon pairs De Martini et al. (2001). Our implementation does not require such a brief pump pulse, and will work with a picosecond laser, such as that used in Ref. Tittel et al. (2000).. Second, the modulating element “M” performs one of four functions (filter one of the two polarization modes, or introduce one of two relative phases between the two polarization modes), based on Alice’s choice of signal states. Third, the two beams are combined with a relative temporal delay that matches the temporal delay Bob will subsequently introduce with his MZI. This stage converts the photon pair from a pair of spatially-defined polarization-entangled qubits to a pair of polarization-defined time-bin entangled qubits. Finally, the element labeled “P” (for polarization) delays and rotates one of the polarization modes by a duration much greater than the delay of the third step, such that the delayed portion of the state in the same polarization as the non-delayed portion. Thus, the two photons sent from Alice to Bob have the wavepacket structure illustrated at the top of Fig. 2.

There are two noteworthy aspects of the configuration in Fig. 3. First, the technique introduced in Ref. Brendel et al. (1999) for creating time-bin entangled photons pairs only leads to superpositions of the correlated possibilities (i.e. $`|\text{EE}`$ and $`|\text{LL}`$). The source presented in Fig. 3 enables arbitrary superpositions of the anti-correlated possibilities (i.e. $`|\text{EL}`$ and $`|\text{LE}`$). Furthermore, the correlated states can easily be created from this source by rotating the polarization axes at element “M” in Fig. 3. In this way, all four time-bin entangled Bell states can be conveniently generated with this source. Second, the interference in Bob’s interferometer results from the indistinguishability of photon amplitudes that were initially in the same polarization mode. This is in contrast to configurations in which photon amplitudes from different polarization modes are made indistinguishable by use of a polarization analyzer. Thus, the reduction in visibility that has come to be associated with extremely brief pump pulses Keller and Rubin (1997) will not be present in this scheme. Note that a symmetrization method has been developed to restore visibility for experiments using polarization-entangled photons created by such a short pulse pump De Martini et al. (2001); Kim and Grice (2002).

Conclusion.—We have demonstrated that two recent innovations in the field of practical quantum key distribution (autocompensation and passive detection) are closely related to the methods developed to protect quantum computations from decoherence. Pursuing this conceptual link between techniques from quantum computation and advances in practical QKD, we have developed a new QKD scheme (Fig. 2) that combines autocompensation and passive detection. Furthermore, we have proposed a practical implementation of the scheme (Fig. 3) that is feasible using existing technology.

We thank Matthew D. Shaw and Magued B. Nasr for valuable conversations, and Jean C. Boileau for constructive criticism on an early draft. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation; the Center for Subsurface Sensing and Imaging Systems (CenSSIS), an NSF Engineering Research Center; and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).