text:
# Analytic theory of ground-state properties of a three-dimensional electron gas at varying spin polarization

## I Introduction

The homogeneous electron gas (EG) of fermions interacting by the $`e^2/r`$ law and moving in a uniform neutralizing background of positive charge has been for many decades the basic reference system for calculations of electronic structure in condensed matter physics.ceperley ; march  The extent to which exchange and correlations compete with each other on varying the electron density has been a central issue going back to the work of Bloch on spontaneous spin polarization due to exchange and to that of Wigner and Seitz on cohesion in simple metals. The many-body effective interactions acquire a magnetic component arising from local deviations of electron density around any given electron, with the exchange term being determined by the electrons carrying the same spin and the correlation term being to a large extent determined by the electrons of opposite spin. The role of spin fluctuations and their correlations thus are a subject of continuing interest, on which theoretical progress starting from the basic Coulomb Hamiltonian has been painfully slow.

There is a broad consensus on the increasing importance of spin polarization at strong coupling and of correlations in lowered dimensionality. This fact has been repeatedly emphasized by Quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) numerical studies, starting from the early work of Ceperley and Alder.ca  In particular, in the three-dimensional $`(3D)`$ electron system these studies have revealed a continuous transition from a paramagnetic to a fully spin-polarized ground state occurring with increasing coupling strength, before a first-order quantum phase transition to a ferromagnetic Wigner crystal occurs.ortiz ; zong  While the $`3D`$ system appears to be most suitable at present for improvements and critical tests of analytic theories, it may be mentioned that studies of spin motions in structures of reduced dimensionality are being greatly stimulated by expectations of developments in spin-based electronics and in quantum computing.dms

The main purpose of the present work is the formulation of a practicable analytic theory for spin correlations in the $`3D`$ EG and the comparison of its numerical predictions with the available QMC data. The fluid that we consider consists of two spin components at fixed average densities $`n_\sigma `$ with $`\sigma =`$ or $``$, and the spin correlations are described by the pair distribution functions $`g_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(r)`$. These are defined so that the quantity $`4\pi r^2n_\sigma ^{}g_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(r)dr`$ gives the average number of electrons with spin $`\sigma ^{}`$ lying within a spherical shell of radius $`r`$ and thickness $`dr`$ centered on an electron with spin $`\sigma `$. The general strategy is to set up a Schrödinger-like differential equation for $`\sqrt{g_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(r)}`$ with the help of the Hohenberg-Kohn variational principled&g  and to solve it by a Fermi-hypernetted-chain type of approximation tailored to embody the Hartree-Fock limit as well as a set of sum rules for the two-component Fermi fluid.

It may be mentioned at this point that there has quite recently been a renewed interest in the study of the spin-averaged pair distribution function $`g(r)`$ in paramagnetic EG models within a two-body scattering approach first proposed by Overhauser.gr  In brief, a Schrödinger equation is set up to evaluate particle-pair wave functions from which $`g(r)`$ can be built through sums over angular momentum and spin. Various approximations have been examined for embodying the many-body effects into the effective scattering potentials.gr  In an alternative approach, which is fully developed in the present work, we have instead sought to use a density-functional framework for a self-consistent evaluation of $`g(r)`$ and of the effective scattering potential.dbose

The contents of the paper are briefly as follows. Section II presents a formally exact zero-energy scattering equation for the partial distribution functions $`g_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(r)`$ and introduces the approximations that we propose for the evaluation of the three main contributions to the scattering potential. Section III shows that these approximations satisfy the plasmon sum rule, the charge neutrality condition, and Kimball’s cusp condition. Our numerical results for the $`3D`$ EG are presented in Section IV. Finally, Section V summarizes our main conclusions and gives suggestions for further work.

## II Theory

We consider an inhomogeneous $`3D`$ fluid of electrons consisting of the two spin species with densities $`n_\sigma (𝐫)`$ in the presence of external potentials $`V_\sigma ^{\mathrm{ext}}(𝐫)`$ and of a uniform neutralizing background. From the Hohenberg-Kohn theoremd&g  the ground-state energy functional of the fluid can be written as

$$E_{\mathrm{gs}}[\left\{n_\sigma (𝐫)\right\}]=T_s[\left\{n_\sigma (𝐫)\right\}]+\underset{\sigma }{}d^3𝐫V_\sigma ^{\mathrm{ext}}(𝐫)\mathrm{\Delta }n_\sigma (𝐫)+E_\mathrm{H}[\left\{n_\sigma (𝐫)\right\}]+E_{\mathrm{xc}}[\left\{n_\sigma (𝐫)\right\}]$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }n_\sigma (𝐫)=n_\sigma (𝐫)n_\sigma `$ are the deviations of the spin densities from their average values, $`T_s`$ and $`E_{\mathrm{xc}}`$ are the ideal kinetic energy and exchange-correlation energy functionals, and $`E_\mathrm{H}`$ is the Hartree term given by

$$E_\mathrm{H}[\left\{n_\sigma (𝐫)\right\}]=\frac{1}{2}\underset{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}{}d^3𝐫d^3𝐫^{}v(|𝐫𝐫^{}|)\mathrm{\Delta }n_\sigma (𝐫)\mathrm{\Delta }n_\sigma ^{}(𝐫^{})$$
(2)
with $`v(|𝐫𝐫^{}|)=e^2/|𝐫𝐫^{}|`$. The presence of a neutralizing background has been taken into account in these equations. Following Herringherring  we decompose the kinetic energy functional into the sum of two terms,

$$T_s[\left\{n_\sigma (𝐫)\right\}]=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{8m}\underset{\sigma }{}d^3𝐫\frac{|n_\sigma (𝐫)|^2}{n_\sigma (𝐫)}+T_\theta [\left\{n_\sigma (𝐫)\right\}]$$
(3)
where the first term is the von Weizsäcker ”surface” kinetic energyw  and $`T_\theta `$ is itself defined by Eq. (3).

This general formalism is adapted to the derivation of differential equations for the spin-resolved pair distribution functions $`g_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(r)`$ in the homogeneous EG by viewing the quantity $`n_\sigma [g_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(r)1]`$ as the distortion that an electron in the EG, located at position $`r=0`$ with spin $`\sigma ^{}`$, induces in the density profiles of the electrons with spin $`\sigma `$.percus  The appropriate ground-state energy functional for this problem is obtained from Eqs. (1)-(3) by the formal replacements

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}m\hfill & \mu \hfill \\ V_\sigma ^{\mathrm{ext}}(𝐫)\hfill & v(r)\hfill \\ n_\sigma (𝐫)\hfill & n_\sigma g_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(r)\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
where $`\mu =m/2`$ is the reduced mass of an electron pair. The Euler-Lagrange equations for the spin-resolved pair functions can now be obtained from the variational principle of Hohenberg and Kohnd&g  using the von Weizsäcker-Herring ideal kinetic energy functional as shown in Eq. (3). With the zero of energy taken at the chemical potential, the formally exact differential equation for $`g_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(r)`$ reads

$$\left[\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{m}_𝐫^2+v(r)+v_\mathrm{P}^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(r)+V_{\mathrm{ex}}^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(r)\right]\sqrt{g_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(r)}=0.$$
(5)
Here, the ”Pauli potential” $`v_\mathrm{P}^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(r)`$ is defined by

$$v_\mathrm{P}^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(r)=\frac{\delta T_\theta [\left\{n_\sigma (𝐫)\right\}]}{\delta n_\sigma (𝐫)}|_{n_\sigma (𝐫)=n_\sigma g_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(r)}$$
(6)
and $`V_{\mathrm{ex}}^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(r)`$ is the ”excess” Kohn-Sham potential, which is given by

$$V_{\mathrm{ex}}^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(r)=v_\mathrm{H}(r)+v_{\mathrm{xc}}^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(r)=nd^3𝐫^{}v(|𝐫𝐫^{}|)[g(r^{})1]+\frac{\delta E_{\mathrm{xc}}[n_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(𝐫)]}{\delta n_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(𝐫)}|_{n_\sigma (𝐫)=n_\sigma g_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(r)}$$
(7)
with $`n=n_{}+n_{}`$ and $`g(r)=_{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}(n_\sigma n_\sigma ^{}/n^2)g_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(r)`$.

Equations (5)-(7) show that a zero-energy scattering theory approach to pair correlations in a quantum electron fluid has a sound theoretical justification within the framework of the Hohenberg-Kohn variational principle. Of course, the functional dependence of $`T_\theta `$ and of $`E_{\mathrm{xc}}`$ on the inhomogeneous electron densities is not known and we shall need to resort to appropriate calculational schemes and approximations for the potentials introduced in Eqs. (6) and (7).

A possible way to handle the kinetic energy term is to pass to a Kohn-Sham scheme, by expanding the pair distribution functions into Kohn-Sham two-particle scattering orbitals. This was done in a series of previous studiesgr ; dbose  as already mentioned in Section I, but the model scattering potentials used there fail to satisfy the plasmon sum rule and therefore do not account correctly for the behavior of $`g_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(r)`$ at large $`r`$. In the following we shall instead take advantage of the formal similarity between Eq. (5) and the Euler-Lagrange equation which is adopted in the so-called Fermi hypernetted-chain approximation (FHNC). This is derived by a Jastrow-Feenberg variational Ansatz on the many-body wave functionlantto ; zab ; report  and was used to treat two-component Fermi fluids in the case of electron-hole liquids and of liquid metallic hydrogen.tc  Such an approach will allow us to build into the theory some important sum rules and limiting behaviors.

### II.1 The Pauli potential

In the FHNC context the Pauli potential can be chosen so as to ensure that the Hartree-Fock limit is correctly embodied into the theory. An argument can be given to show that this term in Eq. (5) becomes dominant at weak coupling by considering how the various functionals scale under scaling of all lengths by a factor $`\lambda `$. It was shown by Herringherring  that $`T_\theta `$ scales by a factor $`\lambda ^2`$, whereas Levy and Perdewlevy  have shown that both the Hartree and the exchange energy functionals scale by a factor $`\lambda ^1`$. Only the inequality $`E_c[\{n_\sigma (𝐫)\}]>\lambda ^1E_c[\{n_\sigma ^{(\lambda )}(𝐫)\}]`$ could be provedlevy  for the correlation energy functional under scaling, but it seems reasonable to expect that on taking $`\lambda =r_s`$ the correlation functional would also become relatively negligible in the limit $`r_s0`$. Here $`r_s`$ is the usual coupling strength parameter for the EG, which in $`3D`$ is related to the average electron density $`n`$ by $`r_sa_B=(4\pi n/3)^{1/3}`$ with $`a_B`$ the Bohr radius.

From the above argument it follows that Eq. (5) implies

$$v_\mathrm{P}^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(r)=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{m}\frac{_𝐫^2\sqrt{g_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}^{\mathrm{HF}}(r)}}{\sqrt{g_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}^{\mathrm{HF}}(r)}}$$
(8)
in the weak coupling limit $`r_s0`$. In Eq. (8) $`g_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}^{\mathrm{HF}}(r)`$ are the spin-resolved pair functions in the Hartree-Fock approximation (HF), namely

$$\{\begin{array}{c}g_{\sigma \sigma }^{\mathrm{HF}}(r)=19[\mathrm{j}_1(k_{F\sigma }r)/(k_{F\sigma }r)]^2\hfill \\ g_{\sigma \overline{\sigma }}^{\mathrm{HF}}(r)=1\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
where $`\overline{\sigma }=\sigma `$, $`\mathrm{j}_1(x)=(\mathrm{sin}xx\mathrm{cos}x)/x^2`$ is a spherical Bessel function, and $`k_{F\sigma }=k_F(1+\mathrm{sgn}(\sigma )\zeta )^{1/3}`$ with $`k_F=(3\pi ^2n)^{1/3}`$ the usual Fermi wave number and $`\zeta =|n_{}n_{}|/n`$ the degree of spin polarization.

Although the expression for the Pauli potential in Eq. (8) is correct only for a weakly coupled Fermi fluid, we shall assume in the following that it can yield useful results in our self-consistent calculations of the pair distribution functions with increasing coupling strength. This assumption will have to be tested through quantitative comparisons of our numerical results with the available QMC data. As a broad qualitative argument in support of this assumption we may remark that the role of the statistics is expected to weaken with increasing coupling strength at least in the spin-averaged pair functionchiofalo ; dharma  and that only the von Weizsäcker term contributes to the kinetic energy functional in the case of a charged Bose fluid.dbose

### II.2 The excess Kohn-Sham potential

The FHNC expresses the potential $`V_{\mathrm{ex}}^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(r)`$ in Eq. (5), which is the sum of the Hartree and of the exchange-correlation potential, as the sum of two effective pair interactions:lantto ; zab ; report ; tc

$$V_{\mathrm{ex}}^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(r)=W_\mathrm{B}^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(r)+\delta _{\sigma \sigma ^{}}W_\mathrm{e}^{\sigma \sigma }(r).$$
(10)
The first term on the left-hand side of Eq. (10) descends from the two-body correlation functions $`u_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(r)`$ in the Jastrow-Feenberg wave function and is therefore formally the same as for a binary boson mixture. The second term is instead due to the antisymmetry of the fermion many-body wave function.

As shown by Chakrabortytc  in treating a binary fermion mixture, the HNC closure yields for $`u_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(r)`$ the expression

$$u_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(r)=\mathrm{ln}g_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(r)[g_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(r)1]+c_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(r)$$
(11)
where $`c_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(r)`$ are the direct correlation functions, which are related to $`g_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(r)`$ by the Ornstein-Zernike relations. We introduce at this point the partial structure factors $`S_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(q)`$ of the binary mixture, which in essence are the Fourier transforms of $`g_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(r)`$:

$$S_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(q)=\delta _{\sigma \sigma ^{}}+\sqrt{n_\sigma n_\sigma ^{}}d^3𝐫[g_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(r)1]\mathrm{exp}(i𝐪𝐫).$$
(12)
We also introduce the Fourier transform of $`W_\mathrm{B}^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(r)`$ ($`W_\mathrm{B}^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(q)`$ , say). Minimization of the ground state energy against arbitrary variations of $`g_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(r)`$ yields with the help of Eq. (11) the expression

$$W_\mathrm{B}^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(q)=\frac{\epsilon _q}{\sqrt{n_\sigma n_\sigma ^{}}}[S_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(q)\delta _{\sigma \sigma ^{}}]V_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(q)$$
(13)
where $`\epsilon _q=\mathrm{}^2q^2/(2m)`$ are the single-particle kinetic energies and the functions $`V_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(q)`$ are given by

$$\{\begin{array}{c}V_{\sigma \sigma }(q)=\frac{\epsilon _q}{2n_\sigma }\left\{1+[S_{\overline{\sigma }\overline{\sigma }}^2(q)+S_{\sigma \overline{\sigma }}^2(q)]/\mathrm{\Delta }^2(q)\right\}\hfill \\ V_{\sigma \overline{\sigma }}(q)=\frac{\epsilon _q}{2\sqrt{n_\sigma n_{\overline{\sigma }}}}S_{\sigma \overline{\sigma }}(q)\left[S_{\sigma \sigma }(q)+S_{\overline{\sigma }\overline{\sigma }}(q)\right]/\mathrm{\Delta }^2(q)\hfill \end{array}$$
(14)
with

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(q)=S_{\sigma \sigma }(q)S_{\overline{\sigma }\overline{\sigma }}(q)S_{\sigma \overline{\sigma }}^2(q).$$
(15)
Equations (13)-(15) show how the effective boson-like interactions $`W_\mathrm{B}^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(r)`$ in Eq. (10) are related in Fourier transform to the spin-resolved pair distribution functions.

Turning to the second term on the left-hand side of Eq. (10), the effective pair potential $`W_\mathrm{e}^{\sigma \sigma }(r)`$ has a very complicated expression within the FHNC.lantto ; zab ; report  However, in dealing with a one-component electron fluid Kallio and Piilokp  have proposed a simple and effective way to account for this consequence of the antisymmetry of the fermion wave function. Their argument is immediately generalized to our two-component Fermi fluid, and leads to the requirement that in Fourier transform this term should cancel the effective boson-like interaction $`W_\mathrm{B}^{\sigma \sigma }(q)`$ for parallel-spin electrons at low coupling. That is,

$$W_\mathrm{e}^{\sigma \sigma }(q)=\underset{r_s0}{lim}W_\mathrm{B}^{\sigma \sigma }(q)=\frac{\epsilon _q}{2n_\sigma }[1+2S_{\sigma \sigma }^{\mathrm{HF}}(q)]\left[\frac{S_{\sigma \sigma }^{\mathrm{HF}}(q)1}{S_{\sigma \sigma }^{\mathrm{HF}}(q)}\right]^2.$$
(16)
Here, $`S_{\sigma \sigma }^{\mathrm{HF}}(q)`$ is the Hartree-Fock structure factor, which is given by

$$S_{\sigma \sigma }^{\mathrm{HF}}(q)=\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{3}{4}(q/k_{F\sigma })\frac{1}{16}(q/k_{F\sigma })^3\text{for }q2k_{F\sigma }\hfill \\ 1\text{for }q2k_{F\sigma }.\hfill \end{array}$$
(17)
It is evident that the insertion of Eqs. (8)-(17) into Eq. (5) allows a self-consistent calculation of the spin-resolved pair distribution functions and of the effective electron-electron interactions. Before proceeding to the numerical solution of this problem, we examine how the approximate theory presented above fares in regard to some exact properties of pair correlations.

## III Sum Rules and Limiting behaviors

In this Section we show that the pair functions obtained from the theory presented in Section II satisfy three exact properties. These are the charge neutrality condition, the plasmon sum rule, and Kimball’s cusp condition.

The asymptotic behavior of the effective potential $`V_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(r)`$ is first obtained from Eq. (5), which can be rewritten in the form

$$V_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(r)=g_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(r)[v(r)+W_\mathrm{e}^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(r)+v_\mathrm{P}^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(r)]+[g_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(r)1]W_\mathrm{B}^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(r)+\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu }\left|\sqrt{g_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(r)}\right|^2.$$
(18)
A careful analysis of this equation shows that $`V_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(r)v(r)+\delta _{\sigma \sigma ^{}}W_\mathrm{e}^{\sigma \sigma }(r)`$ for $`r\mathrm{}`$, and hence in Fourier transform we have from Eq. (16)

$$\{\begin{array}{c}V_{\sigma \sigma }(q)v_q+8\pi ^2\mathrm{}^2/(3mk_{F\sigma })\hfill \\ V_{\sigma \overline{\sigma }}(q)v_q\hfill \end{array}$$
(19)
for $`q0`$, with $`v_q=4\pi e^2/q^2`$ in the $`3D`$ EG. The corresponding asymptotic behavior of the structure factors is obtained from Eqs. (14), which can be inverted to yield

$$\{\begin{array}{c}S_{\sigma \sigma }(q)=\sqrt{A_{\overline{\sigma }\overline{\sigma }}\mathrm{\Delta }^2\frac{A_{\sigma \overline{\sigma }}^2\mathrm{\Delta }^3}{2+[A_{\sigma \sigma }+A_{\overline{\sigma }\overline{\sigma }}]\mathrm{\Delta }}}\hfill \\ S_{\sigma \overline{\sigma }}(q)=\frac{A_{\sigma \overline{\sigma }}\mathrm{\Delta }^{3/2}}{\sqrt{2+[A_{\sigma \sigma }+A_{\overline{\sigma }\overline{\sigma }}]\mathrm{\Delta }}}\hfill \end{array}$$
(20)
where $`A_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(q)=\delta _{\sigma \sigma ^{}}+2\mathrm{sgn}(\sigma \sigma ^{})\sqrt{n_\sigma n_\sigma ^{}}V_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(q)/\epsilon _q`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(q)=(A_{}A_{}A_{}^2)^{1/2}`$. From Eqs. (19) and (20) we find

$$S_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(q)f_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(\zeta )\frac{q}{k_F}+g_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(\zeta )\frac{\epsilon _q}{2\mathrm{}\omega _{\mathrm{pl}}}$$
(21)
for $`q0`$, with $`\omega _{\mathrm{pl}}=(4\pi ne^2/m)^{1/2}`$, $`g_{\sigma \sigma }(\zeta )=[1+\mathrm{sgn}(\sigma )\zeta ]`$, $`g_{\sigma \overline{\sigma }}(\zeta )=\sqrt{1\zeta ^2}`$, and

$$\{\begin{array}{c}f_{\sigma \sigma }(\zeta )=\frac{3}{8}\sqrt{\frac{2[1\mathrm{sgn}(\sigma )\zeta ]/[1+\mathrm{sgn}(\sigma )\zeta ]}{(1+\zeta )^{1/3}+(1\zeta )^{1/3}}}\hfill \\ f_{\sigma \overline{\sigma }}(\zeta )=\frac{3}{8}\sqrt{\frac{2}{(1+\zeta )^{1/3}+(1\zeta )^{1/3}}}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(22)
These limiting expressions were earlier known to hold at $`\zeta =0`$ within the Random Phase approximation (see e.g. Gori-Giorgi et al.gsb  and references given therein). The form of Eq. (21) immediately ensures that the charge neutrality condition is satisfied. This reads

$$\sqrt{n_\sigma n_\sigma ^{}}d^3𝐫[g_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(r)1]=\delta _{\sigma \sigma ^{}}$$
(23)
or $`S_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(q0)=0`$ from Eq. (12).

The form of Eq. (21) also ensures that the plasmon sum rule is satisfied. This reads

$$\underset{q0}{lim}S(q)=\epsilon _q/(\mathrm{}\omega _{\mathrm{pl}})$$
(24)
where $`S(q)=_{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}(\sqrt{n_\sigma n_\sigma ^{}}/n)S_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(q)`$.

The cusp condition as first demonstrated by Kimballkimball  relates the logarithmic derivative of $`g_{}(r)`$ in the origin to the Bohr radius and is satisfied if the scattering potential between pairs of electrons with antiparallel spins reduces to the bare Coulomb potential for $`r0`$. This is ensured in our approach by the properties $`v_\mathrm{P}^{\sigma \sigma }(r0)=W_\mathrm{e}^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(r0)=0`$ and $`W_\mathrm{B}^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(q\mathrm{})q^6`$, with the latter form being equivalent to the asymptotic behavior $`S_{}(q\mathrm{})q^4`$.

Finally, the Pauli principle requirement $`g_{\sigma \sigma }(0)=0`$ is ensured in our approach by the behavior of the Pauli potential in the origin, $`v_\mathrm{P}^{\sigma \sigma }(r0)2\mathrm{}^2/(mr^2)`$. This behavior determines the power-law exponent in the distribution function of parallel-spin electrons, $`g_{\sigma \sigma }(r0)r^2`$, as can be proved directly from Eq. (5).

## IV Numerical Results

We turn to a presentation of our numerical results, which are obtained by solving Eq. (5) with the following self-consistency cycle. We start with the trial choice $`g_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(r)=g_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}^{\mathrm{HF}}(r)`$ and $`W_\mathrm{B}^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(r)=0`$, and find the effective potentials $`V_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(r)`$ by means of Eq. (18) and hence the structure factors $`S_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(q)`$ via Eq. (20). At this point we can calculate new values for $`g_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(r)`$ and for $`W_\mathrm{B}^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(r)`$ by taking Fourier transforms and using Eq. (13). This procedure is repeated until self-consistency is achieved. The computational time typically needed to obtain $`g_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(r)`$ at each value of $`r_s`$ and $`\zeta `$ is a few minuted on a PC with a Pentium IV/1.4 GHz processor.

We have calculated in this way the spin-resolved pair distribution functions of a $`3D`$ electron gas for $`r_s`$ up to 100. The main results of our work are shown in Figures 1-8.

In Figure 1 we show that our results for $`g(r)=[g_{}(r)+g_{}(r)]/2`$ in the paramagnetic EG at $`r_s=1,5,10`$ and $`20`$ are in excellent agreement with the QMC data of Ortiz et al..ortiz  In the same range our results for $`g(r)`$ are in excellent agreement with those of Kallio and Piilo.kp  In Figures 2 and 3 we show that for the same cases our results for the spin-resolved pair functions $`g_{}(r)`$ and $`g_{}(r)`$ are also in excellent agreement with the QMC data of Ortiz et al..ortiz  To the best of our knowledge theoretical results of similar quality have not been reported in the literature from an approach which is free of input and/or fitting parameters. Figure 4 shows a comparison of the present results at $`r_s=10`$ with those previously obtained by usgr  with a self-consistent Hartree approximation.

In Figure 5 we compare our results for the paramagnetic EG at $`r_s=40`$ and $`100`$ with the QMC data of Ortiz et al.ortiz  and with those obtained more recently by Zong et al..zong  As discussed by the latter authors, these two QMC approaches are essentially the same but involve some technical differences. In particular the study reported by Zong et al.zong  includes backflow and three-body terms in the wave function, and uses a novel numerical technique termed ”twisted averaged boundary conditions” which allows a sizeable reduction of finite-size errors.private  The reader is referred to Ref. zong,  for details. These differences are not expected to change significantly the results of Ortiz et al.ortiz  for $`r_s`$ below $`20`$, but, as is clear from Figure 5, the differences between the two QMC studies become significant at larger $`r_s`$. Our results lie somewhere in between the two sets of QMC data at large $`r_s`$. From the theoretical point of view it is important to remark that in FHNC-type calculations at strong coupling the induced $`W_\mathrm{B}^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(q)`$ interactions should be corrected by the addition of three-body correlations and elementary-diagrams (or ”bridge functions”) contributions.lantto ; zab ; report

Further comparisons with QMC data on pair distribution functions can be made for the fully spin-polarized EG ($`\zeta =1`$). This is done in Figure 6 at $`r_s=1,4,40`$ and $`100`$. No QMC data are available in the intermediate range $`4<r_s<40`$, but the good agreement with the QMC data of Ortiz et al.ortiz  in the low-$`r_s`$ range is evident. The same inaccuracies in the theory that we have exposed in the paramagnetic EG at strong coupling are also found at $`\zeta =1`$.

Finally, in Figure 7 we report the spin-dependent effective electron-electron interaction $`V_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(r)=v(r)+W_\mathrm{B}^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(r)+\delta _{\sigma \sigma ^{}}W_\mathrm{e}^{\sigma \sigma }(r)`$ and its Fourier transform $`V_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(q)`$, as it emerges from our self-consistent calculations on a $`3D`$ EG both in the paramagnetic and in the ferromagnetic state. The attractive part of the parallel-spin effective interaction deepens at increased $`\zeta `$ as is physically expected. The Pauli potential and its dependence on $`\zeta `$ are shown in Figure 8.

### IV.1 Ground-state energy

The ground-state energy $`\epsilon _\mathrm{g}`$ (per electron) of the EG at each value of $`r_s`$ and $`\zeta `$ can be calculated by means of an integration over the coupling constant $`\lambda `$,

$$\epsilon _\mathrm{g}=\epsilon _0+\frac{1}{2}_0^1\frac{d\lambda }{\lambda }\frac{d^3𝐪}{(2\pi )^3}v_q^{(\lambda )}[S_\lambda (q)1]$$
(25)
directly from the structure factor $`S_\lambda (q)`$ calculated with interaction $`v_q^{(\lambda )}=4\pi e^2\lambda /q^2`$. Here $`\epsilon _0=3[(1+\zeta )^{5/3}+(1\zeta )^{5/3}]/(10\alpha ^2r_s^2)\mathrm{Ryd}`$ is the ideal-gas kinetic energy with $`\alpha =(9\pi /4)^{1/3}`$, and $`S(q)`$ has been defined immediately below Eq. (24). In fact, the integration over $`\lambda `$ is carried out by integration over $`r_s`$. The second term in Eq. (25) is the exchange-correlation (xc) energy, from which the correlation energy is obtained by subtracting the expression for the exchange energy $`\epsilon _\mathrm{x}=3[(1+\zeta )^{4/3}+(1\zeta )^{4/3}]/(4\pi \alpha r_s)\mathrm{Ryd}`$.

We have calculated the ground-state energy for $`\zeta =0,0.333,0.667`$ and $`1`$ over the range $`1r_s50`$. The results are reported in Table I in comparison with QMC data from Ceperley and Alder,ceperley  Ortiz et al.ortiz  and Zong et al..zong  The Table also includes other theoretical results obtained in the self-consistent dielectric theory of Singwi et al.stls  and in the modified-convolution approximation of Tanaka and Ichimaru.tanaka

It is seen from Table I that the present theoretical approach yields fairly accurate values of the ground-state energy even at $`r_s50`$, even though the details of the pair distribution function are becoming quantitatively inaccurate as we have already seen in Figures 5 and 6. Much higher accuracy is needed for theoretical predictions on the quantum phase transition from the paramagnetic phase to the fully spin-polarized phase, since from the QMC study of Zong et al.zong  the difference in energy between these two phases at $`r_s=100`$ is only about $`4\times 10^6\mathrm{Ryd}`$ in favor of the latter. A continuous transition between these two states seems to start for $`r_s50`$-$`70`$ according to the QMC data. In contrast, the theoretical approaches of Singwi et al.stls  and of Tanaka and Ichimarutanaka  suggest that the magnetically ordered state may be the favored one already at $`r_s40`$-$`50`$.

## V Summary and Discussion

In summary, we have presented in this work a new theoretical study of the spin-resolved pair distribution functions and of the ground-state energy of the $`3D`$ electron gas. Our approach yields numerical results of good quality in the regime of weak and intermediate coupling strength.

Improvements of the theory will be necessary for a quantitative study of the magnetic phase diagram and for an extension to electron fluids of lower dimensionality. As we have already commented in the main text, the kinetic energy functional may be treated more accurately by recourse to an analysis of the pair functions into Kohn-Sham pair orbitals.gr ; dbose  Preliminary calculations indicate that an appreciable improvement can be obtained in this way in the values of the ground-state energy at small to intermediate coupling over the values reported in Table I. At larger values of the coupling we expect that a sizeable improvement on the FHNC approximation to the effective electron-electron interactions can only arise from the inclusion of contributions from the so-called elementary diagrams and from three-body correlations.report  Better quantitative accuracy can be expected to be achieved by such means when the self-consistency requirements on the theory are extended to include the thermodynamic sum rules on the compressibility and spin susceptibility of the electron fluid.dpt

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was partially supported by MIUR through the PRIN2001 Initiative. We are indebted to Prof. P. Ballone and Prof. D. M. Ceperley for providing us with their QMC data reported in the Figures.


format: text

text:
# Normal-superconducting transition induced by high current densities in YBa2Cu3O7-δ melt-textured samples and thin films: Similarities and differences.

## I Introduction

Measurement of Current-Voltage Characteristics (CVCs) of high temperature superconductors provides important information on critical current and dissipation mechanism, enhancing our knowledge about the vortex dynamics of these materials and about their practical applicability.Blatter et al. (1994); Tinkham (1996) The mentioned properties are very sensitive to microstructure (presence of grain boundaries, microcracks, twin-planes or different kinds of bulk and surface defects), as well as to external conditions (temperature and magnetic field). As a consequence, CVCs are expected to highly depend on these features as well. In the low dissipative regime, the CVCs have been widely studied for polycrystalline bulks, melt textured samples, films and single crystals. Several theories have been given to explain the observed CVCs: flux flow, flux creep, collective flux pinning, vortex glass transition…Blatter et al. (1994); Tinkham (1996)

The highly dissipative regime at high current densities has received attention recently and results are available for films.Samoilov et al. (1995); Klein et al. (1985); Lefloch et al. (1999); Currás et al. (2001); Xiao and Ziemann (1996); Xiao et al. (1998a); Doettinger et al. (1994, 1995); Antognazza et al. (1999); Decroux et al. (2000); Chiaverini et al. ; Xiao et al. (1998b, 1999); Reymond et al. (2002) The common observation is that, below $`T_c`$, a transition to a highly dissipative regime takes place abruptly at a certain current density $`J^{}`$ several times the critical current density $`J_c`$. In this high dissipative regime, the effective resistivity $`\rho =E/J`$ almost agrees with the normal resistivity extrapolated to the sample temperature, $`T<T_c`$. Here, $`E`$ is the electric field parallel to the applied current density $`J`$. This quasi-discontinuity in the CVCs, sometimes called quench, has been observed for films of low critical temperature $`T_c`$ Samoilov et al. (1995); Klein et al. (1985); Lefloch et al. (1999) and high critical temperature (YBa2Cu3O7-δ Currás et al. (2001); Xiao and Ziemann (1996); Xiao et al. (1998a); Doettinger et al. (1994, 1995); Antognazza et al. (1999); Decroux et al. (2000) and Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+δ Chiaverini et al. ; Xiao et al. (1998b, 1999); Reymond et al. (2002)) superconductors. The quench is usually explained by the Larkin-Ovchinnikov theory, Larkin and Ovchinnikov (1976) in terms of a high acceleration of vortices when they reach a certain critical velocity, and by its modified version by Bezuglyj and Shklovskij Bezuglyj and Shklovskij (1992) including heating effects as a refinement to the LO theory. These theories have dropped the more classical explanation based in the existence of a thermal bistability in these materials Skocpol et al. (1974); Gurevich and Mints (1987); Skokov and Koverda (1993), thus only needing heating effects to justify the existence of a quasi-discontinuity in the CVCs. There are also other authors which explain the quench using arguments similar to the one dimensional phase-slip centers theory.Jelila et al. (1998); Maneval et al. (2001); Reymond et al. (2002)

Electrical transport measurements up to high current densities, inducing the transition to the normal state, have been also carried out in melt texturedPorcar et al. (1998); Tixador et al. (2000); Tournier et al. (2000); Yang et al. (1999); Morita et al. (1999, 2000) (and melt castHerrmann et al. (1997); Elschner et al. (1999)) samples, only at 77 K or some other particular temperatureTixador et al. (1999). Bulk superconductors are specially attractive because of their great potential for applications at high transport currents. Again, a similar abrupt increase of voltage has been observed in the CVCs of these materials. However, in this case, the usual explanations do not come from intrinsic vortex dynamics, but from thermal processes (thermal runaway Elschner et al. (1999); Tournier et al. (2000) or changes in the dissipation regime of the samplesYang et al. (1999)).

As a support for such divergent approaches to monoliths and films, phenomenological, structural and morphological reason can be invoked. The more obvious difference between the two kinds of samples is their critical current density, $`J_c`$. Melt-textured samples have a $`J_c`$ around $`10^4`$$`10^5`$ A/cm2, for a typical section between 0.5 and 15 mm2, while $`J_c`$ of films exceeds $`10^6`$ A/cm2, for samples of typical thickness of 0.1-0.5 $`\mu `$m, and a more variable width, between 10 $`\mu `$m and 1 mm. Usually, this difference in the $`J_c`$ values is attributed to structural causes: presence of more and stronger pinning centers, lesser effect of possible grain boundaries or microcracks…, or also to current concentration on the outer surface of samplesLazard et al. (2002). No less meaningful differences exist in their thermal environment. The levity of films together with a close lattice matching with the substrate favor a good refrigeration and a fast reaching of the steady state. Bulk material, in turn, is massive and quite inevitably inhomogeneous, both features leading to a poor refrigeration and hot spot development.

Despite these marked differences, the similarity of the overall quenching phenomenon seen in the CVCs for films and bulk samples demands a more exhaustive measurement of the latter, and closer comparative study between them. In fact, though there are contributions that study both type of samples at the onset of dissipation at different temperatures and magnetic fieldsGao et al. (1991); Yang et al. (1992); Solovjov et al. (1994); Elschner et al. (1994); Hettinger et al. (1989); Gupta et al. (1993); Cao et al. (1997); Wang et al. (2000), we are not aware of similar studies for melt-textured samples extending to high current densities, and, in particular, the quenching effect. This paper is devoted to a systematic comparison of dissipation and particularly the quench phenomenon in both melt-textured (bulk) and thin films. The aim is to look closely into the phenomenological behavior of charge transfer at high density in both systems, in order to infer a possible shared origin of the quenching. This voltage jump is also very interesting for applications of both melt-textured samples and films like fault current limiters, as it means a fast change in the resistance of the device for currents above a critical value.

Systematic measurement of CVCs on melt-textured samples of YBa2Cu3O7-δ (YBCO) have been carried out at various temperatures. For spurious heating to keep moderately low, a near $`T_c`$ temperature range has been scanned, where critical current values are lower. At the same time, refrigeration conditions were optimized by using a pressurized cryostat so that samples were always submerged in liquid nitrogen at any temperature. A comparison with CVCs measured in YBCO films at different temperatures was carried out, studying the low dissipative regime before the quasi-discontinuity, as well as the occurrence of the quasi-discontinuity itself.

## II Experimental details

### II.1  Melt-textured samples

Single domain bulk samples of YBa2Cu3O7-δ plus 30 molar % Y2BaCu$`O_5`$ and 0.1 wt. % Pt were prepared by top seeded melt growth (TSMG)Cardwell (1998); Lo et al. (1996). Commercial powders of YBa2Cu3O7-δ, Y2BaCuO5 and Pt were mixed in the above proportions, and 30 g samples of this mixture were die pressed into 3 cm diameter pellets. These were placed on MgO single crystal substratesEndo et al. (1996) in a box furnace, and heated to 1025 oC to be decomposed peritectically. After a fast decrease of temperature to 990 oC, the samples were slowly cooled to around 960 oC at 0.3-0.4 oC/h. In order to control the growth of YBCO during the cooling and avoid the formation of a granular microstructure, a small seed of Nd-Ba-Cu-O was placed over the samples. After the process, single domain monoliths up to 2 cm in diameter (ab-planes direction) and 0.7 cm in height (c-axis direction) were grown. The microstructure of the samples was studied using optical microscopy and their texture was analyzed by x-ray diffraction. The general characteristics of these melt-textured samples were much the same as those previously obtained following a similar procedure by Cardwell and coworkers.Cardwell (1998); Lo et al. (1996)

Bars with typical dimensions of 0.5 mm2 cross section and 7 mm in length were cut from the monoliths, using a wire saw. We took the crystallographic ab-planes parallel to the longest dimension, so that the current will flow along the ab-planes in the transport measurements. Measurements of the variation of resistivity with temperature for these samples were routinely made.

As we have already mentioned, the critical current density in the ab-planes direction for melt-textured samples is of the order of $`10^4`$ A/cm2, which means current of hundreds of Amperes for our samples. Moreover, we are interested in measuring the $`V`$$`I`$ curve for currents well above $`I_c`$. The experimental setup for transport measurements must take these features into account, and be designed to minimize the unavoidable heating effects. To reach this aim, the electrical contacts with the sample are one of the main points. The samples were painted in their ends with silver paste and then annealed briefly at 900 oC, to favor the diffusivity of the silver into themNeal et al. (1991); Lepropre et al. (1993); Svistunov et al. (1998). Then, they were cooled down to 500 oC and held at this temperature for several hours to finishing the contacts treatment and to ensuring oxygenationEkin (1993). We obtain a typical contact resistance of 100 $`\mu \mathrm{\Omega }`$ at the working range of temperature. The sample is connected with the rest of the circuit through copper bars which are pressed to the sample by springs. An Indium sheet was placed in between (avoiding the Indium to touch the sampleEkin (1993)) to reduce the contact resistance.Maehata et al. (1999) In this way, possible damages by mechanical stress during the transport measurement are also prevented. A scheme of this experimental arrangement is shown in Fig. 1(a).

The second factor to minimize heating effects is refrigeration. All our measurements were made with the sample, plus a reference resistor in-series with it, placed in a hermetic cavity filled up with liquid nitrogen. A valve lets control the pressure of the nitrogen vapor in the cavity, and therefore control the temperature of the liquid nitrogen bath. Furthermore, there is a nitrogen gas reservoir connected with the cavity for a better control and stabilization of pressure.Díaz et al. (1997); Currás et al. (2001)

Finally, we minimized the time that the current goes through the sample. We worked with 1–3 ms long ramp shaped current pulses, as in certain cases longer pulses may burn out the samples. For current application, we use a HP6681A power supply, which has fixed raising ramps to a stable current of approximately 20 ms. Therefore, we used high speed solid-state relays in order to cut the current and isolated 1–3 ms long ramped pulses. Depending on the range of current and the resistance of the sample, the raising rate of the supply varies between 5 and 35 kA/s. As we have limited the total length of the pulse, the total $`V`$$`I`$ curve were sometimes obtained as the result of several different pulses. Figure 1(b) shows the shape of some of the current pulses used in this work. During the current pulses, the voltage in the sample and in the reference resistor were recorded with a high speed data acquisition card (DAQ) of National Instruments (PCI-4452) allowing the recording of several voltages simultaneously. From the reference resistor voltage, the current flowing through the circuit at any time was determined. By pressuring the hermetic cavity, we set the sample immersed in liquid nitrogen at the critical temperature (around 90 K). $`V`$$`I`$ curves were measured for temperatures from this value down to temperatures where a significant part of the curve is accesible within the limitations of our power supply.

After measuring the $`V`$$`I`$ curves, the inductive component of voltage was subtracted: Apart from the self-inductance, there is an inductive component due to the loop that each element forms with the potential wires.Porcar et al. (1997) For the reference resistor, this component is noticeable because its own resistance is very small. We deduced its inductance from the deviation of the $`V`$$`I`$ curve from the ohmic behavior when a high resistive element is placed instead of the sample. For the sample, well below $`T_c`$, we expect zero resistance for very low current values, so that all the observed voltage should be inductive. Indeed, we found the sample voltage proportional to d$`I`$/d$`t`$ at low, i.e. subcritical, current. An example of this last correction is shown is Fig. 2. We checked, at different current pulses, the independence of inductance on current raising rate. Inductance is also found temperature independent over our working range of temperature.

### II.2 Thin films

The two c-axis oriented YBCO thin films used for comparison were grown on (100)SrTiO3 substrates by high pressure dc sputtering. Details about the growth technique and characterization of the films are described elsewhere.Currás et al. (2001) Microbridges of 10 $`\mu `$m wide were patterned by chemical wet photolithography and Au contact pads were sputtered on them. After annealing, the typical contact resistance was 100 m$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Al wires were solded to these pads using a Kulicke & Soffa 4523 wire bonder. CVCs at different temperatures were measured in four probe configuration, using a different procedure for each of the two films. The film named Sy3 was submerged in a liquid nitrogen container, whose temperature was controlled through its pressure, as explained previously for melt-textured samples. The CVCs were obtained using dc current supplied by a HP6038A power source and cut by a relay: one voltage measurement was taken for every 30 ms constant current pulse, using a HP3457A multimeter.Currás et al. (2001) On the other hand, Sys116 film was set in He atmosphere and its temperature was regulated with an Oxford ITC4 temperature controller. Current was supplied by a Keithley 2400 source, allowing the application of dc current, or stepped ramps of about 1 ms of step length. For the lowest dissipation regime, dc current was used in combination with a HP34420A nanovoltimeter. For higher dissipation, stepped current ramps were measured with a National Instruments PCI6035 DAQ, allowing us to discard inductive effects while acquiring the full CVC in a single measurement of typically 20 ms. An example of these stepped ramps is shown in Fig. 3. The results obtained by the ramps do not significantly differ from those using isolated pulses, as samples seem to reach an almost steady state is less than one millisecond. In fact, voltage was checked to be stable for square pulses around 30 ms long, at currents at least 98% the quenching current, in agreement with previous works Currás et al. (2001). Only for currents very close to the quasi-discontinuity, a progressive increase of the voltage signal was observed, probably due to heating of the sample. In any case, each point in the CVCs is the mean value of voltage data read along a current plateau.

## III Results and discussion

### III.1  Current Voltage Characteristics

Geometric parameters of our samples and the main results of their corresponding $`\rho `$$`T`$ measurements are summarized in Table 1. $`T_{c0}`$ is the offset critical temperature, and $`\rho _n`$ is the extrapolation of the normal-state resistivity to the working range of temperatures.

A typical set of CVCs at different temperatures for our melt-textured samples is plotted in Fig. 4, using the standard definitions: $`J=I/A`$ and $`E=V/l`$, where $`A`$ is the cross section area and $`l`$ the distance between voltage pads. Fig. 4(b) and (c) are closer views of the low voltage region of Fig. 4(a). Three current regions can be distinguished in the CVCs of Fig. 4. A first region of zero resistance, illustrated in Fig. 4(c). Then, a dissipative region where the voltage grows in a non-linear but smooth way. Finally, there is a sharp change in the voltage up to a nearly normal state behavior. The transition from one of these regions to the next can be characterized by a given value of the current density: $`J_c`$ is the current density where the dissipation begins, usually obtained by a threshold criterion in the electric field, $`E_c`$, while $`J^{}`$ is the current density where the quench in the CVCs occurs. As shown in Fig. 4(a), after the quench, the heat generated in the sample is too high to be evacuated and the CVCs are diverted from the ohmic behavior. For temperatures lower than 3 or 4 degrees below $`T_{c0}`$, the rapid increase in the sample resistance is accompanied by a decrease of current (see the last pulse of Fig. 1(b) for an example), as our power supply is not able to respond fast enough to the change of charge. For this reason, at these temperatures, it was not possible to complete the CVC up to the nearly normal state region.

As mentioned in Section II.1, we have used different pulses to measure the CVCs of our melt-textured samples. We have observed a displacement of the quench current to higher values as the initial current of the pulses applied gets higher. This result reveals the importance of thermal effects in the occurrence of the quench. Nevertheless, for temperatures lower than 2 degrees below $`T_{c0}`$, we have estimated a variation of $`J^{}`$ in less than 30%, due to this effect, being smaller at lower temperature. This dependence of the CVC results on the pulse features was observed only for currents near the quench, whereas the CVC data for lower currents were well reproduced in different pulses.

As mentioned in the introduction, similar results have been previously reported for melt textured samples at 77 K. As well, the overall behavior of these CVCs is common to films or melt cast processed samples, but the explanation about the observed abrupt change in the sample resistance at high current densities is variant. While in melt textured and melt cast processed samples the quench is generally attributed to thermal runaway processes,Tournier et al. (2000); Yang et al. (1999); Elschner et al. (1999) there are several authors which explain the abrupt resistance change observed in films as a high flux-flow velocity instability.Doettinger et al. (1994); Xiao and Ziemann (1996); Chiaverini et al.  Here, we will closely compare the results obtained for melt-textured samples with similar measurements of CVCs in YBCO thin films at different temperatures. Figure 5 shows the corresponding set of CVCs for the film Sys116. Comparison with Fig. 4 confirms that indeed the general behavior of films matches that of melt-textured samples. We can clearly distinguish three different dissipative regions: zero resistance, non-linear $`V`$$`I`$ curve above a certain critical current, and near ohmic behavior after an abrupt voltage discontinuity. On the other hand, this comparison also permit to pointed out a main difference between the CVCs of melt-textured samples and films. As may be checked in Figs. 4 and 5, both $`J`$ and $`E`$ along the whole CVCs are approximately two orders of magnitude higher in films, and this includes $`J^{}`$ and $`E^{}`$. The abundant results on transport properties for currents near the beginning of dissipation both for melt-textured samplesGao et al. (1991); Yang et al. (1992); Solovjov et al. (1994); Elschner et al. (1994) and filmsHettinger et al. (1989); Gupta et al. (1993); Cao et al. (1997); Wang et al. (2000) had already well established the existence of approximately a factor $`10^2`$ between $`J_c`$ values of both kind of samples. From the observation of the CVCs presented in this work, it can be stated that this feature is maintained along the whole CVCs. As a result, the CVCs in both type of samples look scalable in that they differ both in $`J`$ and $`E`$ in a constant factor.

Regarding $`J_c`$, Fig. 6 illustrates the comparison between its values for melt-textured samples and films. Despite the different magnitude, $`J_c`$ shows a dependence on temperature close to $`(1t)^{3/2}`$, where $`t=T/T_{c0}`$, for both melt-textured samples and films. In this figure, $`J_c`$ has been determined by the threshold criterion of 10 $`\mu `$V/cm. The estimation of $`J^{}`$ and $`E^{}`$ is a bit more complicated. Looking at the curves of Fig. 5(a) and (b) at low temperature, the quenching point seems easy to be obtained because of the neat jump in voltage. However, the corresponding voltage variation is much less abrupt at higher temperature, close to $`T_c`$. Furthermore, bulks show smoother quenching than films (see Fig. 4). In all, a systematic criterion for ($`J^{}`$, $`E^{}`$) determination is needed. By observation of CVCs for several samples and temperatures, we found no specific value of the electric field, power or resistivity, nor a value of their first derivatives, where the quasi-discontinuity systematically occurs. For this reason, a good option is to use a deviation criterion from a background functional form, the latter taken from the agreed-on models for CVCs.

In the next section we study the agreement of several dissipation models to our CVC measurements. Apart from providing us with a functional background for the later extraction of $`(J^{},E^{})`$, this correlation will permit us to obtain a detailed comparison between the dissipation mechanism in melt-textured samples and films.

### III.2  Dissipation models

The probably most popular model to describe non-linear CVCs of type-II superconductors is the thermally activated flux creep theory Blatter et al. (1994); Tinkham (1996). According to this model, the first observation of non-zero voltage occurs below the depinning critical current $`I_c^{pin}`$, due to the displacement of vortices from a pinning center to other caused by thermal fluctuations. The generalized expression for the voltage at a given current below $`I_c^{pin}`$ is:

$$V=V_c^{pin}e^{\frac{U_0(T)}{kT\mu }\left[\left(I/I_c^{pin}\right)^\mu 1\right]}$$
(1)
This generic expression comprises different previously proposed models depending on $`\mu `$: $`\mu =1`$ for the classical Anderson-Kim flux creep model, valid for conventional type-II superconductors, where the pinning is strong, and the dissipation starts for current near $`I_c^{pin}`$. $`\mu =7/9,3/2,1/7`$(depending on the current range, magnetic field and temperature) for collective creep/vortex glass models, which assume the beginning of a collective movement of vortices at $`II_c^{pin}`$ in materials with weak pinning, as it is the case of high temperature superconductors. Finally, $`\mu 0`$, for the logarithmic Zeldov model, which is a good approximation of the latter for the high current regime ($`II_c^{pin}`$) and leads to the simple expression: $`V=V_c^{pin}(I/I_c^{pin})^n`$, with $`n=U_0/(kT)`$.

The generalized expression has the inconvenience of having too many free parameters. To begin with, a given value of $`\mu `$ is only expected to describe a limited region of current. Furthermore, presetting the value of $`I_c^{pin}`$ or $`V_c^{pin}`$ is needed, because otherwise multiple valid solutions for voltage, $`V`$, are obtained. Their values should be the coordinates of the transition point from a non-linear $`V`$-$`I`$ curve (flux-creep regime) to a linear one (flux-flow regime). However, such a transition is not observed in our results, i.e. the CVCs are always non-linear up to the voltage quasi-discontinuity. Some authors Xiao and Ziemann (1997) claim that the quasi-discontinuity in the CVCs may occur at $`I_c^{pin}`$ and then $`I_c^{pin}=I^{}`$ and $`V_c^{pin}=V^{}`$. Even if this is the case, we can not use this information as an input, because $`(I^{},V^{})`$ is an aside information that we want to extract from the analysis. For these reasons, we used the power law (PL) expression which can be written as:

$$V=A_cI^n,$$
(2)
independently on the particular $`(I_c^{pin},V_c^{pin})`$ election. Figure 7 shows an example of the fit of the model (dotted lines) to the CVCs for both bulks and films, at a given temperature. The model fits satisfactorily the high current region of the CVCs before the quench, which is the range we are mainly interested in.

Another model suggested in order to explain non-linear $`I`$-$`V`$ curves, and linked to the nature of the quench, is the non-linear flux-flow theory by Larkin and Ovchinnikov Larkin and Ovchinnikov (1976) (LO). According to this model, the viscosity opposing the movement of vortices in the flux-flow regime varies with their velocity, leading to a non-linear CVC. Moreover, there is a certain critical velocity where viscosity reaches its maximum and then decreases. This causes a rapid acceleration of vortices, which would lead to an abrupt increase of voltage. As already mentioned, several authors state that this could be the correct explanation for the quench observed in filmsDoettinger et al. (1994); Xiao and Ziemann (1996); Chiaverini et al. . Below the predicted quasi-discontinuity, the expression linking $`V`$ and $`I`$ is given by:

$$\left[\frac{V}{1+(V/V^{})^2}+V\left(1\frac{T}{T_c}\right)^{1/2}\right]=R_f(II_c^{pin}),$$
(3)
where $`R_f`$ is the resistance in the flux-flow regime. This expression is claimed to fit adequately measurements by other groupsKlein et al. (1985); Doettinger et al. (1994). However, as shown in Fig. 7 (dashed lines), it only fits our measured CVCs very near the transition, both for bulks and films. Moreover, the agreement with our data is not better than the one obtained with the power law.

Finally, we have also inspected another proposed model for non-linear CVCs, which we term critical power law (CPL):

$$V=V_{c0}(I/I_01)^n,$$
(4)
where $`I_0`$ is the critical current which dissipation begins at. This expression, as happens with the power law given by Eq. (2), may be derived from various physical backgrounds.Prester (1998) In reference to the vortex dynamics, this expression can be obtained modifying the Zeldov expression for thermally activated flux creep model by introducing a threshold to the activation of vortices movement by thermal fluctuations.Antognazza et al. (2002) It can also be deduced in the mean-field approximation for the case of strong pinning and neglecting the effect of thermal fluctuations.Solovjov et al. (1994) On the other hand, the same voltage dependence on current is found in the context of granular materials modelized as an array of Josephson junctions.Prester (1998)

A good agreement has been previously found of the critical power law with CVCs of single crystal and melt-textured samplesSolovjov et al. (1994), and filmsAntognazza et al. (2002), only at limited temperature or current ranges. In this work, we have found a satisfactory fit of this expression to all our CVCs with a value of $`V_{c0}`$ independent on temperature, leaving two free parameters, $`I_0`$ and $`n`$, for each $`I`$$`V`$ curve. The improvement in the fit respect to PL or LO expressions, specially for films, is clearly shown in Fig. 7. The agreement with our data is indeed very good over all voltage ranges, as illustrated in Fig. 8. Only for high temperatures, close to $`T_c`$, the fit is not good at low current. These CVCs feature a thermally activated flux-flow regime (TAFF) which indicates that we are above the melting temperature,Blatter et al. (1994) and, hence, neither Eq. (1) nor Eq. (4) are expected to hold.

Note that the good agreement of the critical power law with CVCs measured in absence of an external magnetic field should not be surprising: Flux creep theory in materials with weak pinning ($`0\mu 1`$) states that, even at very low current, thermal fluctuations can cause displacements of vortices from their pinning centers, thus generating a voltage. However, this is the case only in experiments in which vortices are previously created by an external magnetic field above $`H_{c1}`$. When no external field is applied, as in our data, the sample will stay in the Meissner state up to currents producing a self-field higher than $`H_{c1}`$. For lower currents, no vortices are still present and there is no dissipation. Later, for higher currents, vortices start to be created and may begin to creep. As a result, a threshold for the beginning of dissipation, as the CPL expression features, must be necessary to explain the CVCs.

In order to compare the results for melt-textured samples and films, we have plotted in Fig. 9 the values of the parameters obtained from the fit of the CPL expression, for both geometries. The parallelism found in the behavior of these parameters suggests a common dissipation mechanism in melt-textured samples and films. In particular, note that the values of $`n`$ are very close in both kinds of samples, while the values of $`J_0=I_0/A`$, differing approximately in two orders of magnitude, have almost the same dependence on temperature. Furthermore, the values obtained for $`E_{c0}=V_{c0}/l`$ are very similar for samples of the same kind. We have $`E_{c0}=10^2`$ V/cm, for films, and $`E_{c0}=\mathrm{5\hspace{0.33em}10}^5`$ V/cm, for melt-textured samples, reflecting the more than two orders of magnitude difference in $`E`$ in the CVCs themselves.

To summarize, a single model describing the existence of a threshold for the beginning of dissipation accounts for the CVCs measured on both massive and film samples. With the exception of high temperature, where the critical behavior itself blurs, all current and temperature ranges studied are very well described by the CPL expression. An appealing feature is that only three parameters, one of them temperature independent, suffice to explain dissipation in our YBCO superconductors. The model’s parameters follow a parallel temperature behavior for monoliths and films, thus pointing to a unique underlying dissipation mechanism. These results in turn would lend support to a common origin for the starting of the quenching phenomenon. This point is given a closer look in the next paragraph.

### III.3 The quenching phenomenon

As mentioned in Section III.1, we determined $`(J^{},E^{})`$ from a deviation criterion from the background dissipation. Since in the high voltage region three dissipation models fit the data (see the previous section), the sensitivity of $`(J^{},E^{})`$ on the choice of the background dissipation model may be tested.

We set the deviation threshold value to be above the noise of our data: 1 mV/cm for melt-textured samples, and 10 mV/cm for films. The values of $`(J^{},E^{})`$ were obtained in this way for the PL and CPL expressions. LO expression has the quench voltage as a parameter, so that $`(J^{},E^{})`$ are obtained directly from the fit. As an example, the resulting $`(J^{},E^{})`$ at $`T/T_{c0}=0.97`$ are marked in Fig. 7(a) and (b), for the melt-textured sample C11 and the film Sys116, respectively. The so obtained $`J^{}`$ at different temperatures are included in the bounds plotted in the Fig. 7 insets. Note that there is only a weak sensitivity of $`(J^{},E^{})`$ to the dissipation model choice, except for temperatures very close to $`T_c`$, where the uncertainty is also higher.

Figure 10(a) summarizes the resultant $`J^{}`$ for our samples. As indicated in this figure, $`J^{}`$ for the melt-textured samples shows a dependence with temperature very close to $`(1t)^{3/2}`$, which is the same result found in films here, and in other works Currás et al. (2001); Xiao et al. (1998a); Antognazza et al. (2002), for temperatures near $`T_c`$. Figure 10(b) shows also that the ratio $`J^{}/J_c`$ is very similar for both kinds of samples at any temperature. For temperatures below 0.98 $`T_{c0}`$, $`J^{}`$ tends to a temperature independent value between 3 and 5 times $`J_c`$ (check also Table 1). This result, already reported for films Decroux et al. (2000); Antognazza et al. (2002), is found here to be also common to melt-textured samples.

The unifying trend showed by the ratio $`J^{}/J_c`$ would weaken the sometimes implicitly accepted dual causes for the quenching, namely thermal, i.e., nonintrinsic, for massive superconductors, and vortex dynamics or depinning limit, i.e., intrinsic, for films. Indeed, so similar results suggest that the origin of the phenomenon is common for both kind of samples, and this fact can give us some hints about its nature.

Thermal effects are indeed present on our CVCs. On general grounds, however, the very different thermal conditions for films and monoliths work against the thermal origin of the quenching. As mentioned in the introduction, the thermal interchange with the surroundings is much better in thin films than in melt-textured samples. Due to the low heat transfer coefficient of YBCO with liquid nitrogen (0.1-1 W/cm2K Tournier et al. (2000); Mosqueira et al. (1993)), electric power dissipation for massive samples, at the millisecond scale, takes place practically adiabatically. On the other hand, for films, the heat transfer coefficient with the SrTiO3 substrate is around 700-1000 W/cm2K Gupta et al. (1993); Xiao et al. (1998a), favoring a fast heat diffusion. In fact, the low dependence of $`J^{}`$ on the total time of the pulse above around 1 ms,Doettinger et al. (1994); Xiao et al. (1999) and the stability of $`E`$ at constant $`JJ^{}`$ applied, during tens or hundreds of milliseconds Currás et al. (2001), support that, in our experimental conditions, a quasi steady state is reached in films, even very near $`J^{}`$.

Note also that the dissipated power density $`W=EJ`$ is, in average, nearly four orders of magnitude higher in films than in monoliths, as easily computed from Figs. 4 and 5. Furthermore, the results for thin films have been proved to be quite independent of thermal conditions, as our two samples studied have very similar $`J^{}`$ and $`J^{}/J_c`$ values in spite of the different experimental environments and procedures (same result was also obtained by other groupsXiao and Ziemann (1996)). In all, there seems to be too many relevant differences in their thermal environment to easily ascribe the convergence of $`J^{}/J_c`$ onto a single curve shown in Fig. 10(b) to only thermal effects.

Notwithstanding, in both kind of samples (thin films and bulks) thermal effects indeed influence our CVCs. For instance, we have already mentioned the sensitivity of the CVCs of melt-textured samples to the current pulse characteristics for current near $`J^{}`$, giving a variability of a few tens per cent; certainly these differences are attributable to thermal causes. It is likely that thermal effects together with other source of extrinsic effects as sample inhomogeneity could justify the relatively high data scattering in Fig. 10 (more precisely, data scattering would be compatible with heating effects contributing of the order of 50% the total magnitude). Of course, only a thorough study on the thermal dynamics can put in more precise figures on the thermal effects on the quenching. Anyhow, any convincing model given to explain the quenching phenomenon should account for the similar results found in this work for YBCO melt-textured samples and thin films, despite their different environment conditions.

## IV Conclusions

Current-Voltage Characteristics (CVCs) of YBa2Cu3O7-δ melt-textured samples and films have been measured at several temperatures close to $`T_c`$. In order to minimize heating effects, a pulse technique was used, and refrigeration conditions were optimized by using a pressurized cryostat so that samples were always submerged in liquid nitrogen at any temperature.

From the comparison of both sets of curves, we found an overall common behavior: at low enough applied current a region of zero resistance is observed, followed by a non-linear $`I`$$`V`$ curve of low dissipation, and, finally, after an abrupt increase in the resistance of the sample, a highly dissipative region of nearly ohmic behavior is reached.

We have found that the CVCs for both kind of samples share the same features, apart from approximately a factor $`10^2`$ both in $`J`$ and $`E`$ values. Thus, a simple theoretical expression, namely a critical power law, has been found to reproduce the pre-quenching dissipative region of the CVCs at different temperatures, with almost the same exponent and amplitude’s temperature dependence. The crossover current densities, $`J_c`$ (critical current density) and $`J^{}`$ (quench current density), are also found to follow the same dependence on temperature. More importantly, in spite of the difference of almost two orders of magnitude between their values in bulk samples and films, their ratio is observed to collapse onto a single temperature dependent curve, common to both kinds of samples. These findings point to an common origin of the CVC behavior in films and melt-textured samples including the quenching, despite the usual different treatment in the literature.

We have also described the very dissimilar role that thermal coupling, shape and thermal inertia are to play on the current-induced heating of bulks and films, suggesting that the final common cause of the quenching phenomenon is primarily intrinsic. The measured fine-scale behavior of $`J^{}(T)`$ can however be modulated by thermal effects.

Further evidence on this conclusion relies on working out some associated issues. In particular, how to bound thermal effects on the observed CVCs? Likely, finite element analysis would help ascertain whether heating accounts for the wide data scattering of the “universal” ratio $`J^{}/J_c`$. Secondly, despite the progress towards a common descriptive frame for superconducting monoliths and films reported here, the two-orders-of-magnitude difference in both current density and electric field amplitudes is demanding an explanation. For instance, why are the $`J_c`$ or the $`J^{}`$ values so different but not their ratio? The study of these issues, including the influence of the current distribution in the samples, likely to be dependent on the CVCs regimes, is presently under way.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work has been financed by the CICYT (MAT2001-3053 and MAT2001-3272), Unión Fenosa (contract no. 0666-2002) and Xunta de Galicia (PGIDIT01-PXI20609-PR, PGIDIT02-PXI20610-PN and PGIDIT02-PXI20609-PN). MTG wishes to acknowledge Prof. D. A. Cardwell and his group for their hospitality in the IRC in Superconductivity at Cambridge University, and their invaluable help in getting familiar with melt-texture synthesis techniques.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

One of experimentally observable signatures of quantum gravity may be a Planck-scale suppressed variation of the photon velocity

$$v1+\xi E/E_{Planck}$$
(1)
where $`\xi `$ is a factor of order 1 (see  for a review of potentially observable effects) This effect may be detected by observing short-duration $`\gamma `$-ray bursts occurring at cosmological distances . The GLAST space telescope, to be launched in 2006, will be sensitive enough for such an experiment . In fact, already existing data on TeV $`\gamma `$-ray flares in active galaxies set a bound $`\left|\xi \right|250`$ .

In light of these exciting experimental developments, it is very interesting to understand possible theoretical origins of in-vacuo dispersion relations like (1). One popular proposal is to say that quantum gravity will result in some sort of spacetime noncommutativity,

$$[x_\mu ,x_\nu ]0,$$
(2)
and try to relate in-vacuo dispersion to particular forms of postulated commutation relations. Such studies usually proceed via constructing field theory on noncommutative spacetimes, discussing wave packets, etc. (see e.g. ).

In contrast, we would like to build a theoretical scheme which would allow to discuss signal propagation and derive dispersion relations directly from kinematics encoded in the deformed commutation relations, without recourse to dynamics.

First of all, this will require a careful analysis of the logical structure of measurements in noncommutative spacetime. So far such analysis in a form satisfactory for our purposes has not been carried out. The scheme that we discuss is very similar in spirit to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Similarly to how the Copenhagen interpretation relies on the existence of classical observers to interpret quantum mechanical phenomena, we will require the existence of special-relativistic observers who measure events happening in quantum spacetime.

Validity of the Copenhagen interpretation may be explained by strong decoherence phenomena occurring when a microscopic quantum system interacts with a macroscopic measuring device. Such decoherence will always occur when there is a macroscopic / microscopic separation of scales. We thus believe that it should be possible to analyze elementary experimental consequences of quantum spacetime structure, such as Eq. (1), in terms of a suitable “Copenhagen interpretation”.

After this work has been completed and reported at a local seminar, paper  appeared, where a similar approach to noncommutative spacetime is advocated.

## 2 Observers and events

As we have already mentioned, we assume existence of classical inertial observers. For any two such observers we may speak of their spacetime coordinates in each other’s coordinate system, as well as of their relative velocity. These variables will be assumed to have definite values. All inertial observers are assumed to be equivalent.

Our observers are classical, but spacetime will be quantum. This means that its elementary element is not a point, but is rather described by a state $`|\psi `$ in a Hilbert space $`H`$. We call such an element an “event”, $`|\psi `$ the event wavefunction, and $`H`$ the Hilbert space of events.

A possible spacetime events can be a particle decay, a particle collision, or (the example we mostly use below) a photon emission. All such events will have wavefunctions associated with them.

The most elementary thing an observer can do is to observe (or measure, we will use the two terms interchangeably) an event. To do that, each observer is equipped with a set of quantum mechanical Hermitean operators $`\widehat{x}_\mu `$, one for each spacetime coordinate. The results of the measurement of a coordinate $`x_\mu `$ is a real random variable $`X`$ with distribution $`p\left(X\right)`$ such that its moments are given by

$$X^kp\left(X\right)𝑑X=\psi \left|\left(\widehat{x}_\mu \right)^k\right|\psi ,k=0,1,2,\mathrm{}$$
(3)
In particular, the average value and the standard deviation are given by

$`\overline{X}`$ $`=`$ $`\psi \left|\widehat{x}_\mu \right|\psi ,`$ (4)
$`\overline{\left(\mathrm{\Delta }X\right)^2}`$ $`=`$ $`\psi \left|\left(\widehat{x}_\mu \right)^2\right|\psi \psi \left|\widehat{x}_\mu \right|\psi ^2.`$ (5)
Interesting things may happen when two different observers observe the same event. To relate their viewpoints, we must have a rule which tells us how the wavefunction transforms when the observer changes. In other words, we must have a unitary transformation

$$|\psi _A\stackrel{𝒰}{}|\psi _B$$
(6)
of wavefunctions of the same event between observers A and B.

When we consider infinitesimal transformations, we see that we must have the usual set of translation generators $`\widehat{P}_\mu `$, rotation generators $`\widehat{J}_{ij}`$, and boosts $`\widehat{J}_{0i}`$, all acting Hermiteanly on the Hilbert space of events. Finite transformation are of course obtained by exponentiation.

It is instructive to compare the above setup with the standard Quantum Mechanics example of quantum spin measurement, which contains analogues of all of the above steps. Spin measurements are performed by classical observers, each having his coordinate systems. Coordinate systems of different observers are related by the rotation group. Each observer measures spin components using a set of Hermitean operators $`\{\widehat{S}_x,\widehat{S}_y,\widehat{S}_z\}`$ which act on normalized spin states $`|\psi `$ lying in a Hilbert space $`H`$. Finally, spin states seen by different observers are related by a unitary representation of the rotation group.

An important point to notice is that we may use classical relations between different observers’ coordinate systems when discussing spin measurements. This is of course due to the fact that the discussed effects are of order 1 (think about localizing the spin in the $`z`$-direction and then measuring the $`z`$-component in the system rotated by $`90^{}`$) and are insensitive to possible minor uncertainties in rotation angles. The same point of view can be applied to spacetime noncommutativity — we are interested in cumulative effects which have to be insensitive to possible Planck-scale uncertainty in, say, the distance between the two observers.

To discuss physics, it remains to postulate commutation relations between the measurable operators $`\widehat{x}_\mu `$ and the change of observer generators $`\widehat{P}_\mu `$, $`\widehat{J}_{\mu \nu }`$. The usual commutative spacetime would correspond to the usual relations of the Heisenberg and Poincaré algebras. In noncommutative spacetime this structure will be deformed. As we will see below, not all deformations are allowed on physical grounds.

In the rest of the paper we will mainly be concerned with deformations of the Heisenberg algebra. The Lorentz algebra can be included, and in the examples we will check that it is possible to introduce Hermitean boost generators. However, at present we are unable to utilize such inclusion in order to restrict allowed forms of noncommutativity.

## 3 Example of a measurement

Consider two observers situated distance $`L`$ from each other in the $`x_1`$ direction. This means that if $`|\psi _A`$ is the wavefunction of a spacetime event as seen by observer A, then the same event for observer B will be represented by the wave function

$$|\psi _B=e^{i\widehat{P}_1L}|\psi _A.$$
(7)
We now consider a Gedanken experiment which is supposed to model real experiments measuring variable speed of signal propagation. Analysis of this experiment will also be used in the next section to limit possible forms of deformations of the algebra.

Suppose that, at the origin of the coordinate system of observer A, a photon was emitted in direction of observer B. The instance of emission will be represented in our framework by a wavefunction of a spacetime “event” $`|\psi _A`$. By assumption,

$$\psi _A\left|\widehat{x}_\mu \right|\psi _A=0,\mu =0,1,2,3.$$
(8)
How is the energy $`E`$ of the photon to be represented in the wavefunction of its emission event? We make a plausible assumption that it is to be related to the localization of the event. More energetic photons resolve spacetime better and must have better localized emission event wavefunctions. Moreover, we assume that a quantitative relation holds:

$$\overline{\left(\mathrm{\Delta }x_\mu \right)^2}=\psi _A\left|\left(\widehat{x}_\mu \right)^2\right|\psi _A1/E^2,\mu =0,1,2,3,$$
(9)
so that the localization of the emission event is of the order of the wavelength of the photon.

Now, the emitted photon will propagate and somehow interact with the noncommutative structure of spacetime (which will of course depend on the deformed part of the algebra, which we have not discussed so far). Details of this process cannot be determined without discussing dynamics of fields in noncommutative spacetimes. Eventually, the photon arrives at the position of observer B and is detected by him. It is this process of detection of the emitted photon that constitutes an act of observing its emission events by observer B.

Our main postulate is that whatever the process of propagation is, it must be consistent with the generator action as expressed by Eq. (7). In particular, this means that all observations performed by observer B will tell him that the photon was emitted at (average) time

$$\overline{t}=\psi _B\left|\widehat{x}_0\right|\psi _B.$$
(10)
Suppose now that two photons of different energies $`E_{1,2}`$ were emitted, with wavefunctions $`|1_A`$, $`|2_A`$ of their emission events satisfying (8). Thus, for observer A the emission happened at the same spacetime point. However, emission times as perceived by observer B are given by (10) and will in general be different. Experimentally, this means that there will be time delay in arrival of the photons

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }t}=\overline{t_1}\overline{t_2}.$$
(11)
The actual size of this delay will, as we will see later, be determined by the commutator $`[\widehat{x}_0,\widehat{P}_1]`$. Thus, we proceed to discuss deformations of the algebra.

## 4 Allowed deformations of the algebra

As we have already mentioned, we do not have any logical arguments which would restrict allowed deformations of the Lorentz part of the algebra (beyond obvious requirements of hermiticity and the Jacobi identities).

However, some restrictions do exist in the Heisenberg sector. Working in the this sector means that we restrict attention to the class of observers who are at rest with respect to each other. In particular, the Gedanken experiment of the previous section is still possible.

First of all, the translation generators have to commute:

$$[\widehat{P}_\mu ,\widehat{P}_\nu ]=0.$$
(12)
This is a consequence of our assumption that the observers are classical, and have definite coordinates in each other’s coordinate systems. For instance, if observer A sees an event described by the wavefunction $`|\psi `$, then both wavefunctions

$$e^{i\widehat{P}_1L_1}e^{i\widehat{P}_2L_2}|\psi ,e^{i\widehat{P}_2L_2}e^{i\widehat{P}_1L_1}|\psi $$
(13)
correspond to the same event as seen by the observer having coordinates $`(L_1,L_2,0)`$ in observer A’s coordinate system. Thus the two wavefunctions have to coincide, which implies that $`\widehat{P}_1`$ and $`\widehat{P}_2`$ commute.

Further, notice a special role played by $`\widehat{P}_0`$. Namely, this operator does not change the world line of the observer, but merely shifts a reference point on it. The resulting observer is still the same. If we go back to the Gedanken experiment, the time delay between photons registered by observer B cannot depend on the choice of the reference point on his world line somewhere in the past. The same refers to all other measurements and observations he might perform. Mathematically, this means that $`\widehat{P}_0`$ should have standard commutation relations with $`\widehat{x}_\mu `$. Thus we require as an axiom

$$[\widehat{x}_\mu ,\widehat{P}_0]=i\delta _{\mu 0}.$$
(14)
## 5 Two-dimensional example

All essential features of the above setup can be already seen in 1+1 spacetime dimensions. The algebra in this case consists of 5 operators $`x`$, $`t`$, $`P_x`$, $`P_t`$, and the boost generator $`B`$ (in the rest of the paper we do not put carets over operators). It follows from the above discussion that we must have

$$[P_x,P_t]=0,[x,P_t]=0,[t,P_t]=i.$$
(15)
We have no restrictions on commutators with $`B`$. For having no preferred choice of deformation, let us just leave the Poincaré symmetry undeformed

$$[B,P_x]=iP_t,[B,P_t]=iP_x.$$
(16)
The remaining 5 commutation relations $`[x,t]`$, $`[x,P_x]`$, $`[t,P_x]`$, $`[x,B]`$, $`[t,B]`$ must be consistent with the hermiticity of all operators and with the Jacobi identities. We also require that they respect the spatial reflection symmetry, which means that the commutators must preserve their form under the simultaneous changes $`xx`$, $`P_xP_x`$, $`BB`$, $`tt`$, $`P_tP_t`$.

One sufficiently general way to construct such algebras is to start with the standard commutators

$$[x,t]=0,[x,P_x]=i,[t,P_x]=0,[x,B]=it,[t,B]=ix,$$
(17)
and then define Hermitean operators

$`t^{new}`$ $`=`$ $`t+F(P_x,P_t)x+xF(P_x,P_t),`$ (18)
$`x^{new}`$ $`=`$ $`G(P_x,P_t)x+xG(P_x,P_t).`$ (19)
Such an Ansatz produces commutation relations consistent with axiom (14). Consistency with reflection symmetry requires that

$`F(P_x,P_t)`$ $`=`$ $`F(P_x,P_t),`$ (20)
$`G(P_x,P_t)`$ $`=`$ $`G(P_x,P_t).`$ (21)
For the rest of this section let us concentrate on perhaps the simplest interesting example which results from taking

$$F=\frac{P_x}{2\kappa },G=\frac{1}{2},$$
(22)
where $`\kappa E_{Planck}`$ is the deformation scale. This gives commutation relations

$`[x,t]`$ $`=`$ $`ix/\kappa ,`$ (23)
$`[x,P_x]`$ $`=`$ $`i,`$ (24)
$`[t,P_x]`$ $`=`$ $`iP_x/\kappa ,`$ (25)
$`[x,B]`$ $`=`$ $`i\left(t{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa }}\left(P_xx+xP_x\right)\right),`$ (26)
$`[t,B]`$ $`=`$ $`i\left(x+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa }}\left(P_xt+tP_x\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa }}P_tx{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa ^2}}\left(P_x^2x+xP_x^2\right)\right).`$ (27)
By construction, this algebra can be realized in the Hilbert space of functions $`\psi (p_x,p_t)`$ with operators acting by

$`P_x`$ $`=`$ $`p_x,`$ (28)
$`P_t`$ $`=`$ $`p_t,`$ (29)
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`i\left(p_x{\displaystyle \frac{}{p_t}}+p_t{\displaystyle \frac{}{p_x}}\right),`$ (30)
$`x`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{}{p_x}},`$ (31)
$`t`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{}{p_t}}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\kappa }}\left(p_x{\displaystyle \frac{}{p_x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{}{p_x}}p_x\right).`$ (32)
Analogous algebras can of course be given in any spacetime dimensions. E.g. in 4d we may put

$`t^{new}`$ $`=`$ $`t+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa }}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\left(P_ix_i+x_iP_i\right),`$ (33)
keeping the usual $`x_i`$. The resulting commutation relations

$`[x_i,t]`$ $`=`$ $`ix_i/\kappa ,`$ (34)
$`[t,P_i]`$ $`=`$ $`iP_i/\kappa ,\mathrm{etc}.`$ (35)
are then symmetric under 3d rotations.

## 6 In-vacuo dispersion

Let us analyze the Gedanken experiment from Section 3 in terms of algebra (23)-(27). In the 4d case (34)-(35) will lead to the same observable effects.

Coordinates of the same emission event as seen by observers A and B are related by (7) as

$$\psi _B\left|x\right|\psi _B=\psi _A\left|e^{iP_xL}xe^{iP_xL}\right|\psi _A.$$
(36)
Differentiating in $`L`$, we get

$$\frac{d}{dL}\psi _B\left|x\right|\psi _B=\psi _A\left|i[x,P_x]\right|\psi _A=1.$$
(37)
Thus

$$\psi _B\left|x\right|\psi _B=\psi _A\left|x\right|\psi _AL=L$$
(38)
for a photon emitted at the origin of the A’s coordinate system.

The same computation for observed time produces however a nontrivial relation

$$\psi _B\left|t\right|\psi _B=\frac{L}{\kappa }\psi _A\left|P_x\right|\psi _A,$$
(39)
due to the non-vanishing commutator $`[t,P_x]`$.

Our algebra is realized in momentum representation by (28)-(32). In Section 3 we found it reasonable to assume that

$$\psi _A\left|x^2\right|\psi _A1/E^2,$$
(40)
where $`E`$ is the photon energy. It follows that we must have

$$\psi _A\left|P_x\right|\psi _AE,$$
(41)
unless some cancellation occurs due to the symmetry of the wavefunction in $`P_x`$. However, such symmetry seems unlikely, because the emission wavefunction should encode the direction in which the photon is emitted. Thus we assume that (41) is true.

Eqs. (39) and (41) now show that if two photons of energies $`E_{1,2}`$ are emitted, observer B will detect (average) time-delay on arrival of the order

$$t_1t_2\frac{L}{\kappa }\left(E_1E_2\right),$$
(42)
which means that the speed of signal propagation varies with energy according to (1).

This is not, however, the end of the story. It turns out that apart from the time-delay, our model also incorporates another possible striking signature contemplated by quantum-gravity phenomenologists , namely spreading of the burst with energy. That is, spacetime noncommutativity induces intrinsic uncertainty in the arrival time of the photons. To find this uncertainty, we need to compute $`\overline{\left(\mathrm{\Delta }t\right)^2}`$ for observer B.

We have

$$\overline{\left(\mathrm{\Delta }t\right)^2}=\psi _B\left|t^2\right|\psi _B\psi _B\left|t\right|\psi _B^2.$$
(43)
To find $`\psi _B\left|t^2\right|\psi _B`$, we need to differentiate

$$\psi _A\left|e^{iP_xL}t^2e^{iP_xL}\right|\psi _A$$
(44)
in $`L`$ twice, each time using the commutator $`[t,P_x]=iP_x/\kappa `$. The result is

$$\psi _B\left|t^2\right|\psi _B=\psi _A\left|t^2\frac{L}{\kappa }\left(tP_x+P_xt\right)+\frac{L^2}{\kappa ^2}P_x^2\right|\psi _A.$$
(45)
This results in an estimate of

$$\overline{\left(\mathrm{\Delta }t\right)^2}1/E^2+L/\kappa +L^2E^2/\kappa ^2$$
(46)
for the uncertainty of the arrival time.

Note that the analogous computation for the coordinate measurement gives

$$\psi _B\left|x^2\right|\psi _B=\psi _A\left|x^2\right|\psi _A+L^2.$$
(47)
It follows that

$$\overline{\left(\mathrm{\Delta }x\right)^2}=\psi _B\left|x^2\right|\psi _B\psi _B\left|x\right|\psi _B^21/E^2$$
(48)
for observer B just as for observer A. Thus the assumed form of noncommutativity does not increase the uncertainty of the space coordinate measurement.

The $`\gamma `$-ray burst observations we have in mind will involve typical values

$$L1Gpc,E10MeV,$$
(49)
which leads to the uncertainty

$$\mathrm{\Delta }tLE/\kappa 10^4s,$$
(50)
the other two terms in (46) being negligible. Thus we see that the uncertainty is comparable to the average time-delay given by (42).

## 7 Discussion and outlook

In this paper we set up a scheme which allows to discuss observations in noncommutative spacetimes. The scheme involves classical observers perceiving events by accessing their wavefunctions. The (deformed) Poincaré group acts on the Hilbert space of events and is used to relate wavefunctions of an event as seen by different observers.

The standard commutation relations between observable operators, such as the event coordinate operators $`x_\mu `$, and the Poincaré generators may be deformed, as an effective description of unknown physics at the Planck scale. However, an important consequence of logical consistency is that the commutators with $`P_0`$ be undeformed. Observable effects in signal propagation, such as in-vacuo dispersion, result from deformed commutators between $`x_\mu `$ and $`P_i`$.

The coordinate part of the algebra that we considered as an example in Section 5

$$[x_i,t]=ix_i/\kappa ,[x_i,x_j]=0$$
(51)
is well known as the $`\kappa `$-Minkowski spacetime. This spacetime was much studied recently, especially in connection with the Doubly Special Relativity theories . The energy-momentum sector of these DSR theories is symmetric under the action of a Hopf algebra, the so-called $`\kappa `$-Poincaré quantum algebra. The coproduct structure allows then for a unique reconstruction of the spacetime sector, which turns out to be the $`\kappa `$-Minkowski spacetime .

However, taken as a whole, our treatment of spacetime noncommutativity is rather different from previous ones. In particular, noncommutative spacetimes discussed in the literature (starting with the classic paper ) typically do not satisfy our constraint that $`[x_\mu ,P_0]=i\delta _{\mu 0}`$. Thus the observational interpretation of those types of noncommutativity is unclear to us. It is also unclear if imposing the coproduct structure on the algebra, like in the DSR theories, can be justified by any arguments apart from appealing for greater symmetry (although see ).

An advantage of our scheme is that it can be used to intuitively understand expected observable effects directly from commutation relations. However, such kinematical arguments can of course only give order-of-magnitude estimates. Detailed understanding of the structure of wavefunctions of events corresponding to real physical processes, such as photon emission, can only be produced by dynamical considerations.

One should thus try as a next step to develop (classical) field theory consistent with deformed commutation relations of the type discussed in this paper. Perhaps the existing literature on field theory in noncommutative spacetimes, such as , can be of help in this undertaking.

## Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Giovanni Arcioni, Jeroen van Dongen, Erik Verlinde, Jung-Tai Yee, and especially Kostas Skenderis for useful discussions and suggestions. This work was supported by the Stichting voor Fundamenteel Onderzoek der Materie (FOM).