text:
# Nematic Ordering of Rigid Rods in a Gravitational Field

## I Introduction

Nematic ordering in a solution of long rigid rods has been studied theoretically in many papers, starting from the classical papers by Onsager 1  and Flory 2 . However, there is one aspect of this problem, which has never been considered, namely that this transition always occurs in a gravitational field. This field induces a concentration inhomogeneity within the volume where nematic ordering takes place. Such inhomogeneity should, in principle, change some of the characteristics of the liquid-crystalline transition.

The dimensionless parameter associated with gravitational field is $`\beta mgh/kT`$ where $`m=m_0\stackrel{~}{\rho }v`$ is the mass of a rod corrected for buoyancy ($`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ and $`v`$ are the density of pure solvent and the volume of the rod, respectively), $`h`$ is the height, $`g`$ is the gravitational acceleration, $`T`$ is the temperature and $`k`$ is the Boltzmann constant. For $`h=1`$ cm and room temperature conditions, this gives the following criterion: the inhomogeneity due to the normal gravitational acceleration ($`9.8`$ m/s2) becomes important for molecular masses of rod more than $`10^7`$ g/mol. Thus, for rigid rods made of common synthetic macromolecules ($`m_010^5`$ g/mol) this effect can be neglected.

However, in at least two situations the effect of gravity on the problem of the liquid crystalline transition is important and experimentally relevant. First, for nematic ordering in solutions of high molecular weight rodlike biological objects (such as TMV or virus fd) 3 ; 4 ; 5 ; 6 ; 7  $`m`$ can be very large ($`m_0=4\times 10^7`$ g/mol for TMV,4 ), and values of $`\beta >1`$ can easily be reached. Second, instead of normal gravitational acceleration, one can consider the acceleration in an ultracentrifuge which can be $`10^4÷10^5`$ times larger than ordinary gravity. For at least these cases, the investigation of the influence of gravitational field on the nematic ordering in the solution of rigid rods seems to be an important problem. This problem is solved theoretically below in the Onsager approximation.

## II Theoretical model

The Onsager approach is based on a virial expansion of the free energy of the solution of rigid rods taking into account steric repulsion only.

Let us choose the Cartesian coordinate system in such a way that the external field acts in the z direction and put the origin of coordinates at the bottom of the reservoir (z=0). Further, let us divide the volume of the vessel V into large number of identical layers aligned perpendicularly to the field in order that all particles in a given layer has the same gravitational potential. Here we use the following notation: $`dN_z\left(\mathrm{\Omega }\right)=N_zf_z\left(\mathrm{\Omega }\right)d\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the number of rods in the layer z with axis directions within the small spatial angle $`d\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`N_z`$ is the total number of rods in the layer z, and $`\zeta =z/h`$ denotes the dimensionless height. Let $`f_z\left(\mathrm{\Omega }\right)`$ be one-particle orientational distribution function of rods in the layer z. The normalization for the function $`f_z\left(\mathrm{\Omega }\right)`$ is written in the familiar form $`f_z\left(\mathrm{\Omega }\right)𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$.

With such division of the volume of the vessel into very large number of layers, the local rod concentration $`C^{}(\zeta )`$ has the same value within the layer. Thus, for a given layer one can apply the traditional Onsager theory 1 , 8 ; 9  justified for homogeneous system. This theory is valid for dilute enough solutions of very long rods.

In this case, the local free energy of the layer labeled $`\zeta `$ is written as

$$\frac{\varpi (\zeta )}{kT}=\mathrm{ln}C^{^{}}(\zeta )+f(\mathrm{\Omega },\zeta )\mathrm{ln}\left(4\pi f(\mathrm{\Omega },\zeta )\right)𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }+C^{^{}}(\zeta )f(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\zeta )f(\mathrm{\Omega }_2,\zeta )a_2\left(\gamma \right)𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_1𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_2+\beta \zeta f(\mathrm{\Omega },\zeta )𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }$$
(1)
where the first term represents the entropy of a translational motion, the second term is the orientation entropy, the third term describes steric interaction of rods in the second virial approximation, and the last term is the average potential energy of a rod in an external gravitational field $`U_{ext}\left(\zeta \right)/kT=\frac{mgh}{kT}\zeta \beta \zeta `$.

To calculate the third term one assumes that the $`\gamma `$-dependent second virial coefficient $`a_2`$ is the half of excluded volume of two rods 1 , thus, $`a_2\left(\gamma \right)=L^2D\left|\mathrm{sin}\gamma \right|`$, where $`L`$ and $`D`$ are the length and diameter for long rigid rods and $`\gamma `$ is the angle between directions of long axes.

The free energy of the whole system is a sum of free energies of all layers. If the number of layers is large enough, the sum can be replaced by integral

$$\frac{F}{VkT}=_0^1𝑑\zeta C^{^{}}(\zeta )\frac{\varpi (\zeta )}{kT}=_0^1𝑑\zeta C^{^{}}(\zeta )\left(\mathrm{ln}C^{^{}}(\zeta )+\sigma (\zeta )+C^{^{}}(\zeta )\rho ^{^{}}(\zeta )+\beta \zeta \right)$$
(2)
where

$$\sigma (\zeta )f(\mathrm{\Omega },\zeta )\mathrm{ln}\left(4\pi f(\mathrm{\Omega },\zeta )\right)𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }$$
(3)
is the orientational entropy of the layer $`\zeta `$ and

$$\rho ^{}(\zeta )=f(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\zeta )f(\mathrm{\Omega }_2,\zeta )a_2\left(\gamma \right)𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_1𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_2$$
(4)
is the second virial coefficient of interaction of two rods.

To obtain the equilibrium distribution function we should take into account the possibility of the formation of a phase boundary between the nematic phase at the bottom of the vessel and isotropic phase on top. We denote the height of the boundary position in the vessel as $`\zeta =x`$, so the volumes occupied by the nematic and isotropic phases are $`V_a=xV`$ and $`V_i=\left(1x\right)V`$, respectively. With this, the free energy of the whole system eq. (2) becomes

$$\frac{F}{VkT}=_0^x𝑑\zeta C_a^{^{}}(\zeta )\frac{\varpi _a(\zeta )}{kT}+_x^1𝑑\zeta C_i^{^{}}(\zeta )\frac{\varpi _i(\zeta )}{kT},$$
(5)
where

$$\frac{\varpi _a(\zeta )}{kT}=\mathrm{ln}C_a^{^{}}(\zeta )+\sigma _a(\zeta )+C_a^{^{}}(\zeta )\rho _a^{^{}}(\zeta )+\beta \zeta $$
(6)
is the local free energy of the nematic phase, and

$$\frac{\varpi _i(\zeta )}{kT}=\mathrm{ln}C_i^{^{}}(\zeta )+\sigma _i(\zeta )+C_i^{^{}}(\zeta )\rho _i^{^{}}(\zeta )+\beta \zeta $$
(7)
is the local free energy of the isotropic phase.

To calculate the equilibrium distribution function $`f(\mathrm{\Omega },\zeta )`$ one should minimize the functional (5) with respect to this function. The direct minimization of functional (5) leads to a nonlinear integral equation, which can be solved only numerically 10 ; 11 . In the case where the volume of the vessel consists of two phases separated by a phase boundary, one should realize that $`f(\mathrm{\Omega },\zeta )`$ follows a step function with the variation of $`\zeta `$ with the function $`f_a(\mathrm{\Omega },\zeta )`$ in the anisotropic part significantly different from that in the isotropic phase $`f_i(\zeta )=1/4\pi `$. To evaluate the distribution function $`f_a(\mathrm{\Omega },\zeta )`$ in the nematic phase we apply an approximate variational method with a trial function depending on variational parameter $`\alpha `$.

Substituting this function in eqs. (5), (6), (7) and minimizing with respect to $`\alpha (\zeta )`$, we have the following equation for definition of variational function $`\alpha (\zeta )`$

$$\frac{d\sigma _a(\alpha )}{d\alpha }+C_a^{^{}}(\zeta )\frac{d\rho _a^{^{}}(\alpha )}{d\alpha }=0$$
(8)
However, the trial function proposed by Onsager 1  $`f(\mathrm{\Omega },\alpha )=\left(\alpha /(4\pi \mathrm{sinh}\mathrm{\Theta })\right)\mathrm{cosh}\left(\alpha \mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }\right)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the angular deviation of a rod from the director, still leads to rather complicated integral equation. Therefore, following 9  for the sake of simplicity we used a trial function of simpler form

$$f_a(\mathrm{\Omega },\alpha (\zeta ))=\frac{\alpha (\zeta )}{4\pi }\{\begin{array}{c}e^{\frac{\alpha (\zeta )\mathrm{\Theta }^2}{2}}\text{ },0<\mathrm{\Theta }<\frac{\pi }{2}\\ e^{\frac{\alpha (\zeta )(\pi \mathrm{\Theta })^2}{2}},\frac{\pi }{2}<\mathrm{\Theta }<\pi \end{array}$$
(9)
with an approximate normalization (precise up to terms of order $`O\left(e^\alpha \right)`$).

This trial function is suitable for approximate evaluation of $`\sigma _a(\alpha (\zeta ))`$ in case of highly ordered state 9

$$\sigma _a\left(\alpha (\zeta )\right)f_a(\mathrm{\Omega },\alpha (\zeta ))\mathrm{ln}\left(4\pi f_a(\mathrm{\Omega },\alpha (\zeta ))\right)𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{ln}\alpha (\zeta )1,$$
(10)
and the dimensionless second virial coefficient in the anisotropic phase 9

$$\rho _a(\zeta )=\frac{\rho _a^{^{}}(\zeta )}{b}=\frac{4}{\pi }f_a(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\alpha (\zeta ))f_a(\mathrm{\Omega }_2,\alpha (\zeta ))\left|\mathrm{sin}\gamma \right|𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_1𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_2\frac{4}{\sqrt{\pi \alpha (\zeta )}}$$
(11)
with notation $`b\rho ^{^{}}(\zeta )_i_i=L^2D\left|\mathrm{sin}\gamma \right|_i_i=\frac{\pi }{4}L^2D`$; the value of $`b`$ being equal to half of average excluded volume of two arbitrary oriented rods.

The corresponding expressions in the isotropic phase are

$$\sigma _i=0\text{ and }\rho _i=1\text{.}$$
(12)
In the above formulas the index $`i`$ and $`a`$ refers to the isotropic phase and the nematic phase respectively, and the angular brackets designate the average with respect to the isotropic distribution function $`f_i\left(\mathrm{\Omega }\right)=1/4\pi `$.

Substituting the calculated values back in eq. (8), yields the following expression for the function $`\alpha (\zeta )`$:

$$\sqrt{\alpha (\zeta )}=\frac{2C_a(\zeta )}{\sqrt{\pi }},$$
(13)
where $`C_a(\zeta )=C_a^{^{}}(\zeta )b`$ is the dimensionless local rod concentration in the nematic phase.

Thus, eqs. (6), (7) and (12) , (13) give

$$\frac{\varpi _a(\zeta )}{kT}=\mathrm{ln}C_a^{^{}}(\zeta )+2\mathrm{ln}\frac{2C_a(\zeta )}{\sqrt{\pi }}+1+\beta \zeta $$
(14)
and

$$\frac{\varpi _i(\zeta )}{kT}=\mathrm{ln}C_i^{^{}}(\zeta )+C_i(\zeta )+\beta \zeta .$$
(15)
The chemical potentials in the phases can be also obtained

$$\mu _{a,i}=\varpi _{a,i}+p_{a,i}(\zeta )v_{a,i}(\zeta ),$$
(16)
where $`v_{a,i}(\zeta )=1/C_{a,i}^{^{}}(\zeta )`$ is the local specific volume and $`p_{a,i}(\zeta )`$ is the pressure in the layer $`\zeta `$:

$$p_{a,i}(\zeta )=\frac{\varpi _{a,i}(\zeta )}{v_{a,i}(\zeta )}=\left(C_{a,i}^{^{}}(\zeta )\right)^2\frac{\varpi _{a,i}(\zeta )}{C_{a,i}^{^{}}(\zeta )}$$
(17)
The calculation of the pressure in the nematic and isotropic phases gives (compare with ref. 9 )

$$p_a(\zeta )=3C_a^{^{}}(\zeta ),$$
(18)
$$p_i(\zeta )=C_i^{^{}}(\zeta )\left(1+C_i(\zeta )\right).$$
(19)
Consequently, eqs. (16), (14), (15) and (17) give

$$\frac{\mu _a(\zeta )}{kT}=\mathrm{ln}C_a^{^{}}(\zeta )+2\mathrm{ln}\frac{2C_a(\zeta )}{\sqrt{\pi }}+4+\beta \zeta $$
(20)
and

$$\frac{\mu _i(\zeta )}{kT}=\mathrm{ln}C_i^{^{}}(\zeta )+2C_i(\zeta )+1+\beta \zeta $$
(21)
In the equilibrium the chemical potential is independent on height and is the same in the both phases, thus one can obtain the equilibrium local concentrations in the phases:

$$C_a^{^{}}(\zeta )=\frac{C_a^{^{}}}{I_1(x)}e^{\frac{\beta \zeta }{3}},$$
(22)
where $`C_a^{^{}}`$ is the average concentration in the nematic phase, $`I_1(x)_0^xe^{\frac{\beta \zeta }{3}}𝑑\zeta `$ is the normalization factor.

Also

$$C_i^{^{}}(\zeta )=\frac{1}{2b}LW\left(2be^{\beta \zeta 1+\mu _i}\right),$$
(23)
where the function $`LW\left(x\right)`$ corresponds to a solution of equation $`LW\mathrm{exp}(LW)=x`$. For dilute solutions we can use the simple asymptotic form of this special function: $`LW\left(x\right)=x+O(x^2)`$.

Thus,

$$C_i^{^{}}(\zeta )\frac{C_i^{^{}}}{I_2(x)}e^{\beta \zeta },$$
(24)
with $`I_2(x)_x^1e^{\beta \zeta }𝑑\zeta `$.

The equilibrium concentrations in the phases are determined by the following coexistence relations at the boundary

$$\{\begin{array}{c}p_a(x)=p_i(x),\\ \mu _a(x)=\mu _i(x),\end{array}$$
(25)
Substituting calculated values of chemical potentials (20), (21) and pressures (18), (19) with obtained concentrations in the phases (22), (23) the coexistence relations (25) is written as

$$\{\begin{array}{c}3\frac{C_a^{^{}}}{I_1(x)}e^{\frac{\beta x}{3}}=\frac{C_i^{^{}}}{I_2(x)}e^{\beta x}\left(1+\frac{C_i}{I_2(x)}e^{\beta x}\right),\\ \mathrm{ln}\frac{C_a^{^{}}}{I_1(x)}+2\mathrm{ln}\frac{2C_a}{I_1(x)\sqrt{\pi }}+3=\mathrm{ln}\frac{C_i^{^{}}}{I_2(x)}+2\frac{C_i}{I_2(x)}e^{\beta x},\end{array}$$
(26)
where $`C_aC_a^{^{}}b`$ and $`C_iC_i^{^{}}b`$ are dimensionless average concentrations in the nematic and isotropic phases, respectively.

If the gravitational field is absent ($`g0`$), eqs. (26) are reduced to corresponding equations for homogeneous system 9 .

## III Obtained results

The numerical solution of eqs. (26) gives the values of average dimensionless concentrations of the nematic and isotropic phases, $`C_a`$ and $`C_i`$, coexisting at equilibrium. The phase diagram in the variables average rod concentration $`C`$ – dimensionless parameter $`\beta `$ is shown in Fig. 1. This diagram has three main regions. In the region labeled by letter $`I`$, entire solution of rods is isotropic (corresponding height of the boundary $`x=0`$). In the region between the curves of coexistence $`C_i(\beta )`$ and $`C_a(\beta )`$, the solution is separated in the isotropic and nematic phases with an interphase boundary between them ($`0<x<1`$). In the region designated by letter $`N`$, the entire volume of the vessel is occupied by the nematic phase ($`x=1`$).

This diagram reveals that gravity facilitates formation of the nematic phase (at least at the bottom of the vessel) and the region of phase separation becomes very broad even for rather low values of $`\beta `$.

Dependence of the local rod concentration on the height $`\zeta `$ at fixed value of $`\beta `$ is shown in Fig. 2. The concentrations $`C_a(\zeta )`$ and $`C_i(\zeta )`$ obey the barometric distribution according to eqs. (22) and (24), respectively. The concentrations of the nematic and isotropic phases in the boundary layer coincide with that in the absence of the field ($`C_a(x)=5.12`$ and $`C_a(x)=3.45`$ 9 ). This is the case because all the rods within a given layer exhibit the same gravitational potential. Thus, the rod concentration follows a step function with a jump at the phase boundary.

The corresponding change with height of the order parameter $`S(\zeta )=P_2\left(\mathrm{cos}\alpha (\mathrm{\Omega },\zeta )\right)f(\mathrm{\Omega },\zeta )𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is shown in Fig. 3. The order parameter $`S(\zeta )`$ in the nematic phase is overstated due to the approximate trial function of the form (9). With increase of $`\zeta `$ the order parameter decreases to the value corresponding to a nematic phase coexisting with isotropic one in the absence of gravity and then falls to zero.

The Onsager approximation (1) used in this paper is valid for low rod concentrations (volume fraction $`\phi 0.1`$). However, with increase of $`\beta `$ the local rod concentration at the bottom of the vessel gradually increases. Thus, for high values of $`\beta `$ barometric distribution (22) is no longer valid.

To generalize the Onsager theory for the case of high rod concentrations one can use the Parsons approximation12 , which aims to improve the second virial coefficient (11) by means of additional multiplier depending on mole fraction of rods, as well as some others generalizations (cf. refs. 13 ; 14 ; 15 ; 16 ). Nevertheless, the calculations with nonanalitic distribution arising from such an approach are rather complicated and lead to additional integral equation. In most practical cases, except sedimentation in ultracentrifuge, the values of $`\beta `$ are not too high (e.g. for TMV $`\beta `$ is slightly above the unity), and traditional second virial approximation is quite justified.

The position of the phase boundary vs. $`\beta `$ for different values of total rod concentration is shown in Fig. 4. These plots lead to the following conclusions. If the total rod concentration is low enough (i.e. the greater part of the vessel is occupied by the isotropic phase, $`CC_i`$), the increasing gravity induces the isotropic-to-nematic transition and phase boundary shifts toward the top of the vessel. This process is observed until $`\beta 1`$ and then the shift of the boundary stops, and the volume of nematic phase even slightly decreases (bottom phase is becoming denser under gravity; solid squares). If the total rod concentration is high enough ($`CC_a`$) the nematic phase simply shrinks under gravity starting from the top of the vessel and the position of the phase boundary becomes gradually lower (solid circles).

Furthermore, it is noteworthy to emphasize the important conclusion arising from the form of Fig. 1. The right branch of the plot rises very rapidly as $`\beta `$ gets large, thus, remaining within the framework of general concepts dealing with spatially homogeneous phases one could suggest that the concentration of rods in the nematic phase should also rapidly increase with $`\beta `$. However, the increase in the average concentration in the nematic phase is not as drastic as it follows from Fig. 1. The general reason is that the ”rule of lever” cannot be applied for the present system, because we are dealing with spatially inhomogeneous phases.

The average concentrations of nematic and isotropic phases, corresponding to phase separation, are shown in Fig. 5. This plot demonstrates that the average concentrations in both phases at fixed value of $`\beta `$ do depend on the total concentration of rods and they do not coincide with the concentrations corresponding to the curves of Fig. 1 (dashed lines in Fig. 5). This is because $`\beta h`$, where $`h`$ is the total height of the vessel. Thus, the parameter $`\beta `$ is different for separate phases and for the system as a whole. That is why the average concentrations of the phases lie within the region of phase separation shown in Fig. 1.

## IV Conclusions

Gravitational or centrifugal external fields facilitate liquid-crystalline transition at the bottom of the vessel and broadens the region of phase separation. This phenomenon should be noticeable for biological rod-like objects or common lyotropic molecules sedimenting in a centrifugal field. This seems to be an important problem which requires experimental investigation.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors thank Dr. S. Fraden who has drawn their attention to this unsolved problem.


format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

Quantum Gunn effect: Zero-resistance state in 2D electron gas. Keshav N. Shrivastava School of Physics, University of Hyderabad,
Hyderabad 500046, India

Usually, the conductivity is quantized as the inverse of the resistivity, $`\rho =hc/ie^2`$, $`\sigma =ie^2/hc`$, and the velocity versus the electric field is linear,$`v=\mu E`$, where $`\mu `$ is the mobility of the electrons. However, when the applied electric field exceeds a certain value, microwaves are emitted and the relation $`v=\mu E`$ breaks down so that the velocity actually reduces as $`E`$ increases. In this region, when magnetic field is applied, the conductivity quantizes like the magnetic field, i.e., in multiples of $`hc/e`$ which is different from the usual quantization. Because of the flux quantization, the resistivity will touch zero in the region of high electric field. Factors like 4/5 arise due to new spin dependence of the effective charge.

Corresponding author: keshav@mailaps.org
Fax: +91-40-2301 0145.Phone: 2301 0811.

1. Introduction

Recently, Mani et al1 have measured the resistivity of GaAs/AlGaAs which is linear at small magnetic fields and shows de Haas- van Alphen oscillations for fields larger than (4/5)Bf where $`eB_f/m^{}c=\omega _c`$ is the cyclotron frequency. When the sample is irradiated with microwaves of frequency $``$ 103 GHz, the linear resistivity below the field of (4/5)Bf comes down and touches the zero value. We wish to understand this reduction in the resistivity and why it approaches zero value. Zudov et al2 also found that the diagonal resistivity touches the zero value when sample is irradiated with microwaves of frequency $``$ 57 GHz. We have reported3 that spin determines the fraction which appears before the magnetic field, Bf and flux quantization is important to get zero resistivity. Volkov4 and Bergeret et al5 find that Gunn effect is important to obtain negative resistivity which is the cause of reduction with respect to the value without the microwave radiation and this type of negative resistance is in agreement with the experimental work of Willett6 where observation of the negative resistance was mentioned.

At small electric fields, the velocity is linearly related to the electric field, $`v=\mu E`$. However, at large fields, the velocity does not increase with increasing field but it decreases. In this region, it is interesting to quantize the conductivity. Since the system radiates microwaves, it is called the Gunn effect. The quantization of the magnetic field in the region of Gunn effect leads to quantized conductivity. Thus, we report the “quantum Gunn effect” (QGE) which is the quantized conductivity in the region of electric field relevant to Gunn effect. Usually, the conductivity is quantized in units of $`e^2/hc`$ but in the present case, it is quantized in units of hc/e with a suitable multiplier so that the units are correct. Another aspect of the QGE is that as $`n`$ is varied, several microwave frequencies are emitted instead of only one frequency of the Gunn effect.

2. Theory

Usually the conductivity, $`\sigma `$, is defined by, $`j=\sigma E`$ where $`j`$ is the electrical current and E is the electric field. The current is defined in terms of velocity,$`v=\mu E`$ where $`\mu `$ is called the mobility. The electron as well as the hole currents can thus be written in terms of velocity as,

$$j=n_iev_e+n_hev_h=n_ie\mu _iE+n_he\mu _hE$$
(1)
This means that $`v`$ is a linear function of E. Actually, at large electric fields, $`v`$ as a function of $`E`$ ceases to be linear and when there is sufficient heating, energy is emitted in the form of microwaves. Such an emission of microwaves for electric fields larger than a certain characteristic value, $`E_o`$ is called the Gunn effect. For $`E>E_o`$, the velocity actually decreases with increasing $`E`$. Therefore, the region, $`E>E_o`$, offers an unusual opportunity to investigate the flux quantization. The usual quantization of resistivity or that of conductivity, is based on the region $`E<E_o`$, where $`\rho =h/ie^2`$ or $`\sigma =ie^2/h`$. We therefore expect a new type of quantization for fields $`E>E_o`$. The number of particles with velocity in the range of $`dv`$ at $`v`$ is given by Maxwell velocity distribution but conversion of velocity into electric field requires the knowledge of linearity between the velocity and the electric field. For $`E>E_o`$, such a linear formula is not valid. Therefore, we use a simple form which has a peak at $`E_o`$. For $`E<E_o`$, this function has a linear region so that velocity increases with increasing electric field upto $`E=E_o`$. Once $`E>E_o`$, the linear behavior is not needed and the system emits microwaves. Therefore, the distribution should have a peak at $`E_o`$ and should fall for $`E>E_o`$. Therefore we use,

$$v=\mu E\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{(EE_o)^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2}$$
(2)
instead of $`v=\mu E`$. At $`E=E_o`$, there is a peak in the velocity. For $`E<E_o`$, the velocity becomes,

$$v=\mu E\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{E_o^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2}$$
(3)
which is linear in $`E`$ but is smaller than $`\mu E`$. At the peak $`E=E_o`$, $`v=\mu E`$ is established and for $`E>E_o`$, $`v=\mu E[\mathrm{\Delta }^2/(E^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2)]`$ which falls with increasing $`E`$. This is the region where Gunn effect is known to occur. When the distribution of velocity as a function of electric field (2) is used the current becomes,

$$j=n_ie\mu _iE\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{(EE_o)^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2}+n_he\mu _hE\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{(EE_o)^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2}$$
(4)
where $`n_i`$($`n_h`$) are the electron (hole) concentrations and $`\mu _i`$ and $`\mu _h`$ are the electron and hole mobilities, respectively. The conductivity is determined by two terms, one due to electrons, $`\sigma _e`$ and the other due to holes, $`\sigma _h`$, with,

$$\sigma _e=n_ie\mu _i\mathrm{\Delta }^2[\frac{1}{(EE_o)^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2}\frac{2E(EE_o)}{\{(EE_o)^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2\}^2}]+e\mu _i\mathrm{\Delta }^2\frac{dn_i}{dE}\frac{E}{(EE_o)^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2}$$
(5)
and

$$\sigma _h=n_he\mu _h\mathrm{\Delta }^2[\frac{1}{(EE_o)^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2}\frac{2E(EE_o)}{\{(EE_o)^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2\}^2}]+\mu _he\mathrm{\Delta }^2\frac{dn_h}{dE}\frac{E}{(EE_o)^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2}$$
(6)
When the electric field is increased, if the electron concentration increases, that of the holes must reduce so that,

$$\frac{dn_e}{dE}=\frac{dn_h}{dE}$$
(7)
Substituting this result in (5) and (6) and adding the two terms,

$$\sigma =\sigma _e+\sigma _h=\sigma _o+(\mu _i\mu _h)e\mathrm{\Delta }^2\frac{dn_i}{dE}\frac{E}{(EE_o)^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2}$$
(8)
where

$$\sigma _o=e\mathrm{\Delta }^2(n_i\mu _i+n_h\mu _h)[\frac{1}{(EE_o)^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2}\frac{2E(EE_o)}{\{(EE_o)^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2\}^2}].$$
(9)
In the Gunn effect, microwaves are emitted once the applied electric field is larger than $`E_o`$ but there is no need of any magnetic field. There are many calculations of the application of crossed electric and magnetic fields to the semiconductors but in the present problem, $`v=\mu E`$ has been avoided and peaked distribution has been used so that it will be of interest to see the effect of magnetic field when $`E>E_o`$. We can apply the magnetic field by considering the Lorentz force so that the effective electric field becomes,

$$E^{}=E+\frac{1}{c}(\stackrel{}{v}\times \stackrel{}{B}).$$
(10)
In the present case $`\stackrel{}{v}`$ is a peaked function so that the electric field becomes,

$$E^{}=E+\frac{1}{c}\mu (\stackrel{}{E}\times \stackrel{}{B})\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{(EE_o)^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2}$$
(11)
where $`\mu `$ is the mobility.The effective electric field then becomes,

$$E^{}=|E|[1+\frac{1}{c}\frac{\mu \mathrm{\Delta }^2B}{(EE_o)^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2}]$$
(12)
The second negative term of (9), upon the application of magnetic field to electrons becomes,

$$\sigma _o\frac{2e\mathrm{\Delta }^2n_i\mu _i|E|^2}{\{(EE_o)^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2\}^2}[1+\frac{1}{c}\frac{\mu _i\mathrm{\Delta }^2B}{(EE_o)^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2}][1\frac{E_o}{|E|}]$$
(13)
which shows that when the applied field is larger than certain value, the conductivity can reduce. We can write the above conductivity as,

$$\sigma _oa_1[1+a_2B]$$
(14)
Where we consider the flux quantization, so that the magnetic field in the area A can be written as B.A=n$`\varphi _o`$ where $`\varphi _o`$=hc/e which means that the conductivity in the Gunn region becomes,

$$\sigma _oa_1[1+a_2n\varphi _o/A]a_1[1+a_2(n/A)hc/e]$$
(15)
This formula is very different from the $`ie^2/h`$ type quantization of conductivity but this is a “quantized Gunn effect”. Without the quantization, where only a single frequency microwave was emitted, now many more microwave frequencies will be emitted due to different values of $`n`$ in (15). However, the expression (13) is quite approximate so that actual behaviour is much more complicated than by only one term in (15).

Thus we learn that conductivity has positive terms and electric field dependent negative terms so that when the electric field is increased the negative term in the conductivity can become large so that conductivity reduces. Thereafter, upon application of magnetic field, plateaus can arise due to “flux quantization” This conductivity quantization is different from the usual quantization in terms of $`ie^2/h`$. For different values of the integer several plateaus can arise which means that instead of a single microwave frequency emission in the Gunn effect, several frequencies can arise. These predicted features of the conductivity are qualitatively in accord with the present day experimental data. The prediction of emission of multiple freuencies in the Gunn effect has not yet been varified by the experiments. However, such multiple frequencies in the Gunn effect must occur. The flux quantization measures the product of the charge and the magnetic field. Therefore, fractional numbers arise in the product $`eB`$. These fractions are well predicted in a previous paper3 where it was found that the flux quantization depends on spin.

3. Discussions.

Anderson and Brinkman7 have pointed out the importance of observation of zero resistivity when the sample is irradiated with microwaves at a frequency somewhat higher than the cyclotron frequency. They have suggested that it depends on the structure of the energy levels in crossed electric and magnetic fields. The old calculations of the crossed electric and magnetic fields have positive resistance. We have found that the factors like 4/5 arise only when spin is involved due to the spin dependent flux quantization. The resistivity is zero for the flux-quantized state. The negative resistance arises due to heating of the sample above an electric field of $`E_o`$. This negative resistance phenomenon is called the Gunn effect where microwaves are emitted by the same. The emission of radiation is associated with negative resistance with absorption associated with positive resistance. The microwave frequency somewhat higher than the cyclotron frequncy is thought to be due to scattering by impurities by the Yale group8. However, there is no need of impurities in our calculation and we obtain the correct values without impurities in the pure sample9,10.

Cheremisin11 has correctly pointed out that $`j=\sigma _{xy}E`$ is violated. In the N shaped current(voltage) characteristics, if peak occurs for negative $`E`$, then it serves not much purpose. Similarly, in the S-shaped I(V) characteristics there is no peak for positive electric field. We need a peak in the current(voltage) characteristics for positive value of the electric field as we have introduced by eq.(2). In this case Gunn effect leads to reduced or negative resistivity needed by the experiment. Similarly, Shi and Xie12 used the current linear in $`E_o`$ along with integral of current-current correlations. This will not produce a Gunn effect which we obtain because of peaked relationship between velocity and the electric field.

When microwaves are emitted by the Gunn effect13-18, it is important that Goldstone theorem is obeyed. That means that Goldstone bosons are emitted. These Goldstone bosons are the heat waves or phonons. The emission of phonons must be accompanied by charge-density waves. This can be seen, for example, by factorizing the electron-phonon interaction. Making factors of electron number density automatically produces soft phonons. Therefore, there are charge density waves which actually emit electromagnetic waves or microwaves which is another way of saying that there is Gunn effect which leads to negative or reduced resistance. We can obtain zero resistance by having spin singlets as in superconductivity or triplet states as in 3He. The charge density waves are paramagnetic and hence have small resistance. When energy is emitted, we call it “negative resistance”. In the present phenomenon, there are spin singlets with one component leading to zero resistance accompanied by flux quantization.

4. Conclusions.

We propose a flux-quantized Gunn effect as the interpretation of negative resistance which also has plateaus. The fractions before the cyclotron frequency arise due to “spin-dependent flux quantization”. The zero-resistance plateaus are due to flux quantization. The zero as well as negative resistance thus is well understood. There is a striking similarity between the resistance in the present samples and the diagonal resistance in the quantum Hall effect. In fact, in the correct theory9 which produces the same fractional charges as the experimental data, the requirement of the Hall geometry is not strictly needed. The fractional charge depends on the spin and the orbital state of the quasiparticles. The fractional charges, such as 4/3, found in the data are the same as in the calculated tables. As far as the emission of microwaves is concerned, more than one frequency will be generated due to integer, $`n`$ in $`n\varphi _o`$ which quantizes the magnetic field.

5. References

1. R. G. Mani, et al, Nature 419, 646(2002)
2. M. A. Zudov, et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 046807(2003).
3. K. N. Shrivastava, cond-mat/0303309.
4. A. F. Volkov, cond-mat/0302615.
5. F. S. Bergeret, B. Huckestein and A. F.. Volkov, cond-mat/0303530.
6. R. L. Willett, K. W. West and L. N. Pfeiffer, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. H23.001(March 2003).
7. P. W. Anderson and W. F. Brinkman, cond-mat/0302129.
8. A. C. Durest, S. Sachdev, N. Read and S. M. Girvin, cond-mat/0301569
9. K. N. Shrivastava, cond-mat/0212552.
10. K.N. Shrivastava, Introduction to quantum Hall effect,
Nova Science Pub. Inc., N. Y. (2002)ISBN 1-59033-419-1.
11. M. V. Cheremisin, cond-mat/0304581.
12. J. Shi and X. C. Xie, cond-mat/0302393.
13. M. P. Shaw, H. L. Grubin and P. R. Solomon, The Gunn-Hilsum effect, Academic Press, New York 1979.
14. J. B. Gunn, Solid State Commun. 1, 88 (1963).
15. J. B. Gunn, IBM J. Res. Dev. 10, 300(1966).
16. C. Hilsum,Proc. IRE 50, 185(1962).
17. P. N. Butcher and W. Fawcett, Proc. Phys. Soc. (London) 86,1205(1965).
18. H. Kroemer, Proc. IEEE 52, 1736 (1964).


text:
# Black hole multiplicity at particle colliders (Do black holes radiate mainly on the brane?)

## I Introduction

The inauguration of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN LHC  could well coincide with the grand opening of the first man-made black hole (BH) factory. Some models of high-energy physics indeed predicts the fundamental scale of gravity to be as low as a few TeVs Antoniadis:1990ew ; Arkani-Hamed:1998rs ; Antoniadis:1998ig ; Randall:1999ee ; Randall:1999vf . If this is the case, events at energies above this threshold could trigger nonperturbative gravitational effects, such as the creation of BHs Banks:1999gd  and other extended objects predicted by quantum gravity theories Ahn:2002mj ; Ahn:2002zn . (For recent reviews, see Cavaglia:2002si ; Tu:2002xs ; Landsberg:2002sa ; Emparan:2003xu .)

Proton-proton collisions at LHC, with center-of-mass energy of $`14`$ TeV and luminosity $`L=10^{34}`$ cm-2 s-1, could produce BHs at a very high rate Giddings:2001bu ; Dimopoulos:2001hw ; Dimopoulos:2001qe ; Cheung:2002aq ; Cheung:2001ue ; Park:2001xc ; Giudice:2001ce ; Casadio:2001wh ; Mocioiu:2003gi . The detection of these BHs would proceed through the observation of the decay products of the ensuing Hawking thermal emission on the brane. The Hawking radiation provides distinct experimental signatures that would allow to discriminate between gravitational events and other perturbative nongravitational events Giddings:2001bu ; Anchordoqui:2002cp ; Han:2002yy .

A number of papers have been devoted to the study of the experimental signatures of BH formation at particle colliders. The smoking gun of BH creation would be the detection of events with large multiplicity, high sphericity, large visible transverse energy and a hadron-to-lepton ratio of about 5:1 Giddings:2001bu , at least in the simplest compactification models with infinitesimal brane thickness. (For an alternative scenario, see Han:2002yy .) However, an accurate estimate of the physical observables is often hindered by the poor knowledge of Hawking mechanism and by the use of a number of crude approximations. Although the solution of the theoretical conundrums requires the quantum gravity theory, the accuracy of the predictions can be improved by computational process refinement.

Here we focus on two specific physical observables of BH evaporation: The multiplicity of the decay products and the BH energy loss. The number of particles which are produced during the radiation process can be estimated from dimensional arguments to be of the order of $`NM_{\mathrm{BH}}/T_{\mathrm{BH}}`$, where $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ and $`T_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ are the initial mass and the initial Hawking temperature of the BH, respectively. The average multiplicity $`N`$ is usually evaluated in the literature by assuming a Boltzmann statistics for the decay products and neglecting the change in the BH mass during the radiation process Dimopoulos:2001hw . This gives a factor 1/2, leading to the result $`N=M_{\mathrm{BH}}/2T_{\mathrm{BH}}`$. The Boltzmann statistics approximation is also assumed in the computation of the BH energy loss Emparan:2000rs . The aim of this paper is to compute the BH energy loss and the multiplicity to a better precision by dropping the Boltzmann statistics and the constant-mass assumptions. We also estimate the distribution of decay products vs. the spin, or “flavor multiplicity”, which is one of the fundamental observational signatures of high-energy scattering gravitational events. We find that the bulk energy loss may not be negligible in some models, and that the total multiplicity may significantly differ from the average value, depending on the brane dimension. This has important consequences on the phenomenology of BH creation at particle colliders.

Notations: Throughout the paper we use natural Planck units with $`G_d=M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2`$, where $`G_d`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ are the $`d`$-dimensional Newton constant and the Planck mass, respectively.

## II Black hole energy loss and multiplicity

The emission rate for a particle of spin $`s_i`$ and mass $`m_iM`$ “from” a BH of mass $`M`$ into a $`n_i`$-dimensional slice of the $`d`$-dimensional spacetime is described by the blackbody distribution

$$\frac{d𝒩_i}{dt}=\frac{A_i(M,n_i,d)c_i(n_i)\mathrm{\Gamma }_i(E,n_i,s_i)}{(2\pi )^{n_i1}}\frac{d^{n_i1}k}{e^{E/T}(1)^{2s_i}},$$
(1)
where $`A(M,n_i,d)`$ is the BH area which is induced on the $`n_i`$-dimensional subspace, and $`c_i(n_i)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i(E,n_i,s_i)`$ are the number of degrees of freedom and the greybody factor of the species $`i`$, respectively. Two remarks are in order. First, we assume that the BH induced area depends only on $`n_i`$, on the BH mass $`M`$, and on the number of spacetime dimensions $`d`$. In this paper we are interested in spherically symmetric BHs, so this condition is always verified. Second, Eq. (1) is very well approximated by considering the thermally averaged greybody factors Page:df . Therefore, we drop the $`E`$-dependence in the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$’s and use the BH geometric optics area Emparan:2000rs :

$$A_i(M,n_i,d)=\mathrm{\Omega }_{n_i2}r_c^{n_i2},$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{n_i2}`$ is the area of the unit $`(n_i2)`$-dimensional sphere and

$$r_c=\left(\frac{d1}{2}\right)^{\frac{1}{d3}}\left(\frac{d1}{d3}\right)^{1/2}r_s$$
(3)
is the optical radius of the $`d`$-dimensional Schwarzschild BH of radius $`r_s`$. The emitted energy density distribution in $`n_i`$-dimensions, $`d_{\mathrm{em}}/dt`$, is related to the blackbody energy density distribution $`d_{\mathrm{BB},i}/dt=Ed𝒩_i/dt`$ by

$$\frac{d_{\mathrm{em},i}}{dt}=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{n_i3}}{(n_i2)\mathrm{\Omega }_{n_i2}}\frac{d_{\mathrm{BB},i}}{dt}.$$
(4)
By integrating Eq. (4) over the phase space and summing over all the particle species we obtain the total emitted energy per unit time of a BH with mass $`M`$ (generalized Stefan-Boltzmann equation):

$$\frac{dE_{\mathrm{em}}}{dt}=\underset{i}{}\sigma _{n_i}c_i(n_i)\mathrm{\Gamma }_i(n_i,s_i)f_i(n_i)A_i(M,n_i,d)T^{n_i}.$$
(5)
The $`n_i`$-dimensional Stefan-Boltzmann constant is

$$\sigma _{n_i}=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{n_i3}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n_i)\zeta (n_i)}{(n_i2)(2\pi )^{n_i1}},$$
(6)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the gamma Euler’s function (not to be confused with the greybody factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$) and $`f_i(n_i)=1`$ $`(12^{1n_i})`$ for bosons (fermions). Using Eq. (2) and the relation between the BH temperature and the Schwarzschild radius Argyres:1998qn ,

$$T=\frac{d3}{4\pi r_s},$$
(7)
it follows that the energy emitted per unit time is proportional to the temperature square:

$$\frac{dE_{\mathrm{em}}}{dt}=T^2\underset{i}{}\sigma _{n_i}c_i(n_i)\mathrm{\Gamma }_i(n_i,s_i)f_i(n_i)\mu _i(n_i,d),$$
(8)
where

$$\mu _i(n_i,d)=\mathrm{\Omega }_{n_i2}\left(\frac{d1}{2}\right)^{\frac{n_i2}{d3}}\left(\frac{d1}{d3}\right)^{\frac{n_i2}{2}}\left(\frac{d3}{4\pi }\right)^{n_i2}.$$
(9)
The ratio of the emitted energy for two different species is:

$$\frac{dE_{\mathrm{em},i}/dt}{dE_{\mathrm{em},j}/dt}=\frac{\sigma _{n_i}c_i(n_i)\mathrm{\Gamma }_i(n_i,s_i)f_i(n_i)\mu _i(n_i,d)}{\sigma _{n_j}c_j(n_i)\mathrm{\Gamma }_j(n_j,s_j)f_j(n_j)\mu _j(n_j,d)}.$$
(10)
Using Eq. (8), the BH mass loss $`dM/dt=dE_{\mathrm{em}}/dt`$ can be expressed as a function of the BH mass:

$$\frac{dM}{dt}=\mu (\{n_i,s_i\},d)M^{\frac{2}{d3}}.$$
(11)
where

$$\mu (\{n_i,s_i\},d)=\left(\frac{d3}{4\pi }\right)^2\left[\frac{(d2)\mathrm{\Omega }_{d2}}{16\pi }\right]^{\frac{2}{d3}}\underset{i}{}\sigma _{n_i}c_i(n_i)\mathrm{\Gamma }_i(n_i,s_i)f_i(n_i)\mu _i(n_i,d).$$
(12)
Integrating Eq. (11) we obtain the decay time

$$\tau =\mu ^1\frac{d3}{d1}M_{\mathrm{BH}}^{\frac{d1}{d3}}.$$
(13)
We can compare this result to the decay time of Argyres et al. Argyres:1998qn , which is often used in the literature. The decay time of Ref. Argyres:1998qn  is calculated by taking into account only the graviton loss in $`d`$-dimensions. Our result differs from the result of Ref. Argyres:1998qn  because the latter is calculated by using the actual area of the BH rather than the optical area and neglecting the geometric emission factor of Eq. (4). As is expected, the decay time Eq. (13) is longer than that of Ref. Argyres:1998qn  because of the extra particle evaporation channels.

The total multiplicity is obtained by integrating $`E^1_{\mathrm{em},i}/dt`$ over the phase space and summing over all the particle species. Using Eq. (7) and Eq. (11) we find

$$N=\frac{d3}{d2}\frac{M_{\mathrm{BH}}}{T_{\mathrm{BH}}}\frac{_i\sigma _{n_i}c_i(n_i)\mathrm{\Gamma }_i(n_i,s_i)f_i(n_i1)\mu _i(n_i,d)\zeta (n_i1)[(n_i1)\zeta (n_i)]^1}{_j\sigma _{n_j}c_j(n_j)\mathrm{\Gamma }_j(n_j,s_j)f_j(n_j)\mu _j(n_j,d)}.$$
(14)
The multiplicity per particle species is

$$N_i=N\frac{\sigma _{n_i}c_i(n_i)\mathrm{\Gamma }_i(n_i,s_i)f_i(n_i1)\mu _i(n_i,d)\zeta (n_i1)[(n_i1)\zeta (n_i)]^1}{_j\sigma _{n_j}c_j(n_j)\mathrm{\Gamma }_j(n_j,s_j)f_j(n_j1)\mu _j(n_j,d)\zeta (n_j1)[(n_j1)\zeta (n_j)]^1}.$$
(15)
Equation (15) gives the statistical number of particles per species produced during the evaporation process.

## III Black hole evaporation at LHC

Using the previous equations, we can estimate the energy loss, the decay time, and the multiplicity of Schwarzschild BHs at particle colliders. Equations (10) and (13)-(15) are exact, modulo the greybody thermal average approximation. These equations can be evaluated for a given particle model (standard model, SUSY, etc…) and a given geometry of the spacetime (ADD Arkani-Hamed:1998rs , Randall-Sundrum Randall:1999ee ; Randall:1999vf , fat brane Arkani-Hamed:1999dc , universal extra dimensions Appelquist:2000nn , etc…) if the corresponding greybody factors $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i(n_i,s_i)`$ are known. The greybody factors for particles with spin 0, 1/2, 1 and 2 in four dimensions have been known for a long time Page:df . The greybody factors for fields with spin 0, 1/2, and 1 in higher-dimensions have recently been calculated in the low-frequency limit Kanti:2002nr ; Kanti:2002ge ; Ida:2002ez . To our knowledge, the spin-2 greybody factors in higher dimensions have not been calculated. Therefore, some kind of approximation is required in Eq. (10) and Eqs. (13)-(15).

Let us assume that the BH mainly radiates on the brane. Usually, only gravitons and other “exotic” fields propagates in the whole $`d`$-dimensional spacetime. Hence, one should expect the energy-loss into the bulk to be negligible. In order to check this assumption, let us consider a simple model with a four-dimensional infinitesimally thin brane and only the graviton propagating into the 10-dimensional bulk. Using Eq. (10) we can evaluate the ratio of energy loss due to graviton emission in the bulk and, for example, the total spin-1 field emission on the brane. Equation (10) gives the result:

$$\frac{dE_{\mathrm{em},\mathrm{grav}}/dt}{dE_{\mathrm{em},\mathrm{spin}\text{-}1}/dt}.64\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{spin}\text{-}2}(10,2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{spin}\text{-}1}(4,1)},$$
(16)
where the spin-1 greybody factor is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{spin}\text{-}1}(4,1)0.24`$. In four-dimensions the spin-2 greybody factor is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{spin}\text{-}2}(4,2)0.028`$, thus in a pure four-dimensional world the graviton emission is negligible. However, if the ten-dimensional spin-2 greybody factor is bigger than $`.38`$, the graviton emission in the bulk becomes comparable to the total spin-1 emission on the brane! In this case the bulk emission cannot be neglected. This is quite in contrast with the result obtained by assuming a Boltzmann statistics and no greybody factors Emparan:2000rs . A definitive answer requires the knowledge of the graviton greybody factors in higher dimensions.

We illustrate the computation of the multiplicity with an example. Let us evaluate Eq. (14) for a $`n`$-dimensional infinitesimally thin brane in a $`d`$-dimensional spacetime. We consider only standard model fields and we neglect the graviton energy loss into the bulk. Setting $`n_i=n_j=n`$, Eq. (14) simplifies to

$$N=\frac{d3}{d2}\frac{\zeta (n1)}{(n1)\zeta (n)}\frac{M_{\mathrm{BH}}}{T_{\mathrm{BH}}}\frac{_ic_i(n)\mathrm{\Gamma }_i(n,s_i)f_i(n1)}{_jc_j(n)\mathrm{\Gamma }_j(n,s_j)f_j(n)}.$$
(17)
Setting $`n=4`$, we can evaluate the statistical multiplicity of BH events at LHC as function of the BH mass and of the spacetime dimensions. Choosing the fundamental Planck scale to be $`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}=1`$ TeV, the total number of emitted particles is $`N=4`$, $`6`$, $`7`$ for $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}=8`$, $`10`$ and $`12`$ TeV, respectively. Let us compare these values to the average multiplicity $`N`$ which is used in the literature. For the same choices of $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ we find $`N=8`$, $`10`$, and $`12`$. The multiplicity calculated by taking into account the particle statistics and the greybody factors is reduced by a factor $`43`$% w.r.t. average multiplicity. The reduction is stable as the number of spacetime dimensions changes, varying from $`48`$% for $`d=7`$ to $`42`$% for $`d=11`$. If we take into account possible emission of gravitons in the bulk, the visible multiplicity could be further reduced. How are the decay products distributed among the particle flavors? Using Eq. (15) we find that the $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}=8`$ TeV BH is likely to decay into three quarks plus either one charged lepton or one gluon, and the $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}=10`$ ($`12`$) TeV BH decays into four (five) quarks, one charged lepton and one gluon, each quark and gluon eventually producing a hadronic jet. The hadron-to-lepton ratio is still about 5:1.

## IV Conclusion

In this paper we have derived the energy loss, the statistical multiplicity and the flavor multiplicity of spherically symmetric BHs by taking into account the Boltzmann statistics and the greybody factors of the decay products. We have found that the multiplicity may be significantly smaller than the average multiplicity which is usually considered in the literature. The large multiplicity has long be considered one of the main signatures of BH formation at particle colliders. If the fundamental Planck scale is of order of the TeV scale, we expect creation of BHs with mass of a few TeVs at LHC. The multiplicity of these BHs is, however, far from being large, at least in the simplest model of a brane with infinitesimal thickness. Assuming $`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}=1`$ TeV and ten dimensions, BHs in the range $`8`$ \- $`10`$ TeV produce at most four or five hadronic jets. This has important consequences on the possible detection of BHs events, making the discrimination between standard model events and gravitational events harder. The introduction of the greybody factors and of the particle statistics also affects the bulk-to-brane energy loss ratio. Usually, the bulk emission is considered negligible w.r.t. emission into the brane. However, the exact amount of energy radiated into the bulk vs. the brane crucially depends on the greybody factors even in the simplest models. Since no greybody factors for spin-2 field in higher dimensions have been calculated, the answer to the question whether the emission in the bulk is negligible remains open. If the BH energy loss into the bulk is comparable with the energy loss on the brane, the possibility of BH detection in particle colliders is further reduced.

## Acknowledgments

We thank E.-J. Ahn, S. Das, R. Maartens for interesting discussions and comments. This work is supported by PPARC.


text:
# Using Geant4 in the B A B AR Simulation

## I OVERVIEW OF THE B A B AR SIMULATION

### I.1 The Detector

The primary physics goal of the B A B AR experiment is the study of CP violation in the $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ system. $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ events are produced by the decay of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4s)`$ resonances which are produced in $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions. Some of the $`B^0`$s decay into CP eigenstates such as $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }K_s^0`$, and the subsequent decays of the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`K_s^0`$ are detected and reconstructed. A typical event will produce between 30 and 60 tracks, and typical energies of the final state decay products are:

* lepton pairs: 0.3 $`<p<`$ 2.3 GeV/c
* $`\pi ^0`$ : 0.3 $`<E<`$ 2.5 GeV
* $`\gamma `$ : 0.1 $`<E<`$ 4.5 GeV .

Hadronic final states are also important because charged $`\pi `$s and $`K`$s interact in the beam pipe and calorimeters. Typical hadron momenta are

* p $`<`$ 4 GeV/c, with most $`<`$ 1 GeV/c .

Background events such as Bhabha scattering produce the highest energy tracks, with $`p_e^{},p_{e^+}<9`$ GeV/c .

The B A B AR detector was built to collect final state tracks with high efficiency and precision, and to allow the reconstruction of $`B^0`$ decays into a wide range of exclusive final states with low background. The detector was also designed to operate at the high luminosities provided by the PEP-II accelerator.

The detector consists of a silicon vertex tracker (SVT) which surrounds the $`e^+e^{}`$ interaction point and provides vertex determination at the 10 $`\mu `$m level. Surrounding the SVT is a He-isobutane drift chamber (DCH) for the measurement of charged tracks. Outside the DCH is a detector of internally-reflected Cherenkov radiation (DRC), constructed of quartz bars and used for particle identification (PID). Outside the DRC is a CsI electromagnetic calorimeter (EMC) designed to contain showers from charged and neutral tracks. A muon tracker and instrumented flux return (IFR), built of alternating layers of iron and resistive plate chamber (RPC) detectors, surrounds all the interior detectors.

### I.2 The Simulation

The simulation was designed to satisfy four main requirements. It must:

* run within the B A B AR Framework Framework . All the tracking, physics and hit-scoring performed by Geant4 Geant4  is implemented as a Framework module. Because the Framework is responsible for run and event control, Geant4 must therefore relinquish this duty.
* work with existing event generators, detector response codes and reconstruction codes. At the time Geant4 became available, B A B AR detector response and reconstruction codes were essentially complete and many event generation codes were already available.
* use the Objectivity database Objectivity  for persistence.
* be detailed, yet fast enough to keep up with high-luminosity event production.

A simple diagram of the main functions and operation of the resulting simulation is shown in Fig. 1.

The Geant4 toolkit is used extensively in the simulation. The detector geometry is built with Geant4 simple volumes and Boolean operations. As mentioned above, Geant4 is also responsible for hit-scoring and provides all the physics processes. These include the decay, standard electromagnetic and low-energy hadronic ($`E<10GeV`$) processes. Some features provided by Geant4, such as detector response code and persistence, are not used. The default Geant4 transportation/navigation process is also not used. It employs a general Runge-Kutta stepper which was found to be too slow and not precise enough for the many thin volumes in the B A B AR simulation. Taking advantage of the slowly varying magnetic field in the B A B AR detector, a specialized stepper was developed to meet these needs. This stepper determines how far a particle can travel before the field deviates from a locally constant value. Perfect helices are then used to propagate the particle over that distance. If that distance is large, many small steps are avoided.

## II VALIDATION

Before being put into production, the B A B ARGeant4 simulation was subjected to a series of validation tests focusing on

* verifying the detector material model,
* electromagnetic processes,
* hadronic processes,
* tracking, resolution and reconstruction,
* particle ID,
* performance and robustness.

Since October 2000, 20 million simulated events of several types have been produced for these tests. They include generic $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$, Bhabha scattering and dimuon events, among others. Comparsion of these events with data has allowed a refinement of the detector material model to the point that no further changes are necessary. Understanding of particle identification and electromagnetic processes is also believed to be well in hand, although validation in these areas continues. However, additional validation is required for the hadronic processes.

### II.1 Electromagnetic Process Validation

The B A B AR simulation uses the following Geant4 electromagnetic processes

* for photons: photo-electric effect, Compton scattering and $`e^+e^{}`$ pair production;
* for electrons and positrons: electron ionization, electron bremsstrahlung and $`e^+`$ annihilation;
* for muons: $`\mu `$ ionization, $`\mu `$ bremsstrahlung and $`e^+e^{}`$ pair production by muons;
* for hadrons: hadron ionization;
* for all charged particles: multiple scattering.

One of the most basic validation tests is to reproduce the expected energy loss due to ionization processes. In this case, minimum ionizing electrons and positrons from radiative Bhabha scattering were examined in the He-Isobutane gas of the drift chamber. Simulated events are compared to data from a recent run in Fig. 2, where it is seen that both the shape and normalization of the $`dE/dx`$ distributions are in agreement to within 15%. This indicates that fluctuations in the energy loss are reasonably well-reproduced. More importantly, the mean values of $`dE/dx`$ agree to within 1%.

It is also important to study electromagnetic showers in the CsI calorimeter. Measuring shower shapes provides a cumulative test of the photon and electron processes listed above. Radiative Bhabha scattering was used to examine the distribution of azimuthal and lateral shower parameters as a function of electron/positron energy. Fig. 3 shows the lateral distribution parameter (LAT). With the exception of a few energy bins, distributions of both of these parameters were found to show good agreement between data and simulation for all electron and positron energies up to 4 GeV.

### II.2 Reconstruction

The comparison of reconstructed events from data and simulation provides a stringent validation test. In B A B AR an accurate reconstruction of the $`\pi ^0`$ mass and width provides a test of many detector performance features, including tracking, energy scale, shower development, shower containment and detector response.

In $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ events, the decay $`K_s\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ provides $`\pi ^0`$s with energies between 0.3 and 2.1 GeV. Fig. 4 shows the reconstructed mass for $`\pi ^0`$s with total energies between 0.8 and 1.0 GeV. For both data and simulated samples the mass is close to the expected value, which indicates that tracking, energy scale and shower containment are well-understood. The widths, however, are significantly different and point to problems in shower development or detector response. Since it is believed that the shower development is understood, detector response should be examined in future validation tests.

### II.3 Hadronic Process Validation

The electromagnetic processes of hadron ionization and multiple scattering are of primary importance in the propagation of long-lived hadrons through the detector. Hadronic interactions are still important, however, because scattering from nuclei and the production of hadronic secondaries in the dense material of the EMC and IFR can affect the energy deposition.

Hadronic interactions in the B A B AR simulation are currently handled by the so-called “low energy parameterized”, or LEP, model. This is a re-engineered version of the GHEISHA code GHEISHA , which has been tuned for hadrons with incident energies below 20 GeV. Even so, it is not particularly appropriate at B A B AR hadron energies which are typically below 1 GeV. This is demonstrated in Fig. 5 which shows the pion production cross section for 730 MeV protons on a thin carbon target. Large, qualitative differences between the LEP model and data are evident. Recently, however, better models, such as the Bertini cascade Bertini , have become available. As shown in Fig. 6, much better agreement with the data is achieved at all angles. A current limitation of this model is that it is not valid for kaons.

The hadronic process validation in B A B AR has so far concentrated on the comparison of results from various models to published data from other experiments in which the incident hadron energies are in the B A B AR range. Validations using B A B AR data are just beginning.

While B A B AR is certainly not optimized for hadronic physics validation, two regions of the detector are useful for tests. The beam pipe support tube is a cylinder of carbon fiber and the inner wall of the drift chamber is a cylinder of beryllium. Tests are just beginning which use these regions as thin targets for incident hadrons.

## III PERFORMANCE

The simulation stage of B A B AR event production includes event generation, tracking and hit-scoring. A Pentium III 866 MHz PC currently requires 5.0 seconds on average to simulate a $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ event. Average execution times for other B A B AR event types are given in Table 1.

Up to now, relatively little effort has been devoted to optimizing performance because validation was the main concern. However, some increase in speed is expected with

* improvements in B A B AR geometry models,
* improvements in the Geant4 electromagnetic processes, and
* fine tuning of the secondary particle production cuts.

On the other hand, the improved hadronic models are much more CPU-intensive than the currently used LEP model, and will cause some slowdown.

After the production of 20 million validation events, many of the bugs in both the B A B AR simulation code and in Geant4 have been shaken out. To date, B A B AR simulation production has generated more than 1.5 billion events of all types at roughly 20 production sites in North America and Europe, with a failure rate of less than one event per million in the simulation stage.

## IV CONCLUSION

B A B AR is the first large experiment to develop and use a Geant4-based simulation. A detailed detector model has been developed using the Geant4 geometry, and both electromagnetic and hadronic interactions are implemented with Geant4 physics processes. The simulation was designed to run within the B A B AR Framework application.

Comparisons of simulated event samples and B A B AR data indicate that the electromagnetic processes perform largely as expected in the few GeV energy range. Validation tests of the LEP hadronic model show that more detailed models will be required before good agreement with data can be achieved.

The B A B AR simulation has proven to be robust, with 1.5 billion events generated so far at a low failure rate. Future efforts will concentrate on improving the overall speed of the simulation.

## V ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by Department of Energy contract DE-AC03-76SF00515.


text:
# Imaging the charge transport in arrays of CdSe nanocrystals

## I Figure Captions

## II

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the device and the EFM measurement setup. CdSe NCs are deposited on top of a device described in the text. For voltage $`V_{dc}<0`$ on the source electrode electrons are injected into the film from the source; no charge injection is observed for positive voltages on the source. $`q`$ is the charge on the sample, while $`q_1`$, and $`q_2`$ are charges induced by $`q`$ in the gate and in the tip, respectively.

## III

Figure 2. (COLOR) (a) Charging and (b) discharging of a CdSe film as a function of time as described in the text. A topographic contour containing the two electrodes is shown. The circle to the right of the electrodes is a flaw in the NC film.

## IV

Figure 3. The measured and calculated EFM signal plotted along the x-axis during the discharging of the film. The calculated curves $`(Q(x,t_j))^2`$ are obtained from the best fit of a diffusion model, described in the text. The diffusion coefficient from the fit is $`D=(2.8\pm 0.2)\times 10^3\mu m^2/s`$. The comparison between data and theory shown for $`t_j`$, $`j=1,4,\mathrm{},19`$. Inset: Positions of maxima $`x_{max,j}`$ vs time $`t_j`$, $`j=1`$ to $`21`$, and a linear fit $`x_{max}^2=4Dt`$, giving the same value of $`D`$.

## V

Figure 4. (COLOR) EFM images for a device with long parallel electrodes. (a) Charging of the film, 48 min after $`V_{dc}=40V`$ is turned on. The topographic contours of the electrodes are shown. (b) Slices of EFM images ($`0<y<5\mu m`$) showing discharging of the film 0, 3, 6 and 9 min after $`V_{dc}`$ is turned off. (c) Measured and calculated EFM signal plotted along the x-axis as described in the text.

## VI


text:
# Untitled Document

The superconducting state in a single $`\mathrm{CuO}_2`$ layer: Experimental findings and scenario

Rushan Han, Wei Guo

School of Physics, Peking University, Beijing 100871

The notable results shown by Bozovic et al. from measurements of synthesized one-unit-cell thick of $`\mathrm{La}_{1.85}\mathrm{Sr}_{0.15}\mathrm{CuO}_4`$, $`\mathrm{La}_2\mathrm{CuO}_4`$ HTS/AF/HTS tri-layer junctions query the predictions by prevalent models since there is no observable mixing of superconductivity and anti-ferromagnetism between the layers. In this article we make a brief survey of experimental results on the electronic structure of high-$`T_c`$ cuprates and magnetic properties. Based on our analysis, we attribute superconductivity of a $`single`$ $`\mathrm{CuO}_2`$ layer to spin pairing via local exchange interactions.

PACS numbers : 74.20.Mn, 75.20.Hr, 75.30.Et, 74.25.Ha
Recently, Bozovic et al. synthesized one-unit-cell thick superconducting LSCO, insulating LCO HTS/AF/HTS tri-layer junctions in a way of stacking digitally by using advanced Molecular Beam Epitaxy technology \[ Nature 422, 873(2003) \]. The result shown by Bozovic et al. indicating no mixing of superconductivity and anti-ferromagnetism in HTS/AF/HTS layers queries the predictions by prevalent models. The fact that superconductivity holds in one-unit cell thick LSCO layer also questions the idea of the inter-layer coupling as a pairing mechanism. Bozovic et al. have shown that there is 1 eV energy difference between LSCO and LCO, and the quasi-two-dimensional mid-gap states in LSCO, i.e. the energy position of the superconducting state is in between the empty and the valence band of LCO. This observation agrees with some earlier works by other investigators: the normal states of charge carriers are in between two energy bands of LCO, the chemical potential pins in the middle of the gap rather than at the bottom. The doped holes appeared in oxygen band activate $`p`$ electrons, the density of itinerant electrons is found to be proportional to concentration of the doped holes $`x`$ ( also the density of superfluids $`n_s`$ ). Mixing between orbital $`2p`$ (O) and $`3d`$ (Cu) has been observed, the mixing ratio is 8 : 2. The mixed states are not located in Cu site or O site, but extended itinerant states with metallic mobility. The superfluid carriers are mainly $`p`$ electrons rather than $`d`$ electrons.

High-$`T_c`$ phenomena occur in a special magnetic structure only. Among the huge number of compounds belong to the family of strongly correlated systems, non-Fermi-liquids, d-f metals and perovskite type materials, high-$`T_c`$ cuprate is the only one superconductive with high-transition temperature. On the other hand, all high-$`T_c`$ cuprates with different compositions exhibit universal physical properties such as the phase diagram, non-Fermi-liquid behavior, etc. The superconducting phase emerges in a doping region between insulting ( charge transfer type ) and Fermi liquid regimes, the transition temperatures vary with the doped hole concentration $`x`$ companied with variation of the number of charge carriers and short range order of anti-ferromagnetism. Itinerant $`p`$ electron also plays a role of mediation for the superexchange between Cu ions ( in Wannier representation ), the physical properties of charge carriers ( $`p`$ electrons ) and variations of magnetic correlation between local Cu spins influenced by hole doping should be carefully examined since the nearly free local spins created by holes in the anti-ferromagnetic background may interact with charge carriers via Kondo exchange. In the following we list main experimental results on the electronic structure of high-$`T_c`$ cuprates with brief comments. The article is divided into four parts: i. The physical properties of charge carriers, ii. Varying of anti-ferromagnetic background by changing the doped hole concentration, iii. Interactions between charge carriers and the anti-ferromagnetic background, iv. Physical properties of the superconducting state.

1. Bozovic I. et al. Nature 422, 873(2003). Evidence for quasi-two-dimensional electronic state located in the middle of band gap.
2. Uchida S. et al. PRB. 43, 7942(1991). Electronic state in the middle of band gap shown by optical experiment.
3. Fujimori Lanl. 0011293. Evidence for electronic state in the middle of band gap shown by transfer of spectral weight in ARPES.
4. Ino Lanl. 0005370. Evidence for electronic state in the middle of band gap shown by transfer of spectral weight in ARPES.
5. Ino PRL. 79, 2101(1997). Evolution of chemical potential, pining in the middle of band gap.
6. Romberg H. et al. Phys. Rev. B 42, 8768(1990). O1s $``$ O2p resonance excitation, evidence for holes in oxygen sites.
7. Nucker N. et al. PRB. 37, 5158(1988); PRB. 59, 6619(1989). Holes in oxygen sites.
8. Arko A. L. et al. et al. PRB. 40, 2268(1989). The mixing ratio O2p : Cu3d $``$ 8 : 2
9. Feng D. L. et al. Science 289, 277(2000). Superfluid density $`n_sT_cx`$
10. Yoshida T. et al. arXiv: cond-mat/0206469. Quasi-particle peak, the number of charge carriers $`nx`$ and metallic behavior.

By increasing the doped hole concentration, the long anti-ferromagnetic order of Cu moment in the $`\mathrm{CuO}_2`$ plane turns into short range order, ultimately to disorder companied with delocalization of $`d`$ electrons on the Cu sites. In a proper doping range, $`d`$ electron with spin S =1/2 is localized, oriented along b axis. The magnetic correlation between local spins in the $`\mathrm{CuO}_2`$ plane is anisotropic Ising like. Doped holes in the anti-ferromagnetic bonds suppress local spin correlation and yield the incommensurate splitting of neutron scattering magnetic peak and nearly free local spins. In case of dynamical phase separation, anti-ferromagnetic background is imperfect, flipping local spins create the ”defects” in the anti-ferromagnetic background ( these ”defects” are not static since the holes hop site to site ). This is another important effect brought by hole doping, which is overlooked by many people. This factor plays an important role in the variation of the physical properties of high-$`T_c`$ cuprates with increasing doped hole concentration. In heavy doping region $`x>0.19`$, when delocalization of $`d`$ electrons on Cu site begins, the density of charge carriers changes from $`x`$ to $`1x`$. On the lower side of this critical doping value, there always exist local $`\mathrm{Cu}^{2+}`$ ions. Above the critical doping level, superconductivity vanishes with collapsed anti-ferromagnetic background.

11. Aeppli G. et al. ”Lecture notes for E. Fermi Summer School, Varenna”, 1992. Short range anti-ferromagnetic correlation length $`\xi _s0.38/\sqrt{x}`$ nm .
12. Birgeneau R. J. et al. ”Physical Properties of High Temperature Superconductivity I” , edited by Ginsberg D. M. ( World Scientific, Singapore, 1989 ), p154, Fig 1. Local spins parallel to a main axis in the $`\mathrm{CuO}_2`$ plane.
13. Lavrov A. N. et al. PRL. 87, 17001(2001). Anisotropy of susceptibility, spins parallel to b axis. Evidence for the existence of nearly free moments.
14. Dai Peng-Cheng et al. PRB. 63, 54525(2001). Incommensurate splitting of magnetic $`(\pi ,\pi )`$ peak persisting into the superconducting state.
15. Yamada K. et al. PRB. 57, 6165(1998). Incommensurate splitting $`\delta x`$ saturating near the optimal doping.
16. Zhou X. J. et al. Science 286, 268(1999). Phase separation shown by ARPES, proposed charge and magnetic ordering structure.
17. Lake B. et al. Nature 400, 43(1999). Incommensurate splitting, energy of spin gap is independent of momentum.
18. Uchida S. et al. Physica C 282-287, 12(1997). Delocalization of Cu ions. The density of charge carriers changes from $`x`$ to $`1x`$.
19. Brooks N. B. PRL. 87, 237003(2001). Detecting $`\mathrm{Cu}^{2+}`$ ions by using spin resolute photo emission technique.
20. Tallon J.L. et al. Physica C 349, 53(2001). So called ”0.19” problem, delocalization of local charge companied with variation of physical properties.

It is observed that the scattering rate of electrons varies about three orders of magnitude near transition temperature $`T_c`$, electron-phonon interaction is not a main factor to the superconducting transition. On the other hand, anomalous Hall effect observed indicates electron-local-moment scattering. AHE is characterized by linear temperature dependence of Hall number, which is a common feature for many of magnetic materials. Smit and Luttinger attribute AHE to skew scattering. AHE in Kondo-type systems was first discussed by Fert et al.(not like dilute magnetic impurity systems, local moments in high-$`T_c`$ cuprates are correlated, no saturation at high temperatures). The simultaneous suppression of superconductivity and the superexchange by substitution of Cu by Zn and Ni indicates that S=1/2 is required for high-$`T_c`$ physics. In the doping region ( $`0.02<x<0.15`$ ), the range of anti-ferromagnetic order is short, the superconducting coherent length is comparable to the magnetic correlation length. The mobility of charge carriers is inversely proportional to anti-ferromagnetic correlation length indicating the magnetic origin of microscopic interactions. Charge carriers in the mid-gap state interacting with mobile ”defects” in the anti-ferromagnetic background is the key to superconductivity.

21. Bonn D. A. et al. PRB. 47, 11314(1993). Scattering rate $`1/\tau `$ varies three order of magnitude near transition temperature.
22. Zhang Y. et al. PRL. 84, 2219(2000). Measurement of Wiedemann-Franz ratio indicate that electron-electron scattering is dominating.
23. Ong N. P. ”Physical Properties of High Temperature Superconductivity II” edited by Ginsberg D. M. (World Scientific, Singapore 1990 ), p460. Hall number varies linearly with temperature.
24. Bergmann G. Physics Today, 1979, p25. A general survey of the origin of temperature dependent anomalous Hall effect, asymmetric scattering between conduction electrons and local moments.
25. Luttinger J. M. Phys. Rev. 112, 739(1958). The concept of skew scattering
26. Fert A. et al. PRL. 28, 303(1972); Levy P M. et al. J. Appl. Phys. 63, 3869(1988). Skew scattering in Kondo-type systems.
27. White P. J. et al. arXiv: cond-mat/9901349, 9901354. Zn substitution.
28. Alloud H. et al. PRL. 67, 3140(1991). Substitution of Cu by Zn suppresses superconductivity and anti-ferromagnetism.
29. Kakurai K. et al. PRB. 48, 3485(1993). Substitution of Cu by Zn suppresses superconductivity and anti-ferromagnetism.
30. Ando Y. et al. PRL. 87, 17001(2001). The mobility of the doped holes is proportional to AF correlation length.

The $`\mathrm{CuO}_2`$ plane is a common structure unit of all high-$`T_c`$ cuprates. Bozovic et al show quasi-two-dimensionality of the superconducting state and short proximity effect. In the phase diagram, $`T_c/T_c^{\mathrm{max}}`$ is a parabolic function of $`x`$ near the optimal doping, the curvature $`\kappa `$ and the optimal doping $`x_0`$ are universal constants. Excitations in a high-$`T_c`$ cuprate are complex, especially the pseudogap with $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ symmetry and isotropic spin gap. The revival of spin gap responding to external magnetic field reveals that the microscopic in-plane interaction is magnetic, which is agreed with observed time-reversal symmetry breaking effect in polarized photo-emission experiment( need to be confirmed ). The intrinsic inhomogenity of the superconducting state in atomic scale by using STM method queries all proposed k space pairing models.

31. Batlogg B. et al. Physica C 235-240, 130(1994). A survey of the pseudogap.
32. Xu Zhuan et al. Nature 406, 486(2000). Vortex-like excitation in underdoped samples above $`T_c`$ (100 $``$220 K ), evidence for incoherent pairing.
33. Wen H. H. et al. arXiv: cond-mat/0301367
34. Tallon J. L. et al. PRL. 75, 4114(1995); PRB. 51, 12911(1995). Universal expression for empirical $`T_c`$ law.
35. Tsuei C. C. et al. PRL. 73, 593(1994). Tri-crystal junction, $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ symmetry.
36. Rossat-Mignod J. et al. Physica C 185-189, 86(1991); Physica B 169, 58(1991). Spin gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_c`$.
37. Yamada K. PRL. 75, 1626(1995). Spin gap in LSCO.
38. Pan S. H. et al. Nature 413, 282(2001). Intrinsic microscopic inhomogenity of the superconducting state.
39. Ginsberg D. M. ”Physical Properties of High Temperature Superconductivity I”, edited by Ginsberg D. M. (World Scientific, Singapore 1989 )p1. Short superconducting coherent length.
40. Kaminski A. et al. Nature 416, 610(2002). Polarized photo-emission, time-reversal symmetry breaking in the pseudogap and the superconducting state.
41. Lake B. et al. Science 291, 1759(2001). Indication of the magnetic origin of microscopic interaction.

Two interactions are essential to the superconducting state in a single $`\mathrm{CuO}_2`$ layer: the superexchange ( coupling constant K $``$ 0.1 eV ) between $`\mathrm{Cu}^{2+}`$ions and the Kondo exchange between itinerant charge carriers and ”defects” in the anti-ferromagnetic background i.e. nearly free spins ( coupling constant J $``$ 0.01 eV ). We interpret the coexistence of anti-ferromagnetism and superconductivity as following: $`p`$ electron being the mediation for the superexchange between Cu spins is activated by hole doping breaking the long range order of Cu spins. On the other hand, electron spin coupling mediated by nearly free Cu spins via the Kondo exchange gives rise to electron pairing in spin sector. A notable result of spin pairing is that the wavefunction of two opposite spins is symmetric rather than anti-symmetric( susceptibility measurement in NMR and neutron scattering experiment can not determine the symmetry of spin wavefunction ). The projection of the orbital wavefunction of the electron pair in the $`\mathrm{CuO}_2`$ plane has the $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ symmetry which is forced by spin and crystal symmetries. Orbital wavefunction along $`c`$ axis is restrained as shown by Bozovic et al. As explained by the K-J model, the two dimensionless quantities $`\kappa =86.2`$ and optimal doping $`x_0=0.16`$ in the universal parabolic function of $`T_c/T_c^{\mathrm{max}}`$ are not independent, one relates to another determined by two fundamental constants $`K_0`$( for undoped sample )and $`J`$. The K-J model also explains: the upper limit of $`T_c^{\mathrm{max}}150K`$, delocalization of $`d`$ electron at $`x0.2`$, short range magnetic order, spin gap and the pseudogap, low superfluid density $`n_sxT_c`$, time-reversal symmetry breaking and non-fermi-liquid behavior, etc.

42. Guo W. et al. arXiv: cond-mat/0303155; Physica C 364-365,79(2001). The K-J model.

By summary, we have listed essential literatures of experimental results showing the electronic structure of high-$`T_c`$ cuprates ( limited by article length we have omitted many important works ). To understand high-$`T_c`$ superconductivity, we have to put every piece of experimental findings together to figure out the hidden scheme like a puzzle game. Based on our analysis, we attribute superconductivity of a single $`\mathrm{CuO}_2`$ layer to spin pairing via local exchange interactions.