text:
# Influence of the stray field of magnetic dot on the nucleation of superconductivity in a disk

## I Introduction

Hybrid superconductor/ferromagnet structures have attracted a lot of attention victor ; ja ; pokro ; rusi ; misko ; miskoa ; mjvb ; martin ; mjvbb . So far, the experimental efforts have mainly been focused on superconducting thin films with arrays of magnetic dots. Recently, a superconducting disk with a perpendicularly magnetized dot was fabricated and its superconducting $`T_c(B)`$ phase boundary determined ja . However, the nucleation of superconductivity in this case was strongly affected by the proximity effect between the disk and dot.

In this paper we have investigated the onset of superconductivity in an Al disk with a perpendicularly magnetized Co/Pd magnetic dot on the top. The dot is separated from the disk by an insulating spacer layer, which ensures that there is no suppression of the order parameter in the disk due to the proximity effect and that the interaction between the disk and dot has only magnetic character ja .

The superconducting $`T_c(B)`$ phase boundary, obtained by transport measurements, exhibits an asymmetry with respect to the polarity of the applied magnetic field. The maximum critical temperature, higher than the zero-field critical temperature, is attained for a finite applied magnetic field which is parallel to the magnetization of magnetic dot.

## II Sample preparation and experimental technique

The sample was prepared on a SiO2 substrate by electron beam lithography on PMMA950K and the co-polymer electron beam resists in three phases. Each phase involves the patterning of a desired structure, thermal evaporation of the material and ultrasonic assisted lift-off procedure.

The contact pads and leads, as well as the alignment markers are made up of $`5`$nm Cr and $`30nm`$ Au. The superconducting disk is a $`60`$nm thick Al, whereas the magnetic dot consists of $`2.5nm`$ Pd buffer layer and $`10`$ bilayers of $`0.4`$nm Co and $`1`$nm Pd. A $`10`$nm thick Si spacer layer was evaporated before the magnetic dot. A careful alignment procedure was needed to position the dot at the centre of the disk.

Fig. 1 presents an atomic force microscopy image of the sample. The radius of the Al disk is $`1.08\mu \mathrm{m}`$, whereas the dot has the radius of $`270`$nm. The electric contacts are wedge-shaped, with the opening angle of $`15^{}`$, as these have proved to be the least invasive for transport measurements of superconducting nanostructures proka .

The magnetic properties of patterned Co/Pd structures were thoroughly investigated in Ref. martin . We have determined the magnetic properties of the Co/Pd multilayer at room temperature from the magneto-optical Kerr measurements of the co-evaporated plane film. These data have confirmed that the Co/Pd multilayer has a perpendicular anisotropy, with a complete remanence and coercive field of approximately $`70`$mT. Prior to the measurements the sample was magnetized perpendicularly in the magnetic field of $`300`$mT. As the applied magnetic fields in the experiment never exceeded $`30`$mT, we have assumed that the magnetization of the dot remains unaltered during the measurements.

The onset of superconductivity in the structure was studied by measuring the superconducting $`T_c(B)`$ phase boundary. The phase boundary was found resistively, from four-point transport measurements, in a cryogenic setup at temperatures down to $`1.11`$K, with the temperature and field resolution of $`0.5`$mK and $`5\mu \mathrm{T}`$, respectively. The transport current with the effective value of $`100`$nA and frequency $`27.7`$Hz was used, whilst the signal-to-noise ratio was being improved by a lock-in amplifier.

The resistance of the structure at room temperature is $`4.85\mathrm{\Omega }`$, the low temperature resistance is $`R_n=2.8\mathrm{\Omega }`$, whereas the maximum critical temperature is $`T_{cm}=1.421`$K.

## III Experimental results

Fig. 2 presents resistive transitions of the structure in a constant applied magnetic field. We have taken parallel magnetic fields as positive and antiparallel magnetic fields as negative, and will be using this convention throughout the paper.

Typically, superconducting structures have resistive transitions that are symmetric with respect to the polarity of an applied magnetic field. Likewise, the maximum transition temperature is achieved in zero applied field. The transitions in Fig. 2 are strongly asymmetric with respect to the polarity of an applied field. The critical temperature, defined conventionally as the temperature at which the resistance is $`R_n/2`$, in the applied magnetic field of $`+2`$mT is equal to the transition temperature in $`1`$mT. This dependence of the resistive transitions on the field polarity is reproduced for higher fields, as well. More importantly, the critical temperature in zero applied field is not the maximum critical temperature of the structure. The structure attains the maximum critical temperature when exposed to the magnetic field of $`+0.3mT`$. The difference between the maximum and zero-field critical temperature is approximately $`2.5`$mK.

The transitions for the applied fields $`1<B_a<1[\mathrm{mT}]`$ have considerable overshoots in resistance, with respect to the normal state. This phenomenon is related to the formation of normal/superconducting (NS) interfaces and nonequilibrium charge imbalance effects vital ; vit ; proka . The critical temperature of the mesoscopic contacts is slightly higher than the critical temperature of the disk proka . For this reason, superconductivity nucleates nonuniformly, thus giving rise to the formation of the NS interfaces. Due to a finite local magnetic induction in the disk generated by the dot, the difference in the critical temperatures of the disk and the mesoscopic contacts is greater than for a disk without a magnetic dot. As a positive applied magnetic field increases, the total magnetic induction in the disk around the magnetic dot decreases, thereby effectively reducing the difference in the critical temperatures of the disk and mesoscopic contacts. For this reason, as the positive applied field increases the amplitude of the resistance anomaly decreases. On the other hand, a negative applied field gives rise to a greater difference in the local critical temperatures, which is responsible for more pronounced peaks. When increasing the negative applied field, the contribution of the stray field to the total field becomes less significant and the typical amplitudes of the overshoots are recovered victor ; proka .

Fig. 3 shows the experimental phase boundary in the plane of the normalized critical temperature $`1T_c(B)/T_{cm}`$ and the applied magnetic field, with $`T_{cm}`$ being the maximum measured critical temperature. The inset displays the phase boundary around the zero-field critical temperature $`T_{c0}`$. The phase boundary, except for the low fields, has a linear background, which is the hallmark of the nucleation process in the disk victor . In addition, the quasiperiodicity of the phase boundary is entirely consistent with what has been obtained for a mesoscopic superconducting disk without the dot vb . When there is a pronounced proximity effect between the superconducting disk and magnetic dot, the order parameter is suppressed below the dot and the disk can be approximated with a superconducting loop with a finite width ja . In this case, the superconducting $`T_c(B)`$ phase boundary has a crossover in the background - from a parabolic for low fields to a linear for high fields vb . Therefore, the presence of a pronounced proximity effect between the dot and the disk can confidently be ruled out, and specific features of the phase boundary can be attributed to the magnetic interaction between the disk and magnetic dot.

The most striking feature of the phase boundary is its asymmetry. The minimum in the phase boundary, which corresponds to the maximum critical temperature of the structure, has been obtained for a finite applied magnetic field which is parallel to the magnetization of magnetic dot.

## IV Theoretical results

The experimental data have been analysed by using the Ginzburg-Landau (GL) theory. Near the transition from the normal to the superconducting state the total magnetic field in the disk is equal to the sum of the stray field of the magnetic dot and a uniform externally applied field. The stray field we have used in the analysis, was obtained by magnetostatic calculations. For details, we refer to ja ; misko .

As the sample in our experiment is thinner than the coherence length $`\xi (T)`$, the order parameter is constant along $`z`$ axis and the magnetic field in the GL equations can be averaged out over the thickness of the disk. Thus, the problem is reduced to the 2D case. The axial symmetry of the sample allows us to further reduce the dimensionality of the problem to the 1D case, since near the phase boundary the modulus of the order parameter is axially symmetric. Using the cylindrical coordinate system with coordinates $`r`$, $`\phi `$, $`z`$, the dimensionless order parameter $`\psi (r,\varphi )`$ can be expressed as

$$\psi (r,\varphi )=f(r)\mathrm{exp}(iL\varphi ),$$
(1)
where $`f(r)`$ is the modulus of the order parameter and $`L`$ stands for the winding number (vorticity). Instead of solving the GL equations, which are nonlinear with respect to $`f(r)`$, we have applied a variational procedure, similar to what has been used in Ref. pogosov . The trial function used for the modulus of the order parameter is

$`f(r)=p_1\mathrm{exp}\left(q{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{R^2}}\right)\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{R}}\right)^L+p_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{R}}\right)^{L+1}+p_3\left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{R}}\right)^{L+2}+p_4\left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{R}}\right)^{L+3}\right).`$ (2)
where $`p_1`$, $`p_2`$, $`p_3`$ and $`p_4`$ are the variational parameters, $`R`$ is the radius of the disk, whereas $`q`$ is found from the vacuum boundary condition for the order parameter ($`f^{}(R)=0`$)

$$q=\frac{L+p_2(L+1)+p_3(L+2)+p_4(L+3)}{2(1+p_2+p_3+p_4)}.$$
(3)
Using Eqs. (1) and (2) the GL energy is found as a function of the variational parameters (see Ref. pogosov ). The values of the variational parameters are calculated by minimizing the GL energy. Comparing the energies of states with different $`L`$ the superconducting $`T_c(B)`$ phase boundary of the disk is found.

Fig. 4 displays the theoretical fit of the experimental phase boundary in the low field regime, along with the theoretical phase boundary of an identical superconducting disk without magnetic dot (dashed line). The critical temperatures are normalized to the zero-field critical temperature of the superconducting disk without magnetic dot, as obtained by the calculations. The best agreement between the theory and the experiment has been found for $`\xi (T=0)=90`$nm, which is consistent with the value of $`\xi (T=0)`$ obtained in Ref. victor  for mesoscopic Al superconductors. Each cusp in the phase boundary corresponds to the transition between the states with different vorticities. According to our results, there is one vortex in the disk in the absence of the external magnetic field.

The superconducting phase boundary strongly depends upon the polarity of an external magnetic field. The magnetization of the dot $`m`$ has been chosen to provide the best qualitative and quantitative agreement between the theory and the experiment in the vicinity of $`T_{c0}`$. The direction of the shift of $`T_c(B)`$ phase boundary near $`T_{c0}`$, for a fixed orientation of the magnetization $`m`$, depends upon the intensity of the stray field of magnetic dot. The shift can come about as a result of the cancellation of the total flux generated by the magnetic dot, or due to a change in the kinetic energy of the superconducting condensate in the disk, accompanied by a switch in the vorticity by one. The former shifts the phase boundary in the direction opposite to the magnetization of the dot and the maximum critical temperature is observed for a finite negative applied field, whereas the latter provides that the maximum critical temperature is achieved for a finite applied field parallel to the magnetization of the dot, that is for a finite positive field. Which of these competing effects prevails strongly depends upon the intensity of magnetization of magnetic dot, as well as upon the parameters of the superconducting structure. In our case the shift is positive.

In addition to the shift along the $`B`$-axis, the phase boundary of the hybrid structure is also shifted along the $`T`$-axis. The shift along the $`T`$-axis is caused by a difference in the maximum critical temperature of the disk with and without the dot. As the stray field of the dot is spatially inhomogeneous, it cannot be cancelled out by an externally applied homogeneous magnetic field. For this reason, there is always a finite flux through a disk with a magnetic dot and its maximum critical temperature is reduced compared to the disk without a magnetic dot. Even though the maximum critical temperature of the hybrid structure is less than 1$`\%`$ lower than the maximum critical temperature of the plane disk, this difference is sufficient to modify the phase boundary. If the additional homogeneous magnetic field were applied, there would be no differences in maximum critical temperature, and, consequently, the $`T_c(B)`$ phase boundary would not be substantially modified along the $`T`$-axis. We can, therefore, conclude that the effect of the inhomogeneous magnetic field on the nucleation of superconductivity is twofold: it shifts the phase boundary along the $`B`$-axis, as well as distorts the phase boundary along the $`T`$-axis, altering the values at which the structure switches between different vorticities.

The stray field of the magnetic may change the typical spatial profile of the superconducting condensate density within the disk. Fig. 5(a) and 5(b) present the moduli of the order parameter for the disk with magnetic dot (solid line) and disk without magnetic dot (dashed line). Fig. 5(a) shows the Meissner state, whereas Fig. 5(b) shows the state with the vorticity $`L=1`$. In the Meissner state, for the plane superconducting disk, the modulus of the order parameter has a maximum at the centre of the disk. On the other hand, the amplitude of the order parameter is reduced below the magnetic dot, where the intensity of the stay field is the highest, and exhibits a minimum at the centre of the disk. The spatial profile of the order parameter is not strongly affected by the stray field in the vortex state, because the vortex core, where the order parameter is equal to zero, is in the region below the dot.

In conclusion, we have fabricated a mesoscopic superconducting disk made up of Al with a perpendicularly magnetized magnetic dot on the top. The superconducting properties of the system have been investigated by measuring the superconducting/normal state phase boundary $`T_c(B)`$. It has been demonstrated that the phase boundary is asymmetric with respect to the direction of the applied field. The maximum critical temperature has been attained for a finite value of the applied magnetic field, which is oriented parallel to the magnetization of magnetic dot. The experimental data are in a good agreement with the theoretical results. It has also been shown that the inhomogeneity of the stray field gives rise to a modification of the $`T_c(B)`$ phase boundary along the $`T`$-axis, which would not be present if an additional magnetic field were homogeneous.

## V Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank G. Rens for AFM measurements. This work has been supported by the Belgian IUAP, the Flemish FWO and the Research Fund K. U. Leuven GOA/2004/02 programmes, as well as by the ESF programme ”VORTEX”. W. V. P. acknowledges the support from the Research Council of the K.U. Leuven and DWTC.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recently, there has been a renewed interest in the $`c=1`$ matrix model in the context of fermionic type 0 strings in two dimensions, see, e.g., \[1-7\]. Originally, the matrix model was constructed in order to describe strings as continuum limits of triangulated world sheets, for a nice review see . The new developments show how the matrix model emerges as the theory for open string tachyons living on a collection of D-particles in the two dimensional space time. With this in mind, it is interesting to go back to some of the unanswered questions left behind by the first matrix revolution.

One such question concerns a possible matrix model for a two dimensional black hole that was proposed in : the deformed matrix model. The model includes a $`1/\lambda ^2`$ contribution to the matrix potential and is, like the usual $`c=1`$ matrix model, exactly solvable. After its introduction the model was studied in a number of papers, see ,e.g., \[10-15\], and successfully passed several important tests. Interestingly, the deformed matrix model has now turned up again as the matrix model for fermionic type 0A strings in the presence of D-flux, . In this paper we will review some of the old results on the deformed matrix model and explain their connection with the 0A model. Our conclusion will be that the original interpretation of the deformed matrix model proposed in  is basically correct.

The outline of the paper is as follows. In section two we discuss the basics of string theory in flat two dimensional space time. For the convenience of the reader we first review some of the results from the first matrix revolution – both from a continuum and a matrix model point of view. We also briefly review how the 0A/0B models fit into the story. In section three we turn to the black hole. First we discuss the original claims that the deformed matrix model described a bosonic black hole and the evidence in favor. We then turn to the extremal black hole of 0A to see how the arguments carry over to this much better controlled case. We end with some conclusions.

## 2 Flat space time

### 2.1 The bosonic c=1 theory

#### 2.1.1 In the continuum

We begin, for the benefit of the reader, with a brief review of the bosonic string in two dimensions. A nice introduction to the subject with references and many original results, can be found in . The space time action for the metric, the dilaton $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and the tachyon $`T`$, is given by

$$Sd^2x\sqrt{G}\left[e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}\left(\frac{16}{\alpha ^{}}+R+4\left(\mathrm{\Phi }\right)^2\frac{1}{2}\left(T\right)^2+\frac{2}{\alpha ^{}}T^2\right)\right],$$
(1)
up to interaction terms. Varying the action we obtain apart from the Einstein equations for the metric, a dilaton equation of motion given by

$$\frac{16}{\alpha ^{}}+R4\left(\mathrm{\Phi }\right)^2+4^2\mathrm{\Phi }=0,$$
(2)
and a tachyon equation of motion given by

$$^2T2\mathrm{\Phi }T+\frac{4}{\alpha ^{}}T=0.$$
(3)
Flat space time is a solution if we allow for a linear dilaton background according to

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{2}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}\varphi ,$$
(4)
which implies a string coupling that increases towards negative $`\varphi `$. This non-trivial dilaton background is the prize we have to pay for not having $`26`$ dimensions.

From the point of view of the world sheet theory, the linear dilaton corresponds to a background charge which shifts the counting of the central charge allowing for two space time dimensions instead of $`26`$. Another way to arrive at the same theory, is to start with just one scalar field, the $`c=1`$ theory, and investigate the physics of the two dimensional world sheet metric induced by the quantum mechanical breaking of the world sheet conformal invariance. The metric has only one degree of freedom, the Liouville mode, corresponding to a Weyl-scaling of the metric. This is what we above interpreted as an extra space dimension making the original one dimensional $`c=1`$ model effectively two dimensional.

The next step is to study the propagation of tachyons in this background. Plugging the linear dilaton background, and a flat metric, into the tachyon equation of motions with the ansatz $`T=e^{ikX+\beta \varphi }`$, one finds

$$\frac{\alpha ^{}}{4}k^2\frac{\alpha ^{}}{4}\beta ^2\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}\beta =1,$$
(5)
with solutions

$$\beta =\frac{2}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}\pm \left|k\right|,$$
(6)
if $`X`$ is Euclidean time. With $`X`$ as ordinary time we find

$$\beta =\frac{2}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}\pm ik,$$
(7)
i.e. left and right movers in space time. In the following we will be working in Euclidean time, and we will focus on tachyons where we choose the $`+`$-sign in (6) – i.e. what in the matrix literature is referred to as the ‘right’ gravitational dressing. We note that after a rescaling by $`e^{\frac{2}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}\varphi }`$ the tachyons correspond to massless excitations. (In two dimensions the name tachyon is, therefore, a bit of a misnomer).

We now proceed to consider a background with a tachyon condensate given by

$$T_0=\mathrm{\Delta }e^{\frac{2}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}\varphi },$$
(8)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, which controls the magnitude of the tachyon condensate, can be identified with the world sheet cosmological constant. The condensate increases towards negative $`\varphi `$ and effectively gives rise to a wall – the tachyon wall – against which the tachyons can scatter. The idea is to send in tachyons from the weakly coupled regime at $`\varphi +\mathrm{}`$ and see what happens. Of particular interest are correlation functions for tachyons where all tachyons, except one, has the same sign of the momentum (all other vanishes, ). We then have, at genus zero,

$$T_{k_1}\mathrm{}T_{k_{N1}}T_{k_N}\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}\gamma \left(1\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}k_n\right)\frac{d^{N3}}{d\mu ^{N3}}\mu ^{_{n=1}^N\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}k_n/21},$$
(9)
where $`\gamma \left(x\right)\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(x\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1x\right)}`$, and instead of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, we have written the correlation function as a function of $`\mu `$. The relation between $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mu `$ will be explained below.

There are several comments that have to be made. Usually the pole structure of string amplitudes is very involved, but in two dimensions the kinematics leads to substantial simplifications. As we see, the poles come in the form of completely factorized leg factors. This has to do with the fact that it is only when tachyons of opposite chirality come together that an on shell intermediate state is created. Second, the calculation of the correlation function can only be performed perturbatively in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. That is, the calculation of a correlation function at non zero $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ reduces to a calculation at zero $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with an extra number of zero momentum tachyons, . As a consequence, we can only perform the calculation when the power of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is expected to be an integer. For other values we must rely on analytical continuation. Each such tachyon is, just as all the other tachyons in (9), accompanied with a leg factor which in this case is $`\gamma \left(1\right)=0`$. Hence, the correlation function naively vanishes. This is interpreted as the need for a renormalization of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and is the reason for why the introduction of a new parameter $`\mu `$ is convenient. As argued in, e.g.  and , the zeroes of the leg poles can be regulated to $`\mathrm{ln}\mu `$, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mu \mathrm{ln}\mu `$, leading to (9) as promised.

As emphasized above, the continuum calculation only works for

$$\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}k_n/21=s,$$
(10)
with $`s`$ integer, and it follows, therefore, from the conservation laws

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}}+\left|k_n\right|\right){\displaystyle \frac{2s}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}}`$ (11)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}k_n`$ $`=`$ $`k_N,`$ (12)
that

$$k_N=\frac{N2+s}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}.$$
(13)
This means that we will always sit on one of the poles of the leg-factor associated with the $`N`$’th tachyon. The pole can be regulated as $`lim_{\epsilon 0}\frac{\mu ^{s+\epsilon }}{\epsilon }=\frac{\mu ^s}{0}+\mu ^s\mathrm{ln}\mu `$, where the first term can be thought of as a UV divergence that can be renormalized away from the world sheet point of view, or, alternatively, as an infinite volume term from the space time point of view. As explained above, we are, in space time, working on a semi infinite line cut off towards negative $`\varphi `$ by the tachyon wall. The position of the wall, i.e. the point where $`T_0`$ becomes of order one, is given by $`\varphi \frac{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}{2}\mathrm{ln}\mu `$.

Due to the way that the correlation function factorizes, it is convenient to absorb the leg factors into the normalization of the tachyons and write

$$T_k=\stackrel{~}{T}_k\gamma \left(1\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}k_n\right).$$
(14)
The only part of the correlation function that remains, is now the non-factorizable piece. For instance, if we consider the case $`s=0`$ we simply have

$$\stackrel{~}{T}_{k_1}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{T}_{k_{N1}}\stackrel{~}{T}_{k_N}=\left(N3\right)!.$$
(15)
Let us finally come back to the mass-shell equation (5). From the world sheet point of view this equation has a very simple interpretation: it is nothing but the condition that the world sheet vertex operators should have conformal dimension equal to $`(1,1)`$. Generalizing to operators that include world sheet derivatives, one finds the condition

$$\frac{\alpha ^{}}{4}k^2\frac{\alpha ^{}}{4}\beta ^2\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}\beta =1n,$$
(16)
where we have $`n`$ world sheet derivatives $``$, and the same number of derivatives $`\overline{}`$. In two dimensions there are no transverse degrees of freedom and one would naively not expect any physical states to arise in this way. However for some special, discrete values of $`k`$, the gauge transformations collapse, \[18-23,28\]. This happens at $`k=\frac{n}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}`$ for $`n`$ integer. It is precisely these special values of momenta that show up in correlation functions, as is apparent from the leg factors above. One such example is $`k=0`$ at $`n=1`$, where the two solutions of (16) are given by

$`V_{1,1}^{(+)}`$ $`=`$ $`X\overline{}X`$ (17)
$`V_{1,1}^{()}`$ $`=`$ $`X\overline{}Xe^{\frac{4}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}\varphi },`$
(up to gauge equivalent changes of polarization) and correspond to two different gravitational dressings of the operators, the right and wrong dressings respectively. The first corresponds, in this particular example, to changing the radius of compactification, the second, as we will see, is related to a space time black hole.

#### 2.1.2 The matrix model

We now turn to the matrix model description of the $`c=1`$ two dimensional string. As argued in \[24-27\], the appropriate matrix model has the potential

$$V\left(x\right)=\frac{1}{2\alpha ^{}}\lambda ^2,$$
(18)
where the Fermi sea is filled up to $`\mu `$ from the top of the inverted harmonic oscillator. Sometimes in the literature, one uses a Fermi sea that is filled only on one side of the potential, but for non-perturbative stability it is convenient to fill both sides. A useful, and very intuitive trick, is to calculate scattering amplitudes using analytic continuation $`\alpha ^{}\alpha ^{}`$ from the right side up harmonic potential. This leads, for instance, to the two puncture (i.e. zero energy tachyon) correlation function,

$$PP=\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{Im}\underset{\mathrm{n}=0}{}\frac{1}{\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{n}\mu },$$
(19)
where

$$E_n=\frac{i}{2\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}\left(2n+1\right).$$
(20)
The advantage of this way of doing things is that the poles in the tachyon correlation function can be seen to have a very simple explanation, . Simple perturbation theory shows that the poles correspond to energy differences, $`E_nE_m,`$ in the harmonic oscillator which indeed give rise to poles at $`\frac{n}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}`$ for $`n`$ integer. Calculations in the matrix model furthermore precisely reproduce the results of (9) for the correlation functions. The non-factorizable piece is identically the same, and the pole structure of the legs also agrees.

### 2.2 The 0A/0B theories

As explained in the introduction, it was recently realized that many of the results for the bosonic string have an analogue in the case of non-supersymmetric fermionic strings, i.e. the 0A and 0B models. In the case of the 0B-string, there are two space time scalars, a massless tachyon and a massless RR-scalar. They both have an on-shell condition that can be obtained from (5) simply by replacing $`\alpha ^{}2\alpha ^{}`$, i.e.

$$\frac{\alpha ^{}}{4}k^2\frac{\alpha ^{}}{4}\beta ^2\sqrt{\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}}\beta =\frac{1}{2},$$

with solutions

$$\beta =\sqrt{\frac{2}{\alpha ^{}}}\pm \left|k\right|.$$

Of particular importance is the fact that, just as in the bosonic case, we have a matrix model description of the theory. The 0B matrix model is immediately obtained from the bosonic model by replacing $`\alpha ^{}2\alpha ^{}`$ in (18). The new twist of the story, as explained in e.g. , is that we now have a much better understanding of from where the matrix model comes. In the 0B theory there are unstable D-particles in the space time. The sign of the instability, is the presence of open string tachyons with end points living on the D-particles. The matrices describing these tachyons are nothing else than the matrices of the matrix model, and the upside down potential is a signal of the tachyonic behavior.

The presence in the 0B theory of two types of scalars have an interesting explanation from the point of view of the matrix model potential. As explained in , perturbations with even parity in the Fermi sea correspond to tachyons, while perturbations with odd parity correspond to the RR-scalars. Continuum calculations furthermore show that the tachyon correlation functions have poles at $`k=\frac{2n}{\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}}}`$ while the RR-scalars have poles at $`k=\frac{2n+1}{\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}}}`$. Since the energy levels of the harmonic oscillator now are given by

$$E_n=\frac{i}{2\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}}}\left(2n+1\right),$$
(21)
these poles correspond to transitions between states of equal and different parity, respectively, just as one would expect.

In the case of 0A strings the situation is slightly different. We no longer have any RR-scalar and, therefore, only the tachyon remains. As shown in  the genus zero tachyon correlation functions now take the form, for $`s=0`$,

$$T_{k_1}\mathrm{}T_{k_{N1}}T_{k_N}=\left(N3\right)!\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}\gamma \left(1\sqrt{\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}}k_n\right).$$
(22)
We first note that the non-factorizable piece is the same as in the bosonic case, furthermore we note that only half of the poles are present in the leg factors compared with the bosonic case. This has an important consequence. Momentum conservation force the last tachyon to have $`k_N=\frac{N2}{\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}}}`$ (compare with (13)) which leads to a leg factor $`\gamma \left(2\frac{N}{2}\right)`$ which diverges only for $`\mathrm{𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛}`$ $`N`$. We conclude, therefore, that only correlation functions with an even number of tachyons are non-vanishing. We will come back to the matrix model description of the 0A string in the next section, after a review of the two dimensional black hole.

## 3 The black hole

### 3.1 The bosonic black hole

In  it was conjectured that the bosonic two dimensional black hole, , corresponds to a matrix model with the potential

$$V\left(\lambda \right)=\frac{1}{2\alpha ^{}}\lambda ^2+\frac{M}{2\lambda ^2}.$$
(23)
There were several promising indications in this direction, of which the most obvious are the scaling properties of the theory. If we reinsert Planck’s constant into the matrix model Schrödinger equation, we find, near the top of the Fermi sea,

$$\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2}\frac{d^2}{d\lambda ^2}\frac{1}{2\alpha ^{}}\lambda ^2+\frac{M}{2\lambda ^2}\right)\psi \left(\lambda \right)=\mu \psi \left(\lambda \right).$$
(24)
We now rescale $`\lambda `$, by writing $`\lambda =x\sqrt{\mathrm{}}`$, to get all terms to be of same order in $`\mathrm{}`$. We then find

$$\left(\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^2}{dx^2}\frac{1}{2\alpha ^{}}x^2+\frac{M\mathrm{}^1}{2x^2}\right)\psi \left(x\right)=\mu \mathrm{}^{1/2}\psi \left(x\right).$$
(25)
This suggests that the string coupling scales like $`1/\mu `$, or $`1/\sqrt{M}`$, which is just what we would expect from comparing (8) and (17) with (4).

Another important point is the position of the poles. As explained in , all solutions of the Schrödinger equation are not admissable. When $`M>3/4`$ the even parity wave functions blow up near the origin, and only the odd parity ones should be kept. This is the case which will be relevant for us. In passing we note that for -$`1/4<M<3/4`$ there is a one parameter family of self-adjoint extensions that can be used, while in the case of $`M<1/4`$, finally, the energies turn complex signalling an instability. In our case, with a positive $`M`$, one is naturally lead to the throwing away of all the even parity states and, as a consequence, we loose half of the poles. Interestingly, this is precisely what happens if one scatters tachyons in the black hole background, compared with the scattering of tachyons in a background with a tachyon condensate, as shown in .

As already mentioned, all calculations that can be made in the ordinary matrix model, can also be done in the deformed matrix model. Including tachyon correlation functions to all genus. Matrix model calculations of correlation functions lead to the following result at genus zero, see, e.g., , where the leg factors have been factorized out:

$`\stackrel{~}{T}_{k_1}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{T}_{k_{N1}}\stackrel{~}{T}_{k_N}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(N3\right)!!\left(\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}k_N2\right)\left(\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}k_N4\right)\mathrm{}`$ (26)
$`\mathrm{}\left(\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}k_N\left(N4\right)\right)M^{k_N/\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}N/2+1}.`$
An important question is whether these results can be verified using continuum methods. In  it was argued that the bosonic black hole can be reproduced by adding the operator $`V_{1,1}^{()}`$, i.e. a black hole screener, to the world sheet action for a string in flat space time. In fact, by expanding the black hole metric around a flat background one recovers the black hole screener. In , however, it was argued that the addition of the black hole screener to the action was an exact description of the black hole of . This was the approach used in  to calculate correlation functions perturbatively in $`M`$. The calculations are in general technically difficult, but there are some cases where the calculations can be done with less effort. In  values for momenta near $`k_N=\frac{N}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}`$, $`k_1=\mathrm{}=k_{N1}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}}}`$, were chosen in order to perform the calculation with one black hole screener. The advantage of this choice is that one can arrange so that $`\zeta k_i=0`$ for $`iN2`$, where $`\zeta `$ is the polarization of the black hole screener. In this way the matrix model result above, in the case $`k_N/\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}N/2+1=1`$, was reproduced, giving rise to

$$\stackrel{~}{T}_{k_1}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{T}_{k_{N1}}\stackrel{~}{T}_{k_N}=\left(N2\right)!M\gamma \left(1\right),$$
(27)
where

$$T_k=\gamma \left(1\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}k\right)\stackrel{~}{T}_k.$$
(28)
Hence we find complete agreement for the non-factorizable part with (26).

There are a couple of important observations that one can should make. First, there are poles for all discrete momenta in this continuum calculation. In  it was suggested that this was due to the choice of vacuum. In the matrix model it is simple to project out the odd parity states. In the continuum a similar procedure is needed which, actually is nothing else than what happens when one go from 0B to 0A.

Second, there is a zero provided by the formal factor $`\gamma \left(1\right)`$. This is just the same phenomena that is encountered for the tachyon background. Again we need a rescaling – like the one that brings us from $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to $`\mu `$ – in order to obtain a non-zero correlation function. As we will see, this can be understood in a very nice way from the form of the space time metric.

### 3.2 The extremal black hole

#### 3.2.1 The continuum picture

Let us now turn to the case of the 0A-string. We begin by recalling the space time action for the 0A-theory with a D-flux $`q`$:

$$Sd^2x\sqrt{G}\left[e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}\left(\frac{8}{\alpha ^{}}+R+4\left(\mathrm{\Phi }\right)^2\frac{1}{2}\left(T\right)^2+\frac{1}{\alpha ^{}}T^2\right)\frac{q^2}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}\right].$$

Systems of this form has been studied several times in the literature, see, e.g., . Following  we solve for the dilaton and the metric (without tachyon condensate) obtaining:

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`g\left(\varphi \right)dt^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g\left(\varphi \right)}}d\varphi ^2`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\alpha ^{}}}}\varphi `$
$`g\left(\varphi \right)`$ $`=`$ $`1e^{2\sqrt{\frac{2}{\alpha ^{}}}\varphi }\left(m\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{16\pi }}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\alpha ^{}}}}\varphi \right).`$
Note that the dilaton is still linear as in (4) thanks to a convenient choice of gauge. We will be particularly interested in the extremal case, which we expect will correspond to a stable ground state of the system. The metric above has two horizons corresponding to the two solutions of $`g\left(\varphi \right)=0`$. The two horizons coincide when $`g^{}\left(\varphi \right)=0`$, with the double horizon situated at

$$\varphi _0=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}}\mathrm{ln}\frac{32\pi }{q^2}.$$

As a consequence, the string coupling on the horizon is given by

$$g_s=\frac{\sqrt{32\pi }}{q},$$
(29)
and decreases exponentially as we move away. The mass parameter, finally, is given by

$$m_0=\frac{q^2}{32\pi }\sqrt{\frac{2}{\alpha ^{}}}\mathrm{ln}\frac{32\pi e}{q^2}.$$
(30)
We will come back to this important relation a little bit later – it is of crucial importance when we want to identify the deformed matrix model with the extremal black hole.

One concludes from the above that by choosing a large value for $`q`$ the closed string coupling can be made arbitrarily small everywhere outside of the horizon. On the other hand, if we want to make calculations involving open strings attached to the $`q`$ D-particles, the effective coupling is $`qg_s`$ which is fixed and not small. In  it was noted that the near horizon limit of the extremal black hole is an $`AdS_2`$ space. The finite value of $`qg_s`$ will, presumably, have important consequences for any analogue in two dimensions of the AdS/CFT correspondence in higher dimensions.<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1While this work was being completed, a similar remark was made by A. Strominger in a talk at the Santa Barbara workshop on Strings and Cosmology.

#### 3.2.2 The matrix model

The 0A-background described in the previous section can, according to , be described using a matrix model with the potential

$$V\left(x\right)=\frac{1}{4\alpha ^{}}\lambda ^2+\frac{q^2\frac{1}{4}}{2\lambda ^2}.$$
(31)
Again one can argue for this choice of potential from the point of view of open string tachyons, . In 0A D-particles are stable, contrary to the case of 0B, but, luckily, it is instead possible to consider systems of D-particles and anti D-particles. The tachyons stretching between the particles and anti particles become complex and the Fermi sea two dimensional. The angular coordinate can, however, be integrated out and the resulting potential is the one given above, with $`q`$ as the net number of D-particles. The difference in the coefficient in front of the $`\lambda ^2`$ can, as in the case of 0B, be understood from the fact that the open string tachyon has $`m^2=\frac{1}{\alpha ^{}}`$ in case of the bosonic string and $`m^2=\frac{1}{2\alpha ^{}}`$ in case of the 0A.

Following  we may formally continue $`\alpha ^{}\alpha ^{}`$ in order to have a right side up harmonic oscillator. We then have the following Schrödinger equation to solve:

$$\left(\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^2}{d\lambda ^2}+\frac{1}{4\alpha ^{}}\lambda ^2+\frac{\eta }{2\lambda ^2}\right)\psi \left(x\right)=E\psi \left(x\right),$$
(32)
where $`\eta =q^21/4`$. The energy eigenvalues can be shown to be

$$E_n=\frac{i}{2\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}}}\left(2n+1+2a_n\right),$$
(33)
where

$$a_n=(1)^n\left(\frac{1}{2}+\sqrt{\frac{1}{4}+\eta }\right).$$
(34)
The even energy levels, with $`n=2l`$, can now be written

$$E_{2l}=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}}}\left(4l+1+1q\right)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}}}\left(2l+1\frac{q}{2}\right),$$
(35)
and the odd ones, with $`n=2l+1`$,

$$E_{2l+1}=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}}}\left(4l+31+q\right)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}}}\left(2l+1+\frac{q}{2}\right).$$
(36)
As we have already explained, for $`q0`$, we must throw away the even parity solutions leaving only the odd levels<sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2Note that for $`q^2<0`$, i.e. an imaginary D-flux, the solutions are unstable. This case was studied in  in the context of T-duality between the 0A and the 0B-model.. Repeating the argument of  we predict poles at $`\frac{2n}{\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}}}`$, in agreement with the continuum results above.

It is also gratifying to see that the somewhat mysterious critical value for the black hole mass of $`1/4`$, that we observed in the previous section, now is shifted to zero. This, by the way, throws light on the properties of the deformed matrix model under T-duality. The ordinary $`c=1`$ matrix model at finite radius was first studied in , while the deformed model has been studied in  and . A convenient way to proceed with the analysis is to consider the puncture two point function at finite radius written as

$$PP=\frac{1}{\pi R}\mathrm{Im}\underset{\mathrm{n},\mathrm{m}=0}{}\frac{1}{\left(\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{n}+\frac{2\mathrm{m}+1}{\mathrm{R}}\mu \right)^2}.$$
(37)
In this way T-duality is obvious at each genus (recall that the genus expansion corresponds to an expansion in $`1/\mu ^2`$) and involves an exchange of $`n`$ and $`m`$ in the sum. If we now, as in , do the same thing for the deformed model (remembering that we only should keep odd states) we run into a problem if we consider $`1/\eta `$ above as the genus counting parameter. As observed in  T-duality seems, in this case, to be broken. In  a modified transformation was proposed, which, as observed in , corresponds to regarding $`1/q^2`$ as the parameter that keeps track of the genus.

#### 3.2.3 Comparing the deformed matrix model with the extremal black hole

It would be interesting to repeat and extend the calculations made in , and discussed in section 3.1, to the fermionic type 0A string. We will not do this here, but instead take a different approach to reproduce the deformed matrix model results. Given the factorized expressions, both for the bosonic case and the case of the 0A, it is actually quite easy to derive the non factorizable piece of the scattering amplitude with an arbitrary number of black hole screeners inserted without the evaluation of any complicated integrals. In the following we use conventions appropriate for the 0A string but the argument is identical in the case of the bosonic string. We start with

$$\stackrel{~}{T}_{k_1}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{T}_{k_{N1}}\stackrel{~}{T}_{k_N}\mu ^{_{n=1}^N\sqrt{\frac{\alpha }{2}^{}}k_n+2N}.$$

and take a $`\mu `$-derivative to insert a puncture, $`P`$, that is, a zero momentum tachyon. We find

$$P\stackrel{~}{T}_{k_1}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{T}_{k_{N1}}\stackrel{~}{T}_{k_N}\left(\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}\sqrt{\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}}k_n+2N\right)\frac{1}{\mu }\stackrel{~}{T}_{k_1}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{T}_{k_{N1}}\stackrel{~}{T}_{k_N}.$$

From this we identify terms including $`\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}k_i/2`$ corresponding to the puncture being attached to the $`i`$’th tachyon leg, while the rest of the pre-factor comes from the puncture being attached somewhere else in the diagram. What if we want to insert a black hole screener $`V_{1,1}^{()}`$ instead? From momentum conservation, we note that two zero momentum tachyons can fuse together into one black hole screener. Hence, if we have a diagram with a puncture already present we should attach another one to the same leg. In this way we effectively insert a black hole screener in the rest of the diagram. Using the result above we expect that the insertion of a black hole screener can be accomplished by the limit

$$\stackrel{~}{T}_{k_1}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{T}_{k_{N1}}\stackrel{~}{T}_{k_N}V_{1,1}^{()}\underset{k_10}{lim}\frac{k_1}{\mu }P\stackrel{~}{T}_{k_1}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{T}_{k_{N1}}\stackrel{~}{T}_{k_N}+\mathrm{}$$

The zero that we encounter is the same $`\gamma \left(1\right)`$ that we already has seen in the case of the insertion of zero momentum tachyons, and is something that we need to compensate for. It is, , a general result that the insertion of wrongly dressed special operators make the correlation functions vanish.

So, we have found that a black hole screener can be inserted by acting with $`\frac{1}{\mu }\frac{d}{d\mu }`$ on the correlation function. Based on this we now propose that

$`\stackrel{~}{T}_{k_1}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{T}_{k_{N1}}\stackrel{~}{T}_{k_N}V_{1,1}^{()m}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{k_N}\stackrel{~}{T}_{k_N}P^{N2}V_{1,1}^{()m}`$ (38)
$``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mu }}\right)^{N2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu }}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mu }}\right)^m\stackrel{~}{T}_{k_N}\stackrel{~}{T}_{k_N}\gamma \left(1\right)^m,`$
where the $`\gamma \left(1\right)`$ must be aborbed into the coefficient of the $`V_{1,1}^{()}`$ in the world sheet action, just as in the case of the tachyon condensate. However, there is still one thing that remains to be explained. There is in principle a question of ordering between the operation of inserting a puncture and a black hole screener using our recipe. Since we have that

$$[\frac{d}{d\mu },\frac{1}{\mu }\frac{d}{d\mu }]=\frac{1}{\mu ^2}\frac{d}{d\mu },$$

the ordering actually do matter. Luckily, however, the difference is easy to interpret. It simply corresponds to a diagram where three punctures come together on the same leg. That is, a puncture is attached to an external graviton leg. If we reverse the order between the derivatives in (38) we will miss such contributions and the result will, therefore, not be correct. When we now are confident that (38) is correct, we evaluate it to find

$$\left(\frac{d}{d\mu }\right)^{N2}\left(\frac{1}{\mu }\frac{d}{d\mu }\right)^m\frac{\mu ^{N2+2m}}{N2+2m}=\left(N3\right)!!\left(N+2m4\right)!!$$

in agreement with the results derived in, e.g., . Another convenient way to summarize the results is to write, as in ,

$$\stackrel{~}{T}_k\stackrel{~}{T}_k_{M,\mu }\frac{\left(M+\mu ^2\right)^{\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}}k}}{k},$$

where $`M=q^2`$.<sup>3</sup><sup>3</sup>3It is amusing to note that the $`k0`$ limit of this expression, i.e. the two puncture correlation funtion, can be written as $`\mathrm{ln}\left(M+\mu ^2\right)=\mathrm{ln}\left(\mu +iq\right)+\mathrm{ln}\left(\mu iq\right)`$. This is precisely the expressions used in  on the 0B side after T-duality, if one puts $`q=iQ`$.

The results above are independent of whether we are discussing the bosonic string or the 0A. In the bosonic case, the field theory calculation in  did not include a projection to remove all the odd states, implying, incorrectly, that correlation functions with an odd number of tachyons are non-zero. In the 0A however, and presumably also for a correctly projected bosonic string, the leg factors are of the form given in (22). As a consequence, the leg factor corresponding to tachyon number $`N`$, which we have chosen to have the opposite chirality compared with the others, is given by $`\gamma \left(2N/2\right)`$ which diverges only for even $`N`$.

Finally, we need to fulfill our promise and come back to the relation between the mass and the charge for the extremal black hole derived in (30). Up to the logarithm we note that the mass of the black hole goes like the square of the charge. That is, the coefficient of the $`1/\lambda ^2`$ is indeed (up to the shift of $`1/4`$) the black hole mass, just as conjectured! Furthermore, we should note that the expression $`mq^2\mathrm{ln}q^2`$ is a perfect analogue to the expression $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu \mathrm{ln}\mu `$ that we have discussed earlier. $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`m`$ are parameters natural for the string world sheet physics, while $`\mu `$ and $`q`$ appear naturally in the matrix model. In this way we see that the formal $`\gamma \left(1\right)=0`$ is compensated for by a volume factor just as in case of the tachyon condensate.

## 4 Conclusions

In this paper we have discussed the space time interpretation of the deformed matrix model. We have found that the old conjecture that the model describes a two dimensional black hole comes to new life in the context of the 0A string. There are many things left to do. For instance, there are more special states at discrete momenta than the one corresponding to a black hole space time. In the matrix model one can, in principle, calculate correlation functions also in the presence of those. But what is the space time interpretation from the point of view of the 0A?

## Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Martin Olsson and Peter Rajan for discussions. The author is a Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences Research Fellow supported by a grant from the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation. The work was also supported by the Swedish Research Council (VR).


text:
# Conductance Characteristics between a Normal Metal and a Superconductor Carrying a Supercurrent

## Abstract

The low-temperature conductance (G) characteristics between a normal metal and a clean superconductor (S) carrying a supercurrent $`I_s`$ parallel to the interface is theoretically investigated. Increasing $`I_s`$ causes lowering and broadening of (1) coherence peaks of s-wave S, and d-wave S at (100) contact, (2) midgap-states-induced zero-bias conductance peak for d-wave S at (110) contact, and (3) Andreev-reflection-induced enhancement of $`G`$ within the gap near the metallic-contact limit. Novel features found include a current-induced central peak and a three-humped structure at intermediate barrier strength, etc.

It is well-known that Andreev reflection plays a fundamental role in understanding the transport properties of a normal metal/superconductor junction (NSJ) . From the current-voltage ($`I`$-$`V`$), or the differential conductance \[$`G(V)dI(V)/dV`$\] characteristics of the junction, one can learn much information about S, includng its elementary excitation spectrum and its order-parameter symmetry, etc. Blonder et al. have developed a general theory  for studying $`I`$-$`V`$ and $`G(V)`$ of an NSJ that allows a dimensionless barrier-strength parameter $`z`$ to range from metallic contact, $`z=0`$, to the tunneling regime, $`z>>1`$. There only conventional $`s`$-wave symmetry for S was considered. Recently, much attention has been paid to the conductance characteristics of d-wave, cuprate S in both theory and experiment \[3-13\]. Due solely to the sign change of the d-wave gap-function order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)`$ on the Fermi surface, a zero-bias conductance peak (ZBCP) appears in the tunneling spectrum of an N/(d-wave S) junction with non-(n0m) contact . The ZBCP arises from a sizable number of midgap states formed at the S side of the N/S interface and appears for all $`z`$ but is narrower and taller for larger $`z`$. In a large magnetic field, the ZBCP splits into two peaks . It is interesting to also study the effect of a supercurrent $`I_s`$ in S on $`G(V)`$. Very recently, $`G(V)`$ for tunneling into a diffusive s-wave superconducting wire carrying an $`I_s`$ was measured and compared with theory . It was shown that the coherence peaks were suppressed and broadened with increasing $`I_s`$, and the effect is the same as that caused by a magnetic field. Because the width and thickness of the wire were smaller than the superconducting coherence length and penetration depth, all variations transverse to the wire could be neglected, as was the magnetic field generated by $`I_s`$. The positions of the coherence peaks in $`G(V)`$ were found to practically not shift with $`I_s`$, up to $`4/5`$ of the critical current. In this work, we investigate theoretically the conductance characteristics of a clean NSJ with an $`I_s`$ in S parallel to the interface by extending the theory of Blonder et al. . Contrary to Ref. , this work is not limited to large $`z`$. We consider both $`s`$-wave and $`d`$-wave S with (100) and (110) contacts. Some novel results are obtained, especially for $`z\stackrel{<}{}1`$, when $`G(V)`$ does not simply reflect the thermally-smeared quasi-particle density of states. Hopefully, these predictions can be confirmed experimentally. Unlike Ref. , the present work does not consider Coulomb blockade, which is presumably not so important in an extended system and in the clean limit. As in Ref. , we also assume a uniform $`I_s`$, and neglect self-field.

When a uniform $`I_s`$ passes through a conventional three-dimensional s-wave S, the phase of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)`$ has a spatial variation of $`2𝐪_s𝐱`$, where $`𝐱`$ is the center-of-mass position of a Cooper pair, $`𝐪_s=(m_{}/2)𝐯_s`$, with $`𝐯_s`$ the supercurrent velocity, and $`m_{}`$ the mass of a Cooper pair. ($`\mathrm{}=1`$ is assumed throughout this work.) At temperature $`T=0`$, the magnitude of the order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }_q`$ stays unchanged until the Landau criterion is satisfied (i.e. $`q=0.5\mathrm{\Delta }^0`$, where $`qq_s/k_F`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^0\mathrm{\Delta }_0/E_F`$). Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ is the superconducting gap when $`I_s=0`$, $`k_F`$ and $`E_F`$ are the Fermi momentum and energy, respectively. When $`q0.5\mathrm{\Delta }^0`$, S becomes gapless, and quasiparticles are generated in a portion of the Fermi surface . We shall see that this can lead to a ZBCP in $`G(V)`$ for an N/(s-wave S) junction with the barrier strength $`z1`$. This current-induced ZBCP is always quite broad and not very tall, and its height decreases for larger $`z`$. It is therefore characteristically different from the ZBCP induced by the midgap surface states in a d-wave S with non-(n0m) contact that is narrower and taller for larger $`z`$ . (The midgap-states-induced ZBCP has been ubiquitously observed in high-$`T_c`$ cuprate and other unconventional Ss.)

As $`q`$ is increased further, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_q`$ gradually decreases to zero at $`q=0.67\mathrm{\Delta }^0`$ \[Fig. 1(a)\]. The supercurrent density quickly reaches a peak (the thermodynamic critical current density) at $`q=q_c=0.515\mathrm{\Delta }^0`$ \[Figs. 1(c)\] . The region $`q>q_c`$, in which $`I_s`$ is a decreasing function of $`q`$, is unstable and can not be observed experimentally. (For a two-dimensional s-wave S, superconductivity disappears immediately after the Landau criterion is met. Then $`q_c=0.5\mathrm{\Delta }^0`$.)

Different from that in an s-wave S, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_q`$-vs-$`q`$ relation in a d-wave S also depends on the direction of the supercurrent. (Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }_q`$ denotes the maximum gap in the presence of $`I_s`$.) For a two-dimensional d-wave S with a supercurrent, the gap-function order parameter at $`T=0`$ is described by

$$\pi \mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^0}{\mathrm{\Delta }^q}=_{}𝑑\theta \mathrm{cos}^2(2\theta )\mathrm{ln}(g+\sqrt{g^21}),$$
$`(1)`$
where $`g\frac{2q}{\mathrm{\Delta }^q}|\frac{\mathrm{cos}(\theta \varphi )}{\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )}|`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^q=\mathrm{\Delta }_q/E_F`$, $`\varphi `$ is the angle between the supercurrent and the antinodal direction, and the integral in Eq. (1) is from 0 to $`2\pi `$ with the constraint $`g^210`$.

Figure 1(b) shows the dependence of the d-wave $`\mathrm{\Delta }_q`$ on $`q`$ at $`\varphi =0`$ and $`\pi /4`$. We can see that when $`q`$ is less than $`0.3\mathrm{\Delta }^0`$, the changes of the order parameter with $`q`$ in both the antinodal and nodal directions are almost the same. However, a great difference exists for larger $`q`$. When $`I_s`$ is applied along the antinodal direction, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^q`$ has a sharp drop (from $`0.883\mathrm{\Delta }^0`$ to $`0.588\mathrm{\Delta }^0`$) between $`q=0.384\mathrm{\Delta }^0`$ and $`0.385\mathrm{\Delta }^0`$. After that it drops continuously to zero at $`q=0.53\mathrm{\Delta }^0`$. When $`\varphi =\pi /4`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^q`$ gradually decreases to $`0.689\mathrm{\Delta }^0`$ at $`q=0.469\mathrm{\Delta }^0`$, and has no solution beyond. Fig. 1(d) gives the corresponding dependences of the supercurrent density on $`q`$ . It is seen that the thermodynamic critical current is reached at $`q=q_c=0.35\mathrm{\Delta }^0`$ ($`0.39\mathrm{\Delta }^0`$) for current in the antinodal (nodal) direction.

The elementary excitations in S are governed by the time-independent Bogoliubov-de Gennes equations :

$$Eu(𝐱)=h_0u(𝐱)+𝑑𝐱^{}\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐬,𝐫)v(𝐱^{}),$$
$`(2a)`$
$$Ev(𝐱)=h_0v(𝐱)+𝑑𝐱^{}\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(𝐬,𝐫)u(𝐱^{}),$$
$`(2b)`$
where $`𝐬=𝐱𝐱^{},𝐫=\frac{1}{2}(𝐱+𝐱^{})`$, and $`h_0=\frac{^2}{2m}+U\delta (x)\mu `$ with $`\mu `$ the chemical potential. It is useful to express the superconducting order parameter in the form: $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐬,𝐫)=𝑑𝐤e^{i𝐤𝐬}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}(𝐤,𝐫)e^{i2𝐪_s𝐫}`$ . Neglecting the proximity effect near the N/S interface at $`x=0`$, we have $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}(𝐤,𝐫)=\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)\mathrm{\Theta }(x)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Theta }(x)`$ is a step function, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)`$ is the order parameter of a bulk S in the presence of $`I_s`$.

In the WKBJ approximation, Eqs. (2) have special solutions of the form

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}u\\ v\end{array}\right)=e^{i𝐤_F𝐱}\left(\begin{array}{c}e^{i𝐪_s𝐱}\overline{u}\\ e^{i𝐪_s𝐱}\overline{v}\end{array}\right),$$
$`(3)`$
where $`\overline{u}(𝐱)`$ and $`\overline{v}(𝐱)`$ obey the generalized Andreev equations :

$$(E\frac{𝐪_s^2}{2m}\frac{𝐪_s𝐤_F}{m})\overline{u}=\frac{i(𝐤_F+𝐪_s)}{m}\overline{u}+\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤_F)\mathrm{\Theta }(x)\overline{v},$$
$`(4a)`$
$$(E+\frac{𝐪_s^2}{2m}\frac{𝐪_s𝐤_F}{m})\overline{v}=\frac{i(𝐤_F𝐪_s)}{m}\overline{v}+\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(𝐤_F)\mathrm{\Theta }(x)\overline{u}.$$
$`(4b)`$
Obviously, the eigenenergy $`E`$ is symmetric about $`E=𝐪_s𝐤_F/m`$. When $`𝐪_s`$ is applied parallel to the interface of the NSJ, i.e. $`𝐪_s=q_s𝐞_y`$, we have

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\overline{u}_\nu \\ \overline{v}_\nu \end{array}\right)=e^{i\alpha _\nu x}\left(\begin{array}{c}u_\nu ^>\\ v_\nu ^>\end{array}\right)(\mathrm{for}x>0),$$
$`(5a)`$
$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\overline{u}_\nu \\ \overline{v}_\nu \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}e^{i\beta _\nu x}u_\nu ^<\\ e^{i\gamma _\nu x}v_\nu ^<\end{array}\right)(\mathrm{for}x<0),$$
$`(5b)`$
where $`\nu =\mathrm{s}ign(k_{Fx})`$; $`\alpha _\nu =[\nu 𝐪_s^2/2+mA_\nu ]/|k_{Fx}|`$, with $`A_\nu \sqrt{(E+q_sk_{Fy}/m)^2\mathrm{\Delta }_\nu (𝐤_F)\mathrm{\Delta }_\nu ^{}(𝐤_F)}`$; $`\beta _\nu =m\nu [𝐪_s^2/(2m)+E+q_sk_{Fy}/m]/|k_{Fx}|`$; $`\gamma _\nu =m\nu [𝐪_s^2/(2m)+E+q_sk_{Fy}/m]/|k_{Fx}|`$; $`u_\nu ^{>(<)}`$ and $`v_\nu ^{>(<)}`$ are constants. For example, in S, we have $`B_\nu u_\nu ^>/v_\nu ^>=\mathrm{\Delta }_\nu (𝐤_F)/(E+q_sk_{Fy}/m\nu A_\nu )`$.

Following Ref. , after a tedious but straightforward calculation, we obtain the Andreev and normal reflection coefficients, $`a(E)`$ and $`b(E)`$:

$$a(E)=\frac{2q_+(k_++k_{})}{B_{}(k_{}+q_++2imU)(k_+q_{}+2imU)B_+(k_++q_++2imU)(k_{}q_{}+2imU)},$$
$`(6a)`$
$$b(E)=\frac{B_+(k_{}+q_{}2imU)(k_++q_+2imU)+B_{}(k_+q_{}+2imU)(k_{}+q_+2imU)}{B_{}(k_{}+q_++2imU)(k_+q_{}+2imU)B_+(k_++q_++2imU)(k_{}q_{}+2imU)}.$$
$`(6b)`$
Here $`q_+=|k_{Fx}|+\beta _+`$, $`q_{}=|k_{Fx}|+\gamma _+,`$ and $`k_\nu =|k_{Fx}|+\nu \alpha _\nu `$. The critical supercurrent velocity is much less than the Fermi velocity. So the Andreev approximation, $`q_\pm k_\pm |k_{Fx}|`$, also holds in the presence of a supercurrent. The normalized conductance can then be calculated according to a formula given in Ref. :

$$G=\frac{G_s}{G_n},G_n=\frac{e^2}{\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑E_{\frac{\pi }{2}}^{\frac{\pi }{2}}𝑑\theta \frac{f(EeV)}{E}[1|b(+\mathrm{})|^2],$$

$$G_s=\frac{e^2}{\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑E_{\frac{\pi }{2}}^{\frac{\pi }{2}}𝑑\theta \frac{f(EeV)}{E}[1+|a(E)|^2|b(E)|^2],$$
$`(7)`$
where $`|k_{Fx}|=k_F\mathrm{cos}\theta `$, $`f(E)`$ is the Fermi distribution function, $`G_n`$ and $`G_s`$ are the differential conductance for S in the normal and superconducting states, respectively.

S-wave superconductor. In this case, the superconducting order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\nu (𝐤_F)=\mathrm{\Delta }_q`$ is independent of $`\nu `$.

In Fig. 2, $`G(V)`$ at various $`q`$ and $`z2mU/k_F`$ is plotted. \[We have used $`k_BT=0.01E_F`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0=0.1E_F`$.\] When $`z=0`$ and $`q=0`$, electrons incoming with all momenta $`𝐤_F`$ with $`k_{Fx}>0`$ can enter S and equal number of holes at opposite momenta are retro-reflected into N if $`|eV|<\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$. So the normalized conductance $`G=2.0`$ within the superconducting gap if $`T=0`$. With increasing $`q`$, the range of $`G=2.0`$ diminishes and the $`G(V)`$ curve turns into a nearly triangular peak centered at zero bias \[Fig. 2(a)\]. At large $`z`$ \[Fig. 2(d)\], the coherence peaks are suppressed and broadened with increasing $`q`$, but contrary to the case of a diffusive superconducting wire , here the peaks of $`G(V)`$ move outward while the gap shrinks. The intermediate-$`z`$ results are even richer in behavior \[Figs.2(b) and (c)\]: A fairly broad and not very tall peak appears at zero bias and a three-humped structure can also appear for nearly critical $`q`$. Note that the larger is $`z`$, the lower is this current-induced ZBCP. The area under this peak is also not conserved as $`z`$ changes. These features are characteristically different from the ZBCP induced by the midgap surface states in d-wave S with non-(n0m) contacts.

For electrons entering an NSJ at a fixed incident angle $`\theta `$, a ZBCP would result from their contributions to the normalized conductance if $`2q|\mathrm{sin}\theta |>\mathrm{\Delta }^0`$ is satisfied. Thus, one can see this peak only if $`q>0.5\mathrm{\Delta }^0`$ is satisfied. For $`0.5\mathrm{\Delta }^0<q<0.67\mathrm{\Delta }^0`$, there is a critical angle $`|\theta _c|=\mathrm{arcsin}(\mathrm{\Delta }^0/2q)`$, which decreases from 90 to $`48.3^{}`$ in this range. No ZBCP is induced by electrons with incident angle $`|\theta |<|\theta _c|`$. However, only a small portion of this regime can be observed, because only the region $`q0.515\mathrm{\Delta }^0`$ is stable.

D-wave superconductor. In this case, the pair potential has the form $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\nu (𝐤_F)=\mathrm{\Delta }_q\mathrm{cos}(2\theta _\nu )`$. Here, $`\theta _\nu =\theta +\nu \alpha `$, $`\alpha `$ is the angle between the antinodal direction and the positive $`x`$ axis.

Figure 3 presents the normalized conductance at different $`z`$ and $`q`$ for a d-wave S with (100) contact (i.e. $`\alpha =0^0`$). For $`z=0`$ \[Fig. 3(a)\], the central peak due to Andreev reflection is gradually suppressed and slightly broadened. For large $`z`$ \[Fig. 3(d)\] one sees mainly the filling up of the central dip with only a slight suppression of the coherence peaks as $`q`$ increases. For intermediate $`z`$ \[Figs. 3(b) and (c)\], one sees intricate behavior with some similarity to the corresponding figures in Fig. 2.

Figure 4 shows the normalized conductance at different $`z`$ and $`q`$ for a d-wave S with (110) contact (i.e. $`\alpha =45^0`$). It is seen that the ZBCP induced by the midgap surface states is suppressed, broadened, and eventually split at sufficiently large $`z`$ when $`q`$ is increased.

In conclusion, we have studied the differential conductance of a clean normal metal/superconductor junction carrying a supercurrent parallel to the junction interface, for barrier strength ranging from metallic-contact to the tunneling regime. In the tunneling regime, we obtain results similar to the case of a diffusive s-wave superconducting wire studied recently, viz., suppression and broadening of the coherence peaks for both an s-wave superconductor and a d-wave superconductor with (100) contact, except that the coherence peaks are found to move outward in the s-wave case. For d-wave superconductor with (110) contact we also find the midgap-surface-states-induced ZBCP to be suppressed and broadened and eventually split with increasing supercurrent. In the metallic-contact limit, supercurrent causes the Andreev-reflection-induced conductance enhencement within the (maximum) gap to become weakened and broadened. For intermediate barrier strengths some novel features are revealed including a current-induced zero-bias peak and a three-humped structure near the thermodynamical critical current density. It is hoped that these predictions can be observed experimentally. We conclude with the remark that this formulation can also be applied to the case of an d+s superconductor. Because the critical current for an s-wave superocnductor is larger than that for a d-wave one, the existence of an s component can be verified by a supercurrent reaching a magnitude between the critical values of the two waves.

We wish to thank J. Wei for helpful discussions. This work was supported by the Texas Center for Superconductivity and Advanced Materials at the University of Houston and by the Robert A. Welch Foundation (Ting).