text:
# Untitled Document

Abstract

The hcp-fcc transformation induced in cobalt powder by ball milling at room temperature was studied using the excess Gibbs free energy for the metals, in nanometric form, to calculate the activation barriers that the atoms must overcome for the phase transformation to occur. The crystalline component of the nanocrystaline cobalt produced in our laboratory, via ball milling, was analized using the radial distribution function technique. The results suggest that the crystalline component has the same structure as the bulk, contradicting results already reported.

1. Introduction

The advent of nanostructured materials has made it possible to imagine a wide range of new technologies. This is associated with the presence of atomic arrangements located at defect centers, such as grain boundaries and interphase boundaries, allowing one to produce solids with new atomic structures and physical properties.

From the structural point of view, nanostructured materials can be regarded as being made up of two components, one crystalline, with dimensions on the order of some nanometers, that preserves the structure of bulk crystal, and another interfacial, composed of defects (grain boundaries, interphase boundaries, dislocations, etc.). The latter can be regarded as a highly disordered phase, lacking the short-range order present in glasses as well as the long-range order found in the crystalline state$`[1,2]`$. This component has caused controversy in the literature. Gleiter analysis$`[3]`$ is based on a gaseous model, while other authors$`[4]`$ think this is not the best approach. The number of atoms in the two components is about the same$`[5]`$.

Recently, Huang et al.$`[6]`$ reported a study of phase transformation induced in cobalt powder by ball milling at room temperature. The main conclusions reached by the authors are: for a milling intensity below a lowe threshold value, the starting mixture of hcp and fcc phases transforms to a single hcp phase; for an intermediate range of milling intensities there is a second transformation of the hcp phase to a mixture of the fcc and hcp phases; finally, for milling intensity above an upper threshold value, there is a third transformation of the fcc and hcp mixture to a single fcc phase. Previously, a detailed thermal and structural study of the same phase changes had been performed by Mazzone$`[7,8]`$; the results are not in agreement with those of Ref.$`[6]`$. According to Mazzone, the structural transformations induced by ball milling of cobalt powder are more subtle because of two factors: $`(1)`$ the progressive formation of an increasingly more faulted hcp phase which eventually transforms into a structure based on an almost random stacking of close-packed planes; $`(2)`$ the progressive contamination from the steel milling tools, which for an iron concentration of the order of a few atoms per cent stabilizes the fcc phase, as shown by the Fe-Co phase diagram.

There is in the literature a study performed by Babanov et al.$`[9]`$ applying the EXAFS technique to nanocrystalline cobalt. These investigators measured the EXAFS oscillations of polycrystalline, nanocrystalline and grain boundary components of cobalt powder. Using the regularization method, they found the corresponding pair correlation functions. For nanometric cobalt, they reported a strong reduction in the nearest-neighbor coordination number (6.35 atoms) of the crystalline component in comparison with polycrystalline cobalt (13.1 atoms) while 3.65 atoms located at 0.252 nm were found for the grain boundary component.

According to the basic idea that the crystalline component of nanocrystalline materials preserves the structure of the bulk crystal, a strong reduction in the nearest-neighbor coordination number of this component, as the one observed by Babanov, is not expected, since it would imply that its structure is different from that of the bulk crystal. A recent study performed by us $`[5]`$ on nanocrystalline nickel, using the radial distribution function (RDF), shows that the nearest- neighbor coordination number of this component is similar to that of the bulk crystal.

In this paper, we investigate the hcp-fcc transformation in nanocrystalline cobalt obtained via ball milling in our laboratory, using the excess Gibbs free energy for the nanometric cobalt and RDF analysis to obtain the nearest- neighbor coordination number of the crystalline component.

2. Experimental Procedure

Cobalt (purity, $`99.5\%`$) was milled for 62 h in argon atmosphere in a Spex 8000 shaker mill, using spheres and a cylindrical steel vial. The mass ratio between the ball and the powder mass (BPR) was 4:1. A ventilation system was used to keep the temperature of the vial close to room temperature. The milled powder samples were analyzed by X-ray diffraction using a Siemens difractometer working with the Cu K$`\alpha `$ line ($`\lambda =0.15418nm`$).

3. Results and Discussion

Fig. 1 shows the X-ray diffraction patterns (XRD) for the cobalt as-received (spectrum A) and after 62 h of milling (spectrum B). From spectrum A, using the integrated intensities of the peaks, we obtained $`64.9\%`$ and $`35.1\%`$ of hcp and fcc phases, respectively. Spectrum B still shows both phases, but the fraction of the fcc phase is larger than in spectrum A. This result agrees quite well with those of Huang et al.$`[6]`$ for an intermediate range of milling intensities. Spectrum B does not show other peaks besides those associated with the fcc and hcp phases, indicating that if there is contamination from the steel tools, it must be very low. In recent study $`[5]`$, using a Spex 8000 shaker mill, the same number of steel balls and the same BPR, we measured by X-ray energy dispersive analysis a contamination of less than $`3\%`$ for nickel powders after 30 h of milling.

In order to explain the hcp-fcc transformation of nanocrystalline cobalt upon milling, we will use the thermodynamic properties and the stability of grain boundaries in nanometric metals and the concept of lattice stability.

Ball milling has been used as an alternative technique to obtain some metals, such as Ni, Fe, Pd, Co and Cu, in nanometric form. In the first stage of milling, there is a drastic reduction in crystallite size. Further milling leads to ultrafine crystallites. X-ray analysis shows that these crystallites have a few nanometers in diameter. The reduction of crystallite size to a few nanometers cannot be accomplished without creating an interfacial component.

From the thermodynamic point of view, a nanometric powder is in a metastable state whose Gibbs free energy is greater than that of the crystalline state. Without annealing, there is no spontaneous transition to the crystalline state, suggesting the existence of an activation energy .

Using an universal equation of state proposed by Rose et al.$`[10]`$ to study the thermodynamic properties and the stability of grain boundaries in nanometric metals, Fecht showed$`[11]`$ that the excess Gibbs free energy of the interfacial component grows with the excess volume but has a local minimum due to the maximum entropy that this component can reach. The entropy of sublimation of a gas was taken as this limit. The local minimum is responsible for the stability of the metals in nanometric form. From Fechet paper is clear that for a nanocrystalline- to-crystalline trasition to occur, the atoms located at the interfacial component must overcome an activation energy whose value can be calculated from the values of the maximum and minimum excess Gibbs free energies. Thus, in order to promote the transition, it is necessary to introduce a certain minimum amount of external energy; this can be done by annealing the material at an appropriate temperature. As an illustration, we show in Fig. 2 the excess Gibbs free energy, given by equation $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$G(V,T) = $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$H(V,T) - T$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$S(V,T), for nanocrystalline Co (hcp) at 300 K. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$V = 0.0 value corresponds to the crystalline state. As can be seen, there is a local minimum at $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$V = 0.410; the value of the activation energy is 1.05 x 10-20 J/at or about 0.066 eV/at.

Unfortunately, we did not find in the literature enough data to calculate the excess Gibbs free energy and the excess volume for nanocrystalline Co in the fcc phase. However, we can use the concept of lattice stability to estimate the Gibbs free energy of this phase. The lattice stability parameter of an element is taken as the difference between the free energy of the phase that is being described and the free energy of the other phase, used as a reference$`[12,13]`$. The lattice stability parameter for cobalt (hcp) with respect to cobalt (fcc) is

Cofcc→hcp = \[-460 + 0.628 T\] (J mol-1)

At 300 K, the value of the lattice stability parameter is about -271.6 J mol-1 or -28 x 10-4 eV/atom, i.e., a very small value. As the temperature increses, the lattice stability parameter becomes even smaller. The Gibbs free energies of the hcp and fcc phases are thus almost equal. On the other hand, the results shown in Fig. 1 seem to suggest that nanocrystalline Co in the fcc phase has an activation energy greater than that for nanocrystalline Co in the hcp phase, since the fcc-hcp transformation is not observed.

In order to transform to the fcc phase, the Co atoms belonging to the interfacial component of the hcp phase have to overcome an activation energy ; the required energy is provided by collisions with the balls. In a Fritsch Pulverisette 5 planetary ball mill, the local temperature can reach up to 680 K$`[14]`$ and several alloys have been formed using this type of mill.In a Spex mill, the local temperature can be even larger. Assuming that T = 680 K in the expression $`E_b`$ =$`K_\beta `$T = 8.617 x 10-5 T eV/K, we obtain an average energy of about 0.059 eV/atom, which agrees quite well with the activation energy calculated at 300 K for nanometric cobalt (hcp). However, based on recent studies$`[15]`$, we believe that the value of the activation energy depends on the average temperature at the time when the nanometric powder was formed. We also believe that other processes may contribute to the energy balance, as the following arguments suggest: (1) During ball milling of nickel, even after the crystallite size has stabilized at about 15 nm for 30 h of milling, the crystalline component continues to store energy, reaching a saturation value of about 120 J g-1 (about 0.073 eV/at) after 120 h of milling$`[5]`$. The same must occur during ball milling of cobalt. (2) If part of the energy comming from the balls is used for the annealing of defects in both hcp and fcc crystalline phases, the energy thus released is available for the transformation process; in the next collision, new defects are created, generating a continuous cycle. Thus, these two processes (collisions with the balls and annealing of the defects) are the necessary ingredients for the energy balance which defines the driving force of hcp-fcc transformation of cobalt upon milling. Of course, when the milling time is increased, the amount of the hcp phase decreases, reducing the energy associated with the annealing ofdefects of this phase. This reduction could explain the presence of a mixture of the fcc and hcp phases after 62 h of milling (see Figure 1, spectrum B) as observed by Huang et al.$`[6]`$. Thus, since the lattice stability parameter calculated above is negligible, the fcc phase will be stable.

The influence of mechanical milling on the formation of nanocrystalline cobalt was investigated using radial distribution function (RDF) analysis$`[16]`$. The structure factors, I(K), for as-received and milled powders as a function of the wave vector K = 4$`\pi `$ sin$`\theta /\lambda `$, were obtained from XRD data using the method described in Ref.$`[17]`$; the results are shown in Fig. 3. The anomalous dispersion terms f and f′′ for Co atoms$`[18]`$ were taken into account. A comparison between the I(K) functions for a sample milled for 62 h and for as-received cobalt powder shows a reduction in the highest peak intensity of about $`49\%`$. This reduction is attributed to the interfacial component (containing about $`49\%`$ of the total number of atoms) whose contribution to the XRD pattern is diffuse. Fig. 4 shows the radial distribution functions (RDF) obtained from the Fourier transform of the function F(K)=K\[I(K)-1\] multiplied by a damping factor of the form exp(-$`\alpha ^2`$K2), with $`\alpha ^2`$ = 0.01 nm2, in order to impose the convergence of F(K). On the RDF curve, the average interatomic distance and the coordination number for each atomic shell are given by the position of the maximum and the area under the peak, respectively. In spite of termination effects due to the limited range of the data (Kmax = 0.6225 and 0.7050 nm-1 for the structure factor corresponding to as-received and milled cobalt powder, respectively), we observe that the RDFs are of good quality. For as-received cobalt, the RDF (solid line) shows that the first neighbors shell is asymmetrical and not well isolated. A fit (dotted line) can be made assuming two Gaussian distribution functions of 12 Co neighbors centered at 0.248 nm and 3 Co neighbors centered at 0.326 nm. In order to do this, we explicitly take into account the K dependence by Fourier transforming into the K space the Gaussian distributions of distances and back Fourier transforming over the same K range as the one used to calculate the RDFs. Using the same procedure, the RDF (crossed line) obtained for cobalt milled for 62 h was fitted assuming one Gaussian distribution function of 12.9 Co neighbors centered at 0.258 nm. The slight shift of the interatomic distance to larger values and the increase of the coordination number after milling are probably due to strain fields extending from the boundary regions to the crystallites, displacing the atoms from their ideal lattice sites$`[15]`$.

Our results for nanocrystalline cobalt do not agree with those of Babanov et al.$`[9]`$, who found a nearest-neighbor coordination number of 6.35 atoms for the crystalline component of nanocrystalline cobalt. The results obtained in this study confirm that the crystalline component of nanocrystalline materials preserves the structure of bulk crystal, as expected.

Acknowledgements

We thank the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) and the Agência Financiadora de Projetos (FINEP) , Brazil, for financial support.

References

 X. Zhu, R. Birringer, U. Herr and H. Gleiter, Phys. Rev. B, 35 (1987) 9085.

 H.J. Fecht, Acta Metall., 38 (1990) 1927.

 H. Gleiter, NanoStruct. Mater., 1 (1992) 1.

 E.A. Stern, R.W. Siegel, M. Newville, P.G. Sanders and D. Haskel, Phys.Rev. Lett., 75 (1995) 3874.

 T.A. Grandi, V.H.F. dos Santos and J.C. De Lima, Solid State Commun., 112 (1999) 359.

 J.Y. Huang, Y.K. Wu and H.Q. Ye, Appl. Phys. Lett., 66 (1995) 308.

 F. Cardellini and G. Mazzone, Philos. Mag. A67 (1993) 1289.

 G. Mazzone, Appl. Phys. Lett., 67 (1995) 1944.

 Yu. A. Babanov, I.V. Golovshchikova, F. Boscherini, T. Haubold and S. Mobilio, Physica B 208-209 (1995) 140.

 J.H. Rose, J.R. Smith, F. Guinea and J. Ferrante, Phys. Rev. B 29 (1984) 2963.

 J.H. Fecht, Acta Metall. Mater., 38 (1990) 1927.

 L. Kaufman and H. Bernstein, Computer Calculation of Phase Diagrams, Academic Press, New York and London, (1970).

 N. Saunders and A.P. Miodownik, J. Mater. Res., Vol. 1, No. 1 (1986) 38.

 L. Schultz, J. Less-Common Met., 145 (1988) 233.

 J.C. De Lima, T.A. Grandi, V.H.F. dos Santos, P.C.T. DAjello and A. Dmitriev, Phys. Rev. B 62 (2000) 8871.

 Y. Waseda, Novel Application of Anomalous (Resonance) X-ray Scattering for Structural Characterization of Disordered Materials, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, edited by H. Araki, J. Ehlers, K. Hepp, R. Kippenhaln, H.A. Weindenmuller and J. Zittariz, (1984).

 C.N.J. Wagner, Liquid Metals, edited by S.Z. Beer, Marcell Dekker, Inc., New York, (1972) pp. 258-329.

 S. Sasaki, Anomalous Scattering Factors for Synchrotron Radiation Users, Calculated using Cromer and Libermans Method, National Laboratory for High Energy Physics, Japan, (1984).

Figure Captions

Figure 1 : Experimental X-ray diffraction patterns of the cobalt powders: before milling (A) and after milling for 62 h (B).

Figure 2 : Excess Gibbs free energy as a function of excess volume for nanocrystalline Co (hcp) at 300 K.

Figure 3 : Structure factors of cobalt powders: before milling (dotted line) and after milling for 62 h (solid line).

Figure 4 : Radial distribution functions of cobalt powders: before milling (solid line) together with a fitting (dotted line) assuming two Gaussian distributions (see text) and after milling for 62 h (crossed line).


format: text

text:
# Introduction and recent developments in 𝛾𝛾,𝛾e colliders

## I Introduction

Over the last decade, several laboratories in the world have been working on linear e+e- collider projects with an energy from several hundreds GeV up to several TeV. Beside e+e- collisions, linear colliders can “convert” electrons to high energy photons using the Compton backscattering of laser light, thus obtaining $`\gamma \gamma `$ and $`\gamma e`$ collisions with energies and luminosities close to those in e+e- collisions GKST83 ; TEL90 . Recently the International Workshop on High Energy Photon Colliders has been held at DESY. There are very good news, which I will discuss below.

The basic scheme of a photon collider is shown in Fig. 1.

The maximum energy of the scattered photons (in direction of electrons) is GKST83

$$\omega _m=\frac{x}{x+1}E_0;x=\frac{4E_0\omega _0\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha /2}{m^2c^4}15.3\left[\frac{E_0}{\text{TeV}}\right]\left[\frac{\omega _0}{eV}\right],$$
(1)
where $`E_0`$ is the electron energy, $`\omega _0`$ the energy of the laser photon, $`\alpha `$ is the angle between electron and laser beam (see, fig.1a). For example: $`E_0`$ =250 GeV, $`\omega _0=1.17`$ eV ($`\lambda =1.06`$ $`\mu `$m) (Nd:Glass and other powerful solid state lasers) $``$ $`x=4.5`$ and $`\omega /E_0=0.82`$. For an introduction to photon colliders see refs GKST83 ; TEL90 .

Below I will discuss most important issues connected with a photon collider based on the TESLA Brinkmann98 . The following essential topics are discussed: physics motivation, parameters of the photon collider at TESLA, lasers, optics.

## II Physics

In general, physics in e+e- and $`\gamma \gamma `$, $`\gamma `$e collisions is quite similar because the same particles can be produced. However, it is always better to study new phenomena in various reactions because they give complementary information. Some phenomena can best be studied at photon colliders due to better accuracy or larger accessible masses.

The second aspect important for physics motivation is the luminosity. Typical luminosity distribution in $`\gamma \gamma `$ and $`\gamma `$e collisions has a high energy peak and some low energy part (see the next section). This peak has a width at half maximum of about 15% (in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collision) and photons here can have a high degree of polarization. In the next section we will see that in the current TESLA designs the $`\gamma \gamma `$ luminosity in the high energy peak can be up to 30-40% of the e+e- luminosity at the same beam energy.

Higgs boson

The present Standard Model (SM) assumes existence of a very unique particle, the Higgs boson. It has not been found yet, but from existing experimental information it follows that, if it exists, its mass is higher then 112 GeV (LEP200) and is below 200 GeV, i.e. lays in the region of the next linear colliders. In the simplest extensions to the SM the Higgs sector consists of five physics states: $`h^0,H^0,A^0`$ and $`H^\pm `$. All these particles can be studied at photon colliders and some characteristics can be measured better than in e+e- collisions.

The process $`\gamma \gamma H`$ goes via the loop with heavy virtual charged particles and its cross section is very sensitive to the contribution of particles with masses far beyond the energies covered by present and planned accelerators. For the integrated luminosity 50 fb-1 (in the peak) the number of produced Higgs will be 50–150 thousands (depending on the mass). As a result, one can measure the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(H)`$ width at photon colliders with an accuracy better than 2-3% Rembold99 . This is sufficient for distinguishing between Higgs models GinzKrav .

Moreover, in the models with several neutral Higgs bosons, heavy H0 and A0 bosons have almost equal masses and at certain parameters in the theory are produced in e+e- collisions only in associated production $`\text{e}\text{+}\text{e}\text{-}HA`$, while in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collision they can be produced singly with sufficiently high cross section. Correspondingly, in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions one can produce Higgs bosons with about 1.5 times higher masses.

Charge pair production

The second example is the charged pair production. Cross sections for the production of charged scalar, lepton, WW pairs in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions are larger than those in e+e- collisions by a factor of approximately 5–20. The corresponding graphs can be found elsewhere TEL90 ; Tfrei .

Note, that in e+e- collisions two charged pairs are produced both via annihilation diagram with virtual $`\gamma `$, $`Z`$ and also via exchange diagrams where some new particles can give contributions, while in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions it is pure a QED process which allows the charge of produced particles to be measured unambiguously.

Accessible masses

In $`\gamma `$e collisions, charged particle with a mass higher than that in e+e- collisions can be produced (a heavy charged particle plus a light neutral); for example, supersymmetric charged particle plus neutralino or new W boson and neutrino. Also, $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions provide higher accessible masses for particles which are produced as a single resonance in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions (such as neutral Higgs bosons).

Search for anomalous interactions

Precise measurement of cross sections allow the observation of effects of anomalous interactions. The process $`\gamma \gamma `$ WW has large cross section (about 80 pb) and it is one of most sensitive processes for a search for a new physics. The vertex $`\gamma WW`$ can be studied much better than in e+e- collisions because in the latter case the cross section is much smaller and this vertex gives only 10% contribution to the total cross section. The two factors together give about 40 times difference in the cross sections. Besides that, in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions the $`\gamma \gamma WW`$ vertex can be studied.

Quantum gravity effects with Extra Dimensions

This new theory suggests a possible explanation of why gravitation forces are so weak in comparison with electroweak forces. It is suggested that the gravitation constant is equal to the electroweak but in a space with extra dimensions. It can be tested at photon colliders and a two times higher mass scale than in e+e- collisions can be reached RIZZO .

Many other examples can be found in proceedings of GG2000 Workshop GG2000 .

## III Possible luminosities of $`\gamma \gamma `$,$`\gamma `$e collisions at TESLA

As it is well known in e+e- collisions the luminosity is restricted by beamstrahlung and beam instabilities. Due to the first effect the beams should be very flat. In $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions these effects are absent, therefore one can use beams with much smaller cross section. At present TESLA beam parameters the $`\gamma \gamma `$ luminosity is determined only by the attainable geometric $`L_{\text{ee}}`$ luminosity. So, the $`\gamma \gamma `$ luminosity depends on emittances of electron beams.

Specially for photon collider the TESLA group has studied the possibility of decreasing emittances at the TESLA damping ring. The conclusion is that the horizontal emittance can be reduced by a factor of 4 in comparison with the previous design.

The resulting parameters of the photon collider at TESLA for 2E=500 GeV and H(130) are presented in Table 1 GGTEL . It is assumed that electron beams have 85% longitudinal polarization and laser photons have 100% circular polarization and that $`LE`$. The thickness of laser target is one collision length (so that $`k^20.4`$).

For these luminosities the rate of production of the SM Higgs boson with MH=130(160) GeV in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions is 0.9(3) of that in e+e- collisions at 2E = 500 GeV (both reactions, ZH and H$`\nu \nu `$).

Comparing the $`\gamma \gamma `$ luminosity with the e+e- luminosity ($`L_{\text{e}\text{+}\text{e}\text{-}}=3\times 10^{34}`$ cm-2s-1 for $`2E=500`$ GeV) we see that for the same energy

$$L_{\gamma \gamma }(z>0.8z_m)0.4L_{\text{e}\text{+}\text{e}\text{-}}.$$
(2)
For example, the cross section for production of $`H^+H^{}`$ pairs in collisions of polarized photons is higher than that in e+e- collisions by a factor of 20 (not far from the threshold); this means 8 times higher production rate for the luminosities given above. The relation (2) is valid only for the considered beam parameters. A more universal relation is (for $`k^2=0.4`$)

$$L_{\gamma \gamma }(z>0.8z_m)0.1L_{\text{ee}}(geom).$$
(3)
Figures for the luminosity distribution in $`\gamma \gamma `$ and $`\gamma `$e collisions can be found elsewhere GGTEL .

## IV Lasers, optics

A key element of photon colliders is a powerful laser system which is used for e$`\gamma `$ conversion. Lasers with the required flash energies (several J) and pulse duration $``$ 1 ps already exist and are used in several laboratories. The main problem is the high repetition rate, about 10–15 kHz, with a pulse structure repeating the time structure of the electron bunches.

The most attractive and reliable solution at this moment is an “optical storage ring” with a diode pump laser injector. This new approach can be considered as a base-line solution for the TESLA photon collider GGTEL . This scheme with multiple use of each laser bunch is shown in fig. 2.

The laser pulses are send to the interaction region where they are trapped in an optical storage ring. This can be done using Pockels cells (P), thin film polarizers (TFP) and 1/4-wavelength plates ($`\lambda /4`$). Each bunch makes several (n) round trips (I assume n=10 for further example) and then is deleted from the ring. All these tricks can be done by switching one Pockels cell.

During one total loop each bunch is used for conversion twice. To avoid problems of non-linear effects (self-focusing) in optical elements, laser pulses which are compressed before collisions down to about 2 ps using grating pairs are then stretched again up to previous length before passing through optical elements. Such system can be done in the best way only at the TESLA due to a large spacing between bunches and a long train.

A laser system required for a such optical storage ring with 10 round trips can consist of about 8 lasers of 0.9 kW average powereach. Due to the high average power the lasers should be based on diode pumping. Diodes have much higher efficiency than flash lamps and much more reliable. This technology is developed very actively for other application, such as inertial fusion. Present cost of diodes for such laser system is about 15 M$ (for 10-fold use of one laser bunch as described above) and it is expected that their cost will be further decreased several times. Such system can be done now: all technologies exist.

## V Conclusion

The luminosity in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions (in the high energy peak) can reach about 40% of e+e- luminosity. Since cross sections in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions are typically higher by one order of magnitude than those in e+e- collisions and because of access to higher masses for some particles, the photon collider now has very serious physics motivation.

There is good suggestion for the laser system, which, it seems, can be build now.


text:
# Energy-momentum uncertainties as possible origin of threshold anomalies in UHECR and TeV-𝛾 events

## I Introduction

The observation of ultra-high energy cosmic rays with energy exceeding the Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuz’min cutoff at $`5\times 10^{19}`$ eV has presented the physics and astrophysics community quite a conundrum. The GZK cutoff is based on pion photo-production by inelastic collisions of cosmic-ray nucleons with the cosmic microwave background

$$p+\gamma (CMB)p+\pi .$$
(1)
(Actually, the dominant contribution to the GZK cutoff comes from the $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$-resonance. But the difference between $`m_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`m_p+m_\pi `$ would modify our results below only slightly. Moreover, if the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ formation is not possible, a weakened version of the GZK cutoff may result from non-resonant pion photo-production. Also we should add that the exact composition of the cosmic rays is not known. But even if they are heavy nuclei like Fe rather than nucleons, they would still be photo-disintegrated, and the GZK cutoff remains more or less intact.) In the CMB frame, such a collision requires a threshold energy of the cosmic ray proton given by

$$E_{th}=\frac{(m_p+m_\pi )^2m_p^2}{4\omega }5\times 10^{19}eV,$$
(2)
for an average CMB photon energy $`\omega 1.4\times 10^3`$ eV (and $`m_p9.4\times 10^8`$ eV for the proton mass, $`m_\pi 1.4\times 10^8`$ eV for the pion mass). For protons above this energy, the pion photo-production from CMB will dominate beyond the mean free path. And for pion photo-production cross-section of $`200\mu b`$ and density $`550`$ photons/cc for the CMB, this mean free path is of order 1 Mpc, much smaller than the intergalactic distances. This would imply that the protons would need to originate within our galaxy. But the known maximal galactic magnetic fields are too weak to accelerate the protons to such ultra-high energies. Furthermore, such high energy $`10^{20}`$ eV protons are hardly deflected by the interstellar magnetic fields and hence should have a direction identifiable with some source. But the observed UHECR events are oriented along the extragalactic plane and have no known correlation with any identifiable sources. Thus we are forced to conclude that nature has found a way to evade the GZK cutoff, an energy threshold that, as we have just seen, is well established theoretically. This phenomenon of a theoretically expected energy threshold not observed experimentally has come to be known as a threshold anomaly.

There has not been a lack of attempts to explain these extraordinary cosmic rays. They include protons originated from nearby topological defects/monopolium, magnetic monopoles , and solutions like the decay of massive supersymmetric hadrons. Other explanations include ”Z-boson bursts” and decay products of hypothetical super-heavy relic particles. Exotic origins have also been suggested, such as: gamma-ray bursts, spinning supermassive black holes associated with presently inactive quasar remnants, and colliding galaxy systems.

The recent observation of 20 TeV $`\gamma `$-rays from Mk 501 is also puzzling. Theoretically such events are not expected since a high energy photon propagating in the intergalactic medium can suffer inelastic impacts with photons in the Infra-Red background resulting in the production of an electron-positron pair

$$\gamma +\gamma (IR)e^++e^{}.$$
(3)
For such a collision, the threshold energy of the high energy photon is given by

$$E_{th}=\frac{m_e^2}{\omega }10TeV,$$
(4)
for an average photon energy of $`\omega 0.025`$ eV in the IR background (and $`m_e0.5\times 10^6`$ eV for the electron mass). Thus $`\gamma `$-rays above 10 TeV lose energy drastically during their propagation from their source to the Earth. It is very unlikely that they can survive their long trip from distant Mk 501 with any significant flux. Here then is another threshold anomaly. Compared to the UHECR events, the TeV-$`\gamma `$ events have elicited only a few explanations, such as: there may be a possible upturn in the intrinsic spectrum emitted by Mk 501; the distance to Mk 501 or the background IR intensity may have been overestimated; and multiple TeV-$`\gamma `$ emitted coherently by Mk 501 may have been mistaken to be a single photon event with higher energy.

There is one solution to the UHECR paradox and recently used also to explain the TeV-$`\gamma `$ events that deserves special mention. Numerous authors have suggested that these events are a signal of violation of ordinary Lorentz invariance at the energies in question. These violations are too small to have been detected at the available accelerator energies. But at the highest observed energy region they can affect particle kinematics so as to suppress or even forbid the inelastic collisions (Eq. (1) and (3)), thereby evading the two cutoffs.

In this paper we will adopt a proposal, which bears some similarity to the one just mentioned, to solve the UHECR and TeV-$`\gamma `$ puzzles. It is based on the observation that, due to quantum gravitational effect, energy and momentum, like distances and time intervals, cannot be measured with infinite accuracies. The energy-momentum uncertainties of the form (with positive $`a`$)

$$\delta E\begin{array}{c}>\\ \end{array}E\left(\frac{E}{E_P}\right)^a,\delta p\begin{array}{c}>\\ \end{array}p\left(\frac{p}{m_Pc}\right)^a,$$
(5)
a natural consequence of quantum gravitational effects, upon inserted into the energy-momentum conservation equations or the energy-momentum dispersion relation, can mimic the effects of violation of ordinary Lorentz invariance in a particular way. (Here $`E_P`$ denotes the Planck energy, $`m_P`$ denotes the Planck mass, and we have restored the factor of $`c`$.) They can be interpreted as the *physical* origin of the threshold anomalies. We have little to say about the origins of UHECR and TeV-$`\gamma `$ per se. We simply want to point out that there is a *natural* mechanism that can potentially raise or even eliminate the two energy thresholds under consideration.

The outline of the paper is as follows: In the next Section, we review the argument used by two of us (Ng and van Dam) years ago leading to energy-momentum uncertainties of the form given by Eq. (5). In Section III, we use the energy-momentum uncertainties to explain the threshold anomalies encountered in the UHECR and TeV-$`\gamma `$ events. We also give another plausible interpretation of energy-momentum uncertainties and apply it to future time-of-flight measurements of photons of different energies from gamma ray bursts. The concluding section is devoted for discussion.

## II Energy-momentum uncertainties

Just as there are uncertainties in distance and time interval measurements, there are uncertainties in energy-momentum measurements. Both types of uncertainties come from the same source, viz., quantum fluctuations of space-time metrics giving rise to space-time foam. We will consider two leading models of space-time foam. In the first model, the fluctuations of the metric are given by

$$\delta g_{\mu \nu }\begin{array}{c}>\\ \end{array}\frac{l_P}{l},$$
(6)
for a measurement in a space-time region of volume $`l^4`$. Here $`l_P(\mathrm{}G/c^3)^{1/2}`$ is the Planck length. Since $`\delta l^2=l^2\delta g`$, this translates into an uncertainty in distance measurements given by $`\delta l\begin{array}{c}>\\ \end{array}l_P`$. We can calculate the minimum uncertainty in momentum for a particle with momentum $`p`$ by regarding $`\delta p`$ as the uncertainty of the momentum operator $`p=i\mathrm{}/x`$, associated with $`\delta x=l_P`$. For any function $`f(x)`$, $`(\delta p)f`$ is given by

$$(\delta p)f=\frac{\mathrm{}}{i}\left(\delta x\frac{^2f}{x^2}+\frac{f}{x}\frac{\delta x}{x}\right).$$
(7)
Taking the function $`f(x)`$ to be a momentum eigenstate $`f=exp(ipx/\mathrm{})`$, we get

$$(\delta p)e^{ipx/\mathrm{}}=i\frac{p^2l_P}{\mathrm{}}e^{ipx/\mathrm{}}.$$
(8)
This yields

$$|\delta p|p\left(\frac{p}{m_Pc}\right),$$
(9)
where $`m_P(\mathrm{}c/G)^{1/2}`$ is the Planck mass.

An alternative derivation of Eq. (9) goes as follows: Imagine sending a particle of momentum $`p`$ to probe a structure of spatial extent $`l`$ so that

$$p\frac{\mathrm{}}{l}.$$
(10)
Consider the coupling of the metric to the energy-momentum tensor of the particle,

$$(g_{\mu \nu }+\delta g_{\mu \nu })t^{\mu \nu }=g_{\mu \nu }(t^{\mu \nu }+\delta t^{\mu \nu }),$$
(11)
where we have noted that the uncertainty in $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ can be translated into an uncertainty in $`t_{\mu \nu }`$. Eqs. (6) and (11) can now be used to give

$$\delta p\begin{array}{c}>\\ \end{array}p\left(\frac{l_P}{l}\right),$$
(12)
which, with the aid of Eq. (10), yields Eq. (9). We can also mention that the momentum uncertainty is actually fixed by dimensional analysis, once the uncertainty in the metric is given by Eq. (6). The corresponding statement for energy uncertainties is

$$\delta EE\left(\frac{E}{E_P}\right).$$
(13)
Next let us consider the second space-time foam model (which we actually favor over the first model for reasons we have given in Ref. , including its natural connection to the holographic principle and black hole physics). It is given by

$$\delta g_{\mu \nu }\begin{array}{c}>\\ \end{array}\left(\frac{l_P}{l}\right)^{2/3},$$
(14)
corresponding to $`\delta l\begin{array}{c}>\\ \end{array}(ll_P^2)^{1/3}`$. Repeating the above procedure we get

$$\delta E\begin{array}{c}>\\ \end{array}E\left(\frac{E}{E_P}\right)^{2/3},\delta p\begin{array}{c}>\\ \end{array}p\left(\frac{p}{m_Pc}\right)^{2/3}.$$
(15)
Note that, for both space-time foam models, the energy-momentum uncertainties are negligible except when we consider processes involving very energetic particles. We should also mention that we have not found the proper (presumably nonlinear) transformations of the energy-momentum uncertainties between different reference frames. Therefore we will apply the results only in the frame in which we do the observations. In the following, we will write the energy-momentum uncertainties in the form given by Eq. (5) with $`a=1,2/3`$ for the space-time foam models given by Eq. (6) and Eq. (14) respectively.

## III Solving the threshold anomalies

Now that we know the energy-momentum uncertainty expressions, we have to figure out how and where we should apply them. It all comes down to the question of correctly interpreting the physics. Relevant to the discussion of the UHECR events and the TeV-$`\gamma `$ events is the scattering process in which an energetic particle of energy $`E_1`$ and momentum $`𝐩_1`$ collides head-on with a soft photon of energy $`\omega `$ in the production of two energetic particles with energy $`E_2`$, $`E_3`$ and momentum $`𝐩_2`$, $`𝐩_3`$. Henceforth let us adopt $`c=1`$. At threshold, (ordinary) energy-momentum conservation demands

$$E_1+\omega =E_2+E_3,p_1\omega =p_2+p_3,$$
(16)
and the (ordinary) energy-momentum dispersion relation takes the form

$$E_i=(p_i^2+m_i^2)^{1/2},$$
(17)
where $`i=1,2,3`$ refers to the particle with energy $`E_i`$, momentum $`p_i`$, and mass $`m_i`$. For the UHECR and TeV-$`\gamma `$ events, these two equations yield the threshold energies given by Eqs. (2) and (4) respectively. But for the problem of threshold anomalies at hand, we believe Eqs. (16) and (17) can receive crucial modifications from energy-momentum uncertainties. Let us, therefore, consider (separately) modifying (i) the conservation expressions and (ii) the dispersion relation. (The suggestion that the dispersion relation may be modified by quantum gravity first appeared in Ref..)

(i) Modifying energy-momentum conservation relations

While the energy-momentum dispersion relation is the conventional one given by Eq. (17),

$$E_ip_i+\frac{m_i^2}{2p_i},$$
(18)
where we have used the fact that $`p_i`$ is very large compared to $`m_i`$, the energy-momentum conservation is modified to read

$$E_1+\delta E_1+\omega =E_2+\delta E_2+E_3+\delta E_3,$$
(19)
and

$$p_1+\delta p_1\omega =p_2+\delta p_2+p_3+\delta p_3.$$
(20)
Thus, in this scheme, energy-momentum is conserved up to energy-momentum uncertainties, while the dispersion relation is still dictated by Lorentz invariance. We have omitted $`\delta \omega `$, the contribution coming from the uncertainty of $`\omega `$ because $`\omega `$ is small. Substituting Eq. (18) into Eq. (19) and making use of Eq. (20), we can rewrite Eq. (19) as

$$4\omega \frac{m_2^2}{p_2}+\frac{m_3^2}{p_3}\frac{m_1^2}{p_1}+\epsilon \frac{1}{E_P^a}(p_1^{1+a}p_2^{1+a}p_3^{1+a}).$$
(21)
Here we have used Eq. (5) and the fact that $`E_ip_i`$ for energetic particles to put

$$\delta p_i\delta E_i\epsilon \frac{p_i^{1+a}}{2E_P^a},$$
(22)
thereby defining the parameter $`\epsilon `$. We do not know how to calculate $`\epsilon `$; but since $`\delta E_i\delta p_i`$ for high energy, we expect that it can be fairly *small* compared to one.

The solution to Eq. (21) for the threshold energy $`E_{th}p_1`$ of the incoming energetic particle can be easily worked out for the case of TeV-$`\gamma `$ for which $`m_1=0`$, $`m_2=m_3=m_e`$, the electron mass, and $`p_2=p_3p_1/2`$. It satisfies the following equation

$$E_{th}\omega m_e^2+\epsilon \frac{2^a1}{2^{2+a}}\frac{E_{th}^{2+a}}{E_P^a}.$$
(23)
For the general case, the threshold energy $`E_{th}`$ is given by

$$4E_{th}\omega (m_2+m_3)^2m_1^2+\epsilon \frac{E_{th}^{2+a}}{E_P^a}\left(1\frac{m_2^{1+a}+m_3^{1+a}}{(m_2+m_3)^{1+a}}\right),$$
(24)
with $`m_1=m_2=m_p`$, the proton mass and $`m_3=m_\pi `$, the pion mass for UHECR. (One can easily check that Eq. (24) contains Eq. (23) as a special case.)

To explain the TeV-$`\gamma `$ events, we need to raise the threshold energy to $`E_{th}20TeV`$. With $`E_P10^{28}`$ eV for the Planck energy, Eq. (23) gives $`\epsilon 4.2\times 10^5`$ for $`a=2/3`$ and $`\epsilon 2.5`$ for $`a=1`$. To explain the UHECR events, we need the threshold shift from $`5\times 10^{19}`$ eV to $`E_{th}=3\times 10^{20}`$ eV; Eq. (24) yields $`\epsilon 10^{17},10^{15}`$ for $`a=2/3,1`$ respectively. Indeed, as expected, $`\epsilon `$ is small compared to one in general. (But the smallness of $`\epsilon `$ for the UHECR case suggests that there may be a fine-tuning problem. More on the allowed values of $`\epsilon `$ later.) It is amazing that such a small modification coming from energy-momentum uncertainties can have such a large effect in shifting the threshold energies by a factor of 2 and 6 for the TeV-$`\gamma `$ and UHECR events respectively. To repeat, energy-momentum uncertainties from quantum gravity effects can potentially be the physical origin of the two threshold anomalies.

The following comment is now in order. Effects of energy-momentum uncertainties yield a negative $`\epsilon `$ as likely as a positive $`\epsilon `$. Then what happens to the negative $`\epsilon `$ case? The answer is that negative values of $`\epsilon `$ would shift the energy thresholds in the opposite (”wrong”) direction. They correspond to events not seen; therefore, there is nothing that needs to be explained in the first place.

(ii) Modifying the energy-momentum dispersion relation

Consider energy-momentum conservation given by Eq. (16) but the energy-momentum dispersion relation modified to read

$$(E_i+\delta E_i)^2=(p_i+\delta p_i)^2+m_i^2,$$
(25)
which, for high energy ($`E_ip_i`$), becomes

$$E_i\frac{1}{2}p_i\left(2+\frac{m_i^2}{p_i^2}+\epsilon \frac{p_i^a}{E_P^a}\right),$$
(26)
where $`\epsilon `$ is defined by Eq. (22) as in scheme (i). Eq. (26) is the starting point of the approach adopted by many of the Lorentz invariance violation advocates. Here it is the result of energy-momentum uncertainties (due to quantum gravity) in the dispersion relation. Using Eq. (26) and Eq. (16), we recover Eq. (21) for the threshold energy except for a sign change for $`\epsilon `$. But as we have argued above, the sign of $`\epsilon `$ is irrelevant. To raise the threshold energy, all we need this time is to pick negative values for $`\epsilon `$. It follows that, as far as the UHECR events and TeV-$`\gamma `$ events are concerned, the threshold anomalies are explained in the same way as in (i).

In passing we mention that we have used the same $`\epsilon `$ parameter for all different particle species. If we have used different $`\epsilon `$ parameters for different particle species, we will get a scheme which bears some resemblance to that advocated by Coleman and Glashow. (Such dependence of $`\epsilon `$ on particle species is natural if, e.g., $`\delta p_i`$ and $`\delta E_i`$ cancel so completely in Eq. (22) that its right hand side is reduced by a factor of $`m_i^2/p_i^2`$. But in that case, the effect from energy-momentum uncertainties is so small that we recover the ordinary threshold equation; in other words, we will need another way to solve the threshold anomalies.)

Are the two schemes (i) and (ii) equivalent? No, not entirely. Consider the modified energy-momentum dispersion relation for photon given by Eq. (26)

$$E^2c^2k^2+\epsilon E^2\left(\frac{E}{E_P}\right)^a,$$
(27)
where we have restored c in writing $`p=ck`$. The speed of (massless) photon

$$v=\frac{E}{k}c\left(1+\epsilon \frac{1+a}{2}\frac{E^a}{E_P^a}\right),$$
(28)
becomes energy-dependent! Thus modified energy-momentum dispersion relation (scheme (ii)), unlike modified energy-momentum conservation relations (scheme (i)), predicts time-of-flight differences between simultaneously-emitted photons of different energies, $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$, given by

$$\delta t\epsilon t\frac{1+a}{2}\frac{E_1^aE_2^a}{E_P^a},$$
(29)
where $`t`$ is the average overall time of travel from the photon source. An upper bound on the absolute value of $`\epsilon `$ can be obtained from the observation of simultaneous (within experimental uncertainty of $`\delta t200`$ sec) arrival of 1-TeV and 2-TeV $`\gamma `$-rays from Mk 421 which is believed to be $`143`$ Mpc away from the Earth. Using Eq. (29) we obtain $`|\epsilon |1.3\times 10^3,1.4\times 10^2`$ for $`a=2/3,1`$ respectively. Note that these bounds for $`\epsilon `$ are consistent with those values from UHECR and TeV-$`\gamma `$ events. For an analysis of the time-lag signature see Ref..

## IV Discussion

In the preceding section, we have obtained the various values of $`\epsilon `$ corresponding to the two observed threshold energies. But an examination of Eqs. (23) and (24) shows that, with those values of $`\epsilon `$, the two equations can each be solved by *two* different real and positive $`E_{th}`$’s the larger of which being the observed threshold energy. Now the following question arises: given $`\epsilon `$, which of the two solutions for $`E_{th}`$ would nature pick? Perhaps neither. The point is that, for real and positive $`\epsilon `$ and $`E_{th}`$, there is a maximum value of $`\epsilon `$ above which there is *no* solution to the two equations. In that case, the threshold cutoffs are completely removed (i.e., the threshold anomalies are trivially solved). This consideration leads us to the following bounds on the (magnitude of the) $`\epsilon `$ parameter: $`\epsilon \begin{array}{c}>\\ \end{array}4.6\times 10^5,3.8\times 10^{17}`$ for the TeV-$`\gamma `$ and UHECR respectively for the case of $`a=2/3`$, and $`\epsilon \begin{array}{c}>\\ \end{array}3.0,1.5\times 10^{14}`$ respectively for the case $`a=1`$. These values of $`\epsilon `$ are still consistent with the bounds from photon time-of-flight delay measurements given above.

So far we have considered the effects from either modified energy-momentum conservation relations or a modified energy-momentum dispersion relation. Let us now consider scheme (iii), the case with both the conservation relations and the dispersion relation modified. As for scheme (ii), time-of-flight differences between simultaneously-emitted photons of different energies are predicted. But as far as the threshold anomalies are concerned, one can check that this scheme offers no explanation as the effects of energy-momentum uncertainties cancel out in the threshold equation, yielding

$$E_{th}=\frac{(m_2+m_3)^2m_1^2}{4\omega },$$
(30)
the ordinary threshold condition which we try to explain away for the UHECR events and the TeV-$`\gamma `$ events. (It is not surprising that one gets back the ordinary threshold condition for this case because one can redefine $`E_i`$ and $`p_i`$ by absorbing $`\delta E_i`$ and $`\delta p_i`$ so that all energy-momentum uncertainty effects disappear from the threshold equation.)

So, which of the three schemes is the correct one? Frankly we cannot decide. However, the three schemes give different experimental predictions (or ”post-dictions”). So in principle they can be subject to further experimental checks. (But at least we may have provided advocates of Lorentz invariance violation some physical justification coming from energy-momentum uncertainties due to quantum gravitational fluctuations.) Our attitude is that we should proceed in such a way as to preserve as much as possible the framework which has been so productive in describing the various physical interactions. Thus we would like, on the large scale of experimental equipment, to preserve time translation-, space translation-, and Lorentz- invariance. This would support the familiar conservation laws to a sufficient extent. But it does not necessarily mean that space-time in the small is Minkowskian. Following Einstein and Wigner we could presumably blame small scale oscillations of the metric (which, as we have argued in Sec. II, lead to energy-momentum uncertainties) for possible deformations of Minkowskian invariance. Once this fact is accepted, we would expect some effects in the energy-momentum dispersion relation for the individual particles participating in a collision as well as in the conservation laws of energy and linear momentum in such a collision. At the very least, we should not accept strict Lorentz invariance and energy-momentum conservation on faith but rather regard them as plausible hypotheses subject to experimental tests! Nature may have kindly provided us with the UHECR and TeV-$`\gamma `$ puzzles for such tests.

Acknowledgments

One of us (YJN) thanks G. Amelino-Camelia for a useful correspondence and John Ellis for calling to his attention some relevant references. This work was supported in part by the US Department of Energy under #DE-FG05-85ER-40219, the Bahnson Fund at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and the Republic of China National Science Council under NSC89-2112-M-259-001 and NSC89-2112-M-259-012-Y.


text:
# Quantum superconductor-metal transition in a proximity array

## Abstract

A theory of the zero-temperature superconductor-metal transition is developed for an array of superconductive islands (of size $`d`$) coupled via a disordered two-dimensional conductor with the dimensionless conductance $`g=\mathrm{}/e^2R_{\mathrm{}}1`$. At $`T=0`$ macroscopically superconductive state of the array with lattice spacing $`bd`$ is destroyed at $`g<g_c0.1\mathrm{ln}^2(b/d)`$. At high temperatures the normal-state resistance between neighboring islands at $`b=b_c`$ is much smaller than $`R_Q=h/4e^2`$.

In two-dimensional (2D) systems, qualitative arguments based on duality between Cooper pairs and vortices lead to the prediction  that the superconductor-insulator transition happens at the universal quantum value $`R_Qh/4e^2`$ of the resistance per square $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$. Although a number of experiments (cf.  and references therein) seem to be in agreement with this prediction, other data demonstrate strong deviations from it . Phenomenological picture of duality is not able to predict the system’s parameters (e. g., the value of the normal-state resistance) leading to the quantum critical point: a microscopic theory is needed to find it. Competition between Josephson coupling $`E_J`$ and charging energy $`E_C`$ is known  to be the driving mechanism of zero-temperature phase transitions between the superconductive and insulating states in artificial arrays , films  and bulk materials . In such systems there are no free electrons at very low temperatures due to Cooper pairing, but pairs may become localized due to Coulomb repulsion. This is the “bosonic” mechanism of superconductivity suppression.

Homogeneously disordered superconductive films  present another group of systems where quantum fluctuations lead to destruction of superconductivity. The theory of $`T_c`$ suppression in such films was developed in Refs. . The qualitative idea behind this theory is that disorder-enhanced Coulomb repulsion leads to the decrease of Cooper attraction and thus to the decrease of $`T_c`$. The superconductive transition temperature vanishes  when the dimensionless film conductance $`g=\mathrm{}/e^2R_{\mathrm{}}`$ decreases down to $`g_{\mathrm{Fin}}=(2\pi )^2\mathrm{ln}^2(1/T_{c0}\tau _{\mathrm{tr}})`$, where $`T_{c0}`$ is the BCS transition temperature and $`\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}`$ is the elastic scattering time. This second (“fermionic”) mechanism of superconductivity suppression is clearly different from the first one  since its basic feature lies in disappearance of Cooper pairs altogether. Experimental data supporting the fermionic mechanism are reviewed in Ref. . A drawback of this theory is that it neglects quantum fluctuations of the bosonic field (i. e., it can be considered as a kind of the BCS theory with the renormalized attraction constant). For a phenomenological comparison of the bosonic and fermionic mechanisms, cf. Ref. .

In this paper we study a model for quantum breakdown of superconductivity, which lies in between the two limiting cases discussed above. We consider an array of small superconductive (SC) islands (of radius $`d`$ each) in contact with a thin film of dirty normal (N) conductor with the dimensionless conductance $`g1`$. The distance between neighboring islands is $`bd`$ (more precisely, $`b^2`$ will be the concentration of islands). Resistance $`R_T`$ of the interface between each island and the film is low: $`G_T=\mathrm{}/e^2R_T1`$. Islands are thick enough, to prevent suppression of superconductivity inside them. The corresponding condition for the superconductive gap reads $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SC}G_T/\nu V_i`$, where $`V_i`$ is the island’s volume and $`\nu `$ is the density of states. The above inequality ensures that the lifetime of electrons in the SC island (which is finite due to the tunneling across the interface) is much longer than $`\mathrm{}/\mathrm{\Delta }_{SC}`$. We assume also that $`G_T^24\pi g`$; the meaning of this condition will be explained below. We will show that macroscopic superconductivity in such a system at $`T=0`$ becomes unstable with respect to quantum fluctuations at $`g`$ less than

$$g_c=𝒢_c\left(\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{ln}\frac{b}{\stackrel{~}{d}}\right)^2,$$
(1)
where $`𝒢_c1`$ will be determined below, and $`\stackrel{~}{d}d`$. Eq. (1) presents our main result (obtained within logarithmic accuracy), which shows that the critical sheet resistance $`R_\mathrm{}c=\mathrm{}/e^2g_c`$ is much less than the quantum resistance $`R_Q`$, provided $`\mathrm{ln}(b/d)3`$. Moreover, the same is valid for the normal-state resistance between neighboring islands $`R_n=(R_\mathrm{}c/\pi )\mathrm{ln}(b/d)3R_Q/\mathrm{ln}(b/d)`$. This result is at odds with usual arguments based on the model of resistively shunted Josephson junctions : in that model superconductive behavior of a single junction is preserved at $`T=0`$ as long as it has resistance $`R<R_Q`$. The physical reason for this discrepancy is that we account for the discrete nature of charge transport between the SC islands, which was neglected in the Caldeira-Leggett model adopted in .

We will follow an idea presented in Ref. , where a simplified version of the considered model was analyzed (cf. also ). Namely, we make use of the long-range nature of the Josephson coupling $`J_{ij}`$ between SC islands due to the proximity effect in the film, which scales as $`J_{ij}r_{ij}^2\mathrm{exp}[c(r_{ij}/L_T)]`$, where $`L_T=\sqrt{\mathrm{}D/T}`$ is the thermal coherence length (cf. Refs. ), $`c1`$, and $`D`$ is the diffusion constant in the film. At low temperatures the interaction radius $`L_T`$ diverges indicating that the position of the quantum phase transition can be found in the mean-field approximation (MFA) analogous to the one developed in Ref. . Within the MFA, macroscopic superconductive coherence sets in at

$$\frac{1}{2\mathrm{}}𝒥(T)𝒞(T)1,$$
(2)
where

$$𝒥(T)=\underset{j}{}J_{ij},𝒞(T)=_0^{1/T}𝑑\tau C_0(\tau ),$$
(3)
and $`C_0(t)=\mathrm{cos}(\theta (0)\theta (t))`$ is the single-island autocorrelation function of the order parameter phase. Thus, to find the superconductor-metal transition line we need to determine the functions $`𝒥(T)`$ and $`𝒞(T)`$ at low temperatures. We will discuss the $`T=0`$ limit mainly, and present the results for low $`T>0`$ at the very end of the paper.

Calculation of $`𝒥(0)`$ is rather straightforward. The result depends on the relation between the dimensionless Cooper repulsion constant $`\lambda _n`$ defined at the energy scale $`\omega _d=D/d^2`$ and the ratio $`G_T/4\pi g`$ which is a measure of the interface transparency. At low interface transparencies, $`G_T/4\pi g\lambda _n`$, it is possible to consider the lowest order process over $`G_T`$, and one obtains

$$𝒥(0)=\frac{G_T^2}{16\nu \lambda _n^2}\frac{1}{b^2\mathrm{ln}(b/d)}.$$
(4)
This result is similar to the one obtained in  for a one-dimensional S-N-S geometry: in both cases $`𝒥(0)`$ formally diverges as the Cooper repulsion constant goes to zero. However, the decrease of $`\lambda _n`$ at a fixed $`G_T`$ drives the system out of the low-transparency limit. At $`\lambda _nG_T/4\pi g`$ full nonlinear treatment of the proximity problem is necessary, accounting multiple Andreev reflections from SC islands. At the same time, the effect of $`\lambda _n`$ upon $`𝒥(0)`$ can be neglected in this limit (for 2D geometry studied here). To find the coupling energy $`J(r)`$ between two islands situated at the distance $`rd`$, one has to solve the Usadel equation  in the film. Actually, it is more convenient to calculate the maximum superconducting current between the islands, $`I_c(r)=(2e/\mathrm{})J(r)`$. The value of the supercurrent can be determined as the integral over the current density, taken along the straight line which lies in the middle between two islands, and is perpendicular to the vector $`𝐫`$ connecting them. If the distance between the islands is very large, $`\mathrm{ln}(r/d)1`$, anomalous part of the Green function is small along the above-mentioned line, that allows***Similar calculation can be found in Appendix C of Ref.  to linearize the Usadel equation at relevant energies $`E\mathrm{}D/r^2`$ and find $`I_c(r)`$. Thereby one obtains $`J(r)=(\pi ^3/4)gD/r^2\mathrm{ln}^2(r/d)`$ and, finally,

$$𝒥(0)=\frac{\pi ^4}{2}\frac{gD}{b^2\mathrm{ln}(b/d)}.$$
(5)
The key point in the discussion of the $`T=0`$ transition is to determine $`𝒞(T0)`$. We will see that $`𝒞(0)`$ depends exponentially on the film conductance $`g`$. If islands do not have ohmic contacts with the film (coupling via capacitance $`C_j`$ only) then $`𝒞(0)=\mathrm{}/E_C=\mathrm{}C_j/2e^2`$. In our case $`\mathrm{}/𝒞(0)`$ plays the role of an effective charging energy $`E_C^{}`$ of an island that survives in spite of good conductance around. To make ideas transparent, we first discuss a simplified model  with sufficiently strong Cooper-channel repulsion in the film, $`\lambda _nG_T/4\pi g`$. Then dynamics of the phase $`\theta (t)`$ of a single SC island can be described by a simple imaginary-time action,

$$S_0[\theta ]=\frac{G_A}{8\pi }_0^{1/T}𝑑t𝑑t^{}\frac{\mathrm{cos}[\theta (t)\theta (t^{})]}{(tt^{})^2}.$$
(6)
Here $`G_A=G_T^2/4\pi g\lambda _n`$ is the Andreev subgap conductance (normalized to $`e^2/\mathrm{}`$) in the limit of weak proximity effect, valid under the condition $`\lambda _nG_T/4\pi g`$  The result for $`G_A`$ given in  is overestimated by the factor of 2 due to a numerical mistake.. Expression (6) is valid at low energies, $`\omega \omega _de^{1/\lambda _n}`$, while at higher energies, $`\omega _de^{1/\lambda _n}\omega \omega _d`$, one has $`G_A(\omega )=(G_T^2/4\pi g)\mathrm{ln}(\omega _d/\omega )`$. Thus, the Andreev conductance is large compared to $`4e^2/h`$ for all frequencies below $`\omega _d`$ if the condition $`G_T^24\pi g`$ is fulfilled. At lower values of $`G_T`$, N-S transport across the interface is suppressed by the usual Coulomb blockade effect governed by the junction’s charging energy $`2e^2/C_j`$. We are not interested in this trivial effect, and will assume the condition $`G_T^24\pi g`$ to be valid.

For large $`G_A`$ one can start from the Gaussian approximation for $`S_0[\theta (t)]`$. Then the Fourier-transformed correlator of phase fluctuations $`|\theta _\omega |^2_0=4/|\omega |G_A`$, and, hence, $`C_0(t)=e^{\frac{1}{2}(\theta (t)\theta (0))^2_0}t^{4/\pi G_A}`$. At $`G_A>4/\pi `$, $`𝒞(T0)`$ diverges that seems to indicate that at large $`G_A`$ superconductivity is always stable at $`T=0`$, in agreement with . The crucial point is to note that the employed Gaussian approximation breaks down at a finite time scale $`t^{}`$, due to downscale renormalization of $`G_A`$. This renormalization is caused by the periodicity of the action $`S_0[\theta ]`$ as a functional of $`\theta (t)`$, that is, in physical terms, by the charge quantization. This problem is analogous to the one studied by Kosterlitz . Translating his results to the present case, one gets the renormalization group (RG) equation $`dG_A(\zeta )/d\zeta =4/\pi `$, with $`\zeta =\mathrm{ln}\omega _dt`$. This equation is to be solved with the initial condition $`G_A(0)=G_A`$. As a result, at the time scale $`t^{}\omega _d^1e^{\pi G_A/4}`$ the renormalized Andreev conductance $`G_A(t^{})`$ decays down to the value of order unity . At longer time scales $`C_0(t)`$ decays approximately as $`t^2`$, so the integral $`𝒞(0)t^{}\omega _d^1e^{\pi G_A/4}`$. Taking into account that $`𝒥b^2`$, and using Eq. (2), one obtains  the critical distance between islands $`b_cde^{\pi G_A/8}`$.

However, this result is valid under the condition $`\lambda _nG_T/4\pi g`$ which is difficult to realize simultaneously with the inequality $`G_T^24\pi g`$ needed to avoid trivial Coulomb blockade effects. Indeed, at energies $`E\mathrm{}/\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}`$, Cooper interaction constant $`\lambda (E)`$ is determined by the RG equation  which we present in a simplified form  valid for $`\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{}/E\tau _{tr})g`$ when renormalization of $`g`$ can be neglected:

$$\frac{d\lambda }{d\zeta }=\lambda ^2+\lambda _g^2,\lambda _g=\frac{1}{2\pi \sqrt{g}},$$
(7)
and $`\lambda (\zeta =0)=\lambda _n`$. The fixed point solution of Eq. (7), $`\lambda =\lambda _g`$, is too small to fulfil both the above inequalities together. Therefore, typically the approximation of single-parameter RG for $`G_A`$ is not valid, and we should reconsider the problem of the subgap N-S conductance in the presence of three different effects acting simultaneously:

* disorder-enhanced multiple Andreev reflections  which increase $`G_A(\omega )`$ when the coherence length $`\sqrt{D/\omega }`$ grows;
* Cooper-channel repulsion $`\lambda `$ which reduces $`G_A`$ ;
* quantum fluctuations of the phase $`\theta (\tau )`$ which destroy coherence between Andreev reflections and suppress $`G_A(\zeta )`$ at long time scales.

To treat all these effects together, we employ the functional RG method for the proximity-effect action in the Keldysh form .

Like in the simplified model  discussed above, the constant $`𝒞(0)`$ is determined (with exponential accuracy) by the value of time $`t^{}`$ when $`G_A(\zeta =\mathrm{ln}\omega _dt^{})`$ becomes of the order of 1, since at longer times $`C_0(t)`$ decays fast. However, the equation for $`G_A(\zeta )`$ is much more complicated now as it includes an infinite set of parameters. To derive the corresponding RG equations, we start from the Keldysh action for a SC island in contact with a disordered metal, derived in Ref. . It can be represented as a sum $`S=S_{\mathrm{bulk}}+S_{\mathrm{bound}}`$ of the bulk and boundary \[the last term in Eq. (9)\] contributions:

$`S={\displaystyle \frac{i\pi \nu }{4}}Tr\left[D(Q)^2+4i\left(i\tau _z_t+\stackrel{}{\varphi }+\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)Q\right]`$ (8)
$`+Tr\stackrel{}{\varphi }^TV^1\stackrel{}{\varphi }+{\displaystyle \frac{2\nu }{\lambda }}Tr\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^+\sigma _x\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\displaystyle \frac{i\pi G_T}{4}}TrQ_SQ.`$ (9)
The bulk action, $`S_{\mathrm{bulk}}`$, is a functional of three fluctuating fields: the matter field $`Q(𝐫,t,t^{})`$ in the film (its average value gives the time-domain representation of the electron Green function $`G(𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ at $`𝐫=𝐫^{}`$), the electromagnetic potential $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }(𝐫,t)`$, and the order parameter field $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(𝐫,t)`$ used to decouple the quartic interaction vertex in the Cooper channel. $`Q(𝐫,t,t^{})`$ is a matrix in the time domain, and in the direct $`4\times 4`$-dimensional product $`KN`$ of the Keldysh and Nambu-Gor’kov spaces. Pauli matrices in the $`K`$ and $`N`$ spaces are denoted by $`\sigma _i`$ and $`\tau _i`$, respectively. The field $`Q`$ satisfies a nonlinear constraint $`Q^2=1`$ and can be parametrized as $`Q=e^{W/2}\mathrm{\Lambda }e^{W/2}`$ with $`\{W,\mathrm{\Lambda }\}=0`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\tau _z`$ is the metallic saddle point and

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_0(ϵ)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 2F(ϵ)\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)_K.$$
(10)
The matrix $`F(ϵ)=\tau _0f(ϵ)+\tau _zf_1(ϵ)`$ has the meaning of a generalized distribution function. The object $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }=(\varphi _1,\varphi _2)^T`$ is a vector in the Keldysh space, with $`\varphi _1,\varphi _2`$ being the classical and quantum components of the $`\varphi `$-field. $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }`$ is a shorthand notation for the matrix $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }=\varphi _1\sigma _0+\varphi _2\sigma _x`$. Similarly, $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=(\mathrm{\Delta }_1,\mathrm{\Delta }_2)^T`$, and $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ stands for a $`4\times 4`$ matrix $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=[\tau _+\mathrm{\Delta }_1\tau _{}\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{}]\sigma _0+[\tau _+\mathrm{\Delta }_2\tau _{}\mathrm{\Delta }_2^{}]\sigma _x`$, where $`\tau _\pm (\tau _x\pm i\tau _y)/2`$. In terms of the $`\sigma `$-model action (9), diffuson and Cooperon collective modes of the electron system are described as slow fluctuations of the $`Q`$-matrix over the manifold $`Q^2=1`$. The last (boundary) term in Eq. (9) describes an elementary tunneling process between the SC island and the N metal. The matrix $`Q_S`$ describes the state of the SC island. At the low-energy scales $`ϵ|\mathrm{\Delta }_{SC}|`$ it is expressed via the phase $`\theta (t)`$:

$$Q_S=i\tau _+e^{i\stackrel{}{\theta }}+i\tau _{}e^{i\stackrel{}{\theta }},$$
(11)
where $`\stackrel{}{\theta }=\theta _1\sigma _0+\theta _2\sigma _x`$.

The action (9) contains a fluctuating scalar potential field $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }`$ accounting the direct Coulomb interaction in the density-density channel. Major effects of this interaction are: (i) local electroneutrality of electron liquid at low frequencies, and (ii) zero-bias anomaly in the tunneling DOS . Both effects can be taken care of by means of a special gauge transformation : $`Q_{tt^{}}e^{i\stackrel{}{K}(t)\tau _z}Q_{tt^{}}e^{i\stackrel{}{K}(t^{})\tau _z}`$, and $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }(t)\stackrel{}{\varphi }(t)+_t\stackrel{}{K}(t)`$. The “Coulomb phase” $`\stackrel{}{K}(t)`$ is a linear functional of $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }(t)`$ chosen in a way to cancel all terms which are linear both in $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }(t)`$ and in the matrix field $`W(𝐫,t,t^{})`$. Then the effect (i) is contained in the tree level of the transformed effective action, whereas (ii) comes from the simplest loop correction . After the above gauge transformation the phase $`\stackrel{}{\theta }_j(t)`$ of the $`j`$-th island enters the action in the combination $`\stackrel{}{\theta }_j(t)2\stackrel{}{K}(t,𝐫_j)`$ only. Now the important point of our discussion comes about: the phases $`\stackrel{}{\theta }_j(t)`$ of each island are not fixed by any external source, and should be integrated out. Thus the shift of integration variable $`\stackrel{}{\theta }_j(t)\stackrel{}{\theta }_j(t)2\stackrel{}{K}(t,𝐫_j)`$ eliminates $`\stackrel{}{K}(t,𝐫_j)`$ from the action, together with both effects (i) and (ii). In other terms, the present problem of unconstrained phase $`\stackrel{}{\theta }(t)`$ fluctuations can be treated as if it would be no Coulomb interaction, since Gaussian terms in the action containing electric field are decoupled from the redefined $`\stackrel{}{\theta }(t)`$ variable. It is thus legitimate to neglect electroneutrality and calculate frequency-dependent subgap conductance $`G_A(\omega )`$ as if the outer normal contact would be placed at the distance $`R_\omega =\sqrt{D/\omega }`$ from the SC island. We emphasize that the same would be wrong for a usual problem of N-S conductance between contacts with fixed voltages, where the full size of the N film, $`LR_\omega `$, does enter the result, adding the term $`(R_{\mathrm{}}/2\pi )\mathrm{ln}(L/R_\omega )`$ into the resistance, cf. Sec. VI of Ref. .

Next we use the RG method to integrate consecutively over fast degrees of freedom in the action (9), which is defined with $`\omega _d`$ being a high-energy cutoff. At each step of the RG procedure one has to eliminate fast modes $`W_{ϵ_1ϵ_2}`$ in the N film, with either $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}>\mathrm{max}(Dq^2,ϵ_1ϵ_2)>\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (for diffusons) or $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}>\mathrm{max}(Dq^2,ϵ_1+ϵ_2)>\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (for Cooperons), and fast (with $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}>\omega >\mathrm{\Omega }`$) fluctuations of the order-parameter phase $`\stackrel{}{\theta }`$ on the SC island (where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the running infrared RG cutoff). The above integration results in a correction to the action of slow variables proportional to the increment of the “logarithmic time” $`\mathrm{\Delta }\zeta =\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}/\mathrm{\Omega })`$. The structure of the boundary term in the action (9) is not reproduced under the RG , instead higher-order terms $`Tr(Q_SQ)^n`$ are generated, which are all relevant in the case of strong proximity effect. The full boundary action can be written in the form

$$S_{\mathrm{bound}}=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}S_n=i\pi ^2g\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\gamma _n(\zeta )Tr(Q_SQ)^n.$$
(12)
At the energy scale $`\omega _d`$, the multicharge action (12) reduces to the last term in Eq. (9), that is, $`\gamma _1(0)=G_T/4\pi g`$ and $`\gamma _{n2}(0)=0`$. Integration over all fast modes down to the energy scale $`\omega =\omega _de^\zeta `$ defines the action (12) with the set of parameters $`\gamma _n(\zeta )`$.

In the model  of large $`\lambda _n`$ discussed above, separation of scales was possible: at relatively short time scales the term $`S_2\gamma _2Tr(Q_SQ)^2`$ was generated under the action of the RG , that lead to a constant value of $`G_A1`$ (other $`\gamma _{n3}`$ were still small). At longer time scales fluctuations of $`\theta `$ became important, being determined by the action (6). In the full problem considered now, all parameters $`\gamma _n`$ are important, and all types of fluctuations should be considered simultaneously. The corresponding RG equations for the “charges” $`\gamma _n(\zeta )`$ had been derived in Ref.  for the case when the SC island is connected to an external circuit and its phase is fixed by an external bias $`V`$ through the Josephson relation $`d\theta /dt=2eV`$. In the absence of an external contact, all phases do fluctuate and these fluctuations lead to an additional logarithmic renormalization of the action.

To calculate the corresponding correction one has to average the action (12) over high-frequency fluctuations of the phase $`\stackrel{}{\theta }`$. Its propagator is determined by the Gaussian part of the same action and has the form:

$$\theta _i(\omega )\theta _j(\omega )=\frac{2\mathrm{\Pi }_\omega ^{ij}}{\omega G_A(\zeta _\omega )},$$
(13)
where $`G_A(\zeta _\omega )=16\pi g_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}(1)^nn^2\gamma _{2n}(\zeta _\omega )`$ is the scale-dependent Andreev conductance, $`\zeta _\omega =\mathrm{ln}(\omega _d/\omega )`$, and

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_\omega =\left(\begin{array}{cc}2\mathrm{coth}(\omega /2T)& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(14)
Let us consider the $`n`$-th term of the action (12), $`S_n=i\pi ^2g\gamma _nTr(Q_SQ)^n`$, and find the one-loop correction from it, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}\gamma _k`$, to the parameters $`\gamma _k`$ due to phase fluctuations with frequencies $`\omega `$ in the range $`\mathrm{\Omega }<|\omega |<\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$. This correction will be proportional to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\zeta =\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Omega }_{}/\mathrm{\Omega })`$. To find it, one has to separate $`\stackrel{}{\theta }`$ into the sum of the slow part $`\stackrel{}{\stackrel{~}{\theta }}`$ (with frequencies $`|\omega |<\mathrm{\Omega }`$), and the fast part $`\stackrel{}{\theta ^{}}`$ (with $`\mathrm{\Omega }<|\omega |<\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$), expand $`S_n`$ to the second order in $`\stackrel{}{\theta ^{}}`$ and average over it with the correlator (13), taking into account all possible pairings. There are two types of pairing: two fast variables $`\stackrel{}{\theta ^{}}`$ can belong to the same matrix $`Q_S`$ \[cf. Eq. (11)\], or to two different $`Q_S`$. The first case is simple: on averaging over $`\stackrel{}{\theta ^{}}`$ each of the terms $`S_n`$ reproduces its structure, and the whole effect of fluctuations is to modify $`\gamma _n`$: $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}\gamma _n=2n\gamma _n\mathrm{\Delta }\zeta /\pi G_A(\zeta )`$. The pairing of the second type involves averaging over the fast variables $`\stackrel{}{\theta ^{}}(t_1)`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\theta ^{}}(t_2)`$ which belong to different $`Q_S`$. Therefore these two $`Q_S`$ subdivide the whole cyclic product $`(Q_SQ)^n`$ under the trace into two parts: $`Tr(Q_SQ)^n=TrQ_S(t_1)A(t_1,t_2)Q_S(t_2)B(t_2,t_1)`$, where $`A=Q(Q_SQ)^p`$, $`B=Q(Q_SQ)^{np2}`$, and $`p`$ is an integer number which distinguishes different pairings. An example with $`n=8`$ and $`p=5`$ is shown in Fig. Quantum superconductor-metal transition in a proximity array. For certainty we will assume that the fast energy $`\omega `$ runs over the matrix $`A`$ (the opposite situation can be treated analogously by replacing $`pnp2`$). Within the RG precision, fast bulk fields $`Q`$ entering the product $`A`$ can be substituted by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\omega )=\mathrm{\Lambda }_0(\omega )\tau _z`$ (we will explain this below) while slow matrices $`Q_S`$ entering $`A`$ can be taken at coinciding times $`tt_1t_2`$.

Averaging is performed with the help of Eq. (11) and the following algebraic relations (which can be proved by direct calculation):

$`\stackrel{}{\theta ^{}}e^{\pm i\stackrel{}{\stackrel{~}{\theta }}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\left(e^{i\stackrel{}{\stackrel{~}{\theta }}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_0e^{\pm i\stackrel{}{\stackrel{~}{\theta }}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\right)^ke^{i\stackrel{}{\stackrel{~}{\theta }}}\stackrel{}{\theta ^{}}=0,`$ (15)
$`\stackrel{}{\theta ^{}}\left(e^{\pm i\stackrel{}{\stackrel{~}{\theta }}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_0e^{i\stackrel{}{\stackrel{~}{\theta }}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\right)^ke^{\pm i\stackrel{}{\stackrel{~}{\theta }}}\stackrel{}{\theta ^{}}={\displaystyle \frac{4\mathrm{\Delta }\zeta }{\pi G_A}}e^{\pm i\stackrel{}{\stackrel{~}{\theta }}}.`$ (16)
According to these equations, only pairings with odd $`p=2k1`$ produce a nonzero contribution. For them we have

$$𝒩_kQ_S\mathrm{\Lambda }(Q_S\mathrm{\Lambda })^{2k1}Q_S=(1)^{k+1}\frac{4\mathrm{\Delta }\zeta }{\pi G_A}Q_S,$$
(17)
where fast $`\stackrel{}{\theta ^{}}`$ are taken from the first and the last $`Q_S`$ under the correlator, and the sign $`(1)^k`$ results from commutation of Pauli matrices in the Nambu space. Then, collecting all combinatorial factors, one gets $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=(1)^kin\gamma _n(4\pi g\mathrm{\Delta }\zeta /G_A)Tr(Q_SQ)^{n2k}`$. We see that the paring with $`p=2k1`$ modifies $`S_{n2k}`$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}\gamma _{n2k}=(1)^{k+1}4n\gamma _n\mathrm{\Delta }\zeta /\pi G_A(\zeta )`$. Thus, under the action of the RG, the term $`S_n`$ generates the descending series of terms: $`S_n`$, $`S_{n2}`$, $`S_{n4}`$, … The RG equation for the coefficient $`\gamma _n`$ reads

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _n=\frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }\zeta }{\pi G_A(\zeta )}\left(n\gamma _n+2\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^k(n+2k)\gamma _{n+2k}\right).$$
(18)
Finally, we have to explain the validity of the substitution $`Q\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the “fast” product $`A`$. Such reduction implies that no slow diffusons or Cooperons could be connected to the part $`A`$ of the diagram on further steps of the RG. This statement is evident for Cooperons, but not for diffusons. Indeed, Cooperons depend on the fast frequency $`ϵ_1+ϵ_2=2\omega `$, whereas diffusons depend on $`ϵ_1ϵ_2`$ which can be slow, and thus might contribute to the RG equation on further steps. Actually, however, they do not. The situation here is very similar to the one described during the derivation of the $`\lambda `$ term in the RG, cf. Sec. V of Ref. : each diagram containing a diffuson in the “fast” product $`A`$ produces several nonzero contributions, but their sum vanishes.

To prove this cancellation property, it is sufficient to consider the case when one $`Q`$ from the part $`A`$ is connected to some other object $`O`$ by a diffuson, cf. Fig. Quantum superconductor-metal transition in a proximity array. Since the pairing between $`S_n`$ and the object $`O`$ is of diffusonic character, the latter ought to have the form $`OTr(Q_S\mathrm{\Lambda })^{2m}W`$ with even number of $`Q_S`$. Pairing is performed with the help of the contraction rules from Ref.  and yields two terms:

$$TrQ_S(t_1)BQ_S(t_2)\left[(\mathrm{\Lambda }Q_S)^{2k+2m1}(\mathrm{\Lambda }Q_S)^{2k2m1}\right]\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$
(19)
To obtain the final result, the expression (19) should be averaged over phase fluctuations. Note that Eq. (17) is valid for any integer $`k`$. Therefore, averaging (19) with the help of Eq. (17) yields $`𝒩_{k+m}𝒩_{km}=0`$, q. e. d.

To simplify the RG equation, we introduce, following Ref. , a function of an auxiliary continuous variable $`x`$ according to the definition $`u(x,\zeta )=_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}n\gamma _n(\zeta )\mathrm{sin}nx`$. Then the full RG equation for the function $`u(x,\zeta )`$ reads:

$$u_\zeta +uu_x+\lambda (\zeta )u(\frac{\pi }{2},\zeta )\mathrm{sin}x=\frac{2}{\pi G_A(\zeta )}[u(x,\zeta )],$$
(20)
where $`[u(x,\zeta )][u(x,\zeta )\mathrm{tan}xu(\frac{\pi }{2},\zeta )\mathrm{sec}x]_x`$, and the initial condition is $`u(x,0)=(G_T/4\pi g)\mathrm{sin}x`$. The functional RG equation with the L.H.S. of Eq.(20) and zero in the R.H.S. was derived in . In the present problem the R.H.S. describes the effect of phase fluctuations; it is obtained as the Fourier-transform of (18). The scale-dependent subgap conductance $`G_A(\zeta )`$ is determined by the solution of Eq. (20) as $`G_A(\zeta )=4\pi gu_x(\frac{\pi }{2},\zeta )`$.

To find the parameter $`𝒞(0)`$ with exponential accuracy, we integrate Eq. (20) together with Eq. (7) for $`\lambda (\zeta )`$. Written in the rescaled variables $`s=\zeta /2\pi \sqrt{g}`$, $`w(x,s)=2\pi \sqrt{g}u(x,\zeta )`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }=\lambda /\lambda _g`$, Eq. (20) acquires the form

$$w_s+ww_x=2\frac{[w(x,\zeta )]}{w_x(\frac{\pi }{2},s)}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }(s)w(\frac{\pi }{2},s)\mathrm{sin}x,$$
(21)
with the initial condition $`w(x,0)=A\mathrm{sin}x`$, where $`AG_T/2\sqrt{g}1`$. The solution of Eq. (21) weakly depends on the ratio $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }(0)=\lambda _n/\lambda _g`$ which is assumed to be not very large. At $`s1`$, the function $`w(x,s)`$ is close to the solution of Eq. (21) with zero R.H.S., which, at $`sA^1`$, is given by $`w(x,s)x/s`$ for $`x(0,\pi )`$. As $`s`$ grows, the R.H.S. terms become increasingly important, and eventually reduce $`G_A(\zeta )=2\sqrt{g}w_x(\frac{\pi }{2},s)`$ down to the value of the order of 1 at the critical value of $`\zeta ^{}=2\pi \sqrt{g}s_c`$. The value of $`s_c1`$ was determined, for several values of $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }(0)`$, via numerical solution of Eq. (21) in the limit $`A\mathrm{}`$:

$$s_c=\{\begin{array}{cc}1.25,\hfill & \text{for }\stackrel{~}{\lambda }(0)=0\text{;}\hfill \\ 1.17,\hfill & \text{for }\stackrel{~}{\lambda }(0)=1\text{;}\hfill \\ 1.13,\hfill & \text{for }\stackrel{~}{\lambda }(0)=2\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(22)
As it was explained above, the value of $`\zeta ^{}=2\pi \sqrt{g}s_c`$ determines $`𝒞(0)`$ with exponential accuracy:

$$𝒞(0)=\frac{}{\omega _d}e^{2\pi \sqrt{g}s_c},$$
(23)
where pre-exponential factor $``$ is left undetermined (to find it, the two-loop RG calculation would be necessary). Combining Eqs. (2), (5) and (23), we find that macroscopic superconductivity in the array is destroyed when the distance $`b`$ between neighbouring islands becomes larger than the critical value $`b_c(g)`$ defined as

$$\frac{b_c(g)}{d}\frac{\pi ^2}{2}\left(\frac{\sqrt{g}}{\pi s_c}\right)^{1/2}e^{\pi \sqrt{g}s_c}.$$
(24)
Finally, inverting relation (24) one finds the result (1) for the critical film conductance $`g_c(b)`$, with

$$𝒢_c=\frac{1}{s_c^2}=\{\begin{array}{cc}0.64,\hfill & \text{for }\stackrel{~}{\lambda }(0)=0\text{;}\hfill \\ 0.73,\hfill & \text{for }\stackrel{~}{\lambda }(0)=1\text{;}\hfill \\ 0.79,\hfill & \text{for }\stackrel{~}{\lambda }(0)=2\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(25)
and $`\stackrel{~}{d}=d\pi ^{3/2}^{1/2}g^{1/4}/2s_c^{1/2}`$.

At $`g>g_c(b)`$ macroscopic superconductive transition occurs at $`T>0`$. Close to the critical point (1), at $`bb_c(g)`$, the transition temperature is primarily determined by the temperature dependence of $`𝒥(T)`$ which is reduced compared to $`𝒥(0)`$ since couplings $`J(r)`$ are strongly suppressed at $`rL_T`$. At low temperatures

$$𝒥(T)=𝒥(0)\frac{\mathrm{ln}(L_T/b)}{\mathrm{ln}(L_T/d)}.$$
(26)
The same expression, with $`L_T`$ replaced by $`l_H=\sqrt{\pi \mathrm{}c/eH}`$, determines $`𝒥(0,H)`$ in the presence of a weak transverse magnetic field $`H`$. To find the critical temperature $`T_c(b)`$ and the $`T=0`$ value of the upper critical field $`H_{c2}`$, one uses Eq. (2) together with Eqs. (23), (26). The result is that both $`T_c(g)`$ and $`H_{c2}(g)`$ scale in the same way, and drop fast at $`bb_c(g)`$:

$$\mathrm{ln}\frac{T^{}}{T_c}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}{H_{c2}b^2}\frac{2\mathrm{ln}(b/d)}{b_c^2(g)/b^21},$$
(27)
where $`T^{}=\mathrm{}D/b^2`$, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=hc/2e`$ is the flux quantum. The form of Eqs. (27) suggests that the behavior of the array near the quantum critical point $`b=b_c(g)`$ can be understood in terms of the standard BCS-type theory with a macroscopic effective Cooper attraction $`\lambda _{\mathrm{eff}}`$, which vanishes at $`bb_c(g)`$. Eq. (27) is valid for $`b/b_c(g)\left(2\mathrm{ln}(b/d)\right)^{1/2}`$. This inequality ensures that $`T_c`$ is small compared both to $`T^{}`$ (under this condition the proximity coupling is long-range) and to $`\mathrm{}/𝒞(0)`$. The latter condition allows one to approximate $`𝒞(T)`$ by $`𝒞(0)`$ while deriving Eq. (27). At shorter $`bb_c(g)\sqrt{\lambda _g}`$, the transition occurs at $`T_cT^{}`$. Here $`L_{T_c}b`$, the MFA is not applicable and the transition is governed by thermal fluctuations. Similarly, the characteristic scale of magnetic field which affects superconductive state in such an array is just $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0/b^2`$: at higher fields formation of a superconductive glass state is expected. Additional limitation for our results from the higher-$`T`$ side is due to the neglect of quasiparticles inside SC islands, the corresponding temperature scale being $`T_{\mathrm{parity}}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{SC}/\mathrm{ln}(\nu V_i\mathrm{\Delta }_{SC})`$. On the other hand, the conclusion about metallic nature of the system’s state at $`b>b_c(g)`$ is limited to the temperature scale $`TT_{\mathrm{loc}}\mathrm{}\omega _de^{\pi ^2g}`$, since we neglected weak localization effects (the value of $`g`$ entering this estimate is defined at the length scale of the order of $`d`$). Determination of weak-localization corrections to the conductance of an array with $`b>b_c(g)`$ would need the account of dephasing effects due to fluctuations of island’s phases. This is an interesting problem which we left for the future studies.

Finally, we comment briefly on the similar problem of small superconductive grains of radius $`d`$ immersed into a 3D metal with bulk resistivity $`\rho `$. In this case the simple method of Ref.  can be used. The characteristic Coulomb energy $`\mathrm{}/𝒞(0)\mathrm{}\omega _d\mathrm{exp}(\pi \mathrm{}/4e^2R_A)`$ in the tunneling limit $`R_TR_N`$; here $`R_A=R_T^2/R_N`$ and $`R_N=\rho /4\pi d`$. Proximity coupling energy is estimated as $`J(r)(\mathrm{}/e^2R_T)^2/r^3\nu `$. The point of the SC-M transition is then given by $`\mathrm{}\rho /16e^2dR_T^23\mathrm{ln}b/d`$.

In conclusion, we developed a theory of quantum superconductive-metal transition in a 2D proximity-coupled array. The critical resistance $`R_\mathrm{}c`$ is non-universal and small compared to the quantum resistance. Near the quantum critical point the system behaves as a BCS-like superconductor with the effective Cooper attraction constant vanishing at $`R_{\mathrm{}}R_\mathrm{}c`$.

We are grateful to A. Kamenev and Yu. V. Nazarov for useful discussions. This research was supported by the NSF grant DMR-9812340 (A. I. L.), RFBR grant 98-02-16252, NWO-Russia collaboration grant, Swiss NSF-Russia collaboration grant 7SUPJ062253.00, and by the Russian Ministry of Science via the project “Mesoscopic electron systems for quantum computing” (M. V. F. and M. A. S.).