text:
# Hydrodynamic Effects on the QPO Frequencies of Accreting Compact Objects

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The accretion flows around compact objects are turbulent and are, therefore, expected to be highly variable. The frequencies that correspond to the dynamical timescales can be as high as $`1`$ kHz and depend strongly on the distance from the central object. For example, for a Kerr spacetime and in the limit of slow rotation, the Keplerian orbital frequency at a radius $`r`$ scales as $`r^{3/2}`$, the periastron precession frequency as $`r^{5/2}`$, whereas the nodal precession frequency (if it is caused by frame dragging) scales as $`r^3`$ (see, e.g., Perez et al. 1997; Stella, Vietri, & Morsink 1999). Because of such strong dependences, it is surprising that the observed power-density spectra of accreting systems are characterized by a distinct number of frequencies in the form of relatively coherent ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu /\nu 10^2`$) quasi-periodic oscillation (QPO) peaks.

Modeling theoretically the presence of multiple QPO peaks is challenging. Current models seek to identify characteristic radii in the accretion flow that pick only a small range of frequencies and hence produce narrow QPO peaks in the power spectra. Such radii include the radius of the innermost stable circular orbit (which is important in the diskoseismic models of, e.g., Nowak & Wagoner 1991; Perez et al. 1997; Silbergleit & Wagoner 2000), the magnetospheric radius (Alpar & Shaham 1985, Strohmayer et al. 1996), or the sonic-point radius (Miller, Lamb, & Psaltis 1998). The simultaneous presence of low- and high-frequency QPOs is then attributed either to multiple characteristic radii in the accretion flow (as discussed, e.g., in Miller et al. 1998; Psaltis et al. 1999b) or to different characteristic frequencies occurring at the same region in the flow, as in the case of the diskoseismic models (see Wagoner 1999) or the relativistic models of Stella et al. (1999) and Psaltis & Norman (2000). In the first class of models, the observed tight correlations between the different QPO frequencies (see, e.g., Psaltis et al. 1999b; Psaltis, Belloni, & van der Klis 1999a) may be accounted for by combining the dependence of each QPO frequency on the mass accretion rate (see, e.g., Psaltis et al. 1999b). In the latter case, frequency correlations can be easily reproduced since all QPO frequencies are determined almost entirely by a single parameter (e.g., the characteristic transition radius; Psaltis & Norman 2000).

A characteristic signature of each QPO model is the spectrum of QPO frequencies that it predicts beyond the ones currently detected (see, e.g., Miller 2000). For this reason, the inadequacy of current data to distinguish between different models can be overcome with the detection of additional QPO peaks. Even though some attempts for detecting expected QPO peaks at different frequencies have given negative results (Méndez & van der Klis 2000), a third kHz QPO has been recently discovered in three atoll sources (Jonker, Mëndez, & van der Klis 2000). This new QPO is significantly weaker than the other kHz QPOs and has a frequency that is $`60`$ Hz higher than that of the previously known lower kHz QPO.

Motivated by this detection, I discuss in this Letter the importance of the hydrodynamic corrections to the predicted QPO frequencies that are introduced by the previously developed dynamical model that identifies the various QPO frequencies with general relativistic frequencies in the accretion disk (Psaltis & Norman 2000). I then use this property to show that the model can account for the observed properties of the newly discovered QPO.

## 2 HYDRODYNAMIC EFFECTS ON THE PREDICTED QPO FREQUENCIES

The high frequencies that characterize the observed QPOs in neutron star sources imply that the accretion flows around them must be modulated at the dynamical timescale. A simple estimate of the three characteristic dynamical timescales at distance $`r`$ away from a compact object is given by the three test-particle frequencies, i.e., the orbital frequency in the azimuthal direction, the epicyclic frequency in the radial direction, and the oscillation frequency in the vertical direction. For a slowly rotating compact object these frequencies are (see, e.g., Perez et al. 1997)

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^2=\frac{M}{r^3[1+\alpha _{}(M/r)^{3/2}]},$$
(1)
$$\kappa ^2=\mathrm{\Omega }^2(16M/r),$$
(2)
and

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^2=\mathrm{\Omega }^2[14\alpha _{}(M/r)^{3/2}],$$
(3)
respectively, where $`M`$ is the mass and $`\alpha _{}`$ the specific angular momentum per unit mass of the compact object, and I have set the fundamental constants to $`c=G=1`$. The resulting orbital frequency ($`\mathrm{\Omega }/2\pi `$), periastron precession frequency \[$`(\mathrm{\Omega }\kappa )/2\pi `$\], and nodal precession frequency \[$`(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }_{})/2\pi `$\] were shown to be comparable to and follow similar correlations with the three observed QPO frequencies (Stella & Vietri 1998, 1999; Stella et al. 1999).

An accretion disk, however, is a hydrodynamic flow and hence the test-particle frequencies (1)–(3) cannot be strictly equal to the frequencies at which the flow is modulated. For example, the frequencies of the trapped $`g`$ and $`c`$modes in the model discussed in Wagoner (1999) are determined mostly by the maximum of the radial epicyclic frequency (eq. ) and the nodal-precession frequency ($`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$) but also depend weakly on the local sound speed. In the case of the model discussed in Psaltis & Norman (2000), the inner accretion disk is modulated mainly at three characteristic frequencies,

$$2\pi f_1=\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }_{}\left[1+\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{c}^2(\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^2\kappa ^2)}{2\mathrm{\Omega }_d^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^2+2(\kappa ^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^2)^2}\right],$$
(4)
$$2\pi f_2=\mathrm{\Omega }\kappa \left(1+\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_c^2}{2\kappa ^2}\right),$$
(5)
and

$$2\pi f_3=\mathrm{\Omega },$$
(6)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_cc_\mathrm{s}/r`$, $`c_\mathrm{s}`$ is the speed of sound, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_du_r/r`$ is the inverse radial drift timescale at the transition radius $`r`$. In the notation of Psaltis & Norman (2000), the mode $`(m=1,n=0)`$ provides the biggest contribution to the peak at frequencies $`f_2`$ and $`f_3`$, whereas the mode $`(m=1,n=1)`$ provides the biggest contribution to the peak at frequency $`f_1`$.

It is important to note here that the corrections to the three dynamical frequencies introduced by the model are specific to the fact that they describe the modulation frequencies of the density in the inner disk and depend on the details of the calculation. For example, because of the approximations used, the effects of radial pressure forces, which will affect the hydrodynamic corrections, have not been taken explicitly into account. The corrections introduced to the modulation of the X-ray luminosity will be different in detail but similar in magnitude, if such effects are taken into account. However, hydrodynamic corrections are generic to a dynamical model and have three important implications.

First, the observed QPO frequencies will not be strictly equal to the general relativistic frequencies; the corrections can be as large as $`1030`$%, depending on the local sound speed and the viscosity in the accretion flow (see, e.g., Psaltis & Norman 2000). This property resolves entirely the small but statistically significant discrepancy in the fits of the uncorrected general relativistic frequencies to observations (Psaltis et al. 1999b; Marković & Lamb 2000). An example is shown in Figure 1, where the predicted frequency difference $`f_3f_2`$ is compared to the changing peak separation of the kHz QPOs in the neutron-star source Sco X-1 (van der Klis et al. 1997), for standard values of the model parameters. The observed decrease of the kHz QPO peak separation with increasing frequency is slower than predicted by the model but can be accounted for with a simultaneous small increase of the disk scale height. The resulting frequencies are in good agreement with the data without the need for introducing characteristic frequencies of elliptical orbits (as originally suggested by Stella & Vietri 1998), which are unlikely to be sustained in an accretion disk. Note here that the results plotted in Figure 1 are for a non-rotating compact object and were not obtained from formally fitting the data, but are shown to illustrate the effect of hydrodynamic corrections. However, detailed comparisons with data of the dynamical frequencies calculated for realistic neutron-star spacetimes were shown to affect only slightly the conclusion (Marković & Lamb 2000).

Second, the centroid frequencies of QPO peaks produced by resonances that correspond to harmonics of general relativistic frequencies are not exactly harmonically related. This is true, because the hydrodynamic corrections are different for the different modes and hence the ratio of the frequencies of the modes is not an integer number but depends on the properties of the flow. Note, however, that if the presence of additional harmonics besides the fundamental is caused by the non-sinusoidal profile of the modulation of the X-ray flux and not by the presence of higher-order modes, then the frequency ratio will be an integer. This might lead to the presence of multiple peaks at nearby frequencies with possibly different FWHMs, as for example observed in the case of Cyg X-1 by Nowak (2000).

Finally, different modes may contribute power to the same QPO peak but at slightly different centroid frequencies, again because of the different hydrodynamic corrections. For example, all the ($`m=1,n0`$) modes in the analysis of Psaltis & Norman (2000) contribute to the variability power at frequencies comparable to $`f_2`$, i.e., to the lower kHz QPO (the contribution of the modes with $`n>0`$ is small and was not explicitly pointed out in the original analysis, even though it was present). Indeed, expanding the general expression for the response function (eq.  in Psaltis & Norman 2000) for the ($`m=1,n=1`$) mode and at frequencies $`2\pi f\mathrm{\Omega }\kappa `$, it simplifies to

$$A_{11}\left\{\left[1+\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{c}^2}{4\omega _\mathrm{b}}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{d}}{(2\pi f\mathrm{\Omega }+\kappa )^2}\right]^2+\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^2\kappa ^2}{\kappa \omega _\mathrm{b}}+\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{c}}{2\omega _\mathrm{b}}\right)\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{c}}{2\pi f(\mathrm{\Omega }\kappa )}\right]^2\right\}^{1/2},$$
(7)
when $`(\delta r/r)(\kappa /\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{c})^21`$. Equation (7) describes a narrow resonant mode centered at a frequency

$$2\pi f_{2b}\mathrm{\Omega }\kappa \left[1\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{c}^2}{2(\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^2\kappa ^2)}\right],$$
(8)
and with a FWHM of

$$\delta f_{2b}\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2\pi }\omega _\mathrm{b}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{c}^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^2\kappa ^2}\right),$$
(9)
where $`\omega _\mathrm{b}=(r/\delta r)\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{d}`$ and $`\delta r/r`$ is the fractional width of the transition region. This resonance is to be compared to the corresponding resonance of the ($`m=1,n=0`$) mode, which is described by (see, eq.  of Psaltis & Norman 2000)

$$A_{10}\left\{1+\left[\frac{\kappa }{\omega _\mathrm{b}}+\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{c}}{2\omega _\mathrm{b}}\right)\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{c}}{2\pi f(\mathrm{\Omega }\kappa )}\right]^2\right\}^{1/2},$$
(10)
has a peak at frequency $`f_2`$ and a FWHM of

$$\delta f_2\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2\pi }\omega _\mathrm{b}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{c}^2}{\kappa ^2}\right),$$
(11)
when $`(\delta r/r)(\kappa /\mathrm{\Omega }_{rmc})^21`$.

Figure 2 shows the resulting response of these lowest-order modes at high frequencies. As it is also apparent from equations (5) and (8), the two peaks at frequencies comparable to $`f_2`$ are displaced relative to each other and, in the particular model considered here, their separation is equal to

$$f_{2b}f_2\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_c^2}{4\pi \kappa }\left(1+\frac{\kappa ^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^2\kappa ^2}\right).$$
(12)
As a result, two QPOs at frequencies comparable to that of the lower kHz QPO may appear in the power spectra of accreting compact objects. Note here that the two frequencies are identical in the limit $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c0`$, i.e., for a purely kinematic model.

The amplitudes of the two QPOs will depend on the power-spectrum of the driving perturbations, which might be different in the two modes that produce the two QPOs, even though their frequencies are very similar. (The maximum of the response function does not provide an estimate of the amplitudes of the QPOs.) However, even for a comparable amplitude of perturbations in both modes, the resonance described by $`A_{10}`$ will produce the dominant QPO peak (see also Psaltis & Norman 2000), whereas the resonance described by $`A_{11}`$ will produce a weaker sideband, as Figure 2 suggests. In the absence of any additional broadening mechanisms, the FWHM of the two lower kHz QPOs (at frequencies $`f_2`$ and $`f_{2\mathrm{b}}`$) will be significantly smaller than the FWHM of the upper kHz QPO (at frequency $`f_3`$). However, the two lower kHz QPOs may have a difference of up to $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_{}/\kappa )^215`$ in their relative FWHM.

## 3 DISCUSSION

In the previous section, I discussed a number of implications of the hydrodynamic corrections introduced to the predicted QPO frequencies by dynamical models. Moreover, I showed that the previously developed model that attributes the observed QPOs to general relativistic frequencies in the accretion flow can account for the presence of multiple kHz QPOs, as recently observed by Jonker et al. (2000). In this section I will concentrate to the case of the well studied source 4U 1728$``$34 (Jonker et al. 2000) and discuss the implications of the newly observed QPOs for various models. In this source, four QPOs are observed simultaneously at the following frequencies: $`\nu _1=41.5\pm 0.2`$ Hz (the low-frequency QPO), $`\nu _2=795`$ Hz (the lower kHz QPO), $`\nu _{2b}=859\pm 2`$ Hz (the newly discovered QPO), and $`\nu _3=1138\pm 2`$ Hz (the upper kHz QPO).

According to beat-frequency models (see, e.g., Strohmayer et al. 1996; Miller et al. 1998), the highest QPO frequency $`\nu _3`$ is that of the Keplerian frequency of a characteristic radius in the accretion disk and the difference $`\nu _3\nu _2`$ is comparable to the spin frequency of the neutron star. In fact, oscillations during Type I X-ray bursts have been detected from 4U 1728$``$34 at a frequency of $`363`$ Hz, which are also thought to correspond to the spin frequency of the neutron star (Strohmayer et al. 1996). In this picture, the presence of the newly discovered QPO at a frequency that is $`64`$ Hz higher than $`\nu _2`$ might be accounted for if the radiation that emerges from the neutron star is modulated not only at the stellar spin frequency, but also at a frequency equal to $`64`$ Hz, introducing sidebands to the stellar spin (see, however, Alpar 1986 for an alternative way of generating sidebands in a beat-frequency model, because of the radial drift of the accreting material). As pointed out by Jonker et al. (2000), this latter frequency is not equal to the frequency of the observed QPO at $`\nu _1`$ and therefore the accretion flow needs to produce modulations at two distinct, unrelated, low frequencies. One such low frequency is the nodal precession frequency $`(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }_{})/2\pi `$. Note, however, that, as also discussed by Psaltis et al. (1999b) for other similar cases, the QPO at frequency $`\nu _1`$ cannot be caused by frame-dragging effects if the spin-frequency of the neutron star is equal to $`363`$ Hz. (In the relativistic model described in §2 the frequency $`\nu _1`$ is related to the frame-dragging frequency, but the peak separation of the kHz QPOs is not equal to the spin frequency of the neutron star.) This can also be extended to the case of the $`64`$ Hz frequency, which is even higher than $`\nu _1`$. Indeed, such a high nodal precession frequency would require an unrealistically high neutron-star moment of inertia of (see, e.g., Psaltis et al. 1999b)

$$\frac{I_{45}}{M/M_{}}3.1\left(\frac{\nu }{64\text{Hz}}\right)\left(\frac{\nu _{\mathrm{spin}}}{363\text{Hz}}\right)^1\left(\frac{\nu _3}{1138\text{Hz}}\right)^2,$$
(13)
where $`I_{45}I/10^{45}gcm^3`$ is the moment of inertia, $`M/M_{}`$ the mass in solar units, and $`\nu _{\mathrm{spin}}`$ the spin frequency of the compact object. Even if a frequency of $`64`$ Hz corresponded to the first overtone of the nodal precession frequency, the required moment of inertia \[$`I_{45}/(M/M_{})1.55`$\] would be higher than allowed by general relativity for a slowly rotating star, if any of the current equations of state for neutron-star matter were valid up to $`1.5`$ times the nuclear saturation density. As a result, none of the two required low frequencies can be equal to the frame-dragging frequency, if the spin frequency of the neutron star in 4U 1728$``$34 is equal to the burst oscillation frequency.

In the case of the dynamical model described in Psaltis & Norman (2000), the presence of multiple QPO peaks in the power-density spectra is a direct consequence of the fact that in strong-field general relativity the three dynamical frequencies (eq. –) are significantly different from each other. In particular, all the QPO peaks observed so far can be accounted for by only the two lowest-order modes ($`m=1,n=0`$) and ($`m=1,n=1`$).

In this interpretation, the difference $`f_{2b}f_2`$ depends mostly on the radial epicyclic frequency and the inverse sound-crossing time (see, eq. ). For a standard $`\alpha `$-disk, the latter is equal to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{c}(h/r)\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$, where $`(h/r)`$ is the scale-height of the disk (see, e.g., Psaltis & Norman 2000). As a result, the predicted frequency separation between the two lower-kHz QPO peaks becomes

$$f_{2b}f_266\left(\frac{h/r}{0.12}\right)^2\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }/2\pi }{1138\text{Hz}}\right)^2\left(\frac{\kappa /2\pi }{280\text{Hz}}\right)^1\text{Hz}$$
(14)
and hence the observed frequencies can be easily accounted for, for typical values of the model parameters (see also Fig. 2).

Higher-order modes will also contribute to the variability power at frequencies comparable to $`f_2`$ and may produce additional structure to the lower kHz QPO peak. The overall spectrum of observed modes will depend mostly on the amplitude of the perturbations that drive the variability outside the characteristic transition radius. A detailed analysis of the various predicted resonant frequencies and their amplitudes is beyond the scope of this paper and will be presented elsewhere.

I am grateful to Peter Jonker and Mariano Méndez for sharing their results in advance of publication. I thank Ali Alpar, Deepto Chakrabarty, Mike Nowak, Feryal Özel, and Michiel van der Klis for useful discussions and comments on the manuscript. I also acknowledge the support of a postdoctoral fellowship of the Smithsonian Institution.


format: text

text:
# Saddle point states and energy barriers for vortex entrance and exit in superconducting disks and rings

## I Introduction

The study of superconducting samples with sizes comparable to the penetration depth $`\left(\lambda \right)`$ and the coherence length $`\left(\xi \right)`$ became possible due to recent progress in nanofabrication technologies. This evolution resulted in an increase of interest in the investigation of flux penetration and flux expulsion in such mesoscopic samples in order to explain the hysteresis behavior and the different phase transitions in thin superconducting samples .

It is well known that for type-II $`\left(\kappa =\lambda /\xi >1/\sqrt{2}\right)`$ superconductors the triangular Abrikosov vortex lattice is energetically favored in the magnetic field range $`H_{c1}<H<H_{c2}`$ where $`\kappa `$ is the Ginzburg-Landau (GL) parameter, and $`H_{c1}`$ and $`H_{c2}`$ are the first and second critical fields of a Type-II superconductor. Since the effective London penetration depth $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\lambda ^2/d`$ increases considerably in thin films one expects the appearance of the Abrikosov multivortex state even in thin Type-I $`\left(\kappa <1/\sqrt{2}\right)`$ superconductors when the thickness $`d\lambda `$. But, in small confined systems there is a competition between the boundary of the sample, which tries to impose the symmetry of the sample boundary on the vortex configuration, and this triangular Abrikosov state. As a consequence, the effective GL parameter $`\kappa ^{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }/\xi `$ is no longer the only controlling parameter which determines the shape of the vortex configuration in thin mesocopic superconducting samples . Previous theoretical and experimental studies of superconducting disks and rings  found that, as function of the applied field, there are transitions between circular symmetric vortex states (called giant vortex states) with different vorticity $`L`$. Experimentally it was found that the magnetic field at which the transition $`LL+1`$ occurs does not necessarily coincides with the magnetic field $`H_{tr}`$ where the vorticity of the ground state changes from $`L`$ to $`L+1`$, i.e. it is possible to drive the system in a metastable state. This is typical for first order phase transitions. For increasing applied field, the state with vorticity $`L`$ remains stable up to the penetration field $`H_p>H_{tr}`$ and transits then to the superconducting state with vorticity $`L+1`$. For decreasing applied field, the state with vorticity $`L+1`$ remains stable down to the expulsion field $`H_e<H_{tr}`$ before going to the state with vorticity $`L`$. This hysteresis effect is a consequence of the presence of an energy barrier between the states with vorticity $`L`$ and $`L+1`$. The latter corresponds to different minima of the free energy in configurational space and the lowest barrier between those two minima is a saddle point. This barrier arises from the fact that the superconducting current around a vortex is in the opposite direction to the screening currents at the surface of the sample . This Bean-Livingston model has been refined to different sample geometries . The time of flux penetration and expulsion is determined by the height of the energy barrier.

The experimental consequences of the existence of these metastable states are: (i) hysteretic behavior , (ii) paramagnetic Meissner effect , (iii) fractional flux penetration , and (iv) negative flux entrance , i.e. a decrease of the flux penetration through the superconducting disk with increasing vorticity and increasing magnetic field.

Schweigert and Peeters  studied flux penetration and expulsion in thin superconducting disks and presented an approach to find the saddle point states. They calculated the height of the free energy barriers which separate the stable states with different vorticity $`L.`$ We will extend their approach and present a systematic study of flux penetration and expulsion in thin superconducting disks and disks with a hole in the center, i.e. mesoscopic ring structures.

Bezryadin et al  used the nonlinear GL equation to study the phase diagram of a thin-wire loop and a thin film with a circular hole in the limit $`\kappa ^{}1`$. They performed a stability analysis of the giant vortex state with vorticity $`L`$ by allowing only the admixture of the $`L+1`$ vortex state. A more rigorous stability analysis was performed by Horane et al  who studied the saddle points between two vortex states of a one dimensional wire of zero width. They allowed for more possible non-uniform perturbations which may make the vortex state unstable. They found that the transition between two angular momentum states occurs through a saddle point which has a zero in the order parameter at some point along the ring. Such a zero creates a phase slip center, allowing the phase winding required for the transition. Our systems have a non zero radial width and consequently such a scenario is not possible because the order parameter is not allowed to be zero along a radial line. In fact it was found in Ref.  that for a disk geometry, the saddle point for flux penetration corresponds to a state with suppressed superconductivity at the disk edge which acts as a nucleus for the following vortex creation. In the present paper we will find that for rings with a finite width this picture has to be modified because of the presence of two boundaries, i.e. two edges.

Recently, Palacios  calculated saddle point states and the energy barriers responsible for the metastabilities of superconducting mesoscopic disks using the lowest Landau level approximation. The central idea of his method was to find generic stationary solutions of the Ginzburg-Landau functional and to project the order parameter onto smaller subspaces spanned by a finite number $`l`$ of eigenfunctions, $`\{L_1,L_2,\mathrm{},L_l\}`$, where $`0L_1L_2\mathrm{}L_l`$. Palacios restricted himself to $`l3`$ and therefore his approach is a special case of the one of Ref.  where no such restriction on $`l`$ was imposed and where also different radial states were included. Yampolskii and Peeters  investigated the influence of the boundary condition (surface enhancement) on the superconducting states and the energy barriers between those vortex states. They also restricted their calculations to $`l3`$.

Recently, Akkermans et al  studied the behavior of metastable vortex states in infinite superconducting cylinders for $`\kappa 1`$, i.e. the London regime. They considered the situation where the vortices are symmetrically distributed along a closed ring and they found structural phase transitions of vortex patterns between the metastable states. The key concept was the introduction of a special curve $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, which embodies the main geometric features of a vortex configuration. This curve appears mathematically as a limit cycle of the system of currents generated by the vortex pattern and separates the paramagnetic and diamagnetic domains.

The paper is organized as follows: In Sec. II we present the theoretical model and the calculation method to obtain the saddle points. In Sec. III we study thin superconducting disks and extend and supplement our previous results . We make a distinction between small and large superconducting disks. In small disks only the giant vortex state appears, while in larger disks multivortices can nucleate and transitions between different multivortices are possible . In Sec. IV we consider superconducting rings, where we make a distinction between small and large rings. Our results are summarized in Sec. V.

## II Theoretical formalism

In the present paper we consider very thin superconducting disks with radius $`R`$ and thickness $`d`$, and superconducting rings with inner radius $`R_i`$ and outer radius $`R_o`$. These mesoscopic superconducting systems are immersed in an insulating medium in the presence of a perpendicular uniform magnetic field $`H_0`$. To solve this problem, we follow the numerical approach of Schweigert and Peeters . For very thin disks and rings, i.e. $`Wd\lambda ^2`$, with $`W=R`$ the radius of the disk or $`W=R_oR_i`$ the width of the ring, the demagnetization effects can be neglected and the Ginzburg-Landau functional can be written as

$$G=G_n+𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\left(\alpha \left|\mathrm{\Psi }\right|^2+\frac{\beta }{2}\left|\mathrm{\Psi }\right|^4+\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\widehat{L}\mathrm{\Psi }\right)\text{,}$$
(1)
where $`G,`$ $`G_n`$ are the free energies of the superconducting and the normal states, $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is the complex order parameter, $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are the GL coefficients which depend on the sample temperature. $`\widehat{L}`$ is the kinetic energy operator for Cooper-pairs of charge $`e^{}=2e`$ and mass $`m^{}=2m`$, i.e.

$$\widehat{L}=(i\text{h}\text{ }\text{ }\stackrel{}{}e^{}\stackrel{}{A}/c)/2m^{}\text{,}$$
(2)
where $`\stackrel{}{A}=\stackrel{}{e}_\varphi H_0\rho /2`$ is the vector potential of the uniform magnetic field $`H_0`$ written in cylindrical coordinates $`\rho `$ and $`\varphi `$.

By expanding the order parameter $`\mathrm{\Psi }=_i^NC_i\phi _i`$ in the orthonormal eigenfunctions of the kinetic energy operator $`\widehat{L}\phi _i=ϵ_i\phi _i`$ , the difference between the superconducting and the normal state Gibbs free energy can be written in terms of complex variables as

$$F=GG_n=\left(\alpha +ϵ_i\right)C_iC_i^{}+\frac{\beta }{2}A_{kl}^{ij}C_i^{}C_j^{}C_kC_l\text{,}$$
(3)
where the matrix elements $`A_{kl}^{ij}=𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\phi _i^{}\phi _j^{}\phi _k\phi _l`$ are calculated numerically. The boundary condition for these $`\phi _i`$, corresponding to zero current density in the insulator media, is

$$\left(i\text{h}\text{ }\text{ }\stackrel{}{}\frac{e^{}\stackrel{}{A}}{c}\right)|_n\phi _i=0\text{ .}$$
(4)
These eigenenergies $`ϵ_i`$ and the eigenfunctions $`\phi _i`$ depend on the sample geometry. For thin axial symmetric samples the eigenfunctions have the form $`\phi _{j=(n,l)}(\rho ,\varphi )=exp(il\varphi )f_n(\rho )`$, where $`l`$ is the angular momentum and the index $`n`$ counts different states with the same $`l`$. Thus, the order parameter $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ can be written as

$$\psi =\underset{n}{}\underset{l}{}C_{n,l}\phi _{n,l}\text{ .}$$
(5)
We do not restrict ourselves to the lowest landau level approximation (i.e. $`n=1`$) and expand the order parameter over all eigenfunctions with energy $`ϵ_i<ϵ_{}`$, where the cutting parameter $`ϵ_{}`$ is chosen such that increasing it does not influence the results. The typical number of complex components used are in the range $`N=3050`$. Thus the superconducting state is mapped into a 2D cluster of $`N`$ particles with coordinates $`(x_i,y_i)(Re(C_i),Im(C_i)),`$ whose energy is determined by the Hamiltonian (3). The energy landscape in this $`2N+1`$ dimensional space is studied where the local minima and the saddle points between them will be determined together with the corresponding vortex states.

To find the superconducting states and the saddle point states we use the technique described in Ref. . A particular state is given by its set of coefficients $`\left\{C_i\right\}`$. We calculate the free energy in the vicinity of this point $`\delta G=G(C^n)G(C)`$ where $`\left\{C^n\right\}`$ is the set of coefficients of a state very close to the initial one. This free energy is expanded to second order in the deviations $`\delta =C^nC,`$

$$\delta G=F_m\delta _m^{}+B_{mn}\delta _n\delta _m^{}+D_{mn}\delta _n^{}\delta _m^{}+c.c.\text{ ,}$$
(6)
where

$`F_m`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\alpha +ϵ_i\right)C_m+\beta A_{kl}^{mj}C_jC_k^{}C_l\text{ ,}`$ ()
$`B_{mn}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\alpha +ϵ_m\right)I_{mn}+2\beta A_{kl}^{mn}C_kC_l^{}\text{ ,}`$ ()
$`D_{mn}`$ $`=`$ $`\beta A_{kl}^{mn}C_kC_l\text{ ,}`$ ()
and $`I_{mn}`$ is the unit matrix. Using normal coordinates $`\delta _m=x_kQ_m^k`$ we can rewrite the quadratic form as $`\delta G=2\left(\gamma _kx_k+\eta _kx_k^2\right).`$ To find the eigenvalues $`\eta _k`$ and the eigenvectors $`\gamma _k`$ we solve numerically the following equation:

$$\left|\begin{array}{cc}B+Re(D)& Im(D)\\ Im(D)& BRe(D)\end{array}\right|.\left|\begin{array}{c}Re(Q^k)\\ Im(Q^k)\end{array}\right|=\eta _k\left|\begin{array}{c}Re(Q^k)\\ Im(Q^k)\end{array}\right|\text{ .}$$
(7)
Starting from a randomly choosen initial set of coefficients, we calculate a nearby minimum of the free energy by moving in the direction of the negative free energy gradient $`\gamma _k`$. The set of coefficients of this minimum determines then the ground state or a metastable state. Starting from the initial set of coefficients we can also calculate a nearby saddle point state by moving to a minimum of the free energy in all directions, except the one which has the lowest eigenvalue. In this direction we move to a local maximum. Repeating this procedure for many randomly choosen initial sets of coefficients $`\left\{C_i\right\}`$ for fixed magnetic field, we find the different possible superconducting states and saddle point states. To calculate the magnetic field dependence we start from a superconducting state at a certain field and we change the applied field by small increments. By moving into the direction of the nearest minimum or saddle point, the corresponding state will be found for the new magnetic field, provided that the field step is small enough.

## III Superconducting disks

In the present section we discuss superconducting disks. Although the system is circular symmetric, in general we are not allowed to assume that $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\rho ,\varphi )=F\left(\rho \right)e^{iL\varphi }`$ because of the non-linear term in the GL functional. Nevertheless, in small disks the confinement effects are dominant and this imposes a circular symmetry on the superconducting condensate, which means that only the ‘giant’ vortex state, i.e. a circular symmetric vortex state, appears. For larger disks and not too large magnetic fields, the confinement effects are no longer dominant and multivortices can nucleate in a certain magnetic field range. For this reason we make a distinction between small and large disks.

### A Small disks: giant vortex state

We consider superconducting disks with radius $`R=2.0\xi `$. First we investigate the influence of the number of terms in the expansion of Eq. (5) on the energy of the minima and the saddle points. For the approach that $`n=1`$ (i.e. lowest Landau level) and if only one $`l`$ is taken into account for each state, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Psi }=C_l\phi _l`$, we find three different states for three different values of $`l`$, $`l=0`$, $`1`$ and $`2`$, in different magnetic field regions. In Fig. 1(a) the free energy $`F`$ of these $`L`$-states, measured in the condensation energy $`F_0=\alpha ^2\pi R^2d/2\beta `$, is shown by the dotted curves as a function of the applied magnetic field $`H_0`$. Next, we take into account two values of $`l`$ and $`n=1`$, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Psi }=C_{l_1}\phi _{l_1}+C_{l_2}\phi _{l_2}`$ as was done in e.g. Ref. . With this approach we find $`L`$-states with $`L=0,1,2`$ and because of the concomittant existence of two minima also saddle point states with $`(l_1,l_2)=(0,1)`$ and $`(1,2)`$ appear. These are the saddle point states for the transition between $`L`$-states with $`L=l_1`$ and $`L=l_2`$. In Fig. 1(a) the $`L`$-states for this approach are given by the solid curves and the saddle point states by the dashed curves. The inset shows the transition between the $`L=1`$ state and the $`L=2`$ state in more detail. Notice that including one extra term in Eq. (5) reduces appreciably the stability region of the different giant vortex states, i.e. its metastable region is strongly reduced. The $`L`$-states are only stable up to the point where its energy equals the saddle point states.

Fig. 1(b) shows the free energy as a function of the applied magnetic field if we do not restrict ourselves to the lowest landau level and if we expand the order parameter over all eigenfunctions with energy $`ϵ_i<ϵ_{}`$, where the cutting parameter $`ϵ_{}`$ is chosen such that increasing it does not influence the results. The solid and the dashed curves indicate respectively the stable $`L`$-states and the saddle point states. The transition between the $`L=1`$ state and the $`L=2`$ state is enlarged in the inset. Notice that the stability region of the $`L`$-states is further reduced. Allowing more basis functions in Eq. (5) does not have a strong influence on the energy of the $`L`$-states, e.g. compare the dotted and the solid curves in Fig. 1(a), but it considerably decreases the energy of the saddle point between the $`L`$-states. In doing so, it reduces strongly the stability range of the metastable states, and consequently it reduces the size, i.e. the width in the magnetic field range, of the hysteresis effect . For example, we found $`(H_{tr}/H_{c2},H_e/H_{c2},H_p/H_{c2})(1.0,0.52,1.25),`$ $`(1.0,0.715,1.245)`$ and $`(1.0,0.73,1.24)`$ for the $`L=0L=1`$ transition when we include two, three and an arbitrary number of basis function in Eq. (5), respectively. Similarly, we found for the $`L=1L=2`$ transition $`(H_{tr}/H_{c2},H_e/H_{c2},H_p/H_{c2})(1.715,1.52,1.81),`$ $`(1.715,1.535,1.80),`$ and $`(1.715,1.555,1.795)`$ including two, three and an arbitrary number of basis functions, respectively. These results clearly show that one has to exert some caution to cutoff the expansion in Eq. (5) when calculating the saddle point and thus the energy barriers. Notice that the expulsion field $`H_e/H_{c2}`$ is most strongly influenced by the number of terms in Eq. (5).

In Fig. 2 the transition barriers $`U`$, i.e. the energy difference between the saddle point state and the nearby metastable states are plotted. We show the ‘exact’ numerical results (solid curves) and the results when including only two values of $`l`$ with $`n=1`$, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Psi }=C_{l_1}\phi _{l_1}+C_{l_2}\phi _{l_2}`$ (dashed curves). Notice that by approximating the order parameter better, it substantially lowers the energy barriers, it increases the expulsion fields $`H_e`$ and lowers the penetration fields $`H_p`$ slightly. The energy barrier is smaller for higher $`LL+1`$ transitions which occur at larger magnetic fields. The inset shows the barrier between the $`L=1`$ and the $`L=2`$ state in more detail.

The spatial distribution of the superconducting electron density $`\left|\mathrm{\Psi }\right|^2`$ in the saddle point state corresponding to the transition from the $`L=1`$ state to the $`L=2`$ states is depicted in Figs. 3(a-d) for the magnetic fields indicated by the open circles in the inset of Fig. 2, i.e. $`H_0/H_{c2}=1.615`$, $`1.665`$, $`1.715`$ (i.e. the maximum of the barrier) and $`1.765`$, respectively. In Ref.  similar results were shown for the $`L=0L=1`$ saddle point. High (low) Cooper-pair density is given by dark (light) regions. With increasing field, one vortex moves from the center to the outer region of the disk, and the state changes from $`L=2`$ to $`L=1`$. This is better illustrated by the contour plots of the phase of the order parameter which is shown in Figs. 3(e-h) for the same configurations. Along a closed path, which lies near the edge of the superconductor, the phase difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }\phi `$ is always given by $`L`$ times $`2\pi `$, with $`L`$ the vorticity or winding number. Light regions indicate phases $`\phi 0`$ and dark regions $`\phi 2\pi `$. When encircling the superconductor near the boundary, we find that the phase difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }\phi `$ is equal to $`2\times 2\pi `$ in Figs. 3(e-g) and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\phi =1\times 2\pi `$ in Fig. 3(h), which means vorticy $`L=2`$ and $`1,`$ respectively. At the maximum of the barrier, i.e. when the energy of state $`L=1`$ and $`L=2`$ are identical, the saddle point transits from vorticity $`L=2`$ to $`L=1`$. At this point the Cooper-pair density is zero at the boundary of the disk which acts as a nucleation center for flux penetration and expulsion .

### B Large disks: multivortex states

We consider now a larger superconducting disk with radius $`R=4.0\xi `$ in which multivortex states can nucleate in certain magnetic field ranges . Fig. 4 shows the free energy as a function of the applied magnetic field $`H_0`$. The energy of the different $`L`$-states is given by solid curves when they are in the giant vortex state and by dashed curves when they are in the multivortex state and the saddle point states are given by the dotted curves. The open circles give the transition points between the multivortex state and the giant vortex state for fixed $`L`$. The inset shows the transition barrier $`U`$ as a function of the applied field for the different $`LL+1`$ transitions. To distinguish qualitatively the giant vortex state from the multivortex state for fixed $`L`$ we considered the value of the Cooper-pair density $`\left|\mathrm{\Psi }\right|^2`$ in the center of the disk. Fig. 5 shows $`\left|\mathrm{\Psi }\right|_{center}^2`$ which is zero for a giant vortex state and non zero in the multivortex states when there is no vortex in the center of the disk. For $`R=4.0\xi `$ we find only multivortex states for $`L=2`$, $`3`$, $`4`$ and $`5`$ and the transition from the multivortex state to the giant vortex state occurs at $`H_{MG}/H_{c2}=0.52`$, $`0.77`$, $`0.875`$ and $`0.935`$, respectively. Of course, for $`L=1`$ there is no distinction between the giant and the multivortex state. For $`L=5`$ the spatial distribution of the superconducting electron density is given in the insets (a-d) of Fig. 5 at the magnetic fields corresponding to the open circles in Fig. 5, i.e. $`H_0/H_{c2}=0.8`$, $`0.85`$, $`0.9`$ and $`0.95`$, repectively. In the multivortex state the vortices move towards the center with increasing magnetic field and at the same time the vortices become wider, and therefore, the Cooper-pair density in the center decreases until the axial symmetry is recovered at the transition field $`H_{MG}=0.935H_{c2}`$.

Next, we will study the energy barriers $`U`$ in more detail. For a superconducting disk with radius $`R=4.0\xi `$ the energy barriers for the different $`LL+1`$ transitions are shown in the inset of Fig. 4. The height of the energy barrier for the $`LL+1`$ transition decreases with increasing $`L`$. The difference between penetration and expulsion field decreases also with increasing $`L`$. Fig. 6(a) shows the free energy of the $`L=4`$ and the $`L=5`$ states in more detail (solid curves for the giant vortex state and dashed curves for the multivortex state) together with the energy of the saddle point state between these states (dash-dotted curve). Fig. 6(b) gives the corresponding energy barrier. The open circles correspond to the transition from multivortex to giant vortex state. The barrier height is clearly not influenced by the transition from multivortex to giant vortex state, i.e. there are no jumps or discontinuities at the transition. The spatial distribution of the superconducting electron density $`\left|\mathrm{\Psi }\right|^2`$ for this saddle point state is depicted in the insets of Figs. 6(b) for the configurations indicated by the triangles, i.e. $`H_0/H_{c2}=0.81`$, $`0.885`$, $`0.96`$ (the barrier maximum) and $`1.035`$, respectively. Notice that also in the saddle point the transition between a multivortex state with $`L=5`$ and a giant vortex state with $`L=4`$ is clearly visible.

Near the maximum of the barrier, the barrier height changes linearly with magnetic field. Therefore, we can approximate the energy barrier $`U`$ near its maximum $`U_{max}`$ by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{U}{F_0}}={\displaystyle \frac{U_{max}}{F_0}}+\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{HH_{max}}{H_{c2}}}\text{ ,}`$

where the slope $`\alpha `$ is positive for $`HH_{max}`$ and negative for $`HH_{max}`$. In Fig. 7 the absolute value of the slope $`\left|\alpha \right|`$ is given as a function of $`L`$ for $`HH_{max}`$ by the closed circles and for $`HH_{max}`$ by the open circles. The absolute value of the slope is different for the left and the right side of the maximum of the barrier. Notice that for $`L=0`$ and $`L=1`$, $`\left|\alpha \right|`$ is larger for $`HH_{max}`$ as compared to $`HH_{max}`$, while for $`L>1`$ the reverse is true. For increasing $`L`$ the slope decreases and the behavior could be fitted to

$`\left|\alpha _{LL+1}(L)\right|={\displaystyle \frac{a+bL}{1+cL}}\text{ ,}`$

with $`a=0.02586,`$ $`b=0.00300`$ and $`c=1.40357`$ for $`HH_{max}`$, and $`a=0.02322,`$ $`b=0.00217`$ and $`c=1.26502`$ for $`HH_{max}`$. These fitting curves are shown in Fig. 7 by the solid line for $`HH_{max}`$ and by the dashed line for $`HH_{max}`$. In the inset of Fig. 7 the maximum of the barrier height $`U_{max}`$ is given by the symbols as a function of the vorticity $`L`$. The barrier height decreases for increasing vorticity and the behavior could be fitted to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{U_{max}}{F_0}}(L)={\displaystyle \frac{a+bL}{1+c\sqrt{L}}}\text{ ,}`$

with $`a=0.07229,`$ $`b=0.00791`$ and $`c=0.48657`$, which is shown by the solid curve.

For larger superconducting disks and higher values of $`L`$, different configurations of multivortices can occur with the same vorticity . Fig. 8 shows the free energy as a function of the applied field for the superconducting states with vorticity $`L=6`$ and $`L=7`$. For both vorticities two configurations are possible; (i) $`L`$ vortices on a ring and no vortex in the center (solid curve) and (ii) $`L1`$ vortices on a ring and $`1`$ in the center (dashed curve). The vortex state is completely determined by the number of vortices in the center $`L_{center}`$ and the total number of vortices $`L`$. For this reason we characterized the states by the indices $`(L_{center};L)`$ in Fig. 8. The insets (a-d) show the Cooper-pair density at $`H_0/H_{c2}=0.6`$ for the $`(0;6)`$ state, the $`(1;6)`$ state, the $`(0;7)`$ state, and the $`(1;7)`$ state, respectively. Notice further that for such large radius, there is no transition from a multivortex to a giant vortex state for these values of $`L`$. In Fig. 8 the free energy of the saddle point state between the $`(1;7)`$ state and the $`(0;6)`$ state is given by the dash-dotted curve. This state describes the expulsion of one vortex when the system transits from the $`L=7`$ to the $`L=6`$ configuration and is illustrated in Figs. 9 (a-c) where we show the spatial distribution of the superconducting electron density $`\left|\mathrm{\Psi }\right|^2`$ in the saddle point state at $`H_0/H_{c2}=0.5`$, $`0.6`$ and $`0.7`$, respectively. To transit from $`L=7`$ to $`L=6`$, one vortex on the ring moves towards the outside of the disk and the vortex in the center takes the free place on the ring. High (low) Cooper-pair density is given by dark (light) regions.

## IV Superconducting rings

Now, we will consider superconducting disks with radius $`R_o`$ with a hole in the center with radius $`R_i`$. For the same reason as in Sec. III we make a distinction between small and large systems.

### A Small rings: giant vortex state

As an example, we consider a superconducting ring with radius $`R_o=2.0\xi `$ and hole radius $`R_i=1.0\xi `$. In Fig. 10 the free energy is shown as a function of the applied magnetic field for the different $`L`$-states (solid curves) together with the saddle point states (dashed curves). We find giant vortex states with $`L=0,1,2,3,4`$. Comparing this result with the result for a disk with radius $`R=2.0\xi `$, more $`L`$-states are possible and the superconducting/normal-transition moves to larger magnetic fields . The inset shows the energy barrier $`U`$ for the transitions between the different $`L`$-states as a function of the difference between the applied magnetic field $`H_0`$ and the $`LL+1`$ transition field $`H_{LL+1}`$. For increasing $`L`$, the height of the energy barrier and the difference between the penetration and the expulsion field decreases. The energy barrier near its maximum can be approximated by $`U/F_0=U_{max}/F_0+\alpha (HH_{max})/H_{c2},`$ and we determined the slope $`\alpha _{LL+1}`$; $`\alpha _{01}=0.8`$ for $`HH_{max}`$ and $`0.9`$ for $`HH_{max}`$, $`\alpha _{12}=0.6`$ for $`HH_{max}`$ and $`0.75`$ for $`HH_{max}`$, $`\alpha _{23}=0.3`$ for $`HH_{max}`$ and $`0.42`$ for $`HH_{max}`$, and $`\alpha _{34}=0.013`$ for $`HH_{max}`$ and $`0.038`$ for $`HH_{max}`$. The slope decreases again for increasing $`L`$ and the absolute value of the slope for $`HH_{max}`$ is smaller than for $`HH_{max}`$ for every $`L`$, although the difference is relatively smaller than in the previous disk case where we found $`\alpha _{01}=0.31`$ for $`HH_{max}`$ and $`0.44`$ for $`HH_{max}`$, and $`\alpha _{12}=0.06`$ for $`HH_{max}`$ and $`0.1`$ for $`HH_{max}`$.

Next, we investigate the $`23`$ saddle point. At $`H_0/H_{c2}=2.01`$ (expulsion field) and $`2.535`$ (penetration field) the saddle point state equals the giant vortex states with $`L=3`$ and $`L=2`$, respectively. The transition between these two giant vortex states is illustrated in Figs. 11(a-d) which show the spatial distribution of the superconducting electron density $`\left|\mathrm{\Psi }\right|^2`$ corresponding with the open circles in the inset of Fig. 10 at $`H_0/H_{c2}=2.1`$, $`2.2`$, $`2.315`$ (i.e. the barrier maximum) and $`2.4`$, respectively. High (low) density is given by dark (light) regions. With increasing field one vortex moves from inside the ring, through the superconducting material, outside the ring. From Fig. 11(c) one may infer that the Cooper-pair density is zero along a radial line and that the vortex is, in fact, a sort of line. That this is not the case can be seen from the left inset of Fig. 12 which shows the Cooper-pair density $`\left|\psi \right|^2`$ along this radial line for $`H_0/H_{c2}=2.315.`$ The Cooper-pair density in the superconducting material is zero only at the center of the vortex which is situated at $`x_{min}/\xi 1.5`$ and $`\left|\mathrm{\Psi }\right|^2`$ is very small otherwise, i.e. $`\left|\mathrm{\Psi }\right|^2<0.01`$. In Fig. 12 the position of the vortex, i.e. of $`x_{min}`$, is shown as a function of the applied field. Over a narrow field region the vortex moves from the inner boundary towards the outer boundary. From $`H_0/H_{c2}=2.01`$ to $`2.25`$ the center of the vortex is still situated in the hole but the vortex already influences the superconducting state (see for example Figs. 11(a,b)). From $`H_0/H_{c2}=2.36`$ to $`2.535`$ the center of the vortex lies outside the ring, but it has still an influence on the saddle point (see for example Fig. 11(d)). In the region $`H_0/H_{c2}=2.252.36`$ the center of the vortex is situated inside the superconductor. This is also illustrated by the contourplot (right inset of Fig. 12) for the phase of the order parameter at $`H_0/H_{c2}=2.315`$, corresponding with the open circle in Fig. 12. When encircling the superconductor near the inner boundary of the ring, we find that the phase difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }\phi `$ is equal to $`2\times 2\pi `$ which implies vorticity $`L=2`$. When encircling the superconductor near the outer boundary, we find vorticity $`L=3`$. If we choose a path around the vortex (located at $`x_{min}`$), the phase changes with $`2\pi `$ and thus $`L=1`$. At the transition field $`(H_0/H_{c2}=2.315)`$ the center of the vortex of the saddle point is clearly not situated at the outer boundary as was the case for superconducting disks (see for example Figs. 3(c,g), 6(b), 9(b) and Ref. ).

To illustrate this more clearly, Figs. 13(a,b) show the radial position of the vortex during the transition between the Meissner state and the $`L=1`$ state, and between the $`L=1`$ state and the $`L=2`$ state for a superconducting ring with radius $`R_o=2.0\xi `$ and for several values of the hole radius, i.e. $`R_i/\xi =0.0`$, $`0.5`$, $`1.0`$ and $`1.5`$. The open circles indicate the ground state transition fields. Only for the case of the disk without a hole the center of the vortex at the saddle point occurs at the outer boundary of the disk for the magnetic field at which the ground state changes from $`L`$ to $`L+1`$. When the disk contains a hole in the center there are two boundaries and the center of the above vortex is now located between those two boundaries. For a small hole with radius $`R_i=0.5\xi `$ the position of the vortex can be approached by the arithmetic mean of the inner and the outer radius, i.e. $`x_{min}/\xi (R_o+R_i)/2`$, and for a larger hole with radius $`R_i=1.5\xi `$ by the geometric mean $`\sqrt{R_oR_i}`$. The transition field increases and the magnetic field range, over which the transition occurs, decreases with increasing $`L`$. Notice that the transition field for the $`L=12`$ transition for $`R_i/\xi =0.5`$ is larger than the one for $`R_i/\xi =0.0`$ (see Fig. 13(b)), which agrees with Fig. 4 of Ref. .

### B Large rings: multivortex states

First, we consider superconducting rings with radius $`R_o=4.0\xi `$ and hole radius $`R_i=1.0\xi `$. In Fig. 14 the free energy is shown as a function of the applied magnetic field. The different $`L`$-states are given by solid curves for giant vortex states and dashed curves for multivortex states, while the saddle point states are given by the dotted curves. The open circles correspond to the transition between the multivortex state and the giant vortex state for fixed $`L`$. These transitions occur at $`H_{MG}/H_{c2}=0.93`$, $`1.035`$ and $`1.14`$ for $`L=4`$, $`5`$ and $`6`$, respectively. Notice that for such a small hole in the disk the maximum number of $`L`$, i.e. $`L=10`$, is the same as for the disk case without a hole (see Fig. 4). The spatial distribution of the superconducting electron density $`\left|\mathrm{\Psi }\right|^2`$ is depicted in the insets (a-c) of Fig. 14 for the multivortex state with $`L=4`$ at $`H_0/H_{c2}=0.8`$, $`L=5`$ at $`H_0/H_{c2}=0.9`$ and $`L=6`$ at $`H_0/H_{c2}=1.0`$, respectively. High (low) Cooper-pair density is given by dark (light) regions. Notice that there are always $`L1`$ vortices in the superconducting material and one vortex appears in the hole, i.e. in the center of the ring.

The energy barriers for the transitions between the different $`L`$-states are shown in Fig. 15 as a function of the applied magnetic field. By comparing this with the energy barriers for a disk with no hole, we see that the barrier heights and the transition fields are strongly different (see the inset of Fig. 4). Therefore we show in the insets of Fig. 15 the maximum height of the energy barrier $`U_{max}`$ and the $`LL+1`$ transition field $`H_{tr}`$ as a function of $`L`$ for superconducting disks with no hole (squares) and with a hole of radius $`R_i=1.0\xi `$ (circles), $`2.0\xi `$ (triangles) and $`3.0\xi `$ (stars). In all cases the height of the energy barrier decreases and the transition fields increases with increasing $`L`$. By comparing the situation with no hole and with a small hole with $`R_i=1.0\xi `$, we see that the barriers for $`L1`$ are higher for the disk with a hole with $`R_i=1.0\xi `$ than for $`R_i=0.0\xi `$, while they are smaller when $`L>1`$. Notice also that the value of the $`LL+1`$ transition field is sensitive to the presence of the hole with radius $`R_i=1.0\xi `$ for small $`L`$ and insensitive for larger $`L`$. The reason is that for small $`L>0`$ such a central hole has always one vortex localised inside which favors certain vortex configurations above others, while for larger $`L`$ in both cases only giant vortices appear with sizes larger than the hole size and the presence of the hole no longer matters. For larger holes the energy barrier decreases more slowly, because the free energy of the different $`L`$ states shows a more parabolical type of behavior as a function of the magnetic field. The transition field has a much smaller dependence on the radius of the hole. Notice that the transition field for $`R_i=3.0\xi `$ is linear as a function of $`L`$ for small holes and $`L9`$. This is in good agreement with the results in the narrow ring limit, where the transition between states with different vorticity $`L`$ occurs when the enclosed flux $`\varphi `$ equals $`\left(L+1/2\right)\varphi _o`$ .

Next, we investigate the saddle point states in these superconducting rings. We make a distinction between different kinds of saddle point states; i) between two giant vortex states, ii) between a multivortex and a giant vortex state, iii) between two multivortex states with the same vorticity in the hole and different vorticity in the superconducting material, and iv) between two multivortex states with the same vorticity in the superconducting material but different vorticity in the hole. The first saddle point transition was already described for the case of small superconducting rings (see Figs. 11 and 12). Next, we study the saddle point state between a multivortex state with $`L=5`$ and a giant vortex state with $`L=4`$ for the previous considered ring with radius $`R_o=4.0\xi `$ and hole radius $`R_i=1.0\xi `$. Figs. 16(a-f) show the Cooper-pair density for these saddle point states at $`H_0/H_{c2}=0.83`$, $`0.88`$, $`0.93`$, $`0.965`$ (i.e. the barrier maximum), $`1.03`$ and $`1.06`$, respectively. High (low) Cooper-pair density is given by dark (light) regions. For increasing field one vortex moves to the outer boundary, while the others move to the center of the ring where they create a giant vortex state. Remark that the giant vortex state is larger than the hole and therefore it is partially situated in the superconductor itself.

To study saddle point transitions between different multivortex states we have to increase the radius of the ring to favour the multivortex states. Therefore, we consider a ring with radius $`R_o=6.0\xi `$ and hole radius $`R_i=2.0\xi `$. Fig. 17 shows the free energy of multivortex states with $`L=8`$ and $`L=9`$. In both cases 3 vortices are trapped in the hole. The lower insets show the spatial distribution of the superconducting electron density $`\left|\mathrm{\Psi }\right|^2`$ at the transition field $`H_0/H_{c2}=0.695`$ for $`L=8`$ and $`L=9`$. It is clear that there are only 5 and 6 vortices in the superconducting material, respectively. The free energy of these multivortex states is shown by solid curves, while the saddle point energy between these states is given by the dashed curve. Notice further, that there is no transition from the multivortex states to the giant vortex states with $`L=8`$ and $`9`$ as long as these states are stable. The spatial distribution of the superconducting electron density $`\left|\mathrm{\Psi }\right|^2`$ for this saddle point state is depicted in the upper insets at the magnetic fields $`H_0/H_{c2}=0.63`$, $`0.695`$ (the barrier maximum) and $`0.76`$, respectively. For increasing field one vortex moves from the superconducting material to the outer boundary and hence the vorticity changes from $`L=9`$ to $`L=8.`$ Notice that the vorticity of the interior boundary of the ring does not change.

The fourth type of saddle point state to discuss is the $`LL+1`$ transition between two multivortex states with the same vorticity in the superconducting material but with a different vorticity in the hole. For $`R_o/\xi =4`$ and $`R_o/\xi =6`$ we did not find such transitions regardless of the hole radius. This means that at least for these radii there is no transition between such states which describes the motion of one vortex from the hole through the superconducting material towards the outer insulator.

Finally, we investigated the influence of the hole radius on the barrier for a fixed outer ring radius. Fig. 18(a) shows the maximum barrier height, i.e. the barrier height at the thermodynamic equilibrium $`LL+1`$ transition, as a function of the hole radius $`R_i`$ for a ring with radius $`R_o=4.0\xi `$ for the transition between the Meissner state and the $`L=1`$ state (solid curve) and for the transition between the $`L=1`$ and the $`L=2`$ state (dashed curve). For increasing hole radius, the barrier height of the first transition rapidly increases in the range $`R_i=0.1\xi `$ to $`R_i=1.5\xi `$ and decreases slowly afterwards. For a superconducting disk with radius $`R_o=4.0\xi `$ with a hole in the center with radius $`R_i=1.5\xi `$ the maximum barrier height for the $`01`$ transition is twice as large as for a superconducting disk without a hole. The barrier height of the second transition first decreases, then rapidly increases in the range $`R_i=0.6\xi `$ to $`R_i=2.5\xi `$ and then slowly decreases again. In this case the maximum barrier height for a superconducting disk with a hole with radius $`R_i=2.5\xi `$ is three times as large as for a superconducting disk without a hole. Hence, changing the hole radius strongly influences the maximum height of the barrier. In Fig. 18(b) we plot the characteristic magnetic fields of the barrier as a function of the hole radius, i.e. the transition magnetic field $`H_{tr}`$, the expulsion magnetic field $`H_e`$ and the penetration magnetic field $`H_p`$, for the $`01`$ transition by solid curves and for the $`12`$ transition by the dashed curve. For the $`01`$ transition the characteristic magnetic fields decrease with increasing hole radius. For the $`12`$ transition the characteristic magnetic fields first increase to a maximum and then decrease. This behaviour was described and explained in our previous paper (see e.g. Fig. 17 of Ref. ). Notice that the position of the minimum in $`U_{max}`$ coincides with the position of the maximum in $`H_{tr}`$.

## V Conclusions

We studied the saddle points for transitions between different vortex states for thin superconducting disks and rings. A distinction was made between small systems where the confinement effects dominate and larger systems where multivortices can nucleate for certain magnetic fields. At the entrance of the vortex into the superconducting material the superconducting density becomes zero at a certain point at the edge of the disk or ring. Such a zero in the order parameter acts as a phase slip center which allows the vorticity to increase with one unit. For the case of the ring the vortex may enter (or exit) the superconducting material from the inner boundary or from the outer boundary of the ring.

We studied the transition between two giant vortex states with different vorticity $`L`$. One vortex moves through the superconducting material to the center of the disk or to the hole. During the transition the position of this vortex in the superconductor can be determined very precisely, because the Cooper-pair density is exactly zero in the center of this vortex. The transition between a multivortex state and a giant vortex state with different vorticity $`L`$ is also described. One vortex leaves (enters) the superconductor while the other vortices move towards (away from) the center of the disk. For large enough disk/ring radii, we calculated the transition between two multivortex states. We found such transitions between two multivortex states with different vorticity $`L`$ in the superconductor but with the same vorticity in the center/hole. One vortex enters/leaves the superconductor while the other vortices rearrange themselves. Transitions between different multivortex states with the same vorticity in the superconducting material but different vorticity in the hole were not found for the considered ring configurations, which means that transitions between such states do not occur in these particular cases.

The maximum height of the energy barrier always decreases for increasing $`L`$. Near the maximum, the barrier height decreases linearly and its slope at the left side $`\left(HH_{max}\right)`$ of the maximum is not equal to the slope at the right side $`\left(HH_{max}\right)`$. The barrier shape and height strongly depend on the radius of the hole in the center of the disk.

## VI Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Flemish Science Foundation (FWO-Vl), the ”Onderzoeksraad van de Universiteit Antwerpen”, the ”Interuniversity Poles of Attraction Program - Belgian State, Prime Minister’s Office - Federal Office for Scientific, Technical and Cultural Affairs”, and the European ESF-Vortex Matter. Discussions with S. Yampolskii are gratefully acknowledged.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The recent results for $`K^0`$-$`\overline{K}^0`$ oscillations reported by CPLEAR have provided the first direct evidence for the violation of time reversal invariance. Indirect evidence has existed since the discovery of CP-violation in the neutral kaon system. In accordance with the CPT theorem of quantum field theory, the existence of CP-violation implies the existence of T-violation. An interesting question is whether there exist other direct signatures of T-violation (TV) outside the neutral kaon system. Searches for TV in light quark systems have constituted an ongoing topic in nuclear physics for the past quarter century or more. So far, experimental studies of detailed balance in nuclear reactions, correlations in $`\gamma `$\- and $`\beta `$-decays of nuclei (also the neutron in the latter case), neutron and atomic electric dipole moments (EDM’s), and correlations in the scattering of epithermal neutrons from heavy nuclei have yielded null results. In some cases, these experimental limits place important constraints on scenarios for physics beyond the Standard Model, making TV searches in nuclear physics of interest to particle physicists as well.

The prospect of a new source of polarized neutrons at the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) suggests that neutron physics could be an ideal arena in which to carry out future searches for TV. In this talk, I want to consider the use of neutrons to search for TV “new physics” which is parity-conserving (PC). As shown be Herczeg et al., one cannot write down a renormalizable gauge theory in which TVPC interactions among quarks arise at tree-level from boson exchange . Thus, the existence of such interactions would signal the presence of some exotic physics beyond the Standard Model. To arrive at such interactions, one would have to forego the requirement that all interactions must be renormalizable or imagine some kind of nonperturbative effects generating effective, nonrenormalizable interactions. Indeed, an interesting challenge for theorists is to arrive at some plausible mechanism for generating such TVPC interactions from some fundamental, underlying theory.

In this talk, I will focus on a more pedestrian issue, namely, the phenomenological constraints on the existence of TVPC interactions. Several years ago, it was suggested in Ref.  that one could obtain constraints on TVPC interactions from EDM’s, even though existence of the latter require both TV and parity-violation (PV). Moreover, it was argued in Ref.  that the EDM constraints far exceed those obtained from direct TV searches. If correct, this argument implies that one might as well forego the latter and concentrate solely on the EDM. I hope to convince you, however, that the arguments of Ref.  are not airtight. The apply under only one of several possible scenarios for the breakdown of parity symmetry. There exist equally plausible scenarios under which EDM’s are of limited value at best in constraining new TVPC interactions.

My arguments depend on the use of ideas in effective field theory (EFT), which is the only framework I know of for treating non-renormalizable interactions in a systematic way when one does not have access to a fundamental short-distance theory. In a nutshell, the argument may be stated as follows. Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{TVPC}`$ denote the mass scale below which an EFT using nonrenormalizable TVPC interactions is sensible. One may then expand the EDM $`d`$ of a neutron, electron, or neutral atom in powers of $`1/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{TVPC}`$:

$$\frac{d}{e}=\beta _5C_5\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{TVPC}}+\beta _6C_6\frac{M}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{TVPC}^2}+\beta _7C_7\frac{M^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{TVPC}^3}+\mathrm{},$$
(1)
where the $`C_n`$ denote the set of a priori unknown coefficients of dimension $`n`$ nonrenormalizable operators in the effective Lagrangian, the $`\beta _n`$ are calculable quantities arising from loops or hadronic matrix elements, and $`M<<\mathrm{\Lambda }_{TVPC}`$ is a mass scale associated with any dynamical degree of freedom in the EFT. The first contributions from new TVPC interactions appear in the $`C_7`$.

Now consider two scenarios:

Scenario (A) Parity symmetry is restored at some scale $`\mu <\mathrm{\Lambda }_{TVPC}`$. In this case, it turns out that all of the coefficients $`C_5`$ and $`C_6`$ must vanish. The first contributions to the EDM arise from loop effects involving the TVPC $`C_7`$ operators. Since $`M/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{TVPC}<1`$, these contributions presumably dominate the series. Consequently, one could use EDM limits to place constraints on $`C_7/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{TVPC}^3`$. This is the scenario implicitly considered in Ref. . As I show below, the limits obtained from EDM’s in this case vastly exceed those obtainable from direct searches.

Scenario (B) Parity symmetry remains broken at $`\mu >\mathrm{\Lambda }_{TVPC}`$. In this case, the $`C_5`$ and $`C_6`$ do not, in general, vanish. The EDM expansion contains important contributions from lower dimension TVPV operators. Without independent information about the $`C_{5,6}`$, one cannot use the EDM as a direct window on the TVPC $`C_7`$ terms. The latter may be more or less suppressed relative to the lower dimension contributions depending on the size of $`M/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{TVPC}`$. Since we have no a priori information on $`M/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{TVPC}`$ – it may be $`1/2`$ or $`1/20,\mathrm{}`$ – we can say very little about the importance of the TVPC contributions. We might assume that $`M/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{TVPC}<<1`$ so that the first term in Eq. (1) presumably dominates. In this case, the low-energy effects of TVPC interactions would have to be negligible. In the more general situation, however, one would have to use direct TVPC searches to constrain the new TVPC interactions if this scenario holds. Here, then, is the window of relevance for new TVPC searches with neutrons.

In the remainder of this talk, I flesh out these arguments in more detail, summarizing my work in Ref. . First, I review the ideas of EFT and make reference to its more familiar use in chiral perturbation theory. I subsequently apply these ideas to the analysis of TVPC interactions and EDM’s, leading to the conclusions summarized above. Finally, I make some comments about the phenomenology of time-reversal tests.

## 2 Effective Field Theory

Effective field theory is a powerful tool when our knowledge of dynamics above some scale is limited. In the case of hadronic interactions, we known how to handle strong meson-baryon interactions at energies well below the scale of chiral symmetry breaking, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi 1`$ GeV. Our ability to calculate the dynamics at shorter distances, where one must consider quark/gluon substructure, is embryonic at best. Chiral perturbation theory (CPT) allows us to circumvent our ignorance by parameterizing short distance QCD in terms of an infinite tower of non-renormalizable interactions with a priori unknown coefficients. This EFT is tractable so long as the energy of any process one is interested in, and the masses of particles involved, is sufficiently below $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi `$. In this case, one may expand any observable in powers of $`p/\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi `$, where $`p`$ is the appropriate momentum scale. One uses data to determine the unknown coefficients, or low energy constants (LEC’s). So long as there exists enough available data to determine the relevant LEC’s, one may then use chiral symmetry to make predictions for new observables not previously considered. Corrections to the symmetry relations arise from loop effects. The latter generally scale as $`m/\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi `$ relative to the tree-level terms, where $`m`$ is the mass of one of the particles in a loop.

As an example, consider the octet baryon magnetic moments. In the nonrelativistic version of CPT (heavy baryon CPT), magnetic moments arise at tree-level in a Lagrangian containing dimension 5 operators:

$$_5=\frac{b}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi }ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\overline{B}v^\alpha S^\beta BF^{\mu \nu },$$
(2)
where $`F^{\mu \nu }`$ is the electromagnetic field strength tensor, $`B`$ is the field for a baryon having velocity $`v^\alpha `$ and spin $`S^\beta `$. The coefficient $`b`$, which is a priori unknown, contains all the information we lack on the short distance QCD dynamics of magnetic moments. If the mass scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi `$ were chosen correctly, then we should find this coefficient to have “natural size”, $`b1`$. At this level of the theory, $`B`$’s magnetic moment is simply related to $`b`$ as

$$\mu _B=\left(\frac{M_B}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi }\right)b,$$
(3)
where $`M_B`$ is the baryon mass. If $`b1`$ and $`\mu _B1`$ as is the case for octet baryon magnetic moments, then one should find $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi M_B1`$ GeV. From purely pionic interactions, we learn that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi =4\pi F_\pi 1`$ GeV, where $`F_\pi `$ is the pion decay constant. At this level, then, the EFT appears to be self consistent.

Corrections to the relation in Eq. (3) arise from loops involving pions and baryons. These loops diverge quadratically. Naïvely, they receive contributions from arbitrarily high momentum scales. However, the assumption in writing down this EFT is that we only know how to calculate the dynamics for scales below $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi `$. In short, we rely on the assumption of a separation of scales: physics for $`p<\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi `$ is calculable in the theory while physics at scales $`p\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi `$ is uncalculable but parameterized by the LEC’s like $`b`$. In order to ensure that our loop calculation does not blur this separation of scales, we must regulate the loop in such a way that it receives contributions only from intermediate states having $`p<\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi `$. An appropriate regulator for this purpose is dimensional regularization (DR). After computing the regulated loops, we obtain a new expression for $`\mu _B`$:

$$\mu _B=\left(\frac{M_B}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi }\right)b(\mu )+\left(\frac{M_B}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi }\right)\left(\frac{m_\pi }{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi }\right)g_A^2\stackrel{~}{b}(\mu ).$$
(4)
Here, $`g_A`$ the appropriate $`\pi `$-baryon coupling (or combination of couplings) and $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ is a loop-dependent number. After loops renormalize the tree-level theory, all the LEC’s in general contain an implicit dependence on the scale $`\mu `$ at which the integrals are defined. In some cases, the loop factors $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ contain no explicit $`\mu `$-dependence; in others, it is at most a logarithmic dependence.

The important feature from our standpoint is that the first term in the RHS of Eq. (4) contains the short-distance physics we cannot calculate while the second term contains calculable long range contributions from scales below $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi `$. This scale separation appears in the guise of the $`m_\pi /\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi `$ suppression factor in the second term. A factor like this must appear since the operator of interest is dimension five (the magnetic moment interaction) while the loop is quadratically divergent. Some power of mass must appear in the numerator of the loop result. The scale separation of EFT implies it can only be associated with a particle lighter than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi `$. This “power counting” implies that loop effects are generally suppressed relative to tree-level contributions, since $`m_\pi /\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi <1`$. Moreover, we are allowed to truncate the chiral expansion of at any order we choose, since higher-order contributions – arising either from additional loops and/or higher-dimension operators – will be smaller by additional powers of $`m_\pi /\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi `$.

It is worth emphasizing here that one would not use the magnetic moment expansion of Eq. (4) to determine the value of the $`g_A`$ from magnetic moment data. Since no symmetry rules out the presence of the leading term in the series, it is the most important unknown in the expansion. One must use independent observables, such as $`\pi N`$ scattering, to determine $`g_A`$. Only if some physics consideration told us $`b`$ had to vanish would the magnetic moments give one a direct handle on $`g_A`$.

## 3 Effective Field Theory for TVPC Physics

Following the ideas of the previous section, we may expand the Lagrangian containing new TV interactions in powers of $`1/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{TVPC}`$:

$$_{NEW}=_4+\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{TVPC}}_5+\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{TVPC}^2}_6+\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{TVPC}^3}_7+\mathrm{}.$$
(5)
Here, the subscripts denote the dimension of operators appearing in $`_n`$. These operators are built out of fields representing elementary particles having masses $`<\mathrm{\Lambda }_{TVPC}`$. The term $`_5`$ contains TVPV operators, including the familiar EDM operator for an elementary fermion:

$$𝒪_5=\frac{i}{2}C_5^f\overline{\psi }\sigma _{\mu \nu }\gamma _5\psi F^{\mu \nu }.$$
(6)
The operators in $`_6`$ are also TVPV. New TVPC interactions appear in $`_7`$. Among those of interest to us are the operators

$`𝒪_7^{ff^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`C_7^{ff^{}}\overline{\psi }_f\underset{\mu }{\overset{}{D}}\gamma _5\psi _f\overline{\psi }_f^{}\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5\psi _f^{}`$ (7)
$`𝒪_7^{\gamma g}`$ $`=`$ $`C_7^{\gamma g}\overline{\psi }\sigma _{\mu \nu }\lambda ^a\psi F^{\mu \lambda }G_\lambda ^{a\nu }`$ (8)
$`𝒪_7^{\gamma Z}`$ $`=`$ $`C_7^{\gamma Z}\overline{\psi }\sigma _{\mu \nu }\psi F^{\mu \lambda }Z_\lambda ^\nu .`$ (9)
Here, $`G_\lambda ^{a\nu }`$ is the field strength tensor for a gluon with SU(3) index “a” and $`Z_\lambda ^\nu `$ is the $`Z^0`$ boson field strength tensor. For simplicity, I will consider only neutral gauge bosons here. The operator $`𝒪_7^{ff^{}}`$ was first considered in Ref. , while $`𝒪_7^{\gamma g}`$ was introduced in Ref. . The $`Z\gamma `$ TVPC operator $`𝒪_7^{\gamma Z}`$ appeared first in Ref. . In addition to these operators, there also exist dimension seven TVPV operators in $`_7`$.

The operators appearing in Eq. (5) will contribute to various TVPC and/or TVPV observables, such as the neutron EDM. The presently uncalculable short distance ($`p\mathrm{\Lambda }_{TVPC}`$) contributions to these observables live in the operator coefficients, $`C_n`$. The calculable long distance ($`p<\mathrm{\Lambda }_{TVPC}`$) effects arise from loops or many-body matrix elements containing the various $`𝒪_n`$. Now we may consider the implications of the EFT expansion of Eq. (5) under the two scenarios outlined in the introduction.

Consider first scenario (B), where parity violation remains in effect for $`p>\mathrm{\Lambda }_{TVPC}`$. In this case, the coefficients of the TVPV operators do not, in general, vanish. There exists no reason why any new short distance TVPC physics cannot conspire with short distance PV interactions to generate non-vanishing coefficients of these operators. This statement is analogous to saying that the coefficient of the leading term in the magnetic moment expansion, $`b`$, does not vanish. Nothing about the uncalculable short distance QCD physics of magnetic moments forbids the existence of this term. In the case of scenario (B), then, the leading contribution to the neutron EDM arises from the $`𝒪_5`$. In the relativistic quark model, one has

$$d_n=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{TVPC}}d^3x(u^2+\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{}^2)\left[\frac{4}{3}C_5^d\frac{1}{3}C_5^u\right],$$
(10)
where $`u`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ denote the upper and lower components, respectively, of the ground state quark wavefunction. In the language of Eq. (1), $`\beta _5`$ is just the integral in Eq. (10) and $`C_5`$ is the linear combination of quark EDM’s, $`C_5^{u,d}`$, multiplying the integral (the factor of $`e`$ is buried in these constants). Numerically, one has $`\beta 0.88`$.

Higher-order contributions to $`d_n`$ arise from the TVPV operators in $`_6`$, $`_7`$, etc. as well as from the TVPC operators in $`_7`$ and beyond. The latter contribute via loop graphs which contain a PV interaction. For example, $`𝒪_7^{\gamma Z}`$ contributes via one-loop diagrams in which the virtual $`Z^0`$ has a PV interaction with the fermion involved. In the leading log approximation, the result is

$$C_5^{f,LOOP}eC_7^{\gamma Z}\left(\frac{M_Z}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{TVPC}}\right)^2\left(\frac{1}{s_Wc_W}\right)g_A^f\left(\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}\right)\mathrm{ln}\frac{M_Z^2}{\mu ^2},$$
(11)
where $`\mu `$ is the DR subtraction scale and $`g_A^f`$ is the axial vector $`Zff`$ coupling111Note that the result in Eq. (11) is a factor of 6 larger than the formula given in Ref. .. The most important feature of this result is the appearance of the $`(M_Z/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{TVPC})^2`$ factor, as required by the power counting of EFT. Since $`M_Z`$ must be smaller than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{TVPC}`$ in order for an EFT expansion of $`_{NEW}`$ to make sense, the contribution of $`𝒪_7^{\gamma Z}`$ to the neutron EDM is suppressed relative to the leading term. The size of this suppression depends on the degree of separation between $`M_Z`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{TVPC}`$. The additional loop factors further suppress this contribution:

$$\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{M_Z^2}{\mu ^2}\frac{1}{10}$$
(12)
when one takes $`\mu 1`$ GeV as is appropriate for the neutron EDM. Thus, even if $`M_Z`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{TVPC}`$ were comparable, the contribution of the TVPC operators to $`d_n`$ would be smaller than the tree-level contributions of the lower-dimension TVPV operators. One simply cannot use the EDM to constrain the new TVPC interactions in this case.

If scenario (A) holds, however, all of the TVPV coefficients in Eq. (5) must vanish at tree-level. Since there exists no short distance PV, the existence of these operators is forbidden by parity symmetry. In this case, the leading contribution to $`d_n`$ arises from the loops containing the $`d=7`$ TVPC operators. Consequently, experimental EDM limits place strong constraints on the ratios $`C_7/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{TVPC}^3`$. These limits imply that – if scenario (A) holds – low-energy TVPC effects should be incredibly small. Specifically, let $`\alpha _T`$ denote the ratio of typical nuclear TVPC nuclear matrix elements to those of the residual strong interaction. On dimensional grounds, this ratio should scale as

$$\alpha _TC_7(p/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{TVPC})^3,$$
(13)
where $`p`$ is a typical momentum for a low-energy TVPC process. Taking $`p=1`$ GeV$`/c`$ and experimental bounds on the neutron EDM, one would expect $`\alpha _T<10^{13}`$.

I emphasize that the arguments of Ref.  apply only to scenario (A) and not to scenario (B). Even in the case of its application to scenario (A), however, the analysis of Ref.  does not respect the separation of scales underlying the use of EFT. Instead of using DR to regulate their loop integrals, the authors of Ref.  employed a cut-off regulator, where the cut-off scale was taken to be $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{TVPC}`$! Consequently, the loops in that calculation are dominated by intermediate states having momenta $`p\mathrm{\Lambda }_{TVPC}`$, and the result does not contain the $`(M_Z/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{TVPC})^2`$ factor implied by EFT power counting. As shown in Ref. , using a cut-off regulator in this way has disatrous consequences: TVPC operators of arbitrarily high dimension contribute to the EDM with the same weight as the leading $`d=7`$ TVPC operators. One has no way, then, to truncate the series and – correspondingly – no way to derive an experimental bound on anything other than an infinite series of comparably weighted nonrenormalizable operators. In contrast, the use of DR – which preserves the power counting of EFT – affords one with a systematic truncation scheme. Only by having the latter can one hope to derive meaningful limits on new TVPC interactions from EDM bounds under scenario (A).

## 4 Mass Scales and Phenomenology

It is often instructive to interpret limits on new physics in terms of a mass scale associated with some symmetry breakdown. For example, the Boulder group  has recently determined the weak charge, $`Q_W`$, of the cesium atom to about 0.35% experimental error. When combined with the up-dated estimate of the atomic theory uncertainty, this measurement of $`Q_W`$ is sensitive to the existence of right handed neutral gauge bosons as heavy as $`1`$ TeV. One would then conclude that the scale of left-right symmetry breaking should not be considerably below one TeV.

One might similarly ask what time-reversal tests teach us about the mass scale associated with the breakdown of time-reversal invariance. Since we do not yet have a detailed theory of how T might be broken unaccompanied by P violation, the best we can do is use dimensional and “naturalness” arguments to derive approximate bounds on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{TVPC}`$. The problem is our ignorance of the dynamics which could generate the $`C_n`$ in Eq. (5). Nevertheless, we might parameterize our ignorance in the following way. Let

$$C_7^{ff^{}}=4\pi \kappa ^2,$$
(14)
where $`\kappa `$ characterizes the coupling strength of new TVPC interactions. Since $`𝒪_7^{\gamma Z}`$ contains a $`\gamma `$ and $`Z^0`$, its coefficient should contain additional factors of $`e`$ and $`g`$ as compared to $`C_7^{ff^{}}`$. This choice would be the “natural” one. Thus we would have

$$C_7^{\gamma Z}egC_7^{ff^{}}=\frac{4\pi \alpha }{\mathrm{sin}\theta _W}C_7^{ff^{}}.$$
(15)
Now consider the experimental limits on the electric dipole of the electron. The most recent measurement by the Berkeley group gives

$$|d_e|<4\times 10^{27}e\text{cm}.$$
(16)
Under scenario (A), this result constrains the TVPC interactions. The most stringent bounds apply to $`𝒪_7^{\gamma Z}`$, which contribute at one-loop order. Using Eqs. (14, 15), we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{TVPC}>270\kappa ^{2/3}\text{TeV}$$
(17)
from the $`d_e`$ bounds222This bound is $`6^{1/3}`$ stronger than quoted in Ref.  due to the factor of six in the loop expression mentioned previously.. If the new TVPC physics is of a strong interaction origin, then $`\kappa 1`$ and the scale of T breakdown would be at least three times as heavy as the weak scale. Note that parity invariance would have to be borken somewhere below this scale in order for this limit to be valid.

The limits on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{TVPC}`$ under scenario (B) are considerably weaker. These limits arise from the direct TVPC searches mentioned in the Introduction. One may perform a simple-minded estimate using Eq. (13) and the direct search bounds: $`\alpha _T<10^3`$. For $`p1`$ GeV$`/c`$, one would obtain the bound

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{TVPC}>20\kappa ^{2/3}\text{GeV}.$$
(18)
A detailed analysis of various TVPC observables suggests that the limit may actually be weaker than Eq. (18) . Since TVPC observables depend on $`1/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{TVPC}^3`$, it would take an improvement of at least 12 orders of magnitude in experimental precision to push the scenario (B) limits to the level of the scenario (A) limits. A more realistic goal may be to determine whether there exists any window for new TVPC physics to exist below the weak scale. Reaching the weak scale would require improvement of three or more orders of magnitude in experimental precision. To this end, the direct TVPC searches with neutrons at the SNS may be one avenue to pursue. Whether such improvements are feasible in measurements of the $`\beta `$-decay $`D`$ coefficient or the five-fold correlation in epithermal neutron-nucleus transmission is a challenge for experimentalists. In this respect, another interesting possibility is the search for charge symmetry-breaking TVPC terms in neutron-proton elastic scattering or a five-fold correlation in proton-deuteron transmission.

## 5 Conclusions

Tests of fundamental symmetries could form a significant component of the physics program at the SNS. Studies of PV in neutron $`\beta `$-decay and in neutron spin rotation could provide new insight into the nature of the semileptonic weak interaction and low-energy strong interaction, respectively. Improvements in neutron EDM limits will further constrain gauge theories containing both PV and TV. In this talk, I hope I have convinced you that there exists room for improvement in searches for new TVPC physics as well. The relationship between the scale at which new TVPC physics arises and the scale at which parity symmetry is restored is not clear at present. What one can say is that if parity symmetry is restored by the time one reaches $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{TVPC}`$, EDM’s imply that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{TVPC}`$ is well above the weak scale. On the other hand, if PV remains in effect at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{TVPC}`$, direct TVPC searches give us the least ambiguous window on this type of new physics.