text:
# Midgap edge states and pairing symmetry of quasi-one-dimensional organic superconductors

## I Introduction

Quasi-one-dimensional (Q1D) conductors of the $`(\mathrm{TMTSF})_2\mathrm{X}`$ family  (the Bechgaard salts) are the first organic materials where superconductivity was discovered twenty years ago with $`T_c1`$ K . Abrikosov proposed that the superconductivity is $`p`$-wave triplet , because it is suppressed by nonmagnetic impurities . Gor’kov and Jérome observed that the upper critical magnetic field $`H_{c2}`$ exceeds the Pauli paramagnetic limit, which is also a signature of triplet superconductivity . Recent data show that $`H_{c2}`$ exceeds the Pauli limit by a factor greater than 4 . Another signature of triplet pairing is that the Knight shift does not change between the normal and superconducting states . However, the temperature dependence of the NMR relaxation rate  and analogy with the high-temperature superconductors led to an alternative proposal of the $`d`$-wave symmetry . It was also proposed that a singlet Q1D superconductivity can overcome the Pauli paramagnetic limit by forming the spatially nonuniform Larkin-Ovchinnikov-Fulde-Ferrell state . However, the quantitative analysis of the experimental data  by Lebed et al.  did not support this proposal and favored triplet pairing. The $`f`$-wave  was also proposed recently. So the pairing symmetry in the Bechgaard salts remains hotly debated.

In this paper, we propose a phase-sensitive method to distinguish experimentally between the $`s`$-, $`p`$-, and $`d`$-wave symmetries. We employ a relation between sign change of the superconducting pair potential around the Fermi surface and existence of the surface Andreev bound states, discovered for $`p`$-wave by Buchholtz and Zwicknagl  and for $`d`$-wave by Hu . For different superconducting symmetries, we determine which edges of $`(\mathrm{TMTSF})_2\mathrm{X}`$ must have the Andreev bound states. The energy of these states is in the middle of the superconducting gap, thus they can be observed in tunneling experiments as zero-bias conductance peaks . We also obtain an exact self-consistent solution of the edge problem for a $`p_x`$-wave Q1D superconductor by mapping it onto the kink soliton solution for a 1D charge-density wave . We show that the spins of the edge states should exhibit a strong paramagnetic response to a magnetic field parallel to the polarization vector $`𝐝`$ of the triplet pairing and propose the corresponding experiment. All calculations are performed at zero temperature.

## II Q1D superconductivity

Classification of superconducting pairing symmetry is particularly simple for a 1D electron gas. Its Fermi surface consists of two points $`\pm k_\mathrm{F}`$. Let us introduce the operators $`\widehat{\psi }_\sigma ^\alpha `$ of the right ($`\alpha `$=R) and left ($`\alpha `$=L) moving electrons with the momenta close to $`\pm k_\mathrm{F}`$ and the spin $`\sigma `$=$`,`$. The Cooper pairing can be either singlet $`\widehat{\psi }_\sigma ^\alpha \widehat{\psi }_\sigma ^{}^{\overline{\alpha }}ϵ_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}\mathrm{\Delta }^\alpha =i\widehat{\sigma }_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}^{(y)}\mathrm{\Delta }^\alpha `$ or triplet $`\widehat{\psi }_\sigma ^\alpha \widehat{\psi }_\sigma ^{}^{\overline{\alpha }}i\widehat{\sigma }^{(y)}(𝐝\widehat{𝝈})\mathrm{\Delta }^\alpha `$. Here $`\overline{\alpha }`$=L,R for $`\alpha `$=R,L; $`ϵ_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}`$ is the antisymmetric metric tensor, and $`\widehat{𝝈}`$ are the Pauli matrices acting in the spin space; d is a unit vector of polarization of the triplet state. Since the fermion operators anticommute, the superconducting pair potential has either the same ($`\mathrm{\Delta }^\mathrm{R}=\mathrm{\Delta }^\mathrm{L}`$) or the opposite ($`\mathrm{\Delta }^\mathrm{R}=\mathrm{\Delta }^\mathrm{L}`$) signs at the two Fermi points for the singlet or triplet pairing.

The real $`(\mathrm{TMTSF})_2\mathrm{X}`$ materials are three-dimensional (3D) crystals consisting of parallel chains. In the tight-binding approximation, the electron energy dispersion (measured from the Fermi energy) can be written as

$$ϵ(𝐤)=v_\mathrm{F}(|k_x|k_\mathrm{F})2t_b\mathrm{cos}(k_yb)2t_c\mathrm{cos}(k_zc).$$
(1)
In the right-hand side of Eq. (1), the first term represents the dispersion along the chains, linearized near the Fermi energy with a Fermi velocity $`v_\mathrm{F}`$. The two other terms describe electron tunneling between the chains in the $`y`$ and $`z`$ directions with the amplitudes $`t_b`$ and $`t_c`$. $`𝐤=(k_x,k_y,k_z)`$ is the 3D electron momentum, $`b`$ and $`c`$ are the lattice spacings in the $`y`$ and $`z`$ directions, and $`\mathrm{}=1`$.

The Fermi surface corresponding to Eq. (1) consists of two disconnected sheets, sketched in Fig. 1 with a greatly exaggerated warping in the $`k_y`$ direction. In the simplest case, the superconducting pair potential $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)`$ is equal to a constant $`\mathrm{\Delta }^\alpha `$ on a given sheet $`\alpha `$ of the Fermi surface, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^\mathrm{R}=\pm \mathrm{\Delta }^\mathrm{L}`$ for the singlet or triplet pairing, respectively. In both cases, the superconducting gap has no nodes on the Fermi surface. These two symmetries can be called $`s`$\- and $`p_x`$-waves. Other symmetries will be discussed at the end of the paper (see Fig. 3).

Electron eigenstates of the energies $`E_n`$ are described in a superconductor by the Bogolyubov-de Gennes (BdG) wave functions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_n=e^{i𝐫𝐤_\mathrm{F}}[u_{n,\sigma }(x),ϵ_{\sigma ^{}\overline{\sigma }^{}}v_n^{\overline{\sigma }^{}}(x)]`$, where $`u_{n,\sigma }`$ and $`v_n^{\overline{\sigma }^{}}`$ are the electron-like and hole-like components with the spins $`\sigma `$ and $`\overline{\sigma }^{}`$, and $`\overline{\sigma }^{}=,`$ is the spin index opposite to $`\sigma ^{}=,`$. The 3D Fermi momenta $`𝐤_\mathrm{F}`$ belong to the warped Fermi surface shown in Fig. 1. Near the Fermi surface $`\alpha `$, the wave functions satisfy the linearized BdG equation

$$(\begin{array}{cc}i\alpha v_\mathrm{F}_x& (\widehat{𝝈}𝐝)\mathrm{\Delta }^\alpha (x)\\ (\widehat{𝝈}𝐝)\mathrm{\Delta }^\alpha (x)& i\alpha v_\mathrm{F}_x\end{array})\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{u_n^\alpha }{v_n^\alpha }\right)=E_n\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{u_n^\alpha }{v_n^\alpha }\right),$$
(2)
where $`\alpha v_\mathrm{F}=\pm v_\mathrm{F}`$ for $`\alpha `$=R,L. The term $`(\widehat{𝝈}𝐝)`$ is present for triplet superconductivity and absent for the singlet one. It operates on the spin indices of the components $`u`$ and $`v`$.

In general, the vector $`𝐝`$ is a function of the position on the Fermi surface, e.g. in 3He-A and 3He-B . The quantitative analysis  of the experimental data  gives the following information about the components of the vector $`𝐝`$ in the $`(\mathrm{TMTSF})_2\mathrm{X}`$ crystal: $`d_a0`$, $`d_b=0`$, and $`d_c`$ is unknown. In this paper, we make the simplest assumption that $`𝐝`$ is a real vector pointing along the $`a`$ axis parallel to the chains (the so-called polar state ). If we select the spin quantization axis along d, then the 4$`\times `$4 matrix equation (2) decouples into two 2$`\times `$2 matrix equations for the wave functions $`(u_\sigma ,ϵ_{\sigma \overline{\sigma }}v^{\overline{\sigma }})`$:

$$(\begin{array}{cc}i\alpha v_\mathrm{F}_x& \sigma \mathrm{\Delta }^\alpha (x)\\ \sigma \mathrm{\Delta }^\alpha (x)& i\alpha v_\mathrm{F}_x\end{array})\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{u_{n,\sigma }^\alpha }{\sigma v_n^{\alpha ,\overline{\sigma }}}\right)=E_n\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{u_{n,\sigma }^\alpha }{\sigma v_n^{\alpha ,\overline{\sigma }}}\right).$$
(3)
Here the index $`\sigma =,`$ takes the values $`\pm `$ when used as a coefficient. It is present in the off-diagonal term $`\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }^\alpha `$ only for triplet, but not for singlet pairing. To simplify equations, we omit the spin index $`\sigma `$ in Secs. III and IV and restore it in Sec. V. Notice that Eqs. (2) and (3) depend only on the 1D coordinate $`x`$, because the 3D dispersion (1) in $`k_y`$ and $`k_z`$ has been absorbed into the definition of the 3D Fermi momenta $`𝐤_\mathrm{F}`$.

## III Edge states

Let us consider a system occupying the semi-infinite space $`x0`$ with an impenetrable edge at $`x=0`$. When the electron reflects from the edge specularly, its $`k_x`$ momentum changes sign, whereas the other components remain the same. The electron scatters from the point $`𝐤_\mathrm{F}^\mathrm{L}`$ at the left sheet of the Fermi surface to the point $`𝐤_\mathrm{F}^\mathrm{R}`$ at the right sheet, as shown in the left panel of Fig. 1. Thus, its BdG wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is a superposition of the R and L terms:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[e^{i𝐫𝐤_\mathrm{F}^\mathrm{R}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{u_n^\mathrm{R}(x)}{v_n^\mathrm{R}(x)}\right)e^{i𝐫𝐤_\mathrm{F}^\mathrm{L}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{u_n^\mathrm{L}(x)}{v_n^\mathrm{L}(x)}\right)\right].$$
(4)
We have selected the minus sign in Eq. (4) so that the impenetrable boundary condition $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x=0)=0`$ gives

$$u^\mathrm{R}(0)=u^\mathrm{L}(0),v^\mathrm{R}(0)=v^\mathrm{L}(0).$$
(5)
First let us use a step-function approximation for the pairing potential: $`|\mathrm{\Delta }^\alpha (x)|=\mathrm{\Delta }_0\theta (x)`$. Then, the plane waves $`[u^\alpha (x),v^\alpha (x)]e^{ik_xx}`$ are the eigenfunctions of Eq. (3) with the energies $`E=\pm \sqrt{(v_\mathrm{F}k_x)^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2}`$. However, the energy is real also when $`k_x`$ is imaginary (but not a combination of real and imaginary parts): $`k_x=i\kappa `$ and $`E=\pm \sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2(v_\mathrm{F}\kappa )^2}`$. For $`\kappa >0`$, this solution describes an electron eigenfunction localized near the edge at $`x=0`$: $`[u^\alpha (x),v^\alpha (x)]e^{\kappa x}`$. Because $`u^\alpha /v^\alpha =\mathrm{\Delta }^\alpha /(\alpha iv_\mathrm{F}\kappa +E)`$, the boundary condition (5) can be satisfied only for $`p_x`$-wave with $`\mathrm{\Delta }^\mathrm{R}=\mathrm{\Delta }^\mathrm{L}`$, but not for $`s`$-wave with $`\mathrm{\Delta }^\mathrm{R}=\mathrm{\Delta }^\mathrm{L}`$. Thus, in the $`p_x`$ case, there is an edge electron state with the energy in the middle of the superconducting gap: $`E=0`$, and the localization length is equal to the coherence length: $`1/\kappa =v_\mathrm{F}/\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$.

The step-function approximation does not take into account the BdG self-consistency condition $`\mathrm{\Delta }^\alpha (x)=g_nu_n^\alpha (x)v_n^\alpha (x)`$, where $`g`$ is the effective coupling constant , and the sum is taken over all occupied states with $`E_n<0`$ (at zero temperature). To solve the problem, let us extend the wave function (4) from the positive semispace $`x>0`$ to the full space $`\mathrm{}<x<\mathrm{}`$. Let us define $`[u(x),v(x)]=[u^\mathrm{R}(x),v^\mathrm{R}(x)]`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(x)=\mathrm{\Delta }^\mathrm{R}(x)`$ for $`x>0`$, and $`[u(x),v(x)]=[u^\mathrm{L}(x),v^\mathrm{L}(x)]`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(x)=\mathrm{\Delta }^\mathrm{L}(x)`$ for $`x<0`$. Because of the boundary condition (5), the wave function $`[u(x),v(x)]`$ is continuous at $`x=0`$ and satisfies a single BdG equation for $`\mathrm{}<x<\mathrm{}`$ with the BdG self-consistency condition:

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}iv_\mathrm{F}_x& \mathrm{\Delta }(x)\\ \mathrm{\Delta }^{}(x)& +iv_\mathrm{F}_x\end{array}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{u_n(x)}{v_n(x)}}\right)=E_n\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{u_n(x)}{v_n(x)}}\right),`$ (8)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(x)=g{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}u_n(x)v_n^{}(x).`$ (9)
Eqs. (8) and (9) coincide with the exactly solvable equations describing 1D charge-density wave in polyacetylene . The $`p_x`$-wave problem, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }(x)`$ changes sign: $`\mathrm{\Delta }(+\mathrm{})=\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{})`$, maps onto the kink soliton solution :

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(x)=i\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{tanh}(\kappa x);`$ (10)
$`E_0=0,\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{u_0(x)}{v_0(x)}}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\kappa }}{2\mathrm{cosh}(\kappa x)}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{1}}\right);`$ (11)
$`E_k=\pm \sqrt{v_\mathrm{F}^2k^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2},`$ (12)
$`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{u_k(x)}{v_k(x)}}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{e^{ikx}}{2E_k\sqrt{L_x}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{E_k+v_\mathrm{F}k+\mathrm{\Delta }(x)}{E_kv_\mathrm{F}k\mathrm{\Delta }(x)}}\right),`$ (13)
where $`L_x`$ is the length of the sample along the chains. One can check explicitly that solution (10)–(13) satisfies Eqs. (8) and (9) . It also has the property of supersymmetry . The localized electron state (11) with $`E_0=0`$ corresponds to the Andreev edge state in the $`p_x`$-wave superconductor. In the $`s`$-wave case, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }(x)`$ does not change sign: $`\mathrm{\Delta }(+\mathrm{})=\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{})`$, the solution of Eqs. (8) and (9) gives a uniform $`\mathrm{\Delta }(x)`$, which does not have bound states. The existence of the midgap state in the case where $`\mathrm{\Delta }(x)`$ changes sign is guaranteed by the index theorem and does not depend on the detailed functional form of the pair potential .

BdG states are described by the operators $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}=u\widehat{\psi }+v^{}\widehat{\psi }^{}`$. The expectation value of electric charge $`\rho `$ in the edge states is zero: $`\rho |u_0|^2|v_0|^2=0`$. For a 1D $`p_x`$-wave superconductor with only one species of spin, Eqs. (4) and (11) imply that the two edge states at the opposite ends are described by the Majorana operators of the opposite parity: $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}=\pm \widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ . There was a proposal to use such edge Majorana fermions for quantum computing . However, in a Q1D $`p_x`$-wave superconductor, the midgap states with different momenta $`𝐤_{}`$ parallel to the edge and spins $`\sigma `$ form a degenerate continuum with $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{𝐤_{},\sigma }^{}=\pm \widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{𝐤_{},\overline{\sigma }}`$ .

## IV Tunneling

Let us consider electron tunneling between the superconducting $`(\mathrm{TMTSF})_2\mathrm{X}`$ and a normal metallic tip. The tunneling junction can be modeled as two semi-infinite regions, normal (N) and superconducting (S), with a flat interface between them. Following Refs. , we solve the BdG equations in the ballistic regime assuming specular reflection and the translational invariance parallel to the interface . To make the problem analytically tractable, we use the step-function approximation for the pair potential. At the interface, we impose the boundary conditions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{N}=\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{S}`$ and $`\widehat{v}_\mathrm{N}\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{N}=\widehat{v}_\mathrm{S}\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{S}+2i\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{N}`$ , where $`\widehat{v}_{\mathrm{N},\mathrm{S}}`$ are the components of the velocity operators perpendicular to the interface in metal and superconductor, and $``$ is the strength of the interface barrier. From the solution of the BdG equations, we find the probabilities $`B(E,𝐤_{})`$ and $`A(E,𝐤_{})`$ of the normal and Andreev  reflections as functions of the electron energy $`E`$ and momentum $`𝐤_{}`$ parallel to the interface. They determine the dimensionless conductance $`G=1+AB`$ in the formula for the electric current through the contact :

$`I={\displaystyle \frac{2eS}{h}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2k_{}dE}{(2\pi )^2}[f(EeV)f(E)]G(E,𝐤_{})}.`$ (14)
Here $`S`$ is the contact area, $`V`$ the bias voltage, $`f(E)`$ the Fermi function, $`e`$ the electron charge, and $`h`$ the Planck constant. It follows from Eq. (14) that the differential conductance of the contact at zero temperature,

$`\overline{G}(V)={\displaystyle \frac{dI}{dV}}={\displaystyle \frac{2e^2S}{h}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2k_{}}{(2\pi )^2}G(eV,𝐤_{})},`$ (15)
is proportional to the average over $`𝐤_{}`$ of the dimensionless conductance $`G`$ . The latter is determined by the transmission coefficient $`T`$ at a given $`𝐤_{}`$ :

$$G_\pm =T\frac{1+T|\mathrm{\Gamma }|^2+(T1)|\mathrm{\Gamma }|^4}{|1\pm (T1)\mathrm{\Gamma }^2|^2},$$
(16)
where

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(E)=\{\begin{array}{cc}[E\mathrm{sgn}(E)\sqrt{E^2\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2}]/\mathrm{\Delta }_0,\hfill & |E|\mathrm{\Delta }_0,\hfill \\ (Ei\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2E^2})/\mathrm{\Delta }_0,\hfill & |E|\mathrm{\Delta }_0,\hfill \end{array}`$ (19)
$`T=4v_Nv_S/[(v_N+v_S)^2+4^2].`$ (20)
The $`\pm `$ sign in Eq. (16) is the relative sign of the pair potentials for the two branches of BdG quasiparticles involved in tunneling. For tunneling along the chains, the two branches correspond to the points L and R in the left panel of Fig. 1, and the sign in Eq. (16) is $`\mathrm{sgn}(\mathrm{\Delta }^\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Delta }^\mathrm{L})`$: $`+`$ for $`s`$-wave and $``$ for $`p_x`$-wave. Averaging in Eq. (15) is performed taking into account that $`v_N`$ and $`v_S`$ in Eq. (20) and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ in Eq. (19) may depend on $`𝐤_{}`$.

As follows from Eq. (16), $`G_+`$ and $`G_{}`$ coincide for a fully transparent interface ($`T=1`$): $`G_+=G_{}=1+|\mathrm{\Gamma }|^2`$ . However, typically $`T<1`$, both because of the barrier potential $``$ and the mismatch of the normal Fermi velocities $`v_Nv_S`$ in metal and superconductor in Eq. (20) . At low interface transparency $`T1`$, $`G_{}`$ and $`G_+`$ behave as shown in the left and right panels of Fig. 2 for $`T=0.5`$ and $`T=0.25`$. Inside the energy gap, where $`|\mathrm{\Gamma }|=1`$, $`G_{}(E)`$ has a Lorentzian shape with the maximum of 2 at $`E=0`$, the width proportional to $`T`$, and the minimum proportional to $`T^2`$ at $`|E|=\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$:

$$G_{}(E)=\frac{T^2/2(1T)}{(E/\mathrm{\Delta }_0)^2+T^2/4(1T)},|E|\mathrm{\Delta }_0.$$
(21)
$`G_+(E)`$ shows the opposite behavior: a minimum proportional to $`T^2`$ at $`E=0`$ and the maxima of 2 at $`|E|=\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$:

$`G_+(E)={\displaystyle \frac{T^2/2(1T)}{1(E/\mathrm{\Delta }_0)^2+T^2/4(1T)}},|E|\mathrm{\Delta }_0.`$

Both $`G_+`$ and $`G_{}`$ approach the normal-state conductance $`T`$ at $`|E|\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$.

The zero-bias conductance peak (ZBCP), shown in the left panel of Fig. 2, is a manifestation of the midgap Andreev bound states. They exist at those edges where momentum reflection from the edge connects the points on the Fermi surface with opposite signs of the superconducting pair potential. As shown in the left and right panels of Fig. 1, reflection from the edge perpendicular to the chains connects L to R, and reflection from the edge parallel to the chains connects R’ to R and L’ to L. By comparing the signs of the pair potential at these points for the superconducting symmetries  listed in Table I and sketched in Fig. 3, we determine whether ZBCP must be present in tunneling into those edges. Comparison of Table I with the experiment should uncover the superconducting symmetry of $`(\mathrm{TMTSF})_2\mathrm{X}`$.

## V Spin response

Now let us discuss the spin response of the edge states in a triplet superconductor subject to an external magnetic field $`𝐇`$. (Here we do not consider orbital effects of the magnetic field, such as the Meissner effect.) In this case, the matrix in Eq. (2) should be replaced by the following matrix:

$$(\begin{array}{cc}i\alpha v_\mathrm{F}_x\mu _B(𝐇𝝈)& (\widehat{𝝈}𝐝)\mathrm{\Delta }^\alpha (x)\\ (\widehat{𝝈}𝐝)\mathrm{\Delta }^\alpha (x)& i\alpha v_\mathrm{F}_x\mu _B(𝐇𝝈)\end{array}),$$
(22)
where $`\mu _B`$ is the Bohr magneton, and the electron $`g`$-factor is 2.

If $`𝐇𝐝`$, then, by selecting the spin quantization axis along d, the 4$`\times `$4 matrix equation (22) is decoupled into two 2$`\times `$2 matrix equations similar to Eq. (3) for the wave functions $`(u_\sigma ,ϵ_{\sigma \overline{\sigma }}v^{\overline{\sigma }})`$ with the matrix

$$(\begin{array}{cc}i\alpha v_\mathrm{F}_x\sigma \mu _BH& \sigma \mathrm{\Delta }^\alpha (x)\\ \sigma \mathrm{\Delta }^\alpha (x)& i\alpha v_\mathrm{F}_x\sigma \mu _BH\end{array}).$$
(23)
For a given spin projection $`\sigma `$, the magnetic field $`H`$ enters Eq. (23) as a unity matrix and simply shifts the spectrum (11) and (12) by $`\sigma \mu _BH`$. Thus, the energies of the up and down spin states become split by $`\mu _BH`$, including the midgap state: $`E_0=\mu _BH`$. Because this state is half-filled, the edge states with the spin parallel (antiparallel) to the magnetic field become completely occupied (empty). This generates spin $`\mathrm{}/2`$ and magnetic moment $`\mu _B`$ at the end of each chain. Such a giant magnetic moment was predicted by Hu  for the edge states in a singlet $`d`$-wave superconductor. In a triplet superconductor, the effect is similar, but anisotropic.

Indeed, suppose now that $`𝐇𝐝`$. In this case, it is convenient to select the spin-quantization axis $`\widehat{z}`$ along $`𝐇`$ and the $`\widehat{x}`$ axis along $`𝐝`$. Then Eq. (22) separates into two 2$`\times `$2 matrix equations similar to Eq. (3) for the wave functions $`(u_\sigma ,ϵ_{\overline{\sigma }\sigma }v^\sigma )`$ with the matrix

$$(\begin{array}{cc}i\alpha v_\mathrm{F}_x\sigma \mu _BH& \mathrm{\Delta }^\alpha (x)\\ \mathrm{\Delta }^\alpha (x)& i\alpha v_\mathrm{F}_x+\sigma \mu _BH\end{array}).$$
(24)
The magnetic field $`H`$ can be eliminated from Eq. (24) by adjusting the Fermi momenta for the up and down spin states: $`k_{F,\sigma }=k_F+\sigma \mu _BH/v_F`$. Thus, the energy spectrum of the system remains the same as in Eqs. (11) and (12). Particularly, the energy of the midgap state does not split: $`E_0=0`$, thus no unbalanced spin and magnetic moment are generated on the edge.

We see that the edge spin response of a triplet superconductor is opposite to its bulk spin response. It is well known  that the bulk spin susceptibility for $`𝐇𝐝`$ is the same as in the normal state, whereas for $`𝐇𝐝`$ it vanishes at zero temperature. For the edge states, the spin response vanishes for $`𝐇𝐝`$ and is paramagnetic for $`𝐇𝐝`$. Nominally, the edge spin susceptibility is infinite, because, formally, an infinitesimal magnetic field can completely polarize the edge spins. We can only estimate the maximal magnetic moment, which is $`\mu _B=9.3\times 10^{24}`$ A m2 per chain or $`\mu _B/bc=9\times 10^6`$ $`\mu `$A per unit area of the edge, where $`b=0.77`$ nm and $`c=1.35`$ nm .

The generation of paramagnetic moment by the edge states for $`𝐇𝐝`$ could be observed experimentally by measuring magnetic susceptibility with a coil as shown in Fig. 4, where we assume that $`𝐝`$ is directed along the chains. In the bulk, far from the edges, the susceptibility should be diamagnetic, because of the orbital Meissner effect  and vanishing spin bulk susceptibility for $`𝐇𝐝`$. However, when the coil is moved toward the sample end, the susceptibility should change sign and become paramagnetic because of the edge states. They are localized within the coherence length $`\xi =\mathrm{}v_F/\mathrm{\Delta }_0=0.6`$ $`\mu `$m, where we used $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0=0.22`$ meV, $`v_F=t_aa/\sqrt{2}\mathrm{}=190`$ km/s, $`t_a=0.25`$ eV, and $`a=0.73`$ nm . The effect should depend on the coil orientation relative to the vector $`𝐝`$. Therefore, this experiment could confirm the existence of the edge states and the pairing symmetry in the (TMTSF)2X superconductors.

## VI Conclusions

We have constructed an exact analytical self-consistent solution of the edge problem for a $`p_x`$-wave Q1D superconductor by mapping it onto the kink soliton solution for a 1D charge-density wave. The edge electron midgap states exist when the pairing potential has opposite signs at the different parts of the Fermi surface connected by momentum reflection from the edge. These states manifest themselves as zero-bias peaks in tunneling conductance. Thus, the pairing symmetry of the Q1D superconductors can be determined by tunneling into the edges perpendicular and parallel to the chains. The spins of the edge state respond paramagnetically to a magnetic field parallel to the vector $`𝐝`$ that characterizes triplet pairing, generating the magnetic moment $`\mu _B`$ per chain.

The $`(\mathrm{TMTSF})_2\mathrm{X}`$ materials are expected to have electron edge states also in the magnetic-field-induced spin-density-wave phase (FISDW), which exhibits the quantum Hall effect . Those states are chiral and have dispersion inside the energy gap. The midgap states discussed in the present paper also acquire chiral dispersion due to the orbital effect of a magnetic field, similar to cuprates . Another interesting example of the edge states in a 1D electron gas was studied theoretically in Ref.  for the Luther-Emery fermions in the bosonized representation.

K.S., H.J.K., and V.M.Y. were supported by the Packard Foundation and NSF Grant No. DMR-9815094; I.Ž. and S.D.S. by the US-ONR and DARPA.

Note added in proofs. A more subtle consideration of the results of Sec. V shows that the spin of an edge state is actually fractional and is equal to $`\mathrm{}/4`$ (per each end of each chain), not $`\mathrm{}/2`$. Correspondingly, the magnetic moment is $`\mu _B/2`$, and the numerical estimates given in Sec. V should be multiplied by an additional factor 1/2. Derivation of these results will be given in a separate paper. The authors are grateful to A. Yu. Kitaev and D. A. Ivanov for very illuminating discussions of this subject (see D. A. Ivanov, cond-mat/9911147).


format: text

text:
# Rectification of current in ac-driven nonlinear systems and symmetry properties of the Boltzmann equation

## Abstract

We study rectification of a current of particles moving in a spatially periodic potential under the influence of time-periodic forces with zero mean value. If certain time-space symmetries are broken a non-zero directed current of particles is possible. We investigate this phenomenon in the framework of the kinetic Boltzmann equation. We find that the attractor of the Boltzmann equation completely reflects the symmetries of the original one-particle equation of motion. Especially, we analyse the limits of weak and strong relaxation. The dc current increases by several orders of magnitude with decreasing dissipation.

In recent years, a lot of efforts have been devoted to the study of a directed current of particles in a spatially periodic potential under the simultaneous action of an external time-dependent field with zero mean . Most of the previously done work was connected with transport in the presence of a stochastic external field (noise) . Another set of problems concerns systems driven by a deterministic periodic force  with applications to current generation in semiconductor superlattices , a free particle moving in a non-Newtonian liquid , two-dimensional conducting electron gas in arrays of triangular shaped quantum dots , to name a few. For more information we refer the interested reader to .

The model Hamiltonian of a particle of unit mass and its dynamical equation of motion can be written as:

$$H=\frac{p^2}{2}+U(x)xE(t),\ddot{x}=U^{}(x)+E(t).$$
(1)
Here $`U`$ is a spatially periodic potential $`U(x)=U(x+2\pi )`$, $`E`$ is an ac field $`E(t)=E(t+T)`$ with zero mean value and frequency $`\omega =2\pi /T`$.

A recent approach to the problem of current rectification  was based on the analysis of symmetries of the dynamical equations of motion with and without additional dissipation. Consider trajectories generated from an ensemble of initial conditions in phase space. A dc current can be calculated by averaging over initial conditions and time. To generate a non-zero dc current it is necessary to break all relevant symmetries which are responsible for transforming a trajectory with $`x(t;x_0,p_0),p(t;x_0,p_0)`$, $`x(t_0;x_0,p_0)=x_0`$ and $`p(t_0;x_0,p_0)=p_0`$ into another one with a momentum of the opposite sign. Note, that the generated trajectory must belong to the same statistical ensemble. These symmetries can be expressed via combinations of shifts and reflections in time and space (see ):

$`\widehat{𝐒}_𝐚\left[\begin{array}{c}x(t;x_0,p_0)\\ p(t;x_0,p_0)\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{c}x(t+T/2;x_0,p_0)+2𝒳\\ p(t+T/2;x_0,p_0)\end{array}\right],`$ (6)
$`\widehat{𝐒}_𝐛\left[\begin{array}{c}x(t;x_0,p_0)\\ p(t;x_0,p_0)\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{c}x(t+2\tau ;x_0,p_0)\\ p(t+2\tau ;x_0,p_0)\end{array}\right].`$ (11)
Here the constants $`𝒳`$ and $`\tau `$ are defined by the shape of functions $`U(x)`$ and $`E(t)`$ and are in correspondence with the discrete symmetry groups of the Hamiltonian (1). If $`U^{}(x+𝒳)=U^{}(x+𝒳)`$ and $`E(t)=E(t+T/2)`$ the dynamical equations of motion are invariant under the symmetry operation $`\widehat{𝐒}_𝐚`$ (this symmetry has been also observed and discussed by Ajdari et al  for the overdamped case). On the other hand, if $`E(t+\tau )=E(t+\tau )`$, they have $`\widehat{𝐒}_𝐛`$ symmetry (dissipationless case provided). Both symmetries (6-11) may be broken by choosing appropriate functions $`U(x)`$ and $`E(t)`$.

In the overdamped case the corresponding dynamical equation

$$\gamma \dot{x}+U^{}(x)+E(t)=0,$$
(12)
may possess an additional symmetry

$`\widehat{𝐒}_𝐜\left[\begin{array}{c}x(t;x_0,p_0)\\ p(t;x_0,p_0)\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{c}x(t+\tau ;x_0,p_0)+𝒳\\ p(t+\tau ;x_0,p_0)\end{array}\right],`$ (17)
provided that $`U(x)`$ and $`E(t)`$ possess the following properties: $`U^{}(x)=U^{}(x+𝒳)`$ and $`E(t)=E(t+\tau )`$. Note that the symmetry $`\widehat{𝐒}_𝐜`$ if realized is based on time reversal in the overdamped limit, which is quite unexpected. An independent discovery of this symmetry has been done in  (coined “supersymmetry”).

The model analysis in  does not account for more realistic statistical properties of an ensemble of particles (like thermalization of the distribution). Still it provides one with a good intuitive understanding of current rectification. On the other hand, a lot of solid state applications require a more rigorous statistical description of transport properties. The aim of the present paper is to show that the symmetry approach can be applied as well to the classical kinetic Boltzmann equation. We will show in particular that the attractor of the Boltzmann equation completely reflects the symmetries of the original equation of motion for one particle. The kinetic Boltzmann equation reads (see, for example, )

$`\widehat{}f_tf+\dot{x}_xf+\dot{p}_pf=𝒥(f,F),`$ (18)
$`\dot{x}=p,\dot{p}=U^{}(x)+E(t).`$ (19)
Here $`ff(t,x,p)`$ is an unknown distribution function, $`FF(x,p)`$ is some equilibrium distribution function chosen as:

$$F(x,p)F_x(x)F_p(p)=\frac{e^{p^2/2}}{\sqrt{2\pi }}\frac{e^{U(x)}}{L},L=_0^{2\pi }e^{U(x)}𝑑x,$$
(20)
and $`𝒥(f,F)`$ is a collision integral. Here we apply the momentum independent single relaxation time approximation (also known as “$`\tau `$-approximation”) . Thus, the collision integral should be written as

$$𝒥(f,F)=\nu (fF)$$
(21)
where $`\nu `$ is the dissipation constant or the characteristic relaxation frequency ($`1/\nu `$ is the relaxation time to the equilibrium state). This is the simplest form of a collision integral which includes relaxation to the equilibrium distribution and breaks time-reversal symmetry. We do not intend to discuss its validity for specific physical realizations. Rather we consider the resulting kinetic equation as a treatable case which allows us to demonstrate the qualitative features of dynamical symmetry breaking. Note that for any finite $`\nu `$ time reversal symmetry is broken, so that we are concerned with $`\widehat{𝐒}_𝐚`$ only. The limit of $`\nu 0`$ will lead to a restoring of time reversal symmetry (see below) and consequently to a necessary consideration of $`\widehat{𝐒}_𝐛`$ as well. Interestingly the opposite limit $`\nu \mathrm{}`$ will also induce a symmetry $`\widehat{𝐒}_𝐜`$.

We start with a perturbative description of the overdamped case when $`1/\nu `$ is the smallest time scale in the system (formally, we put $`\nu 1`$). We rewrite Eq. (18) in the following form

$$f(x,p,t)=F(x,p)\frac{1}{\nu }\widehat{}f(x,p,t).$$
(22)
Since $`1/\nu `$ is a small parameter here, we expand the unknown function $`f`$ into a series in terms of $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}/\nu `$:

$$f(x,p,t)=F(x,p)+\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^i\frac{f_i(x,p,t)}{\nu ^i}.$$
(23)
Collecting terms of the same order, we successively find the increments $`f_i`$. The average value of the dc current is calculated using

$$j_{dc}=j(t)_t,j(t)=pf(t,x,p)_{x,p},$$
(24)
where $`\mathrm{}_{x,p,t}`$ stands for averaging over the phase space coordinates $`(x,p)`$ and time correspondingly. We expect the attractor of the Boltzmann equation to possess the same symmetries as the corresponding dynamical equations of motion, which should be reflected in the vanishing or nonvanishing of $`j_{dc}`$. In other words, if the relevant symmetries are broken in the equations of motion , we will observe this fact by analysing the increments $`f_i`$. We show this using the following model

$`U(x)`$ $`=`$ $`U_0\left\{1\mathrm{cos}x+{\displaystyle \frac{v_2}{2}}[1\mathrm{cos}(2x+\theta )]\right\},`$ (25)
$`E(t)`$ $`=`$ $`E_1\mathrm{cos}\omega t+E_2\mathrm{cos}(2\omega t+\alpha ).`$ (26)
As it was already shown in the previous work , this choice of the potential and external force can break both symmetries (6)-(11). We apply the perturbation analysis for two specific cases: (i) $`v_20`$, $`E_2=0`$ and (ii) $`v_2=0`$, $`E_20`$. A related overdamped case was discussed in terms of harmonic mixing in . In both cases the appropriate time-space symmetries are broken except for specific values of $`\theta `$ and $`\alpha `$. As already explained, we need to break only $`\widehat{𝐒}_𝐚`$ since time reversal and thus $`\widehat{𝐒}_𝐛`$ are already violated for nonzero $`\nu `$. We find (a more detailed description of these calculations will be reported elsewhere) that the lowest order increment which yields a non-zero dc current in case (i) is proportional to $`1/\nu ^5`$ and to the square of the external field $`E(t)`$:

$$j_{dc}=\frac{3}{\nu ^5}E^2(t)_tU^{}(x)F_x^{\prime \prime }(x)_x=\frac{3}{2\nu ^5L}E_1^2_0^{2\pi }U^{\prime \prime \prime }(x)e^{U(x)}𝑑x.$$
(27)
The integral in the above formula cannot be computed analytically. Yet we find that it is non-zero only when $`v_20`$ and $`\theta 0,\pi `$ because otherwise the symmetry of the potential function enforces the vanishing of the above expression. For the case (ii) this term equals zero and the first non-zero contribution to the current appears in seventh order of the perturbation theory. As a result we obtain the following expression for the dc current

$$j_{dc}=\frac{15}{\nu ^7}E^3(t)_tU^{}(x)F_x^{\prime \prime \prime }(x)_x=\frac{45}{4\nu ^7}\frac{I_1(U_0)}{I_0(U_0)}E_2E_1^2\mathrm{cos}\alpha .$$
(28)
Here $`I_n(z)`$ is the modified Bessel function of $`n`$th order . Note that the averaged current is proportional to $`\mathrm{cos}\alpha `$ in this case. The symmetry which causes the vanishing of the dc current for $`\alpha =\pm \pi /2`$ is $`\widehat{𝐒}_𝐜`$ \[see Eq. (17)\]. The above considered case (ii) with $`\alpha =\pm \pi /2`$ satisfies exactly this symmetry. To conclude the consideration of $`\nu 1`$ we find perfect agreement between the symmetry properties of the dynamical equations of motion and the symmetry properties of the used kinetic equation, resulting in a vanishing or appearance of a dc current.

Let us now investigate the case of intermediate $`\nu 1`$ and weak $`\nu 1`$ dissipation. When the characteristic relaxation frequency $`\nu `$ approaches zero the solution of the kinetic equation is expected to adequately describe the properties of the (microcanonical) ensemble of trajectories in the phase space of the underlying dynamical system. Especially we expect that if allowed by the choice of functions $`U(x)`$ and $`E(t)`$, the symmetry $`\widehat{𝐒}_𝐛`$ described in detail in  should be restored on the attractor of the kinetic equation in the limit of $`\nu 0`$.

The limit of small dissipation appears to be difficult to be treated analytically. We have used numerical simulations to calculate the dc current in this case. Two independent numerical methods have been used.

The first one (method I) is based on the expansion of the unknown distribution function $`f(t,x,p)`$ into Hermitian polynomials in $`p`$ and Fourier series in $`x`$-space. First we expand $`f`$ into a series w.r.t. $`p`$:

$$f(t,x,p)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}C_n(t,x)|n,|n=\frac{H_n(p)}{\pi ^{1/4}\sqrt{2^nn!}}\mathrm{e}^{p^2/2}$$
(29)
where $`H_n(p)`$ are Hermite polynomials of $`n`$-th order. Since $`U(x)`$ and $`F(x,p)`$ are periodic functions in $`x`$ we may use

$$F(x,p)=\frac{|0}{2^{1/2}\pi ^{1/4}}\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}F_m\mathrm{e}^{imx},U(x)=\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}U_m\mathrm{e}^{imx},C_n(t,x)=\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}A_{n,m}(t)\mathrm{e}^{imx}.$$
(30)
Using $`n|n^{}=\delta _{n,n^{}}`$ we arrive at the following infinite set of coupled ordinary differential equations for $`n=0`$

$$\dot{A}_{0,m}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}E(t)A_{1,m}\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}\underset{l}{}lU_lA_{n,ml}+\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}mA_{1,m}=\nu (A_{0,m}F_m)$$
(31)
and $`n>0`$

$`\dot{A}_{n,m}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}E(t)(\sqrt{n+1}A_{n+1,m}\sqrt{n}A_{n1,m})+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}}m(\sqrt{n+1}A_{n+1,m}+\sqrt{n}A_{n1,m})`$ (32)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}}\sqrt{n+1}{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}lU_lA_{n+1,ml}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}}\sqrt{n}{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}lU_lA_{n1,ml}=\nu A_{n,m}.`$ (33)
The resulting ODEs for the time-dependent coefficients $`A_{n,m}(t)`$ are integrated numerically. After a sufficiently large integration time $`1/\nu `$ the system will relax into a time-periodic attractor. On this attractor the induced current is given by

$$p_{p,x}=3\sqrt{2}\pi ^{1/4}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}A_{2n+1,0}\frac{\sqrt{(2n)!}}{2^nn!}\sqrt{2n+1}$$
(34)
which can be further averaged over time. Actual computation requires cutoffs in $`n`$ and $`m`$. Results presented below are checked to be independent on the chosen cutoff values. For the following results the cutoff values were $`n_{max}=60`$ and $`m_{max}=30`$.

The second approach (method II) is based on the method of characteristics. Taken an equilibrium distribution at zero time, the solution of the linear kinetic equation with the constant relaxation time can be expressed through the equilibrium distribution function and a statistically weighted contribution of the trajectories in the phase space :

$`f(x,p,t)`$ $`=`$ $`F[\eta _x^{(0)}(t,t_0,x,p),\eta _p^{(0)}(t,t_0,x,p)]e^{\nu (tt_0)}+`$ (35)
$`+`$ $`\nu {\displaystyle _{t_0}^t}e^{\nu (tt^{})}F[\eta _x(t^{},x,p),\eta _p(t^{},x,p)]dt^{}.`$ (36)
We remind that the functions $`\eta _{x,p}^{(0)}`$ stand for the inverted equation of a trajectory, i.e., they denote the dependence of the point on a trajectory $`\{x,p,t\}`$ on its initial conditions; characteristics $`\eta _{x,p}`$ correspond to the trajectory which passes through the point $`\{x,p,t^{}\}`$ in the phase space. For brevity we put also $`t_0=0`$. Since the underlying dynamical system is non-integrable we have to find the characteristics numerically. We choose a large random ensemble of initial conditions with $`|p_0|<|p_{max}|`$ and use them directly to generate an approximation of $`f(x,p,t)`$ in accordance with Eq.(36). The accuracy of the approximation is controlled by the number of trajectories (initial conditions) used. We used up to $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^5`$ trajectories to gain good averaging statistics. The net error of calculations was estimated as $`1020\%`$ for large relaxation parameter $`\nu `$ or large dc current $`j_{dc}`$ after averaging of the current $`j(t)`$ over several periods $`T`$ of the field $`E(t)`$. The maximal error has been detected in those cases when the average dc current tends to zero, for example, when we put $`\nu =0.001`$ and $`E_2=0`$ (see inset of Fig. 2). In this case the fluctuations of the mean value of the current averaged over several periods $`T`$ were of the order of residual value of the dc current ($`\mathrm{\Delta }j_{dc}|j_{dc}|=0.002`$ at $`\nu =0.001`$ and $`E_2=0`$). In order to achieve the accuracy of the order of $`\mathrm{\Delta }j_{dc}/j_{dc}1/3÷1/2`$ we had to perform averaging over hundreds of periods $`T`$. Note that method II has some analogy to the direct sampling in classical Monte-Carlo simulations.

Method I is an optimal tool for not too small relaxation $`\nu 0.01`$ while method II shows up with larger errors in calculations but covers, nevertheless, the limit of $`\nu 10^3`$. Both methods give nearly identical results for $`\nu 10^2÷10^1`$.

Fig. 1 displays the dependence of the full time-dependent current on time on the attractor of the kinetic equation computed with the help of method II for $`\nu =0.01`$. We observe the expected periodic variation in time, with a nonzero time averaged dc current indicated by the thick horizontal line. Note that in this case the dc current is of the order of the time-dependent current amplitude (only three times less). This implies that the underdamped case may serve as an ideal testing ground in various applications, since the rectification effect is of the order of 30 percent.

In Fig. 2 we show the dependence of the averaged dc current on the dissipation parameter $`\nu `$. Results from both above described methods are presented. They show data which are similar qualitatively and quantitatively (see the caption for details).

Consider the case of $`E_20`$, $`\alpha 0`$, $`v_2=0`$. Directed current appears due to a violation of the $`\widehat{𝐒}_𝐚`$ symmetry. When the dissipation $`\nu `$ reaches zero, this symmetry is still broken, however, the dynamical equations of motion may restore a second symmetry, $`\widehat{𝐒}_𝐛`$. But for the above set of parameters, $`\widehat{𝐒}_𝐛`$ is also violated, and a non-zero dc current should persist down to zero dissipation. This is observed in Fig. 2. Suppose now we choose $`\alpha =0`$, then $`\widehat{𝐒}_𝐚`$ is still violated, and $`j_{dc}0`$ for non-zero dissipation (see inset of Fig. 2). However, in the limit of zero dissipation $`\widehat{𝐒}_𝐛`$ is restored: $`E(t)=E(t)`$ and our numerical simulations show that current tends to zero as predicted by symmetry considerations. The same happens in the case of a “ratchet potential”, $`v_20`$ and without harmonic mixing ($`E_2=0`$). For $`\nu 0`$ both $`\widehat{𝐒}_𝐚`$ and $`\widehat{𝐒}_𝐛`$ are violated, resulting in a nonzero dc current. Again the limit of zero dissipation leads to a restoring of $`\widehat{𝐒}_𝐛`$. This leads to a disappearance of the average dc current at $`\nu =0`$ (see inset of Fig. 2). Thus the numerical simulations confirm our expectation that the attractor properties of the kinetic equation reflect the symmetries $`\widehat{𝐒}_𝐚,\widehat{𝐒}_𝐛`$ of the underlying dynamical equations for all $`\nu `$ including $`\nu 0`$.

In Fig. 3 we show the dependence of the averaged dc current on the “phase difference” $`\alpha `$ for three different values of the dissipation parameter $`\nu =4,1,0.3`$, computed with the help of method I. Note that the currents for $`\nu =4`$ and $`\nu =1`$ are scaled with factors 181.6 and 4.86 respectively. consequently we observe an enhancement of the maximum dc current value by more than two orders of magnitude when going from the overdamped case ($`\nu =4`$) to the underdamped one ($`\nu =0.3`$). Besides this observation Fig. 3 displays again the consequences of symmetry breaking or restoral. With increasing $`\nu `$ the dc current becomes zero for $`\alpha =\pm \pi /2`$ which is a consequence of restoring of $`\widehat{𝐒}_𝐜`$ symmetry. With decreasing $`\nu `$ we observe a vanishing of the current at $`\alpha =0,\pi `$ which is a consequence of restoring of the $`\widehat{𝐒}_𝐛`$ symmetry.

Conclusions. In this paper, we extend the symmetry approach for explanation of a dc current in driven nonlinear systems to the framework of the classical kinetic Boltzmann equation. We have analysed separately the cases of large and small dissipation and have demonstrated that the rectification of current due to nonlinear mixing of harmonics takes place in agreement with previous symmetry consideration . In particular, it follows that in the limit of small $`\nu `$ the attractor of the Boltzmann equation (18-19) reflects the dynamical symmetries of the Newtonian equations of motion. Finally we observe that a proper choice of the system parameters in the underdamped case ensures the value of dc current to be of the order of the ac current amplitude. The underdamped case leads to an enhancement of the dc current by several orders of magnitude as compared to the overdamped one.

The authors wish to thank T. Dittrich, M. Fistul, I. Goychuk and H. Schanz for helpful and stimulating discussions. We also would like to thank P. Reimann for sending us preprints prior to publication.


text:
# No Spontaneous CP Violation at Finite Temperature in the MSSM?11footnote 1To appear in the Proceedings of SEWM2000, Marseille, June 14-17, 2000

## 1 Introduction

For producing the baryon asymmetry of the Universe, we need extensions to the Standard Model. One of the Zakharov conditions requires nonequilibrium. In the MSSM this can be fulfilled by a strong enough first order phase transition with a light scalar top. Also a small bubble wall velocity seems to support baryogenesis. But Zakharov’s conditions also require CP violation and in the MSSM there are several mechanisms known to generate it. Explicit CP violating operators might conflict to experimental EDM bounds. It were interesting to have a mechanism generating enough CP violation for baryogenesis without any conflict to experiments. While spontaneous CP violation is excluded at $`T=0`$ for the experimentally allowed parameter values, there is a suggestion that it might be more easily realized at finite temperatures.

Previously, the moduli of the two Higgs doublets around the phase boundary have been determined from the 2-loop effective potential. The CP violating phase between the two Higgs doublets has been addressed perturbatively and nonperturbatively.

We present the first complete solution of the equations of motion for the phase between the two Higgs doublets within the MSSM, utilizing a perturbative effective potential, but without restricting it to the effective quartic couplings. Our conclusions differ from those obtained earlier on.

## 2 Searching for CP violating phases

We parameterize the two Higgs doublets of the MSSM as

$$H_1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}h_1e^{i\theta _1}\hfill \\ 0\hfill \end{array}\right),H_2=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\hfill \\ h_2e^{i\theta _2}\hfill \end{array}\right).$$
(1)
In addition, because of gauge invariance, the effective Higgs potential depends on the phases only via $`\theta =\theta _1+\theta _2`$, and we have an additional constraint $`h_1^2_\mu \theta _1=h_2^2_\mu \theta _2`$. We can then concentrate on $`\theta `$. Assuming tree-level kinetic terms and moving to a frame where the bubble wall is static and planar, the action to be minimized is

$$S𝑑z\left[\frac{1}{2}(_zh_1)^2+\frac{1}{2}(_zh_2)^2+\frac{1}{2}\frac{h_1^2h_2^2}{h_1^2+h_2^2}(_z\theta )^2+V_T(h_1,h_2,\theta )\right],$$
(2)
where $`V_T(h_1,h_2,\theta )`$ is the finite temperature effective potential for $`h_1,h_2,\theta `$. In general, we are solving the equations of motion for $`h_1,h_2,\theta `$ following from this action. In the numerical solution we use the method outlined in  which deals with the minimization of a functional of the squared equations of motion.

At the first stage, we consider the case with no explicit CP phases, and ask whether a particular solution without CP violation ($`\theta =0,\pi `$), is in fact a local minimum of the action or not. Clearly, it is not if

$$m_3^2(h_1,h_2)\frac{1}{|h_1h_2|}\frac{^2V_T(h_1,h_2,\theta )}{\theta ^2}|_{\theta =0}<0,$$
(3)
where we have divided by $`|h_1h_2|`$, assuming that this is non-zero. Eq. (3) is to be evaluated along the path found by solving the equations of motion for $`h_1,h_2`$. We have chosen the convention that $`h_1`$ can have either sign, allowing us to consider only $`\theta =0`$. For the case of the most general quartic two Higgs doublet potential, Eq. (3) agrees with the constraint on which most of the investigations of spontaneous CP violation are based. However, Eq. (3) is true more generally, independent of the form of the potential $`V_T(h_1,h_2,\theta )`$.

The tree-level potential of the theory is

$$V_{\text{tree}}=\frac{1}{2}m_1^2h_1^2+\frac{1}{2}m_2^2h_2^2+m_{12}^2h_1h_2\mathrm{cos}\theta +\frac{1}{32}(g^2+g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})(h_1^2h_2^2)^2,$$
(4)
where $`g,g^{}`$ are the SU(2) and U(1) gauge couplings, and at tree-level

$$m_{12}^2=\frac{1}{2}m_A^2\mathrm{sin}2\beta .$$
(5)
It follows that $`m_3^2(h_1,h_2)=(1/2)m_A^2\mathrm{sin}2\beta >0`$, so that the minimum of the potential in the $`\theta `$ direction is at $`\theta =0`$. Thus, in order to get spontaneous CP violation one needs radiative corrections which can overcome the tree-level term.

Older considerations are based on the approximation to the effective potential where only the quadratic and quartic operators are considered. At finite temperatures around the electroweak phase transition, important contributions come from infrared sensitive non-analytic contributions which are not of this form, and can affect spontaneous CP violation. Thus, it is important to solve the equations of motion more generally for the full effective potential.

Here we consider the full finite temperature 1-loop effective potential of the MSSM. It is known that 2-loop corrections are very important in the MSSM, allowing for larger values of $`h_1,h_2`$ in the broken phase. Nevertheless, for the present problem we find that even 1-loop effects are in most cases very small, so we do not expect qualitative changes from the 2-loop effects.

## 3 A scan for spontaneous transitional CP violation.

The tree-level part of the effective potential $`V_T(h_1,h_2,\theta )`$ is in Eq. (4). In the resummed 1-loop contribution to $`V_T(h_1,h_2,\theta )`$, we include gauge bosons, stops, charginos and neutralinos. This introduces dependences on the trilinear squark mixing parameters $`A_t`$ and $`\mu `$ as well as on the squark mass parameters $`m_Q^2`$, $`m_U^2`$, and the U(1), SU(2) gaugino parameters $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$.

We now wish to see whether the constraint in Eq. (3) can be satisfied at the bubble wall between the symmetric and broken phases. To do so, we have to search for each parameter set for the critical temperature $`T_c`$, solve the equations of motion for $`(h_1,h_2)`$ between the minima, and evaluate $`m_3^2(h_1,h_2)`$ along this path. Since this is quite time-consuming, we proceed in two steps.

1. At the first stage, we do not solve for $`h_1,h_2,T_c`$, but rather take them as free parameters in the ranges $`h_1/T=\mathrm{2..2}`$ and $`h_2/T=\mathrm{0..2}`$, $`T=80\mathrm{}120`$ GeV. The zero temperature parameters are varied in the wide ranges

$`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2\mathrm{}20,m_A=0\mathrm{}400\text{ GeV},`$
$`m_U=50\mathrm{}800\text{ GeV},m_Q=50\mathrm{}800\text{ GeV},`$ (6)
$`\mu ,A_t,M_1,M_2=800\mathrm{}800\text{ GeV}.`$
Here a negative $`m_U`$ means in fact a negative right-handed stop mass parameter, $`|m_U^2|`$. We have also studied separately the (dangerous) region where the transition is very strong, corresponding to $`m_U70\mathrm{}50\text{ GeV}`$.

Note that since we do not solve for the equations of motion at this stage but allow for $`h_1=\pm |h_1|`$, we have to divide in Eq. (3) by $`h_1h_2`$ instead of $`|h_1h_2|`$: this leads in general to positive values due to the tree-level form of the potential, Eqs. (4),(5). A signal of a potentially promising region is then a small absolute value of the result, since this means that we are close to a point where $`_\theta ^2V_T(h_1,h_2,\theta )`$ crosses zero.

2. At the second stage, we study the most favourable parameter region thus found in more detail. First of all, we search for the critical temperature. Then, we solve the equations of motion for $`(h_1,h_2)`$. By comparing with the exact numerical solution in several cases, we find that a sufficient accuracy can be obtained in practice by searching for the “ridge” as an approximation to the wall profile. It is determined as the line of maxima of the potential in the direction perpendicular to the straight line between the minima. Finally, we look for the minimum of $`V_T(h_1,h_2,\theta )`$ at fixed $`(h_1,h_2)`$: this is a fast and reliable approximation for the full solution in the case that $`\theta `$ is small (i.e., just starts to deviate from zero), and corresponds to Eq. (3).

For the first stage, we perform a Monte Carlo scan with about $`210^9`$ configurations. Small values of $`m_3^2(h_1,h_2)`$ are scarce, and even then do not necessarily correspond to the desired phenomenon of spontaneous CP violation: they could also be points far from the actual wall. This can be clarified at stage 2.

The parameter region found depends most strongly on $`m_A`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, with a preference on small values of $`m_A`$ and large of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, such that $`m_{12}^2`$ in Eq. (5) is small. (This is in contrast to the requirements of a strong phase transition). There is also a relatively strong dependence on $`A_t`$ and $`\mu `$: the region favoured is shown in Fig. 1. The dependences on the other parameters are less significant; for $`m_U`$ and $`m_Q`$ small values are preferred. The region found is in rough agreement with those found in .

At the second stage, we make further restrictions. For instance, we exclude the cases leading to non-physical negative mass parameters. We also exclude cases leading to $`T=0`$ spontaneous CP violation in the broken phase: this phenomenon requires very small values of $`m_A`$. We also discard phase transitions which are exceedingly weak, $`v/T0.1`$.

In the special point $`m_U^20`$ was considered. Since in the thermal mass corrections were neglected this corresponds in the physical MSSM to a case where $`m_U^2+\mathrm{\#}T^20`$. Expanding the 1-loop cubic term from the stops to a finite order in $`v_1/v_2`$, it was suggested that transitional spontaneous CP violation can take place. This region is quite dangerous due to the vicinity of a charge and colour breaking minimum. Without expanding the 1-loop contribution in $`v_1/v_2`$, we cannot reproduce the behaviour proposed there. In any case, even before taking into account the experimental lower limits on the Higgs masses, we cannot find any promising case in the sample of $`2\times 10^6`$ configurations of stage 2.

We conclude that after taking into account the infrared sensitive effects inherent in the 1-loop effective potential, coming from a light stop and gauge bosons, and solving for the wall profile from the equations of motion, spontaneous CP violation does not take place in the physical MSSM bubble wall.

Acknowledgements I would like to thank S. Huber, M. Laine, M. Schmidt for collaboration in .


text:
# Central Elemental Abundance Ratios in the Perseus Cluster: Resonant Scattering or SN Ia Enrichment?

## 1  Introduction

The existence of heavy elements in the intracluster medium (ICM) has been known since the discovery of the $`6.7`$ keV Fe K$`\alpha `$ line in the Perseus cluster (Mitchell et al. 1976) and indicates that part of the ICM is not primordial, i.e. was processed in stars and injected into the ICM. If the emitting plasma is assumed to be optically thin then the iron line flux can be converted into an elemental abundance. When this is done the inferred ICM iron abundances are typically in the range 0.3–0.4 Solar (Mushotzky & Loewenstein 1997). The measurements of abundances of iron and other elements are key data used in constraining models of the formation and evolution of the ICM. Therefore, it is important to check that line fluxes can be unambiguously converted to elemental abundances.

A key assumption is that the plasma is optically thin. However, Gilfanov, Sunyaev & Churazov (1987) pointed out that this may not always be true for the Fe K$`\alpha `$ line. Resonant scattering (the absorption and immediate re-emission of an Fe K$`\alpha `$ line photon by an Fe ion) could be significant in the cores of clusters. If so, the line emission from the cluster core would be reduced because of photons being scattered out of the line of sight and the measured Fe abundance would be an underestimate of the true intracluster gas abundance. The simplest test for resonant scattering in the Fe K$`\alpha `$ line is to compare the line flux with that from the Fe K$`\beta `$ line. The optical depth in the Fe K$`\beta `$ line is $`20\%`$ of the Fe K$`\alpha `$ so that if the Fe K$`\beta `$/Fe K$`\alpha `$ ratio is anomalously high then resonant scattering must be taken into account.

Such anomalous ratios have been observed with low significance in data from the HEAO 1 (Mitchell & Mushotzky 1980) and Tenma  (Okumura et al. 1988) satellites. Recently, these results have been placed on a much firmer basis using observations of several clusters using ASCA (Akimoto et al. 1997; Yamashita et al. 1999) and of the Perseus cluster using BeppoSAX (Molendi et al. 1998). The best data are from Molendi et al. who show that the Fe K$`\beta `$/Fe K$`\alpha `$ ratio is anomalously high for the inner 6  of the Perseus cluster. Outside that radius the ratio decreases to the expected value for an optically thin plasma. They deduce from this that the Fe abundance is underestimated by about a factor of 2 in the center of the Perseus cluster.

However, at the resolution of current X-ray spectrometers the Fe K$`\beta `$ line is confused with the Ni K$`\alpha `$ line so that a measurement of the Fe K$`\beta `$/Fe K$`\alpha `$ ratio requires an assumed flux in the Ni K$`\alpha `$ line. The results reported above assumed that the ratio of Ni and Fe abundances is similar to the Solar value (0.038 by number - photospheric value; Anders & Grevesse 1989). To make the Fe K$`\beta `$/Fe K$`\alpha `$ ratio consistent with the optically thin case requires a Ni/Fe abundance ratio several times that of Solar. To see whether this is reasonable it is necessary to consider how heavy elements arrived in the ICM.

$`Einstein`$ FPCS spectroscopy (Canizares et al. 1982) and more recent ASCA spectroscopy (Mushotzky & Loewenstein 1997; Mushotzky et al. 1996) suggest that global intracluster metal abundances are consistent with ejecta from Type II supernovae (SN II). This implies that the bulk of the heavy elements were injected into the ICM by protogalactic winds. This is further supported by analysis of ICM energetics (White 1991). Since SN II do not produce much Ni we do not expect Ni/Fe abundance ratios large enough to restore the Fe K$`\beta `$/Fe K$`\alpha `$ ratio to the optically thin value. However, there are recent indications that SN Ia ejecta can contribute with a significant fraction (up to 50%) of the ICM metals (Ishimaru & Arimoto 1997; Fukazawa et al. 1998; Nagataki & Sato 1998, Finoguenov & Ponman 1999, Allen et al. 2000).

Clues to metal enrichment mechanisms in clusters can be derived from the analysis of clusters with central abundance enhancements (abundance gradients). Analysis of spatially resolved X-ray spectra has shown that in several clusters the metal abundance is centrally enhanced (Koyama, Takano & Tawara 1991; White et al. 1994; Fukazawa et al. 1994; Ulmer et al. 1987; Ponman et al. 1990; Kowalski et al. 1993; Arnaud, et al. 1994; Ikebe et al. 1997; Ezawa et al. 1997; Xu et al. 1997; Pislar et al. 1997; Dupke 1998; Dupke & White 2000a,b; Irwin & Bregman 1999; Finoguenov, David & Ponman 1999; White 1999; Allen et al. 1999). There are several mechanisms which may cause central abundance enhancements in the ICM including: 1) the radial profile of intracluster gas density is shallower than that of metal-injecting galaxies, i.e., if metals trace the galaxies that injected them into the ICM and these galaxies are more concentrated in the center than the intracluster gas one would expect to find a general abundance enhancement towards the clusters’ central regions; 2) mass loss from the stars in central dominant galaxies may accumulate near the cluster center; 3) ram-pressure stripping of the metal-rich gas in cluster galaxies by intracluster gas is more effective at the center, where the intracluster gas density is highest; 4) secular SN Ia winds in central dominant galaxies which are partially suppressed due to the galaxy location at the bottom of the cluster gravitational potential, where the intracluster gas density is highest (Dupke & White 2000b). Some of the above mentioned mechanisms could deposit substantial amounts of SN Ia enriched material near the clusters’ center, therefore creating a “chemical gradient”. Since SNe Ia and II have different elemental mass yields, analysis of the elemental abundance ratios provides information on the fractional contribution of gas enriched by SN Ia and II. The analysis of abundance ratios in the central regions of clusters having abundance gradients indeed indicates a dominance of SN Ia ejecta (Dupke & White 2000a,b see below).

As mentioned above, SN Ia metal injection mechanisms such as ram-pressure stripping or post-protogalactic suppressed SN Ia winds may contribute significantly to ICM enrichment. SN Ia can generate large amounts of Ni. “Convective Deflagration” models such as W7 (Nomoto, Thieleman, & Yokoi 1984; Thieleman, Nomoto & Yokoi 1986) predict a Ni/Fe number abundance ratio $`5`$ times Solar. Alternative slow flame-speed (delayed detonation) models produce a lower Ni/Fe abundance ratio closer to that from SN II ($``$ 1.6). Recently, Dupke & White (2000a) and Dupke (1998) have found evidence that in the central regions of A496, A2199, and A3571 the ICM is enriched predominantly by SN Ia ejecta. In these objects the ratio of Fe abundance to that of $`\alpha `$-process elements increases with decreasing radius from the cluster center. These results suggest that, in clusters for which the abundance profile is centrally enhanced, SN Ia ejecta provide most of the total iron mass in the central regions (see also Allen et al. 1999). In the outer regions the SN Ia contribution is smaller than in the cluster’s center but not negligible (e.g. Nagataki & Sato 1998). In A496 the excess iron that generates the central abundance gradient is fully accounted for by the excess SN Ia ejecta that produce a chemical gradient (Dupke & White 2000b). In all three clusters mentioned above the Ni/Fe abundance ratio is consistent with that predicted by the SN Ia “Convective Deflagration” W7 model, i.e., the Ni/Fe ratio is several times Solar (assuming that the Fe K$`\beta `$/Fe K$`\alpha `$ ratio takes its optically thin value). The analysis of A1060 (the only cluster with flat abundance distribution in Dupke’s sample (1998)) shows no significant abundance ratio trend in its radial distribution (including the Ni/Fe ratio). However, since the number of clusters with detailed measured abundance ratio distributions is relatively small, it is not clear whether this “chemical gradient” is always true for clusters with central abundance gradients.

This work extends the analysis of Dupke & White (2000a) to the Perseus cluster. This cluster is closer and brighter than A496, A2199, and A3571 so we can determine elemental abundance ratios with higher precision. The Fe abundance is known to be centrally enhanced in Perseus (Ulmer et al. 1987; Ponman et al. 1990; Kowalski et al. 1993; Arnaud et al. 1994; Molendi et al. 1998). If gradients in abundance and abundance ratios are related there should be a significant contribution from SN Ia ejecta in the regions where the abundance is enhanced. We argue below that the central regions of the Perseus cluster do show evidence for SN Ia ejecta dominance, that the Ni/Fe abundance ratio is that predicted by the W7 models, and hence there is no evidence for resonant scattering in the Fe K$`\alpha `$ line and the measured Fe abundance is reliable. This result also argues against delayed detonation models for SN Ia and illustrates the power of X-ray observations of clusters of galaxies to learn about supernova physics. We note that there are no measurements of Ni abundances from observations of Galactic supernova remnants because these objects are too cool to provide significant counts in the Ni K lines.

## 2  Perseus

The Perseus cluster is one of the closest, X-ray bright, rich cluster of galaxies. Its X-ray emission, has been the object of many studies since its discovery as an X-ray source by Fritz et al. (1971). It is a nearby cluster (at a redshift of 0.0183) and Bautz-Morgan type II-III. The cluster is elongated and the ratio of its minor to major axis is 0.83 at radii greater than 20’ (Snyder et al. 1990). The radiative cooling time of the X-ray emitting gas in the central regions of Perseus is less than a Hubble time so the cluster has a cooling flow with a mass deposition rate of about (1–5)$`\times 10^2`$ M yr-1 (Fabian et al. 1981, Allen et al. 1992; Peres et al. 1998). The centroid of the cluster emission is offset by $``$ 2 to the east of NGC 1275 (Snyder et al. 1990, Branduardi-Raymond et al. 1981), which has a Seyfert nucleus and shows signs of non-thermal emission with a power-law spectrum (Rothschild et al. 1981, Primini et al. 1981, Branduardi-Raymond et al. 1981, Ulmer et al. 1987, Kowalski et al. 1993, Allen et al. 1999). The average temperature of the X-ray emitting gas is approximately 6.5 keV (Eyles et al. 1991) and the average abundance is 0.27 Solar in the central 1 degree (Arnaud et al. 1994). There are significant signs of both temperature and abundance substructure (Schwarz et al. 1992, Arnaud et al. 1994) in the gas distribution.

The existence of an iron abundance gradient in Perseus was first suggested by Ulmer et al. (1987) using data from SPARTAN 1. They found that the inner (0-5) region has an abundance of $``$ 0.81 Solar and temperature $``$ 4.2 keV while an outer region (6-20) has an abundance of $``$ 0.41 Solar and a temperature of $``$ 7.1 keV. Further observations of Perseus have confirmed the gradient. Ponman et al. (1990) analyzing data from Spacelab 2 found an abundance value of $``$ 0.75 Solar in the central 3 which decreases to $``$ 0.25 Solar in the outer regions. Kowalski et al. (1993) also using SPARTAN 1 data have measured a central abundance enhancement with a central value of $``$ 0.77 Solar. ASCA analysis of GIS data (Arnaud et al. 1994, see also Fabian et al. 1994 for SIS data from the central region) has corroborated the existence of a global abundance gradient (with local non-axisymmetric variations), where the abundance values ranged from $``$ 0.4 Solar in the central regions to 0.2 Solar in the outer regions, over a region of $``$ 1 degree around the cluster center.

## 3  Data Reduction, Temperature & Abundance Profiles

ASCA carries four large-area X-ray telescopes, each with its own detector: two Gas Imaging Spectrometers (GIS) and two Solid-State Imaging Spectrometers (SIS). Each GIS has a 50 diameter circular field of view and a usable energy range of 0.8–10 keV; each SIS has a 22 square field of view and a usable energy range of 0.4–10 keV.

Two pointings of the Perseus cluster were analyzed in this work. Perseus was observed for 20 ksec by ASCA in August of 1993 (central pointing) and in September of 1993 (outer pointing) . We selected data taken with high and medium bit rates, with cosmic ray rigidity values $``$ 6 GeV/c, with elevation angles from the bright Earth of $`20^{}`$, and from the Earth’s limb of $`5^{}`$ (GIS) or $`10^{}`$ (SIS); we also excluded times when the satellite was affected by the South Atlantic Anomaly. Rise time rejection of particle events was performed on GIS data, and hot and flickering pixels were removed from SIS data. The resulting effective exposure times for each instrument are shown in Table 1. We estimated the background from blank sky files provided by the ASCA Guest Observer Facility. ASCA PSF mostly scatters high energy photons from internal regions outwards. The scattering from outside inwards is negligible and should not affect our results. The two extraction regions chosen for the central pointing ($`04^{}`$ and $`020^{}`$) are centered on the contaminating source, i.e., the X-ray center. The gas temperature in the very central region ($`04^{}`$) is relatively low ($``$ 4.5 keV). Therefore, the effect of high energy photon depletion in that region due to the PSF is negligible (Takahashi et al. 1995 111http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/Images/asca/newsletters/ext\_src\_analysis3.gif). Furthermore, the best-fit temperature for that region agrees very well with that of White (2000), who did correct for the PSF, when the same fitting spectral models are used (see below). Therefore, we do not worry about ASCA PSF scattering. We also include the analysis of a $`020^{}`$ region centered in the X-ray peak, which is more than three times larger than that where Molendi et al. detected resonant scattering. We analyzed this larger region for the purpose of 1) measuring the elemental abundances in a region large enough so that resonant scattering is not effective, 2) helping to discriminate between different delayed detonation SN Ia explosion models with better photon statistics and 3) giving a better idea of the uncertainties involved when a power law spectral component is introduced.

We used XSPEC v10.0 (Arnaud 1996) to analyze the SIS and GIS spectra separately and jointly. The spectra were fit using the mekal and vmekal thermal emission models, which are based on the emissivity calculations of Mewe & Kaastra (cf. Mewe, Gronenschild & van den Oord 1985; Mewe, Lemen & van den Oord 1986; Kaastra 1992), with Fe L calculations by Liedahl, Osterheld & Goldstein (1995). Abundances were measured relative to the Solar photospheric values of Anders & Grevesse (1989), in which Fe/H=$`4.68\times 10^5`$ by number. Galactic photoelectric absorption was incorporated using the wabs model (Morrison & McCammon 1983). Spectral channels were grouped to have at least 25 counts/channel. Energy ranges were restricted to 0.8–10 keV for the GIS and 0.4–10 keV for the SIS. We show here the results of the spectral analysis for three spatial regions. The first is a circular region of 4 radius around the cluster’s X-ray center, chosen for comparison with equivalent spatial regions in A496, A2199 and A3571. The second is a region of 10 radius centered 35 from the center (outer pointing), selected to provide a measurement of abundances well outside the core. The third is a circular region of 20 radius around the cluster’s X-ray center (basically covering the whole effective field of view of the central pointing).

Since there is a moderate cooling flow in the center of the Perseus cluster we added a cooling flow component to the mekal isothermal emission model in the central region. We adopted the emission measure temperature distribution that corresponds to an isobaric cooling flow. We tied the maximum temperature of the cooling flow to the temperature of the isothermal component, and we fixed the minimum temperature at 0.1 keV. The abundances of the two emission components (mekal and cflow) were tied together. We also applied a single (but variable) Galactic absorption to both spectral components wabs and a variable extra absorption zwabs to the cooling flow component.

We fitted spectra from the two SISs and two GISs independently and then from all four instruments together. The spectral fits of SIS0 data for the central pointing had unusually high reduced chi-squared ($`\chi _\nu ^2`$) and showed spurious spectral features. In particular, the width of the Fe K complex is 50% larger in SIS0 than SIS1. We have no explanation for this discrepancy. Nevertheless, the SIS0 best-fits for the interesting parameters agreed well with those obtained with SIS1 and the two GISs. Since the inclusion of the SIS0 data did not alter the results significantly and made the $`\chi ^2`$ significantly worse we excluded the instrument from our analysis.

When performing joint fits, the redshifts parameters correspondent to spectral models applied to GISs and SIS1 were let free to vary to compensate for possible gain differences between different instruments. The individual and joint SIS1 and GIS fits achieved $`\chi _\nu ^2`$ close to 1 and produced consistent estimates of temperatures and metal abundances. The best-fit values for the temperatures and abundances for the central 4 and for the external pointing are shown in Table 2. It can be seen from Table 2 that there is a positive temperature gradient. The best-fit temperature found for the outer region is $`7.24\pm 0.4`$ keV and it declines to $`4.43\pm 0.08`$ keV in the inner 4, which is consistent with the presence of a central cooling flow. There is a significant ($`>90\%`$ confidence) central abundance enhancement. The abundance in the center is $`0.50\pm 0.03`$ Solar declining to $`0.25\pm 0.05`$ Solar at $``$ 35 from the center.

### 3.1  Individual Elemental Abundances

We determined the abundances of individual elements using a fitting procedure similar to that used for determining general abundances, but with the vmekal spectral model in XSPEC. Since the global abundance is mainly driven by Fe, the cooling flow abundance was tied to the Fe abundance of the vmekal component. We adopt as a basis for comparison the following theoretical elemental abundance (by number) ratios relative to Solar values : for SN Ia (Nomoto, Thielemann & Yokoi 1984, Nomoto et al. 1997a),

$$\mathrm{O}\mathrm{Mg}0.035\mathrm{Fe},$$

$$\mathrm{Ne}0.006\mathrm{Fe},$$

$$\mathrm{Si}\mathrm{S}\mathrm{Ar}\mathrm{Ca}0.5\mathrm{Fe},$$

$$\mathrm{Ni}4.8\mathrm{Fe},$$

and for SN II (Nomoto et al. 1997b),

$$\mathrm{O}\mathrm{Mg}\mathrm{Si}3.7\mathrm{Fe},$$

$$\mathrm{Ne}\mathrm{S}2.5\mathrm{Fe},$$

$$\mathrm{Ar}\mathrm{Ca}\mathrm{Ni}1.7\mathrm{Fe}.$$

In our spectral model fits, the He abundance was fixed at the Solar value, while C and N were fixed at 0.3 Solar (the derived abundances of other elements are not affected by the particular choice of C and N abundances). In order to test the statistical significance of the spectral fittings where individual elemental abundances are free to vary we used the F-test. Initially, all the individual abundances were tied. Then we systematically untied the abundance of each interesting element, refitted and a new $`\chi ^2`$ was found. The difference between the $`\chi ^2`$ of these two fits must follow a $`\chi ^2`$ distribution with one degree of freedom (Bevington 1969). Based on the $`\chi ^2`$ differences for each spectral fittings the F-test shows significant differences at the $`>`$99.5%, $`>`$99.9%, $`>`$99%, $`>`$99.9%, $`>`$97.5% and $`>`$95% confidence for letting Fe, Ni, Si, Ne, O, and S free to vary, respectively. The significance is $`<`$ 90% for Mg, Ar and Ca, and therefore they are tied together. We used in our analysis only those abundances which were reasonably well constrained, namely O, Ne, Si, S, Fe, & Ni. The observed individual abundances are shown in Table 3 for the central $`04^{}`$ and for an outer circular region centered at $`35^{}`$ away from the center with a radius of 10. The individual elemental abundances in the outer parts were not constrained enough to determine spatial variations of abundance ratios within the cluster. We, therefore, could only set upper limits for most individual elemental abundances other than Fe in the outer region.

We also determined the central Fe abundance from the Fe L lines alone. The abundance found when the Fe K lines are ignored is 0.62 $`{}_{0.12}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+0.14}`$ and is also shown in Table 3. This value is consistent with the abundance determined from the Fe K complex. The Ni abundance determined from the L shell lines is not well constrained (1.3$`{}_{1.1}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+1.4}`$) but it is consistent with that determined from the K shell complex222Ni abundances based on L shell lines are likely to be unreliable for the following two reasons. Firstly, the Ni L lines are interspersed among the Fe L lines so an accurate measurement of the Ni L line fluxes requires a good model for the Fe L lines. Secondly, even if the Ni L line fluxes are correct then turning these into a Ni abundance depends on accurate Ni L shell atomic physics. The corrections to the Fe L shell physics of Liedahl et al. (1995) have not yet been applied to Ni so any conclusions based on Ni L lines should be considered very preliminary.. The best constrained individual abundances are Fe, Si, and Ni. We also consider abundances of other elements when determining the SN Ia Fe mass fraction in the next section.

## 4  Abundance Ratios and the SN Ia and SN II Fractions

Discriminating between the products of SNe Ia and II requires the determination of the abundances and abundance ratios of $`\alpha `$-elements and comparison to SN models. The determination of the relative contributions of the two SN types is complicated by the theoretical uncertainties in the elemental mass yields for different SN models, especially for SNe II (e.g. Gibson, Loewenstein & Mushotzky 1997). In general, SN Ia models show far better agreement on elemental mass yields than SN II models. However, discrepancies between some SN Ia explosion models still exist. For example, the Ni mass yields for models with fast flame-speed like W7 (Nomoto, Thieleman, & Yokoi 1984; Thieleman, Nomoto & Yokoi 1986), are $`3`$ times bigger than those for slow flame-speed (delayed detonation). In view of these theoretical uncertainties, it is better to use a combination of several different elemental abundance ratios when estimating the SN Ia iron mass fraction, rather than basing analysis on a single specific ratio.

To determine the SN Ia Fe mass fraction contribution we considered several abundance ratios involving the elements described in the previous paragraph. The abundance ratios used are shown in Table 4, along with the expected theoretical abundance ratios (by number, normalized by the Solar photospheric values) for pure SN Ia (for both W7 and delayed detonation explosion model WDD2 of Nomoto et al. 1997a) and SN II ejecta. All the errors associated with the observed abundance ratios are the propagated 90% confidence errors. The derived SN Ia Fe mass fractions for the inner region ($`04^{}`$) are also listed in Table 4. It can be seen that most abundance ratios show, within the 90$`\%`$ confidence errors, a combination of SN Ia and SN II ejecta. Some abundance ratios, however, are observed to be completely out of the predicted theoretical range for SN Ia and II, e.g. Ne/S & Ne/Si. These measurements are consistent with the results of Mushotzky et al. (1996) who also found that S is observed to be underabundant and Ne overabundant relative to several different theoretical SN II models. Based on a detailed analysis of A496, Dupke & White (2000b) proposed correcting the theoretical SN II sulfur yields by 0.25–0.5. To be conservative, we avoid including abundance ratios involving these two elements in the calculation of the SN Ia iron mass fraction.

From the abundance ratios involving O, Si, and Fe, we derived the fraction of the iron mass from SN Ia. The Fe mass fraction estimates are also listed in Table 4. The average SN Ia Fe mass fraction based on ratios involving the above mentioned three elements is 0.69$`\pm 0.08`$. This value is consistent with the SN Ia Fe mass fraction derived from the Ni/Fe abundance ratio alone (0.60$`\pm 0.35`$). The total weighted average of the SN Ia Fe mass fractions based on ratios involving only the abundances of Ni, O, Si, & Fe is 0.67$`\pm 0.06`$. The observed Ni/Fe ratio is inconsistent with either : 1) pure SN II ejecta or 2) a combination of SN II and SN Ia ejecta as predicted by delayed detonation models. The mutual consistency of the derived SN Ia Fe mass fractions derived from different abundance ratios suggests that the Ni/Fe ratio is a robust indicator of SN Ia ejecta contamination.

It should be noticed that the Si/Fe ratio measured in the center (0-4) of Perseus (1.37$`\pm 0.28`$) is completely out of the range allowed by the delayed detonation model WDD1 (Si/Fe $`>`$ 1.69). Furthermore, if WDD2 is assumed there is a contradiction between the predicted SN Ia Fe mass fractions derived from Si/Fe (0.86$`\pm 0.1`$) and O/Si ($`<`$0.73). However, the only abundance ratio that is systematically in contradiction with all three delayed detonation models is Ni/Fe. Figure 1 shows that the Ni/Fe abundance ratio derived in this work is consistent with the values found for other clusters that show central SN Ia contamination. Figure 1 also shows the theoretical predictions of the Ni/Fe ratio for SN II and for three different SN Ia delayed detonation models. It is clear from the Figure that delayed detonation explosion models are not preferred over the standard models such as W7.

In order to have the SN Ia iron mass fractions derived from abundance ratios involving Ne & S to agree with those involving other elements ($`0.67`$), one would have to systematically multiply the theoretical SN II mass yields of S by $``$ 0.34 and of Ne by $``$2.7. These suggested corrections for Ne and S are also listed in Table 4.

### 4.1  Comparison with BeppoSAX results

Molendi et al. (1998) reported the detection of resonant scattering in the central regions of the Perseus cluster based on the analysis of the BeppoSAX Medium Energy Concentrator Spectrometers (MECS) data. In order to compare their results with ours we have reanalyzed the BeppoSAX data for Perseus. We used standard reduction procedures as recommended by the BeppoSAX Science Data Center (www.sdc.asi.it). The effective area files were generated using “EFFAREA”, which convolves a given surface brightness profile with the MECS energy/position dependent PSF and vignetting functions.

Following Molendi et al. we analyzed spectra from all three MECS using only the channels corresponding to the 3–10 keV energy range. Background spectra were extracted from blank-sky event files using the same extraction region as that for the source. The spectral fitting procedure was analogous to that used with ASCA as described in the third section of this paper. We were unable to find reasonably good fits with the redshift constrained to the optical value. This is probably due to a known MECS gain calibration problem and the recommended solution is to allow the redshift to be a free parameter (Fiore, personal communication). We found a best-fit redshift of 0.011 333This gain problem has been observed to be significant in 80% of the clusters observed by BeppoSAX and gives a redshift discrepancy of $`0.009`$ when compared to optical redshifts (J. Irwin, personal communication)..

Because of the limited safe energy range of the MECS (3–10 keV) the comparison of line strengths between BeppoSAX and ASCA is limited to the best constrained Fe and Ni lines. To compare with ASCA we extracted spectra from the 0-4 region. The results are shown in Table 3. The reduced $`\chi ^2`$ is significantly worse than that obtained with ASCA ($`\chi _\nu ^21.25`$, for a vmekal \+ cflow model) even with the cluster redshift set as a free parameter in the spectral fittings.

The discrepancy of our best-fit values of Fe and Ni abundances with those of Molendi et al. is most likely due to the difference in dealing with the MECS gain calibration problem and to the insensitivity of the MECS spectra to the cooling flow within the energy range considered (3-10 keV). If we add a cooling flow component with the best-fit normalization (300 M yr-1) obtained from the ASCA spectral fittings, the best-fit Ni and Fe abundances are found to be 1.47$`\pm 0.48`$ and 0.49$`\pm 0.01`$, respectively, with $`\chi _\nu ^2`$ of $``$ 1.19.

We also extracted spectra from a central region with a radius of 6 for the purpose of direct comparison with the Molendi et al. best-fit values. Our results are similar to those obtained for the 0-4 region. The Ni abundance is 1.34$`{}_{0.44}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+0.26}`$ Solar and the Fe abundance is 0.47$`\pm 0.012`$ Solar with a $`\chi _\nu ^21.23`$, for a vmekal \+ cflow model. As can be seen in Table 3 the Fe and Ni abundance measurements in the central regions obtained with ASCA and SAX for the same spectral models agree very well.

### 4.2  Influence of the Power Law Component

Since the cD galaxy in Perseus, NGC 1275, has a Seyfert-like spectrum (Rubin et al. 1977), we added a power-law component to the absorbed vmekal \+ cflow model. The addition of the power law component to the simultaneous GISs and SIS 1 fittings has a general effect of decreasing the temperature of the hot component (of the cflow model) and does not improve the spectral fittings ($`\chi _\nu ^21.12`$ or $`\chi ^2`$ 1495 for 1333 degrees of freedom). However, the inclusion of the power law component introduces large uncertainties in the determination of Ni & Fe abundances and, especially, the power law slope, which are found to be 1.5$`\pm `$0.7 Solar, 0.47$`\pm `$0.05 Solar and 2.6$`{}_{0.7}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+2.6}`$, respectively. In order to understand the reasons for the high uncertainties on these parameters introduced by the power law component, we fitted the spectra obtained with GISs and SIS 1 separately. The individual spectral fittings indicated that the GIS 2&3 are insensitive to the inclusion of the power law. Furthermore, the introduction of the power law component increases the uncertainties of the Ni abundance determination very strongly (90% confidence range for Ni is 0.1-2.8). The SISs, on the other hand, are less sensitive to the cflow model than to the power law component. There is a significant improvement in the spectral fittings with the addition of the power law component. However, the Ni abundance ($``$ 1.6) as well as the other individual abundances are similar to the those obtained without the power law model.

The allowed low Ni abundance is a consequence of the inclusion of the power law component in the joint spectral fittings and seems to be due to different instrumental sensitivities in the spectral fittings to the combination cflow \+ power models, i.e., an artifact of the spectral fittings, which also generates large uncertainties in the best-fit values of the power law slope (varying from 0.9 to 3). Since the introduction of the power law component does not improve significantly the simultaneous GISs + SIS 1 spectral fittings and introduces artificial large uncertainties on the determination of the best-fit Ni abundances we do not include the power law component when determining the SN Ia Fe mass fraction. However, since the power law component poses a new undesired uncertainty to both mechanisms (resonant scattering and W7 SN Ia enrichment) proposed to explain the excess flux at $``$ 8 keV, in the cluster central regions, we will consider its possible effects on the Ni and Ni/Fe measurements when checking the validity of the delayed detonation models (below).

In order to compare the two above mentioned competing mechanisms and to estimate the effect that a power law component would have in the abundance ratios involving Ni we extracted spectra from a large region (radius of 20) around NGC 1275 in the central pointing. The size of the region is large enough so that the directional number of Fe K$`\alpha `$ photons is conserved and resonant scattering should have no effect on the Fe K$`\beta `$/Fe K$`\alpha `$ ratio. The abundance ratios derived from this region, however, are emission measured weighted averages and are highly biased towards the values of the abundance ratios in the cluster central regions. The best-fit values of Si, Fe, Ni and their ratios obtained from the spectral fittings of the 0-20 region are shown in Table 5. The spectral fittings are significantly worse ($`\chi _\nu ^21.79`$) than those for the central 4. The observed Ni/Fe ratio (3.9$`{}_{0.7}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+0.6}`$) corresponds to a SN Ia Fe mass fraction of 0.73$`{}_{0.23}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+0.21}`$, which is consistent with that derived from the central 4. This high value for the Ni/Fe ratio is inconsistent with all delayed detonation models, independently of resonant scattering effects. The inclusion of a power law component (with a best-fit slope of $`1.2`$) improves significantly the spectral fittings ($`\chi _\nu ^21.55`$) and has the effect of lowering somewhat the Ni abundance and, therefore, the Ni/Fe ratio to 2.9$`{}_{0.7}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+0.6}`$, which is consistent with a radial decrease in SN Ia Fe mass fraction (Figure 1). However, even the lower Ni/Fe ratio obtained with the addition of the power law component is in contradiction with the delayed detonation models. If the power law slope is fixed at higher values the Ni/Fe ratios measured are even higher. So, the average Ni/Fe ratio is inconsistent with the delayed detonation SN Ia explosion models independently of the resonant scattering effect and also of the inclusion of a power law component in the spectral fittings.

## 5  Discussion

### 5.1 Abundance and Chemical Gradients

The comparative spectral analysis of the large region versus the central region clarifies the question of whether a chemical gradient exists in the Perseus cluster. The average (0-20) Si/Fe ratio measured is 1.83$`{}_{0.10}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+0.27}`$ (implying an emission measure weighted average SN Ia Fe mass fraction of 0.57$`{}_{0.09}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+0.03}`$). This value is significantly ($``$90% confidence) higher than that obtained in the central regions (Si/Fe $`=`$ 1.37$`\pm 0.28`$), indicating the presence of a chemical gradient in the intracluster gas of Perseus, where SN Ia ejecta is more concentrated towards the central regions of the cluster. Some of the possible scenarios, proposed to explain the abundance and chemical gradient mentioned before could be better constrained by determining the abundance radial profiles for different elements and analyzing the SN Ia and II Fe mass-to-light ratio distribution for the cluster. This is beyond the scope of this work. Nevertheless, at least two difficulties are apparent if stripping models are used to explain the central abundance and chemical gradients (Dupke & White 2000b). Firstly, the Fe abundances measured in most early-type galaxies by ASCA (Loewenstein et al. 1994; Matsumoto et al. 1997) and ROSAT (Davis & White 1996) are lower (0.2–0.4 Solar) than the abundance observed at the cluster center ($`0.5`$ Solar)444However, there is evidence that the Fe abundance in ellipticals can be significantly higher when multiphase spectral models are used in the X-ray spectral fittings (Buote & Fabian 1998).. Furthermore, there is evidence of abundance gradients in elliptical galaxies themselves (e.g. in NGC 4636, Matsushita et al. 1997), so that most stripped gas will have even lower abundances than indicated by the global X-ray Fe abundances of elliptical galaxies. Secondly, the efficiency of ram-pressure stripping is dependent on the ICM density, which rises strongly towards the central regions. The difference in Fe abundances measured in inner and outer regions is mild (a factor of $`2`$) and might be expected to be larger if stripping were important.

### 5.2  Resonance Scattering or SN Ia Convective Deflagration Models?

We have shown above that the high Fe K$`\beta `$ to Fe K$`\alpha `$ ratio observed in Perseus, which has been attributed to resonant scattering of the Fe K$`\alpha `$, can also be explained by a supersolar Ni/Fe abundance ratio due to the products of SNe Ia. In this section we consider the arguments for and against these two explanations. The first point to make is that this is independent of the question of whether there is a significant contribution from SN Ia products. The abundance ratios of elements other than Ni can be used to measure the relative contributions from SN Ia and SN II. So, the basic choice lies between a) resonance scattering and delayed detonation SN Ia explosion models or b) no resonance scattering and convective deflagration SN Ia explosion model.

Delayed detonation SN Ia explosion models (and alternatives which have low Ni production) have certainly been espoused by SN theorists. However, recent treatment of turbulence effects in subsonic flames in delayed detonation models shows that the transition to detonation requires unusually high turbulent velocity fluctuations (Lisewski, Hillebrandt & Weaver 2000). Resonant scattering optical depth is a function of the gas density and, therefore, should fall to the optical thin value at regions away from the cluster’s center. Observations of the radial distribution of the SN Ia gas contamination in other clusters also show a decrease in SN Ia Fe mass fraction as the distance from the center increases (Dupke 1998, Dupke & White 2000b, Finoguenov, David, & Ponman 2000). This seems also to be the case for Perseus as indicated by significantly lower Si/Fe value in the central 4 when compared to the average value observed for the whole cluster (0-20). This “chemical gradient” is expected from models proposed to explain the central SN Ia ejecta excess (e.g. suppressed SN Ia winds, ram-pressure stripping, cD stellar mass loss). Therefore, if one assumes the classical W7 SN Ia model, both scenarios, SN Ia enrichment and resonant scattering, predict that, observationally, the excess flux in the Fe K$`\beta `$-Ni K$`\alpha `$ line complex should decrease radially.

Against the resonance scattering scenario is the fact that simulations of its expected effect on clusters (where Ni abundances are set to Solar) show that resonant scattering alone cannot explain the high Fe K$`\beta `$ to Fe K$`\alpha `$ ratio observed (Tawara et al. 1997, Furuzawa et al. 1997) and, in particular, in Perseus (Akimoto et al. 1997, 1999)555Actually, the intensity ratio $`\frac{FeK\alpha }{(FeK\beta +NiK\alpha )}`$ for the central regions of 78 clusters (Figure 1 of Akimoto et al. 1999) can be well described by an optically thin plasma with a central Ni/Fe ratio of $`>`$ 2. . Furthermore, if the X-ray emitting gas has turbulent velocities of a few hundred km/s then any resonance scattering will be totally suppressed (Gilfanov et al. 1987).

If we use Fe, Si, and O alone to set the relative fractions of SN II and SN Ia products and then use these relative fractions to predict Ni relative abundances we obtain a very good match to what is observed if the W7 model for SN Ia is assumed. Therefore, resonant scattering can contribute significantly to the relative enhancement of the Fe K$`\beta `$-Ni K$`\alpha `$ line complex only if delayed detonations are assumed. Chemically W7 and WDD models differ in the ejected mass yields of some elements. In particular WDDs produce more Ni than W7 and, in a smaller degree, more Si. If resonant scattering were the mechanism responsible for the apparent high Ni abundances in the central cluster regions, and, therefore, WDD models were preferred, then we should expect that if one extracted spectrum from a region large enough, such as to be immune to resonant scattering, the observed Ni/Fe abundance ratio would be smaller and, necessarily, consistent with WDD models. In the previous paragraph we showed that the Ni/Fe ratio measured within the 0-20 region is not consistent with any WDD model, even when the uncertainties from the power law component are incorporated. This shows that delayed detonation models are not preferred over the W7 model and strongly suggests that resonant scattering has a much smaller contribution (if any) to the observed Fe abundance measurements than that claimed by Molendi et al.

Molendi et al. determination of the resonant scattering in Perseus was based on spectral fittings of a blend of Fe and Ni lines, assuming the contribution of the Ni K$`\alpha `$ line to this blend to be small, therefore, requiring a priori, a specific SN enrichment Type (either SN II or delayed detonation SN Ia). One of the goals of our analysis is to determine the very SN Type contamination of the ICM. We showed that the delayed detonation SN Ia explosion models are not adequate to explain the observations while the “classical” W7 SN Ia model can explain what we observe without the need to invoke resonant scattering.

## 6  Conclusions

In this work we have shown that

1. The central region (0-4) of the Perseus cluster is significantly enriched with ejecta from SN Ia, which produce more than half ($`67\%`$) of the total iron.
2. The observed Ni/Fe ratio is in excellent agreement with the observed ratios of other elements involving Fe, Si, Ni and O in predicting the SN Ia Fe mass fraction in the central regions of Perseus . The Ni/Fe ratio observed is $``$ 3.4 .
3. The Ni/Fe ratio is consistent with the theoretically predicted values for SN Ia models with fast flame-speed (W7) but not with delayed detonation explosion models.
4. The average Si/Fe ratio in Perseus is significantly ($`>`$90% confidence) higher than in the central regions, which indicates that the central Fe abundance gradient is accompanied by a chemical gradient, i.e., the SN Ia contamination has a radial decline in Perseus.
5. It is not necessary to invoke resonant scattering in the Fe K$`\alpha `$ line since the high Fe K$`\beta `$/Fe K$`\alpha `$ ratio can be totally attributed to substantial ICM contamination from SN Ia ejecta.

Although the high central Ni abundances can be fully explained by SN Ia enrichment, the current data do not allow a precise quantification of the relative contribution of resonant scattering, which can be done only with very high resolution X-ray spectroscopy. If resonance scattering is important it will always provide the largest effect at the peak density of the cluster. Therefore, clusters with high resonant scattering optical depth should show, observationally, a Ni abundance profile decreasing with radius (within the resolution of current X-ray spectrometers). Therefore, additional discriminating evidence between the two scenarios can be provided by observation of other clusters that show no central SN Ia ejecta dominance and, at the same time, have large resonant scattering optical depth.

RAD thanks the USRA for the talk invitation that originated this work and NASA Grant NAG 5-3247 for partial support. We thank Raymond White III, Fumie Akimoto, Melville Ulmer and Barbara Eckstein for helpful suggestions. We would also like to thank F. Fiore for helpful suggestions. RAD would like to thank Jimmy Irwin for very helpful discussions and for checking the observed BeppoSax calibration problems for 10 other clusters and Phillipe Fischer for helpful insights and suggestions. This research made use of the HEASARC ASCA database and NED.