text:
# Non-Newtonian gravity confronting models with large extra dimensions

## Abstract

We discuss the interplay between direct constraints on non-Newtonian gravity and particle-physics bounds in models with large extra dimensions. Existing and future bounds and the most effective ways of further testing these models in gravitational experiments are compared and discussed.

Additional space dimensions large enough to be observable have been suggested extra ; add  as a possible solution to the problem of the large scale difference between gravity and the standard model. In this approach the standard-model particles are bound within four-dimensional space time RS  and—along the lines of brane-world models HW —only gravity inhabits the extra dimensions $`\delta `$.

Gravity is modified at short distances and becomes much stronger; its experimental long-distance weakness is explained by the space volume of the large extra dimensions by which the coupling must be divided in four dimensions. The length scale $`R^{}`$ at which the long distance regime is recovered is model dependent, and all possibilities between the millimeter and the inverse Planck mass are in principle available.

Such a scenario has spurred new interest in experimental tests of the short-distance behavior of gravity in the hope of either finding deviations or at least setting bounds on the fundamental coupling of gravity at lengths below the millimeter.

In this letter we discuss the complementary role of two classes of such experimental tests: particle-physics measurements—sensitive to the strength of the coupling independently of distance—and short-distance measurements of Newton law—sensitive to the range of non-Newtonian effects down to nanometers. In the discussion, the different role played by bounds derived assuming a specific compactification geometry and those that are compactification independent is stressed.

Our conclusion is that particle-physics measurements already rule out for $`\delta >2`$ the possibility that non-Newtonian effects induced by models with large extra dimension can be found in gravimetric experiments below $`10^5`$ m. This result is independent of the compactification model used. Also the cases $`\delta =1`$ and 2 are excluded if compactification on a $`\delta `$-torus is chosen. The best window for confronting non-Newtonian gravity and models with large extra dimensions is therefore at, and just below, the mm range.

Even though cosmological and astrophysical constraints can also be important, and very strong for the case of two large extra dimensions astro , we will not discuss them here. Similarly, we do not discuss models in which the standard-model particles are also allowed to propagate into the extra dimensions Anton  or models with non-factorizable geometries Lisa .

Searches for non-Newtonian gravity. While Newtonian gravity above the centimeter is well confirmed AdR , its short distance behavior is still under active scrutiny. All experiments, regardless of the actual apparatus, set a bound on non-Newtonian interactions from the absence of deviations between the force measured at distance $`r^{}`$ and the predicted one.

The bound is usually given in terms of the parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`\lambda `$ according to the two-body potential

$$V(r)|_r^{}=\frac{G_Nm_1m_2}{r}\left[1+\alpha _Ge^{r/\lambda }\right]|_r^{},$$
(1)
where $`G_N`$ is the Newton constant in four space-time dimensions. Because of the exponential behavior, the best sensitivity is achieved in the range $`\lambda r^{}`$. Currently, experiments testing Van der Waals forces are sensitive to the range $`r^{}1.5÷130`$ nm vdW ; Casimir-force experiments explore $`r^{}0.02÷6`$ $`\mu `$m , $`r^{}`$ being here the distance between dielectrics or metal surfaces casimir1 ; casimir2  or up to mm by means of a torsion pendulumcasimir3 . Cavendish-type experiments, in which the gravitation force is directly measured, are sensitive to $`r^{}>1`$ mm torsion .

The exclusion regions thus determined are convex curves around the distance $`r^{}`$ at which the experiment is performed, rapidly becoming less sensitive at smaller separations. The combined exclusion regions obtained by these searches, for the relevant distances, are shown as grey areas delimited by black curves in Figs. 1-4.

Gravitational potential in models with large extra dimensions. The two-body potential in models with extra dimensions is parameterized (for $`r`$ less than $`R^{}`$, the characteristic compactification length) as add

$$V_\delta (r)=\frac{G_Nm_1m_2}{r}\left(\frac{a_\delta }{r}\right)^\delta .$$
(2)
In Eq. (2)

$$a_\delta =(G^{(\delta )}/G_N)^{1/\delta }=\frac{2\pi }{M_f}\left(\frac{4\pi }{\mathrm{\Omega }_\delta }\frac{M_\mathrm{P}^2}{M_f^2}\right)^{1/\delta },$$
(3)
where we define $`M_\mathrm{P}1/\sqrt{G_N}=1.22\times 10^{16}`$ TeV. In Eq. (3), $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\delta =2\pi ^{(3+\delta )/2}/\mathrm{\Gamma }[(3+\delta )/2]`$ and $`M_f`$ is the scale of the effective theory. For distances larger than $`R^{}`$, the potential in Eq. (2) is replaced by the usual Newtonian potential plus exponentially small corrections:

$$V_\delta (r)=\frac{G_Nm_1m_2}{r}\left[1+\alpha _\delta e^{r/R^{}}+\mathrm{}\right].$$
(4)
In Eq. (4), the value of $`\alpha _\delta `$ depends on the compactification choice and is of the order of the number of extra dimensions expo .

It is important to bear in mind that Eq. (4) depends on the way the extra dimensions are treated in the process of compactification while Eq. (2) only relies on Gauss law and is therefore compactification independent.

When the experimental bounds parameterized by Eq. (1) are plotted (on a logarithmic scale in the $`(\alpha \lambda )`$-plane) against Eq. (4), a single point is obtained at $`\alpha _G=\alpha _\delta `$ and $`\lambda =R^{}`$; on the other hand, when the same bounds are compared with Eq. (2), they give lines, the shape and position of which are controlled by $`M_f`$ and the number of large extra dimensions.

Compactification-independent bounds from particle physics. Contrarily to short-distance gravity measurements, particle-physics measurements are independent of $`r`$ and only constrain the effective gravitational coupling $`G^{(\delta )}`$ by means of the bound on $`M_f`$.

This independence from $`r`$ is manifest in the $`(4+\delta )`$-dimensional theory, which probes distances much smaller than the compactification radius $`R^{}`$, and recovered in the 4-dimensional computation after resumming over the Kaluza-Klein states.

For this reason, the relationship obtained by comparing Eq. (1) and Eq. (2), must be valid for any choice of $`r`$ (as long as $`rR^{}`$) and gives the stringiest bound at the minimum. Therefore, the curve of exclusion is found to be

$$\alpha _G(\lambda )\underset{r}{min}\left\{\left[\left(\frac{a_\delta }{r}\right)^\delta 1\right]e^{r/\lambda }\right\}.$$
(5)
To find the curve given by Eq. (5), we must solve the polynomial equations obtained by the minimalization procedure. Exact solutions exist for $`\delta <4`$; however, for all practical purposes, approximated solutions can be found by elementary calculus for any $`\delta `$. The exclusion region is given by the lines

$$\alpha _G(\lambda )=\{\begin{array}{cc}\left[\left(a_\delta /\delta \lambda \right)^\delta 1\right]e^\delta \hfill & \text{for }\lambda <\lambda _{max}\hfill \\ & \\ \alpha _{min}\delta e^{\delta +1}\hfill & \text{for }\lambda \lambda _{max},\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
where $`\lambda _{max}=(1+\delta )^{(1+\delta )/\delta }a_\delta `$. The value $`\lambda _{max}`$ is reached when no real solution can be found. The exclusion region is extended for $`\lambda >\lambda _{max}`$ by taking smaller values of $`M_f`$ (already excluded) for which the solution is translated to larger values of $`\lambda `$ while still ending at the same (constant) value of $`\alpha _{min}`$.

Recent calculations have considered precision measurements like the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon mmm  and radiative oblique parameters oblique , as well as collider physics colliders . In collider physics, the most effective channel at both LEP and Tevatron is that in which virtual gravitons take part in dilepton or diphoton production. Production of real graviton gives less stringent bounds. Whenever the bound depends on the sign of the potential we have taken the lesser bound. Recent reviews of all these bounds can be found in Ref. rev .

We have summarized in Table 1 the best bounds from particle physics.

While precision measurements and collider bounds from production of real gravitons depend on the number of extra dimensions, those from virtual graviton processes at colliders are (almost, for certain parameterizations) independent. Bounds from oblique parameters are potentially very restrictive but are plagued by infrared divergences which make the final result rather uncertain. For this reason we will not use them.

Even though a degree of uncertainty remains in these calculations because of the cut-off dependence (and because of different parameterizations), the bounds work on order of magnitudes and are therefore sufficiently reliable as they stand. In particular, we neglect small discrepancies between different approaches colliders .

We keep in Table 1 also the $`\delta =`$1 case, even though it is often considered ruled out. This is true only after having assumed a specific compactification geometry and we want to use the particle-physics constraints irrespectively of this additional assumption.

Non-Newtonian gravity and particle-physics constraints. Given the particle-physics bounds in Table 1 and Eq. (6), we obtain the curves in Fig. 1, where the respective exclusion regions (the area above the lines) are presented for the first few extra dimensions.

In using these bounds, the values for $`\alpha _G`$ and $`\lambda `$ of a specific model must be plotted against the bounds of the corresponding effective theory at $`r\lambda `$, the space dimension of which is not necessarily that of the fundamental theory.

Figure 1 shows that for $`\delta >2`$ particle-physics bounds, in particular those coming from collider physics, are various orders of magnitude stronger than direct searches for non-Newtonian gravity below the mm. In other words, if any deviation is ever found in these experiments, it will not be possible to explain it in terms of large extra-dimension models.

On the contrary, for $`\delta =1`$ in the range $`\lambda 1`$ nm Casimir and Cavendish-like experiments are the most sensitive and rule out a large amount of parameter space, while particle physics is relevant only at much shorter distances. Notice that the bounds still allow a strong gravity coupling (of the order of $`1/(\mathrm{TeV})^3`$) up to few hundred $`\mu `$m as long as it then decreases fast enough to match the long distance regime. This possibility could be important in the framework of sterile neutrino physics bulk .

The case of $`\delta =2`$ is special and is discussed below.

The comparison depicted in Fig. 1 seems to suggest that the most effective way of testing models with large extra dimensions in experiments of non-Newtonian gravity is not by going to shorter and shorter distances in the nm regime by means of Casimir experiments but rather to improve the sensitivity of Cavendish-like experiments just below the mm regime or Casimir experiments at the $`\mu `$m. For work in progress in this directions and the first results, see price .

Non-Newtonian gravity and compactification-dependent bounds. Once a particular compactification scheme is chosen, bounds coming from non-Newtonian gravity tests can become more stringent because of the relationship between $`R^{}`$ and $`M_f`$. As we shall see, this is the case for $`\delta 2`$.

The comparison must be performed independently for the two ranges $`r^{}<R^{}`$ (SD) and $`r^{}R^{}`$ (LD), where the predicted non-Newtonian behaviors are different.

In the LD regime, the bound is obtained by finding the intersection of the stright line corresponding to $`\alpha _G=\alpha _\delta `$ with the bound coming from Cavendish-like experiments. The value of $`\lambda `$ at the intersection is the upper bound on $`R^{}`$, from which one obtains a lower bound (model dependent) on $`M_f`$.

Each model is one point in the $`(\alpha ,\lambda )`$-plane. Changing the shape of the compactification manifold implies only an $`O(1)`$ correction factor to these bounds expo .

The simplest example is depicted in Fig. 2, where the model of Ref. add  (ADD) is used and a specific potential derived from compactification on a $`\delta `$-torus. In this case we have

$$M_f^{2+\delta }=\frac{M_\mathrm{P}^2}{(R^{})^\delta }.$$
(7)
The resulting bounds are $`M_f5.3\times 10^5`$ TeV for $`\delta =1`$, $`M_f3.7`$ TeV and $`M_f3.1`$ GeV, respectively, in $`\delta =2`$ and 3. The bound for $`\delta =1`$ is much stronger than those from particle physics and often quoted to exclude altogether $`\delta =1`$ as an observable case. This conclusion however depends on a specific way of treating the extra dimensions.

In the SD regime, things are different: the experiment and the potential (2) must be compared at the distance explored by the experiment. This comparison requires computing the force in the actual set-up of the apparatus, and yields a direct bound on $`M_f`$. We have checked that these bounds, derived in the Casimir experiment casimir2 , are two orders of magnitude weaker than those found in the LD regime. For these experiments to be competitive in testing large extra dimensions, a further improvement of many orders of magnitude in sensitivity would be necessary. Therefore, we use the results of the LD regime to redo our analysis and obtain the exclusion regions, shown in Fig. 3, in the case of compactification-dependent bounds.

More complicated compactification schemes, in particular those in which different extra dimensions are treated in different manners, can be discussed along the same lines by means of the corresponding effective theories.

Contrarily to the case of particle-physics bounds, we have now weaker bounds for larger numbers of extra dimensions. Only the cases $`\delta =`$ 1 and 2 are more stringent than in the previous case.

The case of two large extra dimensions. The case of $`\delta =2`$ is particularly interesting because, as shown in Fig. 3, the different approaches give comparable bounds.

In the model dependent case, the exclusion region is given by the area above the curve denoted ADD in Fig. 4.

Particle physics provides very stringent model-independent bounds in the whole range; the best of them is denoted by Tevatron in Fig. 4. In the same figure, for reference, we also included the bound coming from the measurament of the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon ($`\mu `$AMM).

In the near future, LHC is expected to reach a sensitivity similar or better than that of the model-dependent analysis ADD (see the curve LHC in Fig. 4). In confronting non-Newtonian gravity experiments, LHC will be competitive over the whole range of distances except in the mm region where an improvement of the sensitivity of Cavendish-like experiments could be an important source of information.

We must also bear in mind that the case $`\delta =2`$ is strongly disfavoured by astrophysical constraints astro .

###### Acknowledgements.

We thanks L. Sorbo for comments on the manuscript.


format: text

text:
# Penetration Depth Measurements in MgB2: Evidence for Unconventional Superconductivity

## Abstract

We have measured the magnetic penetration depth of the recently discovered binary superconductor MgB2 using muon spin rotation and low field $`ac`$-susceptibility. From the damping of the muon precession signal we find the penetration depth at zero temperature is $`85`$nm. The low temperature penetration depth shows a quadratic temperature dependence, indicating the presence of nodes in the superconducting energy gap.

The discovery of superconductivity in the simple binary compound MgB2 with a remarkably high transition temperature $`T_c39`$K has attracted great interest . MgB2 is a hexagonal AlB2-type compound, consisting of alternating hexagonal Mg layers and graphite-like B layers. To explore the mechanism of superconductivity in this material it is important to determine the symmetry of the superconducting order parameter which governs the behavior of quasiparticle excitations below $`T_c`$. Experimentally this can be done by measuring thermodynamic responses of superconducting quasiparticles at low temperatures. In conventional $`s`$-wave superconductors, there are no quasiparticle excitations at low energies and the thermodynamic and transport coefficients decay exponentially at low temperatures. However, in unconventional superconductors with gap nodes, such as in high-$`T_c`$ oxides, power law behaviors are expected in thermodynamic coefficients at low temperatures.

Recently, the scanning tunneling conductance, the nuclear spin-lattice relaxation rate of MgB2, and the specific heat have been measured. Although it was claimed that the experimental data are consistent with a conventional $`s`$-wave pairing gap, the data reported are rather controversial and no consensus can really be reached regarding the pairing symmetry. The gap values obtained from the scanning tunneling measurements vary from 2meV to 7meV. The low temperature dependences of tunneling spectra reported by different experimental groups also behave differently. The difference in both the value of the energy gap and the low temperature dependence of the tunneling spectrum is probably due to the state of the surface, as well as the inhomogeneity of the samples measured. The spin-lattice relaxation rate measured by Kotegawa $`et`$ $`al`$ shows a very small coherence peak just below $`T_c`$, followed by an exponential decay in a broad temperature range. However, their measurement was done at relatively high temperatures (above $`15`$K), and it is not known whether this exponential behavior extends to lower temperatures.

In this paper, we report our experimental data of the magnetic penetration depth $`\lambda `$ of MgB2 in the superconducting state. We have measured $`\lambda `$ using the transverse-field muon spin rotation (TF-$`\mu `$SR) and low field $`ac`$ -susceptibility. From both measurements, we find that at low temperatures $`\lambda `$ varies quadratically with temperature and does not show the activated exponential behavior expected for a conventional $`s`$-wave superconductor. This quadratic behavior of $`\lambda `$ indicates the existence of nodes in the superconducting energy gap of MgB2.

The penetration depth is inversely proportional to the square root of the superfluid density. Its temperature dependence is a measure of the low-lying superconducting quasiparticle excitations and no phonon contribution is directly involved. This makes the analysis of penetration depth data simple. Another advantage of the penetration depth measurement is that it allows us to determine whether there are nodes in the superconducting energy gap even with slightly impure samples.

The sample measured was commercially available MgB2 powder (Alfa Aesar). The superconducting transition temperature, as determined by both $`ac`$-susceptibility and dc-SQUID (at 20G) measurements, is 37.5K. High field dc-SQUID and electron microscopy investigations showed less than 1% of impurities present. The $`ac`$-susceptibility measurements were performed at an applied field $`H_{ac}`$=1G $`RMS`$ and frequency $`f`$=333Hz on fine powder. The absence of weak links was confirmed by checking the linearity of the pick-up voltage at 4.2K for $`H_{ac}`$ from 1 to 10G $`RMS`$ and $`f`$ from 16 to 667Hz.

TF-$`\mu `$SR is a sensitive technique for measuring $`\lambda `$. In this technique, the field distribution of a flux-line lattice of a type-II superconductor produced by an applied magnetic field is probed by fully polarised positive muons implanted into a specimen. The muon decays with a life time $`2.2\mu `$s, emitting a positron preferentially in the direction of the muon spin at the time of decay. By accumulating time histograms of the decay positrons the muon polarisation can be followed as a function of time. In type-II superconductors, the muon spin precesses about the local field which is modulated by flux vortices. The time resolved polarisation signal is oscillatory with a decreasing amplitude. The damping of the muon precession signal provides a measure of the inhomogeneity of the magnetic field $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$B in the vortex state, hence the magnetic penetration depth $`\lambda `$. For polycrystalline samples the envelope of the muon precession signal has approximately a Gaussian form $`exp(\sigma ^2t^2/2)`$ and the depolarisation rate $`\sigma `$ can be shown to be proportional to the superfluid density $`1/\lambda ^2`$. For isotropic type II superconductors, $`\lambda `$ is given by

$$\sigma (\mu s^1)=7.904\times 10^4\times \lambda ^2(nm).$$
(1)
whereas for anisotropic superonductors such as the high-$`T_c`$ cuprates, the in-plane penetration depth can be determined from $`\sigma `$

$$\sigma (\mu s^1)=7.086\times 10^4\times \lambda ^2(nm).$$
(2)
Evidence about the anisotropy of the superconductivity may be obtained from the form of the distribution of internal fields P(B), which can be derived by Fourier transforming the muon precession signal. Detailed information requires data from single crystals. However in powder samples of anisotropic superconductors it is found that the distribution P(B) has a characteristic shoulder on the low field side of the central frequency . We used the maximum entropy method to extract P(B) from the TF-$`\mu `$SR data for MgB2. For temperatures just below $`T_c`$ the low field shoulder is clearly evident, so we conclude that MgB2 is anisotropic.

Our TF-cooled muSR measurements were performed at the ISIS Facility, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory. The sample measured by TF-$`\mu `$SR was a pellet of MgB2, with 4cm in diameter and 2mm thick, prepared by cold pressing the powder. The pellet was mounted in a transverse magnetic field $`H_{app}`$ which was above the lower critical field but below the upper critical field, $`H_{c1}<H_{app}<H_{c2}`$. $`H_{c1}`$ and $`H_{c2}`$ of MgB2 are about 300G and 18T, respectively. We used a field of 450G. (Measurements at not too high fields compared to $`H_{c2}`$ can minimise possible effects of dissipation due to flux motion and allow us to obtain reliable data for the temperature dependence of the relaxation rate $`\sigma `$.) A set of measurements at different fields (up to 600G) was also done to ensure that the values of $`\sigma `$ obtained were independent of the applied field.

The low-field $`ac`$-susceptibility is also a commonly used technique for measuring $`\lambda `$. It has been successfully applied to high-$`T_c`$ materials  and is particularly suitable for powder samples. The accuracy in the temperature dependence of $`\lambda `$ determined from the $`ac`$-susceptibility technique is significantly higher than that of TF-$`\mu `$SR. In the superconducting state, the effective $`ac`$-susceptibility $`\chi `$ of a powder sample is related to $`\lambda `$ by the equation

$$\chi (T)=\chi _01\frac{3\lambda }{R}\mathrm{coth}\frac{R}{\lambda }+\frac{3\lambda ^2}{R^2},$$
(3)
where $`\chi _0`$ is the susceptibility in an ideal diamagnetic system, $`R`$ is the radius of a grain, and $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes a grain average defined by $`x𝑑RxR^3g(R)/𝑑RR^3g(R)`$ with $`g(R)`$ the grain size distribution function. At low temperatures, $`\chi (T)`$ can be expanded with $`\delta \lambda (T)=\lambda (T)\lambda _0`$, where $`\lambda _0=\lambda (0K)`$. To the leading order in $`\delta \lambda `$, we find

$$\chi (T)\chi (0)+\alpha \delta \lambda (T),$$
(4)
where

$`\chi (0)`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _01{\displaystyle \frac{3\lambda _0}{R}}\mathrm{coth}{\displaystyle \frac{R}{\lambda _0}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3\lambda _0^2}{R^2}},`$ (5)
$`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\chi _0{\displaystyle \frac{6\lambda _0}{R}}3\mathrm{coth}{\displaystyle \frac{R}{\lambda _0}}{\displaystyle \frac{3R}{\lambda _0\mathrm{sinh}^2[R/\lambda _0]}}<0.`$ (6)
At low temperatures, the change in $`\lambda `$ is proportional to the change in $`\chi `$. Thus from the temperature dependence of $`\chi (T)`$ (exponential or power law), one can readily determine the temperature dependence of $`\lambda (T)`$ in the low temperature regime. However, to determine the absolute value of $`\lambda `$, we need to know accurately the grain distribution function $`g(R)`$ which is beyond the scope of the present work.

Fig. 1 shows the temperature dependence of the muon depolarisation rate $`\sigma `$. At zero temperature we find that $`\sigma (0K)10\mu s^1`$. The corresponding in-plane penetration depth at 0K is $`\lambda _0`$85nm. The temperature dependence of $`\lambda `$ at low temperature is clearly stronger than the exponentially activated temperature dependence expected for an $`s`$-wave superconductor. In fact, we find that $`\sigma `$ varies approximately quadratically with $`T`$ in the whole temperature range below $`T_c`$ (Fig. 2). This is supported by our low temperature $`ac`$-susceptibility data shown in Fig. 3, which is related to the penetration depth by Eq. (4). This $`T^2`$ behavior of $`\lambda `$ at low temperatures shows unambiguously that there are nodes in the superconducting energy gap of MgB2.

The $`\lambda `$ values shown in Fig. 1 have been estimated using Eq. (2). If the electromagnetic response of MgB2 is more isotropic, the values of $`\lambda `$ reported here need to be multipied by a constant factor $`c`$ of order 1. In the extremely isotropic case $`c=1.06`$. However, the $`T^2`$ dependence of $`\lambda `$ is unchanged.

The $`T^2`$ behavior of $`\lambda `$ at low temperatures is a typical feature of disordered superconductors with line nodes, such as the Zn-doped high-$`T_c`$ superconductor YBa2Cu3O7 . In fact as little as 0.31 percent Zn substitution can cause a crossover from a linear temperature dependence to $`T^2`$ without affecting $`T_c`$. This has been interpreted as the effect of impurity scattering on a superconductor with line nodes in the energy gap and offers a natural explanation for the $`T^2`$ behavior of $`\lambda `$ we found in MgB2. The $`T^2`$ dependence of $`\lambda `$ in disordered high-$`T_c`$ oxides is robust against Zn doping. In MgB2 it has also been found that this $`T^2`$ behavior of $`\lambda `$ is robust against non-magnetic (Zn and Ca) doping.

In conclusion, we have measured the magnetic penetration depth of the newly discovered superconductor MgB2 using the transverse-field $`\mu `$SR and low-field ac-susceptibility techniques. The value of $`\lambda `$ at 0K is about 85nm. $`\lambda `$ shows a $`T^2`$ dependence at low temperatures. This is strong evidence for unconventional superconducting pairing in MgB2.

We are grateful to A.D. Taylor of the ISIS Facility, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory for the allocation of muon beam time. We thank J.R. Cooper for useful discussions and Y. Shi for help in the characterisation measurements. C.P. thanks the Royal Society for financial support. T.X. acknowledges the hospitality of the Interdisciplinary Research Center in Superconductivity of the University of Cambridge, where this work was done, and the financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China.


text:
# The survival of quantum coherence in deformed states superposition

## Abstract

We study the dissipative dynamics of deformed coherent states superposition. We find that such kind of superposition can be more robust against decoherence than the usual Schrödinger cat states.

The feature of quantum mechanics which most distinguishes it from classical mechanics is the coherent superposition of distinct physical states. Many of the less intuitive aspects of the quantum theory can be traced to this feature. The famous Schrödinger cat argument  highlights problems of interpretation where macroscopic superposition states is allowed. In fact, such states are very fragile in the presence of dissipation, and rapidly collapse to a classical mixture exhibiting no unusual interference features . Environment induced decoherence has been identified in recent years as one of the main ingredients in the transition from quantum to classical behavior . Classicality emerges as a consequence of the coupling of quantum systems to an environment which, in effect, dynamically enforces super-selection rules by precluding the stable existence of the majority of states in the Hilbert space of the system. The physics of decoherence has been studied during the last few years both from the theoretical  and also from the experimental point of view . However, the most used paradigmatic case has been the superposition of two distinguishable coherent states . The latter being eigenstates of boson annihilation operator .

On the other hand, quantum groups , introduced as a mathematical description of deformed Lie algebras, have given the possibility of generalizing the notion of creation and annihilation operators of the usual oscillator and to introduce deformed oscillator . They were interpreted  as nonlinear oscillators with a very specific type of nonlinearity, and this led to the more general concept of $`f`$-deformed oscillator . Then, the notion of $`f`$-coherent states was straightforwardly introduced , and the generation of such nonlinear coherent states enters in the real possibilities of trapped systems .

Successively, it was quite natural to consider the superposition of such states , which could be named deformed cat state. Here, we are going to study their dissipative dynamics and the related coherence properties in comparison with the usual Schrödinger cat states . In particular, we shall show that the deformed cat states may result much more robust against decoherence than their undeformed version.

The essential point in understanding quantum coherence is the physical distinction between the coherent superposition state

$$|\psi =\underset{i}{}c_i|\psi _i\rho =\underset{i,j}{}c_ic_j^{}|\psi _i\psi _j|,$$
(1)
and the classical mixture

$$\rho _{mix}=\underset{i}{}|c_i|^2|\psi _i\psi _i|.$$
(2)
Following the avenue sketched in Ref., the density operator (1) can be written as

$$\rho =\rho _{mix}+\underset{ij}{}c_ic_j^{}|\psi _i\psi _j|.$$
(3)
Let $`Z`$ be the operator corresponding to some physical observable having eigenvalues $`z`$. Then, the probability distribution for $`Z`$ in the state $`|\psi `$ is given by

$$P(z)=P_{mix}(z)+\underset{ij}{}c_ic_j^{}z|\psi _i\psi _j|z,$$
(4)
where $`P_{mix}(z)=_i|c_i|^2|z|\psi _i|^2`$. Measurement of $`Z`$ will distinguish the states $`\rho `$ and $`\rho _{mix}`$ provided the second term in (4) is nonzero. We are thus led to define the quantum coherence function (with respect to the measurement $`Z`$) as

$$𝒞(z)=\underset{ij}{}c_ic_j^{}z|\psi _i\psi _j|z.$$
(5)
The usual coherent state is defined  as the eigenstate of the annihilation operator $`a`$, of a bosonic field

$$|\alpha =N\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\alpha ^n}{\sqrt{n!}}|n,N=\left[\mathrm{exp}(\alpha ^2)\right]^{1/2},$$
(6)
where we have assumed $`\alpha 𝐑`$ for the sake of simplicity. Then, it is possible to consider the superposition

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=N_+\left(|\alpha +|\alpha \right),N_+=\left[2+2N^2\mathrm{exp}(\alpha ^2)\right]^{1/2},$$
(7)
known as even cat state Ref.. This is a remarkable example of interference among quantum states.

Now, consider to measure the number operator, i.e. $`Za^{}a`$, then, the number probability distribution results

$$P(n)=P_+(n)+P_{}(n)+2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}\left\{𝒞(n)\right\},$$
(8)
with $`P_\pm (n)=|n|\pm \alpha |^2`$ and $`𝒞(n)=\alpha |nn|\alpha `$. Hence, a convenient measure of quantum coherence is the quantum visibility

$$𝒱=\frac{|𝒞(n)|}{\sqrt{P_+(n)P_{}(n)}}.$$
(9)
A straightforward calculation gives $`𝒱=1`$, which means that the state (7) shows maximum quantum coherence.

In order to apply the same arguments at macroscopic level, it is also useful to define a parameter giving the separation among the two states being superposed. However, the concept of “distance” between quantum states is not uniquely defined (a recent discussion on this problem can be found in Ref.), and here, we adopt the simplest one, leading to

$$d=\alpha |\left(a+a^{}\right)|\alpha =2\alpha .$$
(10)
It is worth noting that such distance is directly related to the number of photons $`\alpha ^2`$ of the coherent states.

We now introduce the decoherence effects due to a dissipative interaction with an environment . This can be described (in interaction picture) by the following master equation of the Lindblad form

$$\dot{\rho }=\gamma a\rho a^{}\frac{\gamma }{2}\{a^{}a,\rho \},$$
(11)
where $`\gamma `$ is the damping rate, and we have set the bath temperature equal to zero. The decoherence effect on the state $`\rho (0)=|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|`$ can be described in the following way

$$\rho (t)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_k(t)\rho (0)\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_k^{}(t),$$
(12)
where

$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_k(t)=\underset{n=k}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\sqrt{\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\ k\end{array}\right)}\left[\eta (t)\right]^{(nk)/2}\left[1\eta (t)\right]^{k/2}|nkn|,$$
(13)
with $`\eta (t)=e^{\gamma t}`$.

Thus, the quantum visibility results

$$𝒱(n,t)=\mathrm{exp}\left\{2\alpha ^2\left[1\eta (t)\right]\right\}.$$
(14)
This is a well known results  showing that the decoherence effect depends on the damping rate as well as on the separation of the coherent states, i.e. the macroscopicity. Moreover, $`𝒱`$ remains constant through $`n`$. Considering that $`\gamma `$ is fixed by the system-environment interaction, we would investigate whether the quantum visibility can depend on the type of cat state one consider.

Let us introduce a $`f`$-coherent state defined  as the eigenstate of the annihilation operator of a $`f`$-deformed bosonic field $`A=a\sqrt{f(a^{}a)}`$, where $`f`$ is an operator-valued function of the number operator (here it is assumed Hermitian and real). In general, it can be made dependent on continuos parameters, in such a way that, for given particular values, the usual algebra is recovered. The $`f`$-coherent state can be written as

$$|\zeta ,f=𝒩\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\zeta ^n}{\sqrt{[n]_f!}}|n,𝒩=\left[\mathrm{exp}_f(\zeta ^2)\right]^{1/2},$$
(15)
where we have considered $`\zeta 𝐑`$, and we have introduced

$$\mathrm{exp}_f(x)\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{x^n}{[n]_f!},[n]_f!\left[nf(n)\right]\times \left[(n1)f(n1)\right]\times \mathrm{}\left[2f(2)\right]\times \left[f(1)\right]\times \left[f(0)\right].$$
(16)
The function $`\mathrm{exp}_f`$ is a deformed version of the usual exponential function. They become coincident when $`f`$ is the identity. Notice that $`\mathrm{exp}_f(x)\mathrm{exp}_f(y)\mathrm{exp}_f(x+y)`$, i.e. we have a non-extensive exponential which can be found in many physical problems .

Let us now consider the superposition

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }=𝒩_+\left(|\zeta ,f+|\zeta ,f\right),𝒩_+=\left[2+2𝒩^2\mathrm{exp}_f(\zeta ^2)\right]^{1/2}.$$
(17)
In this case the separation between the two superposed states becomes

$$d=\zeta ,f|\left(a+a^{}\right)|\zeta ,f=𝒩^2\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\zeta ^n}{\sqrt{[n]_f!}}\left\{\frac{\sqrt{n}\zeta ^{(n1)}}{\sqrt{[n1]_f!}}+\frac{\sqrt{n+1}\zeta ^{(n+1)}}{\sqrt{[n+1]_f!}}\right\}.$$
(18)
The decoherence effects on the state $`\rho (0)=|\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }|`$ are introduced by again employing Eq.(12). Here, we are not interested on the dynamics in presence of a deformed Hamiltonian . Then, the quantum visibility can be obtained as straightforward extension of previous argument

$$𝒱(n,t)=\left|\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(n+k)!}{k!}\frac{\left[\zeta ^2\left(1\eta (t)\right)\right]^k}{[n+k]_f!}\right|\times \left\{\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(n+k)!}{k!}\frac{\left[\zeta ^2\left(1\eta (t)\right)\right]^k}{[n+k]_f!}\right\}^1.$$
(19)
From the above equation, it is clear that the quantum visibility depends on the outcome of the measurement of the observable $`Z`$. Moreover $`𝒱`$, depending on the specific form of $`f`$, could be greater than the non-deformed case. It follows the possibility to preserve the quantum coherence. Of course, in order to correctly compare the two situations, i.e. deformed and undeformed, one should consider cat states of the same macroscopicity, i.e. having the same $`d`$.

Then, let us consider two types of deformations in more details. The $`q`$-deformation defined by

$$f(n)=\sqrt{\frac{1}{n}\frac{q^nq^n}{qq^1}},f(0)=1,q𝐑,$$
(20)
and the deformation given by ,

$$f(n)=\frac{L_n^1(\xi ^2)}{(n+1)L_n^0(\xi ^2)},\xi 𝐑,$$
(21)
which we are going to name $`L`$-deformation, since $`L_n^m`$ indicates the associate Laguerre polynomial. It is worth noting that such $`L`$-deformation naturally arises in ion trapped systems .

From Eq.(14) we can argue a survival of coherence by decreasing $`\zeta `$ with respect to $`\alpha `$ still maintaining the same states separation $`d`$. In Fig.(1) we show the separation as function of deformation parameter when $`\zeta ^2=\alpha ^2=2`$. The dashed line represents the value of undeformed cat state. Then, we may see that the $`q`$-deformation (dotted line) always implies a smaller distance $`d`$, while the $`L`$-deformation (solid line) allows to reach, and overcome, the distance of the undeformed coherent states ($`2\sqrt{2}`$). This is due to the form of Eq.(21) which shows many singularities by varying $`\xi `$. Thus, for our purpose, the $`L`$-deformation seems more pertinent since allows a comparison between deformed and undeformed cat states having the same separation.

In Fig.(2) we show the quantum visibility as function of dimensionless time $`\gamma t`$. We immediately see that the decoherence of $`L`$-deformed cat state (solid lines) is slowed down with respect to the undeformed one (dashed line). Moreover, in the deformed case the quantum visibility depends on $`n`$, and it is better preserved by increasing $`n`$. Of course the relevant value is $`n=2`$ (since it is the most probable for both case) and it shows a consistent improvement.

Nevertheless, as stated above, we expect a better result for $`\zeta <\alpha `$. Then, in Fig.(3), we have plotted the quantum visibility at $`\gamma t=1`$ as function of $`\zeta `$. For each value of $`\zeta `$ we have used the value of $`\xi `$ giving the same distance $`d`$ of the undeformed case ($`2\sqrt{2}`$). We may seen that there exist a value of $`\zeta ^2`$ which maximize the coherence persistence. For such a value ($`\zeta ^21`$), the visibility results enormous greater than the undeformed case. For $`\zeta ^20`$ the visibility tends to zero since practically the two superposing states become the vacuum states. Instead, for $`\zeta ^22`$, the deformed case has always a distance $`d`$ greater than the deformed one, so that no comparison is possible.

In conclusion we have shown that quantum coherence can survive against dissipation provided to superpose distinguishable coherent states of suitable deformed field. This unexpected result relies on the fact that the states being superposed, once deformed, are no longer eigenstates (nor near eigenstates) of the operator appearing in the irreversible part of the evolution equation (11), i.e. they substantially differ from the pointer basis . On the other hand, deformed states, due to their nonlinear character, give rise to a more rich phase space structure , part of which can easier survive against decoherence.

The present results may open new perspectives for the experimental observation of macroscopic realism in quantum mechanics. Moreover, the kind of studied states, being decoherence resistant, could result quite useful for quantum information processing . Extension of the above arguments to other observables, or to other types of decoherence, e.g. non-dissipative decoherence , is planned for future work.


text:
# Fractal to Nonfractal Phase Transition in the Dielectric Breakdown Model

\[

## Abstract

A fast method is presented for simulating the dielectric-breakdown model using iterated conformal mappings. Numerical results for the dimension and for corrections to scaling are in good agreement with the recent RG prediction of an upper critical $`\eta _c=4`$, at which a transition occurs between branching fractal clusters and one-dimensional nonfractal clusters.

\]

Diffusion-limited aggregation(DLA) is one of the most interesting and difficult fractal growth models, despite its simple rules. It models a wide range of processes in nature that give rise to branching structures, including viscous fingering, electrodeposition, and dendritic growth. Yet, despite the importance of the model and various theoretical approaches, a full, controlled understanding is lacking.

An extension of DLA is the dielectric-breakdown model(DBM), also known as the $`\eta `$ model. This model provides a continuously varying fractal dimension $`d`$, ranging from 2 ($`\eta =0`$, the Eden model), to roughly 1.7 ($`\eta =1`$, DLA), to 1. Recently, it has been argued that $`d=1`$ for $`\eta \eta _c=4`$, leading to a controlled renormalization group expansion for the DBM. Further, while continuum DLA has certain integrability properties, most other theoretical approaches do not rely on these and should apply to the DBM as well. Thus, numerical studies of the DBM provide a strong check on any theoretical approach to fractal growth. Given the intense recent activity in the field, stimulated by the conformal mapping approach, such a check is crucial.

Several numerical studies of the DBM have been performed, and in one such study an $`\eta _c`$ equal to 4 was suggested. However, the difficulty of numerically solving Laplace’s equation has restricted the cluster sizes to roughly 5000 particles for $`\eta =2`$ and to roughly 1000 particles for larger $`\eta `$. We show below that the numerically measured dimension of clusters with $`\eta 4`$ decreases with increasing cluster size, and that 1000 particles is not sufficient to extract correct information.

In this work, we present a fast algorithm for the DBM using iterated conformal mappings, leading to an order of magnitude increase in cluster size. Unlike numerical solution of a discrete Laplace equation, this technique is free of grid effects and boundary effects. The numerical results are in good agreement with upper critical $`\eta `$ found in the RG, and for $`\eta \eta _c`$, we find that the finite size corrections to the numerically measured dimension are in good agreement with the corrections predicted by the RG, and extrapolate well to $`D=1`$.

Conformal Mapping Method — The conformal mapping technique for simulating DLA proceeds as follows: define a function $`F^{(n)}(z)`$ that maps the unit circle in the complex plane onto the boundary of the growing cluster after $`n`$ growth steps. All singularities of $`F`$ must lie within the unit circle, which implies that $`F^{(n)}(z)`$ has a Laurent expansion

$$F^{(n)}(z)=F_1^{(n)}z+F_0^{(n)}+F_1^{(n)}z^1+\mathrm{}$$
(1)
Take $`F^{(0)}(z)=z`$. Then, to obtain $`F^{(n+1)}`$ from $`F^{(n)}`$, pick a random angle $`\theta _{n+1}`$, and construct an elementary mapping $`f^{(n+1)}`$ which produces a bump of linear size $`\sqrt{\lambda _{n+1}}`$ at angle $`\theta _{n+1}`$. Then, compose mappings to define $`F^{(n+1)}(z)=F^{(n)}(f^{(n+1)}(z))`$, which adds a bump to the cluster. To obtain bumps of fixed size in the physical plane, we chose

$$\lambda _{n+1}=\frac{\lambda _0}{|F^{(n)^{}}(e^{i\theta _{n+1}})|^2},$$
(2)
where $`\lambda _0`$ is some constant. Various elementary functions are possible; we use the function $`f`$ proposed in Ref. , which includes a parameter $`a`$ describing the bump shape.

For the dielectric breakdown model with given $`\eta `$, we need to chose the angle $`\theta _{n+1}`$ with probability proportional to $`|F^{(n)^{}}(e^{i\theta _{n+1}})|^{1\eta }`$. To do this, the program uses a Monte Carlo technique. It starts with an angle $`\theta _{\mathrm{old}}`$ which is initially taken equal to $`\theta _n`$. Then, it picks a random “trial angle” $`\theta `$. Define

$$P=\left(\frac{|F^{(n)^{}}(e^{i\theta })|}{|F^{(n)^{}}(e^{i\theta _{\mathrm{old}}})|}\right)^{1\eta }.$$
(3)
If $`P>1`$, it replaces $`\theta _{\mathrm{old}}`$ with $`\theta `$, “accepting” angle $`\theta `$. If $`P<1`$, it replaces $`\theta _{\mathrm{old}}`$ with $`\theta `$ with probability $`P`$. The program proceeds through a certain number $`T`$ of these trials, and then takes $`\theta _{n+1}=\theta _{\mathrm{old}}`$ to add the $`n+1`$-st particle to the cluster. If $`T`$ is large enough, this yields the desired distribution.

The time for the algorithm to produce a cluster of size $`N`$ scales as $`N^2T`$. We have used various means to determine the minimum value of $`T`$ needed. In Fig. 1, we show a plot of $`F_1`$ against number of growth steps for single realizations with $`\eta =4,N=10000`$ and $`T=50,300,400,500`$. While the curve for $`T=50`$ is clearly different, the other curves are all close, suggesting that $`T=300`$ suffices. Determinations of the dimension using $`T=300`$ are also indistinguishable from those using $`T=500`$; however, to be careful, in all quantitative results given below, we have chosen $`T=500`$, except for $`\eta =2`$, where $`T=200`$ was used. On an 850-Mhz Pentium III, a 10000 particle cluster with $`T=500`$ can be simulated in roughly 33 hours.

To provide an analytical estimate of the minimum $`T`$ needed we consider the worst case, a one-dimensional cluster, obtained by a suitably regularized version of the mapping $`F(z)=F_1z+F_1/z`$. For $`\eta >2`$, the probability distribution $`|F^{(n)^{}}(e^{i\theta })|^{1\eta }`$ diverges near $`\theta =0,\pi `$. The appropriate regularization of the cluster at a physical length of order $`\sqrt{\lambda }`$ cuts off this divergence at an angle that scales as $`\sqrt{\sqrt{\lambda }/F_1}\sqrt{1/n}`$. In order to have sufficient trials that the algorithm is able to find a point in this narrow region, one must have $`T>\sqrt{n}`$. For clusters which are not one-dimensional, so that $`F^{}(z)`$ is less singular, a smaller value of $`T`$ may be used. A final check on the value of $`T`$ needed is to look at the number of times a trial angle is accepted, as shown in Table I.

In all simulations we used $`\lambda _0=0.5`$. We chose $`a=2/3`$, suggested by Davidovitch et. al.  as minimizing numerical error due to regions in the fjords of the cluster in which the derivative of $`F(z)`$ varies rapidly. An improved technique for dealing with these regions involving an acceptance window was suggested by Stepanov and Levitov. However, for $`\eta >1`$, we automatically avoid regions with large $`|F^{}(z)|`$, so that we do not expect to have to worry about this problem; this justifies the very simple plotting technique employed to produce the images of the clusters below. We chose to plot only the images of certain points on the unit circle chosen to lie near singularities of the mapping, each point corresponding to a single growth step.

We used a parallel computer to generate many realizations of each cluster. However, generation of a single large cluster is a process that parallelizes very efficiently. Each node picks random angles and computes the Jacobian, returning the results to a central process, which does the acceptance calculation, and returns the chosen angle to the other nodes. This will increase cluster size, but at a cost in statistics.

Results — In Fig. 2, we show a large cluster with $`\eta =2,N=50000,T=30`$ for purposes of illustration. In Figs. 3,4 we show clusters with $`\eta =3.5,4.5`$ and $`N=10000,T=500`$. A difference in the “fuzziness” of the two clusters is clear, with the cluster at $`\eta =3.5`$ having many more small side branches. The single side branch in Fig. 4 is not the only possibility for this $`\eta `$. Other realizations show either a cluster with no side branches, or with a single branching near a growth tip.

For quantitative results, we have generated 13-14 realizations of clusters for each $`\eta =3,3.5,4,4.5,5`$, with $`N=10000,T=500`$, and 8 realizations of clusters for $`\eta =2`$ and $`N=15000,T=200`$. $`F_1^{(n)}`$ provides a measure of the linear size of the cluster; it may be shown that the radius of the cluster is at most 4 times $`F_1`$. We calculated the dimension $`D`$ by averaging $`F_1`$ over realizations of clusters and using linear regression on a log-log plot to fit

$$F_1^{(n)}n^{1/D}.$$
(4)
In Fig. 5 we plot $`F_1`$ and the rms fluctuations in $`F_1`$ for $`\eta =3`$ on a logarithmic scale; the rms fluctuations have a smaller slope, so the relative fluctuations in $`F_1`$ tend to zero, as found previously for $`\eta =1`$. The use of $`F_1`$ to determine dimension avoids problems with finite size effects in box-counting that can lead to a spurious dimension less than 1, as found for some $`\eta `$ in previous studies.

While for $`\eta =3`$, Fig. 5 is close to straight, for $`\eta =4`$ there is a curvature, as shown in the solid line in Fig. 6 (the dashed line is a fit discussed below). To quantitatively measure this curvature, indicative of corrections to scaling, we performed the linear regression 4 times for each $`\eta `$, first on the full set, then on the last half, quarter, and eighth of the data set. The results are shown in Table II; we also show the rms fluctuations in $`F_1`$ after the $`10000`$-th growth step. For $`\eta <4`$, the corrections to scaling are small, and the dimension is relatively constant, sometimes increasing and sometimes decreasing in the last part of the data set; these dimensions are close to those found in previously.

For $`\eta 4`$, there is a clear trend for the dimension to approach unity at longer times, with the trend most clear for $`\eta >4`$. We test the trend against the RG prediction for the corrections to scaling. The leading irrelevant variable in the RG is a tip splitting rate $`g`$, which is irrelevant for $`\eta >4`$, with scaling dimension $`(4\eta )/2`$. At $`\eta =4`$ the tip-splitting is marginal, which may be shown to lead to $`F_1=c_1n/(\mathrm{log}(n/c_2))^{c_3}`$, where $`c_3`$ is a universal constant determined by the $`\beta `$-functions and $`c_2`$ is nonuniversal. The dashed line in Fig. 6 shows the fit at $`\eta =4`$ with this scaling form; the fit is indistinguishable from the data over more than three decades, with only a slight difference on the first 5 data points out of 10000. (Within the RG, the $`\beta `$-functions are determined numerically, so we keep $`c_3`$ as a fitting parameter; the fit agrees with the numerical result from the RG). For $`\eta >4`$ the leading correction to scaling is $`F_1=c_1n(1+(n/c_2)^{(4\eta )/2})`$. A fit with this form is shown in Fig. 7 for $`\eta =4.5`$, with the fit distinguishable from the data over only roughly the first 30 data points out of 10000. (We checked the RG prediction for the scaling corrections by attempting to fit the numerical data with other forms; the results are much less accurate).

Conclusion — We have presented a fast algorithm for studying the dielectric breakdown model. Numerical results using this algorithm, using the RG corrections to scaling, support an upper critical $`\eta _c=4`$ for which the DBM clusters become one-dimensional. The existence of finite size corrections for $`\eta 4`$ makes it desirable to simulate even larger clusters, but, while we have greatly improved the cluster size over previous work, the results in this paper are close to the limit of what can presently be attained using the conformal mapping techniques.

Acknowledgements — I would like to thank T. C. Halsey, L. Levitov, F. Levyraz, P. Pfeifer, and I. Procaccia for useful discussions, as well as the Centro Internacional de Ciencas in Cuernavaca for a very interesting recent conference on DLA and other nonlinear systems. Numerical simulations were performed using the Avalon computer at Los Alamos National Laboratory, as well as desktop machines. This work was supported by DOE grant W-7405-ENG-36.


text:
# Nonlocal reflection by photonic barriers

## I Introduction

We are used to measuring a reflection time from partial reflection of light, for instance by a sheet of glass, that is determined by sheer thickness. The reflection is observed only after a time span corresponding to twice the layer thickness multiplied by the group velocity of light in glass. Three hundred years ago Newton conjectured that light was composed of corpuscles and argued rather in the case of partial reflection by two or more surfaces: ”Light striking the first surface sets off a kind of wave or field that travels along with the light and predisposes it to reflect or not reflect off the second surface.” He called this process ’fits of easy reflection or easy transmission’ Feynman . As theory and experiments have shown this is not correct. In the case of dielectric media with a positive real part of the refractive index $`n`$ like glass, the reflection is composed of components from both the front and the back surface reflection of the sheet of glass.

Amazingly, in the case of reflection of particles by an opaque photonic barrier, where the index of refraction is purely imaginary, Newton’s conjecture seems to be close to reality: Partial reflection by opaque photonic barriers suffers a short but constant time delay independent of the barrier’s length. A barrier is called opaque if its transmission is less than $`1/e`$. For the photonic barriers investigated here, the incident particles can be simulated by localized wave packets. We found that for these wave packets the reflection time equals the transmission time observed in photonic tunnelling experiments Haibel . This behaviour is opposite to the partial reflection of dielectric sheets and may be explained by a nonlocality of evanescent modes in opaque barriers. Nonlocality and causality were investigated in Ref. hegerfeldt  and quite recently with respect to superluminal photonic tunnelling by Perel’man perel .

## II Experimental setup

The experimental setup and the investigated photonic barriers are sketched in Fig. 1 and 2, respectively. For the time domain measurements, pulse–like signals with halfwidths of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=8.5`$ ns, corresponding to a frequency–bandwidth of $`\mathrm{\Delta }f=80`$ MHz, were modulated on a high frequency carrier $`f_c=9.15`$ GHz produced by a microwave generator. Using the power output of the generator $`P=1`$mW it can be estimated that each pulse is built by an ensemble of $`P\mathrm{\Delta }t/hf_c10^{12}`$ single photons. The microwave pulse was transmitted to the photonic barriers via a parabolic antenna; the reflected signal was received by a second antenna. A HP-54825 oscilloscope detected the envelope of the reflected microwave signal. The measurements were performed asymptotically, i.e. a coupling between generator, detector, and devices under test (photonic barriers or metallic mirrors) was avoided by the long optical distances of 3 m and by uniline devices in the microwave circuit. Due to the narrow radiation profile of the parabolic antennas of approximately $`5^{}`$ a direct coupling between them was excluded.

The barriers consist of two photonic lattices (periodic dielectric quarter wavelength structures) which are separated by an air gap, Fig 2. Each lattice consists between one and four equidistant Perspex layers separated by air. The refractive index of Perspex is $`n=1.61`$ in the measured frequency region. In order to build a photonic barrier for the microwave signal, the thicknesses of the Perspex $`b=5.0`$ mm and the air layers $`a=8.5`$ mm present a quarter of the microwave carrier´s wavelength in Perspex $`\lambda _n=c/nf_c=20.4`$ mm and in air $`\lambda _0=c/f_c=32.8`$ mm, respectively. At each surface of the Perspex layers a part $`\rho =(n1)/(n+1)`$ of the incident wave or a factor $`|\rho |^25\%`$ of the incoming intensity is reflected. These reflections interfere constructively and result in a total reflection of nearly the same magnitude as the incident signal. The air space $`d=189.0`$ mm between the two lattices forms a cavity and extends the total length of the barrier. The resonance frequencies of the cavity are given by multiples of $`f_{\mathrm{res}}=c/2d=794`$MHz. The frequency spectrum of the microwave signal lies completely in the nonresonant ´forbidden´ frequency region between the two resonances of the cavity at $`11f_{\mathrm{res}}`$ and $`12f_{\mathrm{res}}`$ .

The calculated transmission and reflection of the barriers consisting of 8, 4, and 2 layers of Perspex are displayed in Fig. 3. There are five pronounced forbidden bands separated by resonance transmission peaks of the cavity in the frequency range displayed. Within a frequency band of approximately $`9.15\text{GHz}\pm 100\text{MHz}`$ around the carrier frequency $`f_c`$ the complete structure behaves like a photonic barrier. Due to destructive interference the transmitted signal is exponentially attenuated by the number of Perspex layers.

## III Partial reflection by photonic barriers

For a normal dielectric medium with a real index of refraction $`n>1`$, e.g. a sheet of glass, the propagation of the reflected microwave pulse is expected to be reshaped by partial reflections at the sheet’s two surfaces. The maximum intensity of the reflection depends on the thickness of the sheet and varies sinusoidal Feynman . This behaviour is due to interference between waves reflected by the front and back surfaces of the single sheet. We are now investigating the behaviour of the photonic barriers sketched in Fig. 2, which have a purely imaginary index of refraction.

A signal sent to the metallic mirror, placed at the front surfaces $`x_0`$ of the barriers, is reflected and the reflected signal is detected by the oscilloscope after a certain time delay, Fig. 1. We will subtract this time delay from all further measurements in order to use the arrival time of that pulse as a time reference $`t=0`$. Thus, a pulse reflected by a metallic mirror placed at the end of the barrier at $`x_0+x_8`$ is expected to arrive at a time $`t=2x_8/c=1.87`$ ns, see Fig 4.

The partial reflection by the photonic barriers revealed a strange behaviour: if the length of the barrier was shortened from 8 to 4 or 2 layers (Fig. 2), the time delay of the reflection kept constant whereas the amplitude decreased as a result of the increasing transmission (Fig. 3). The measured time delay of the pulses reflected by the barriers differs approximately $`t100`$ ps from the reflection time at the front mirror $`x_0`$, see Fig. 4. This delay time corresponds to the tunnelling time $`\tau 1/f_c`$ for a signal in the microwave frequency range $`f_c=9.15`$ GHz Haibel ; esposito .

To add further credibility to the time domain measurements, the reflection experiment was verified in the frequency domain using guided microwaves and a network analyzer HP-8510. The photonic lattices were constructed from layers of Perspex inside X–band waveguides in an analogous arrangement to the above presented free space experiment vetter . The geometry of the structure ($`a=12`$mm, $`b=6`$mm, and $`d=130`$mm) resulted in a forbidden band around $`f_c=8.44`$GHz of width $`\mathrm{\Delta }f100`$ MHz. Because the reflections at the Perspex layers inside the waveguide are stronger than in free space, the largest barrier consists of 6 layers of Perspex. To obtain a higher resolution we also used barriers with odd numbers of 3 and 5 layers. As a result, also for these unsymmetrical barriers the transmission and refection time of a pulse did not depend on the side of incidence.

After measuring the frequency spectra of the barriers for transmission and reflection, the propagation of pulses in the time domain could be reconstructed by Fourier transforms. In order to simulate the reflection at a photonic barrier, the frequency components within the band gap at $`f_c`$ was used to construct the pulses. Figure 5 shows the reconstructed pulses after a reflection by barriers of 3, 4, 5, and 6 layers. The frequency domain measurements confirm the above presented free space measurements: again the reflection time does not depend on the length of opaque barrier.

## IV Conclusions

In both experiments the applied signal pulse had a carrier frequency $`f_c`$ in the center of the photonic barriers´ forbidden band gap and a narrow frequency–bandwidth $`\mathrm{\Delta }f`$ about $`1\%`$ of $`f_c`$. Thus all frequency components of the signal were evanescent. In this case there is no finite phase–time or group delay expected nor observed for the wave packet inside a barrier Hartman ; nimtz2 . Such a behaviour seem to explain the experimental data of reflection by opaque barriers: Evanescent modes appear to be nonlocal at least up to some ten wavelengths as experiments have shown in this study. The distance of observing nonlocality effects is limited by the exponential decay of the field intensity of evanescent modes, i.e. of the probability in the wave mechanical particle analogy.

In measuring the reflection duration of wave packets by photonic barriers we observed that the partial reflection by the back surface has an instantaneous effect on the amplitude, whereas the reflection duration is not changed. Obviously the information on photonic barrier length is available at the barrier’s front surface within the short tunnelling time. This is a strange property which Newton suggested erroneously to explain partial reflection of corpuscles by dielectric layers Feynman .

We thank H. Aichmann, P. Mittelstaedt, and A. Stahlhofen for helpful discussions, B. Clegg for a critical reading of the manuscript, and M. E. Perel’man for giving us the paper on his investigation prior to publication.


text:
# Quantum percolation in power-law diluted chains

## I Figure captions

Figure 1 - The integrated density of states (IDOS) as a function of $`E/t`$ for a linear chain with $`L=1,600`$ sites and $`\alpha =1.25`$. A configurational average over $`20`$ realizations of the disorder was employed. For $`p_1=0.1`$, all clusters are finite. The gaps and delta function singularities in the density of states reflect the absence of a spanning cluster. For $`p_1=0.9`$, a spanning cluster is present and the density of states becomes smooth.

Figure 2 - The participation ratio as a function $`E/t`$ for chains with $`\alpha =1.25`$. (a) $`p_1=0.1`$ and linear sizes $`L=800`$ (circles) and $`1,600`$ (triangles): all eigen-functions are exponentially localized and the participation ratio is roughly size independent; (b) $`p_1=0.9`$ and linear sizes $`L=800`$ (diamonds) and $`1,600`$ (squares): all eigenfunctions are extended and the participation ratio scales linearly with $`L`$.

Figure 3 - The average participation ratio (normalized by the chain’s size) as a function of the first-neighbors concentration $`p_1`$ and distinct lattice sizes $`L=200`$ (circles), $`400`$ (squares), $`800`$ (diamonds) and $`1,600`$ (triangles) for $`\alpha =1.25`$. It shows a clear localization/delocalization transition around $`p_1^{(q)}=0.25(3)`$. This behavior is typical for the range $`1<\alpha <1.5`$ with an $`\alpha `$-dependent critical concentration.

Figure 4 - The average participation ratio as a function of the first-neighbors concentration $`p_1`$ and distinct lattice sizes $`L=200`$ (circles), $`400`$ (squares), $`800`$ (diamonds) and $`1,600`$ (triangles) for $`\alpha =1.75`$. It shows a crossover from a phase of localized states at low concentrations to a phase of weakly delocalized states at high concentrations. Inset: the size dependence of the participation ratio for concentrations $`p_1=0.2`$ (diamonds), $`0.6`$ (triangles) and $`1.0`$ (circles). At high concentrations, a phase of critical states sets up where the participation ratio scales as $`PL^{\tau _2}`$. For $`p_1=1`$ we obtained $`\tau _2=0.73(2)`$. At the estimated critical concentration $`p_1^{(q)}=0.60`$, we found $`\tau _2=0.38(2)`$. This behavior is typical for the range $`1.5<\alpha <2.0`$ with $`\alpha `$-dependent critical concentration and exponents.

Figure 5 - Representative extended (bottom) and critical (top) wave-functions. These were obtained from a $`L=1,600`$ chain, $`p_1=1.0`$, $`\alpha =1.25`$ (extended state) and $`\alpha =1.75`$ (critical state). The extended state presents a random uniform distribution over all chain. The critical state has spikes of many sizes characterizing its multifractal distribution.


text:
# The Power Spectrum of Flux Limited X-Ray Galaxy Cluster Surveys

## 1 Introduction

The distribution of matter at very large scales can be traced using galaxy clusters that are the largest virialized objects in the Universe. This distribution is deeply connected to the fluctuations in the primordial density field since at very large scales gravitational effects are still linear. Assuming a Gaussian distribution of fluctuations the two point correlation function $`\xi (r)`$ or the power spectrum $`P(k)`$ are statistical tools suitable to give a complete description of the matter distribution. From a mathematical point of view any of these functions are equivalent since they form a Fourier transform pair. In the last years, considerably effort has been carried out applying these statistics to different observational samples of galaxy clusters.

The Abell (1958) catalogue and its extension Abell-ACO (Abell, Corwin & Olowin, 1989), constructed by visual inspection of Palomar photographic plates, is probably the most widely used cluster survey. In pioneering works Peacock & West (1992) and Jing & Valdarnini (1993) have computed the power spectrum for different Abell cluster samples. At large wave-numbers $`k>0.05h\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ they found a power law behavior $`P(k)k^n`$ with an index $`1.4<n<1.7`$. At lower wave-numbers, $`k<0.05h\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$, there is a striking flattening of the power spectrum changing dramatically the value of $`n`$. More recently, Einasto et al. (1997) and Retzlaff et al. (1998) using other Abell-ACO samples found a peak at $`k0.040.05h\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ near the wave-number where the flattening starts. Miller & Batuski (2000) reanalyzing an Abell-ACO sample claim that this peak is only present due to the inclusion of clusters of richness $`R=0`$ and clusters with estimated (not measured) redshifts. They also point out that $`R=0`$ clusters are outside the statistical sample of Abell (1958) and do not constitute a fair sample. It should be noted the importance of such features due to the deep link with primordial mass power spectrum of current cosmological models.

It has been claimed that projection effects can be strongly present in optical cluster catalogue and could increase artificially their power spectrum amplitude. One attempt to minimize subjectivites present in optically selected cluster catalogue is the identification of clusters in photografic plates by means of automatic computer algorithms like in the APM cluster survey (Dalton et al. 1997). The power spectrum obtained by Tadros, Efstathiou & Dalton (1998) for this cluster sample shows a smooth transition from positive to negative slopes near $`k=0.030.04h\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ without the detection of any peak. Another way to avoid this problem is the identification of clusters in the X-ray band where the highly peaked emission in cluster centers minimizes the probability of projection effects. Bohringer et al. (1998) present the ROSAT ESO Flux Limited X-ray (REFLEX) survey that is an optically confirmed X-ray cluster sample in the southern hemisphere. For a relatively small subsample they also present one of the highest power spectrum amplitude for a cluster sample without detecting the presence of a peak. There are another two X-ray flux limited cluster catalogue constructed from the ROSAT all-sky survey (RASS): the X-ray Brightest Abell-type Cluster sample (XBACS; Ebeling et al. 1996) and the Brightest Cluster Sample (BCS; Ebeling et al.1998). Recently, an extension of BCS to a lower flux limit has been released forming the extended BCS (EBCS, Ebeling et al. 2000). This sample is constructed from the extended X-ray emission of RASS, while the XBACS is based on previously optically selected clusters. In a recent paper, Moscardini et al. (2000) provide predictions for the correlation function and power spectrum of X-ray flux limited surveys for different cosmological models. They apply their models to XBACS, BCS and REFLEX following the non-linear evolution of clustering and using theoretical and observational relations between intrinsic properties of clusters like mass, luminosity and temperature.

The aim of this paper is to estimate the redshift space power spectrum of XBACS and BCS in order to compare with observational results for different samples and model predictions. The paper is organized in the following way: In section 2 we describe the X-ray cluster samples to be analyzed. In section 3 we present the method applied to estimate the power spectrum of a flux limited sample with the derivation of the corresponding errors. In section 4 the main results are discussed and we present the conclusions in section 5.

## 2 XBACS AND BCS

In this section we briefly describe the main characteristics of the samples relevant for the power spectrum estimation. The XBACS comprise 242 Abell-ACO X-ray confirmed clusters distributed in the whole celestial sphere excluding the strip of low galactic latitude $`|b_{lim}|<20^{}`$. The flux limit of the sample is $`F_{lim}=5\times 10^{12}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 in the energy range 0.1-2.4 keV and the redshift limit is $`z=0.2`$ . Ebeling et al. (1996) estimate that the overall completeness of the XBACS is $`>80\%`$ at the above $`F_{lim}`$. This sample is free of volume incompleteness since is constructed from the brightest Abell/ACO clusters which suffer of incompleteness problems only for poorest clusters (Plionis & Kolokotronis 1998).

The original BCS consists of 201 clusters distributed in the northern equatorial hemisphere ($`\delta 0^{}`$) with the same cut in galactic latitude $`|b_{lim}|<20^{}`$ and a redshift limit $`z0.3`$. The corresponding flux limit is similar to XBACS ($`F_{lim}=4.4\times 10^{12}`$erg s-1 cm-2) in the same band with a completeness of $`90\%`$. The extension of BCS (Ebeling et al. 2000) includes 100 additional clusters up to a lower limit $`F_{lim}=2.8\times 10^{12}`$ erg s-1 cm-2. These two samples form jointly the EBCS comprising 301 clusters with a nominal completeness relatively low $`75\%`$. Ebeling et al. (1996, 1998 and 2000) give right ascensions, declinations (J2000.0) and redshifts for XBACS, BCS and its extension, respectively.

In Figure 1 we show the angular distribution in galactic coordinates of XBACS (crosses) and BCS (open circles for the original sample and filled squares for its extension). The superposition of open circles and crosses indicate that $`>50\%`$ of BCS are included in the XBACS.

## 3 POWER SPECTRUM ESTIMATION

### 3.1 Introduction

In this section we outline the scheme applied to estimate the redshift space power spectrum. If a redshift survey is used to compute the power spectrum of a distribution, then the resulting power spectrum is the convolution of the real spectrum with the catalogue window function. This window function depends on the geometry of the survey and on the technique employed to calculate it and should be as narrow as possible. Several authors present different methods to estimate the redshift space power spectrum of a sample. In a pioneer work of Feldman, Kaiser & Peacock (1994, hereafter FKP) provide a suitable method for a flux limited sample with a detailed analysis of errors. Tegmark (1995) present another way to calculate the power spectrum that maximizes the spectral resolution for different survey geometries. Tadros & Efstathiou (1996) give a variation of FKP, but for a volume limited sample. Analyzing different methods to compute the power spectrum, Tegmark et al. (1998) show that FKP method is the most appropriate for wave-numbers greater than the point where the value of the window function decrease a factor 2 of its value at the origin. We apply the method derived by FKP in the version described by Hoyle et al. (1999). This method is suitable for our samples due to its simple quasi-spherical geometry (Sutherland et al. 1999).

### 3.2 Spatial Distribution

We have used the standard transformation from redshift $`z`$ to comoving distance $`r`$ for a model universe with a dimensionless density parameter equal to unity and a null cosmological constant (Mattig 1958):

$$r=2\frac{c}{H_0}(1(1+z)^{1/2})$$
(1)
where $`c`$ is the speed of light and $`H_0=100hkms^1`$/Mpc is the Hubble constant.

In the upper panel of Figure 2 we show the histogram of the distribution of XBACS (solid line) and BCS (dashed line) as a function of comoving distance. We have taken bins of comoving distance width $`dr35h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$. The smooth curves are the fitting formulae proposed by FKP:

$$N(r)=2^{(1+x/y)}N_{max}(\frac{r}{r_{max}})^x[1+(\frac{r}{r_{max}})^y]^{(1+x/y)}$$
(2)
with parameters quoted in Table 1 by a chi-square maximum like-hood method.

An often applied method to test for systematics gradients in the samples is to compute the observed comoving number density

$$n(r)=\frac{N(r)}{\mathrm{\Omega }r^2dr}$$
(3)
where $`N(r)`$ is the observed number of clusters in a bin at a distance $`r`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the solid angle covered by the sample. Actually, the sky coverage is a function of the flux $`F`$, but this function is not available for these catalogues. Following Moscardini et al. (2000) we assume that the actual sky coverage is a constant, for XBACS is $`\mathrm{\Omega }=4\pi (1sin(b_{lim}))=8.27`$ and for BCS is $`\mathrm{\Omega }=4.13`$.

Since these are a flux limited samples we have normalized $`n(r)`$ to the expected comoving number density $`n_0(r)`$ obtained integrating the luminosity function,

$$n_0(r)=_{L_{min}}^{\mathrm{}}AL^\alpha e^{L/L^{}}𝑑L,$$
(4)
where $`L_{min}=4\pi r^2(1+z)F_{lim}`$. We have adopted the Schechter luminosity function parameters from Plionis & Kolokotronis (1998) and we quote them in Table 2.

In the lower panel of Figure 2, we plot the normalized comoving number density $`n(r)/n_0(r)`$ of XBACS (filled circles) and BCS (open circles). This plot shows the absence of spatial gradients in the samples. See Plionis & Kolokotronis (1998) for a detailed description of these effects.

### 3.3 The method

If the cluster sample has $`N_c`$ clusters with vector positions $`𝐱_c`$ we construct a random catalog with the same geometry and selection function of the sample with $`N_r`$ points with vector positions $`𝐱_r`$. Then, we define a quantity with mean value zero as:

$$\delta (𝐤)=D(𝐤)\alpha W(𝐤)$$
(5)
where

$$D(𝐤)=\underset{c=1}{\overset{N_c}{}}\omega (x_c)e^{i𝐤.𝐱_c}$$
(6)
is the Fourier transform of the cluster distribution, and

$$W(𝐤)=\underset{r=1}{\overset{N_r}{}}\omega (x_r)e^{i𝐤.𝐱_r}$$
(7)
is the Fourier transform of the window function of the survey. In Equation (5) $`\alpha =S_c/S_r`$ with

$$S_c=\underset{c=1}{\overset{N_c}{}}\omega ^2(x_c)\mathrm{and}S_r=\underset{r=1}{\overset{N_r}{}}\omega ^2(x_r).$$
(8)
Assuming Gaussian density fluctuations, FKP derive a weight function

$$\omega (r)=\frac{1}{1+n(r)P_w(k)}$$
(9)
that minimizes the power spectrum variance. To compute these weights the actual value of the power spectrum is needed. To solve this problem we propose different values for $`P_w(k)`$ as an initial guess. Having defined $`\delta (𝐤)`$ by equation (5) the power spectrum estimator is obtained by:

$$P(𝐤)=(|\delta (𝐤)|^2\alpha (1+\alpha )S_r)/C$$
(10)
where $`C`$ is a normalization constant defined by:

$$C=\alpha ^2\frac{1}{V}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N^3}{}}(|W(𝐤_i)|^2S_r^1)$$
(11)
and $`V`$ is the volume where periodicity is assumed. We have adopted the above definition of $`\alpha =S_c/S_r`$ in order to recover the definition of $`P(𝐤)`$ given by equation (2.4.5) of FKP. Finally, assuming isotropy we compute the power spectrum estimator averaging over spherical shells $`k<|𝐤|<k+dk`$ where there are $`N_k`$ wavenumber vectors $`𝐤_i`$:

$$P(k)=\frac{1}{N_k}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N_k}{}}P(𝐤_i).$$
(12)
We compute spectral densities at the multiples of the fundamental mode in order to avoid oversampling of the spectra that could produce spurious features. In order to compute the Fourier transform of the distribution of the cluster sample (equation (6)) and of the random catalogue (equation (7)) we use a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) algorithm (Press et al., 1986). We compute these quantities embedding the distributions within a periodic larger cubic volume $`V=r_{box}^3`$ divided in $`N`$ cells per side. To use FFT we assign the spatial distribution of points (clusters or random) into the grid by means of different weight assignment schemes.

### 3.4 Error estimations

We have estimated errors of the power spectrum using equation 2.4.6 of FKP:

$$\sigma ^2(k)=\frac{2}{N_k^2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N_k}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{N_k}{}}|P(k)Q(𝐤_i𝐤_j)S(𝐤_i𝐤_j)|^2$$
(13)
where

$$Q(𝐤)=\alpha \underset{r=1}{\overset{N_r}{}}n(x_r)w^2(x_r)e^{i𝐤.𝐱_r}/C$$
(14)
and

$$S(𝐤)=\alpha (1+\alpha )\underset{r=1}{\overset{N_r}{}}w^2(x_r)e^{i𝐤.𝐱_r}/C.$$
(15)
In equation (13) $`𝐤_i`$ and $`𝐤_j`$ are assumed to belong to the same spherical shell $`k<|𝐤|<k+dk`$. Note that $`S(𝐤=(0,0,0))=\alpha (1+\alpha )S_r`$ is the second term of the definition of $`P(𝐤)`$, equation (11).

### 3.5 N-body Simulations

In the previous section we have used equation 2.4.6 of FKP in order to estimate power spectrum errors. To test the error analysis of FKP we have used a second method based on the variance of $`P(k)`$ obtained from mock XBACS catalogue. We have constructed these mock catalogue from the Hubble volume simulations carried out by the Virgo Consortium (Jenkins et al. 1998). The simulation use $`10^9`$ particles in a cubic volume of 3000 $`h^1`$ Mpc per side resulting in a mass per particle of $`2.25\times 10^{12}h^1M_{}`$ . The initial condition were generated using the Lambda Cold Dark Matter (LCDM) model with the following parameters: dimensionless matter density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$, dimensionless cosmological constant density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$, $`h=0.7`$ and relative mass fluctuation in a sphere of 8 $`h^1`$ Mpc $`\sigma _8=0.9`$. This normalization is consistent both with the observed abundance at $`z=0`$ of rich clusters and the fluctuations detected by the satellite COBE.

From this simulation, we have used the haloes of particles kindly provided by Carlton Baugh identified using a standard ”friends of friends” algorithm. The selected haloes have a mean separation of $`d_c=50h^1`$ Mpc in order to reproduce the same number of cluster of the catalogue. This choice is also consistent with the correlation length of $`r_021h^1`$ (Abadi, Lambas & Muriel, 1998) from the $`r_0d_c`$ relation obtained by Colberg et al. 2000. The volume of the simulation allows to extract 27 (3 per side) independent boxes with a side comparable to the XBACS cluster catalogue. In order to mimic some of the observational constrains, we have applied to each one of these boxes the same cuts in redshift and galactic latitude of the XBACS sample. Also, we convert center of mass positions of haloes from real to redshift space using the corresponding peculiar velocity of the halo (the conversion from comoving distance to redshift and viceversa was realized using equation 1). Finally, we convert total masses to X-ray luminosities using the empirical relation $`ML_X`$ proposed by Reiprich & B$`\ddot{o}`$hringer 2000:

$$\frac{M}{h^1M_{}}=4.7\times 10^{14}(\frac{L_X}{10^{44}h^2erg/s})^{\frac{1}{1.243}}$$
(16)
We remove clusters with X-ray luminosity lesser than the luminosity limit which is given by (Peacock 2000)

$$L_{lim}=\frac{4\pi }{1+z}d_L^2(z)F_{lim}$$
(17)
where $`F_{lim}=5`$x$`10^{12}erg`$ $`s^1cm^2`$ in the energy range 0.1-2.4 keV and $`d_L`$ is the luminosity distance

$$d_L=r(1+z)$$
(18)
with $`r`$ given by equation (1).

Using the method described in section 3 we compute the power spectrum of each one of the 27 constructed mock catalogue and then we compute the mean power spectrum and the corresponding 1$`\sigma `$ standard deviations. Using this model and parameters the haloes obtained have both a redshift space distribution and a power spectrum similar to XBACS.

In order to test the ability of the method to reproduce the correct power spectrum of clusters we compare the power spectrum of the haloes identified in the Hubble Volume Simulation with the average power spectrum of the 27 mocks catalogues using equation 10. We have computed the power spectrum of the Hubble Volume haloes using

$$P(k)=V_H(\frac{1}{N_h^2}|\underset{i=1}{\overset{N_h}{}}e^{i𝐤.𝐱_i}|^2\frac{1}{N_h})$$
(19)
where $`V_H`$ is the cubic volume of the Hubble simulation and $`N_h`$ is the number of haloes identified in this volume.

In figure 3 the solid line is the power spectrum of Hubble Volume haloes and the points is the average haloes power spectrum of the 27 mocks catalogues. The error bars show the corresponding 1-$`\sigma `$ standard deviations. For this comparison we have chosen haloes identified using $`dc=30Mpch^1`$ in order to obtain a large number of haloes in each mock ($`1000`$). This figure shows that the agreement between both estimates is very good for $`k>0.05hMpc^1`$ but for larger scales the power spectrum amplitude of the mocks catalogues is slightly lower. The error bars in the all range make the determinations undistinguishables showing that the method derived from FKP is a good estimator of power spectrum of a spatial distribution.

We also note that the method can take correctly into account the galactic extinction which can generate an overestimate of the amplitude in the power spectrum mainly on large scales (Vogeley 1998).

## 4 DISCUSSION

First, we compute the window function of XBACS and BCS using equation (7). In Figure 4 we plot the window function module square $`(|W(k)|/N_r)^2`$ normalized to the number of points used to generate the random catalogue. For both samples, these random catalogue have $`N_r=10^6`$ points distributed within the same geometrical limits of each sample and with the radial number density according to equation (3). In order to avoid superposition of XBACS and BCS curves in this Figure the amplitude of $`(W(|k|)/N_r)^2`$ for BCS is plotted with a factor 0.1. The window function can be very well approximated by a power law with index $`n4`$ over the range $`0.01h\mathrm{Mpc}^1<k<0.1h\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ for both samples. This steep negative slope guarantees the validity of equation (10) (see Tadros & Esfthatiou 1996). In the first three panels we test different parameters involved in the application of the FFT technique: panel A, weight assignment scheme; panel B, number of grids per side $`N`$ and panel C, the box side $`r_{box}`$. In the last panel (D), we show the results of changing the guess value for the power spectrum $`P_w(k)`$ in the weight function using equation (9). In panel A it can be appreciated the effects of three different weight assignment schemes: nearest grid point (NGP, solid line), cloud in cell (CIC, dotted line) and triangular shaped cloud (TSC, dashed line). These weight assignments produce similar window functions although the discreteness smearing effects in the high-order scheme are nontrivial (Jing & Valdarnini, 1993). In panel B we show $`(|W(k)|/N_r)^2`$ using different values of $`N=`$ 256 (solid line), 128 (dotted line) and 64 (dashed line). As it can be seen, at large wave-numbers the increase of $`N`$ produces a smoother window function. In panel C we display the results for different box sides $`r_{box}=2,3`$ or 4 $`r_{cat}`$ where $`r_{cat}`$ is the minimum box side that contains the total cluster catalogue ($`r_{cat}=1037.1h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ for XBACS and $`r_{cat}=1384.9h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ for BCS). As it can be seen in this panel, they are indistinguishable. In panel D we show the dependence of the window function on the guess value, $`P_w(k)=`$150000 (solid line), 500000 (dotted line) and 50000 $`h^3\mathrm{Mpc}^3`$ (dashed line). The window function amplitude is a monotonally decreasing function of $`P_w(k)`$. This dependence is relevant for the power spectrum determination of BCS and almost negligible for XBACS (see panel D in Figure 5). We recall that the FKP method is valid for wave-numbers where the window function is a factor 2 lower than its value at the origin (Tegmark et al. 1998). In our case this corresponds approximately to $`k>0.01h\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$.

In Figure 5 we show the estimated redshift space power spectrum where the 4 panels correspond to those of Figure 4. To make this plot clearer the logarithmic amplitude of BCS power spectrum was shifted -0.5. Panel A shows a strong suppression of power at high frequencies which is more significant than in the window function plotted in Figure 4A. At low wave-number the agreement between the three schemes (NGP, CIC and TSC) is remarkably good. The increase of the spatial resolution using a larger number of cells per side produces a smoother power spectrum which can be appreciated in panel B. We have changed the guess value $`P_w(k)`$ in the range 50000 $`h^3\mathrm{Mpc}^3500000h^3\mathrm{Mpc}^3`$ finding that the results are not strongly dependent on the particular choice of this value. We also find that the results do not change substantially for box sides $`r_{box}`$=2, 3 and 4 $`r_{cat}`$. Accordingly, we have used the NGP weighting assignment with parameters $`N=256`$, $`r_{box}=2r_{cat}`$ and $`P_w(k)=150000h^3\mathrm{Mpc}^3`$. We have also tested the dependence of the window function and power spectrum results on the method used (equation (3) or equation (4)) to estimate the cluster number density $`n(r)`$ finding no significant differences in the results. In what follows we adopt the FKP fit (equation (3)).

In order to test the presence of systematics effects that could artificially increase the amplitude of the power spectrum at large scales ($`k0.03hMpc^1`$) (but see Miller & Batuski 2000), we have restricted our samples to smaller subsamples. Following Plionis & Kolokotronis (1998) we have generated two subsamples introducing a cut at $`z0.09`$ for XBACS and $`z0.11`$ BCS. In Figure 6 we show the corresponding power spectrum of each subsample compared with the power spectrum of the complete sample (Upper panel for XBACS and lower panel for BCS). From this comparison we observe a decreasing amplitude of the power spectrum in both subsamples mainly in large scales. Since we know that in large scales the fluctuation signal have a very low level, even small systematic errors inherent to the survey construction can cause and overestimate of the power spectrum in that scales. Consequently, we adopt this subsamples like a more accurate estimator of the power spectrum for the XBACS and BCS.

In Figure 7 we plot the redshift space power spectrum of XBACS (filled circles) and BCS (filled triangles). We have also computed the power spectrum of the recently released EBCS (filled squares) for $`z0.11`$. We compare our estimates with results obtained by other authors for different (optical and X-ray) cluster samples. The power spectrum obtained for XBACS has a higher amplitude than any other sample mainly in the range $`k0.05hMpc^1`$.

Since in Figure 7 we find different amplitude between XBACS and BCS we have tested if this discrepancy could be explained by the fact that both samples have different limiting flux. Moscardini et al. (2000) show that for a given sample varying the limiting flux change the amplitude of the power spectrum but not the shape. In order to investigate this point, we have taken a subsample of the BCS catalogue with the same redshift and flux limit that XBACS and computed the power spectrum of this subsample. The obtained power spectrum for this subsample is very similar to the power spectrum for the complete BCS. From the comparison we conclude that the small variation in the limiting flux do not explain the different amplitude observed in Figure 7 between XBACS and BCS. Moreover, Ebeling et al. (1998) suggest that different fluxes could be assigned to a given cluster due to for example to different correction factors. This kind of differences can cause clusters to have the flux limit of $`5.0`$x$`10^{12}`$erg $`cm^2/s`$ when the BCS fluxes are used, while they remain just below the flux limit in the XBACS. Another possibility to explain the different amplitudes is that XBACS could be richer and probably more massive than BCS that includes Abell, Zwicky and X-ray selected clusters with a poor optical counter-part. The power spectrum of XBACS is in good agreement with the power spectrum of the REFLEX (Schuecker et al. 2001) cluster survey for $`k>0.03`$. We do not find strong evidence of a peak at wave-numbers $`0.05h\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$, consistent with the results found by Miller & Batuski (2000). We find a flattening of the power spectrum at these wave-numbers, smoother for XBACS than for BCS. The power spectrum of EBCS has a shape comparable to the original BCS except in large scales. In that scales, the BCS power spectrum have a higher amplitude.

In Figure 8 we present the power spectrum error bars of XBACS and BCS computed using the N-body simulations (section 3.3). This errors have comparable size to errors obtained using equation 13 even they are internal errors that do not take into account any source of systematic errors or cosmic variance. We also plot the power spectrum predictions given by Moscardini et al. (2000) for the two samples in two different cosmological models: Open Cold Dark Matter (OCDM) and Lambda Cold Dark Matter (LCDM). Both models have a dimensionless matter density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$ but a dimensionless cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ for OCDM and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$ for LCDM. The normalization of the models is in agreement with observed cluster abundances (root mean square mass fluctuation on a sphere of radius $`8h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$, $`\sigma _8=0.87`$ for OCDM and $`\sigma _8=0.93`$ for LCDM). Moscardini et al. (2000) also present the SCDM, $`\tau `$CDM and TCDM models, but due to their significantly lower amplitudes we do not included them in the comparison. From this plot it is possible to note that the observational estimates for XBACS are consistent in shape with the prediction of Moscardini et al. (2000) model for both OCDM and LCDM but with an amplitude $`1.4`$ higher that the models. That is probably an indication that these clusters that have a previous optical identification are very massive. For BCS the agreement with theoretical predictions is better in the range $`k0.03hMpc^1`$. As pointed out in Section 3 we can not take into account the ROSAT exposure time across the survey, i.e. we not use the sky coverage of the satellite because this is not available for any of this catalogues. We know that variation can affect the measured power spectrum especially on large scales. Consequently, this could be the reason of a very high amplitude of BCS power spectrum at large scales ($`k0.03hMpc^1`$). The reality of the ‘big bump’ at $`k=0.015hMpc^1`$ could be analyzed in more detail when the survey selection functions of the samples are taken into account properly if there were publically available. Moreover, the inhomogenous selection of clusters in the (E)BCS samples as well as the incompletenesses of XBACS and eBCS of 80 percent and below 75 percent, respectively, could introduce some artifical fluctuations. This might give also an explanation of the high fluctuation power detected on scales larger $`400h^1Mpc`$ compared to LCDM or OCDM models.

In order to test our results we derive an estimate of the two point correlation function from the power spectrum obtained previously. There are different ways to estimate the two point correlation function of a sample. One possibility is to derive it directly form the spatial distribution (Peacock 1999):

$$\xi (r)=DD/DR1$$
(20)
where $`DD`$ refers to the number of pair data-data separated by distance $`r`$ and $`DR`$ refers to the same quantity for data-random pairs. This approach is the one applied by Abadi, Lambas & Muriel (1998) and Borgani, Plionis & Kolokotronis (1999) to XBACS. Other possibility is to estimate $`\xi (r)`$ using the relation between the power spectrum and the correlation function as Fourier transform pairs:

$$\xi (r)=\frac{1}{2\pi ^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}P(k)k^2\frac{sinkr}{kr}𝑑k.$$
(21)
In Figure 9 we have compared these two methods to estimate $`\xi (r)`$. For XBACS (left panel) we show the determination of $`\xi (r)`$ using equation (16) given by Abadi, Lambas & Muriel (1998) (open circles) and Borgani, Plionis & Kolokotronis (1999) (open triangles). We also plot our determination of $`\xi (r)`$ using the estimation of the power spectrum shown in Figure 6 though equation (21) (filled circles). This plot shows that there is a very good agreement between these three determinations. For BCS (right panel) we have computed $`\xi (r)`$ using both methods: equation (20) (open circles) and equation (21) (filled circles). We find a reasonably agreement between the methods. Error bars of $`\xi (r)`$ are obtained from the power estimation uncertainties propagated through equation (21).

## 5 CONCLUSIONS

In this paper we apply the method proposed by FKP to compute the redshift space power spectrum of two flux limited X-ray cluster samples: the XBACS and the BCS. At large wave-numbers $`0.05h\mathrm{Mpc}^1<k<0.3h\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ we find a power law behavior $`P(k)k^n`$ with $`n1.2`$ for XBACS and $`n1.0`$ for BCS. The power spectrum of XBACS is consistent with that of the REFLEX cluster sample. It should be remarked that the power spectrum amplitude of XBACS and REFLEX are significantly higher than the one derived for optical samples, which are quite consistent with our BCS determination. We do not detect the presence of any strong peak near $`0.05h\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ supporting the idea that the presence of such a feature could be associated with biases in the samples (Miller & Batuski 2000). The OCDM and LCDM models of Moscardini et al. (2000) produce a good fit for BCS over a long range of wave-numbers, but underestimates the amplitude for XBACS. The shape of any of these models is also inconsistent with the shape obtained for XBACS. The correlation function of XBACS and BCS derived from the power spectrum agree with direct determinations (Abadi, Lambas & Muriel 1998 and Plionis & Kolokotronis 1998, this work).

## Acknowledgments

We thanks to the referee Peter Schuecker for very useful suggestions that improved the original version of the paper. We also thanks to Carlton Baugh for making available the haloes of the Virgo simulation and helpful discussions. We thanks to Astronomical Data Center (ADC) for different catalogue made available to test our power spectrum estimator. This work has been partially supported by the Consejo de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas de la República Argentina (CONICET), the Consejo de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnológicas de la Provincia de Córdoba (CONICOR), Secretaría de Ciencia y Tecnología de Universidad Nacional de Córdoba (SeCyT) and Fundación Antorchas, Argentina.