format: text

text:
# 1 𝑎_𝜇("SUSY") on the 𝑀₂ vs. tan𝛽 plane for 𝑀_bc=2×10¹⁶GeV. The thin solid lines are for 𝑎_𝜇("SUSY")=10, 20, 30, 40, 60, 80, and 100 in units of 10⁻¹⁰ (from below). The thick solid line is the contour for 𝐵𝑟(𝑏→𝑠𝛾)=3.15×10⁻⁴, the center value measured by CLEO, and the darkly- and lightly-shaded regions are the parameter space consistent with 𝐵𝑟(𝑏→𝑠𝛾)=(3.15±0.54)×10⁻⁴ and 2.0×10⁻⁴<𝐵𝑟(𝑏→𝑠𝛾)<4.5×10⁻⁴, respectively. The contours of the constant Higgs mass (𝑚_ℎ=110, 115 and 120 GeV, from below) are shown in the dash-dotted lines. The dotted line represents the contour of 𝑚_𝜏̃₁=𝑚_𝜒₁; on the left-handed side of the dotted line, 𝑚_𝜏̃₁<𝑚_𝜒₁ is realized. Regions with small 𝑀₂ and large tan𝛽 are excluded because of negative slepton mass and slepton mass smaller than the LEP bound, respectively; such regions are also shaded.

Although supersymmetry (SUSY) is a promising candidate for the solution to the gauge hierarchy problem, issues of SUSY breaking and its mediation have been a long standing problem in SUSY model building. From phenomenological point of view, the mediation mechanism is of particular interest: it is what we will be able to probe in future collider experiments.

While superparticles may be too heavy to be directly produced at existing colliders, they will affect various physical quantities at loop levels. Among other things, quantities which are rather insensitive to assumptions on how to suppress SUSY flavor-changing-neutral-current (FCNC) contributions include a measured branching ratio $`Br(bs\gamma )`$ which is in good agreement with the standard-model prediction, the lightest Higgs mass $`m_h`$ which is now bounded to be $`m_h113.5\mathrm{GeV}`$ at LEP200 , and muon $`g2`$ or muon anomalous magnetic moment $`a_\mu (g2)/2`$ ( and references therein).

Recently, the Brookhaven E821 experiment reported the new measurement of the muon anomalous magnetic moment $`a_\mu (\text{E821})=\mathrm{11\; 659\; 202}(14)(6)\times 10^{10}`$ which is 2.6-$`\sigma `$ away from the standard-model prediction $`a_\mu (\text{SM})`$ . If we require that this anomaly be explained by the loop effects of the SUSY particles, it imposes non-trivial constraints on the MSSM parameters. (For recent discussions, see Refs. .) In this paper, we take this apparent deviation very seriously and consider it due to superparticle contributions

$`a_\mu (\text{SUSY})=a_\mu (\text{E821})a_\mu (\text{SM})=43(16)\times 10^{10}.`$ (1)
This can set upper bounds on superparticle masses, particularly on left-handed smuon and chargino masses, since the dominant contribution mostly comes from chargino-sneutrino loop. Importantly, the SUSY contribution to the muon $`g2`$ is approximately proportional to $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, which is the ratio of the vacuum expectation values of the two Higgs bosons in the MSSM, and for not very large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta _{}^<10`$, for e.g., the left-handed smuon is required to be relatively light, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}^{}{}_{}{}^{<}400`$ GeV, at 2-$`\sigma `$ level .

The upper bounds on the superparticle masses implied by $`a_\mu (\text{SUSY})`$ have interesting interplay with the other two quantities. First, in order to satisfy the Higgs mass bound of 113.5 GeV, large radiative corrections from top and scalar top (stop) loops are required. This argument suggests heavy stop quarks, in which case the large positive radiative corrections to the Higgs mass are expected. This should be contrasted with the light smuon required by the SUSY interpretation of $`a_\mu `$. Thus the preferred pattern of superparticle mass spectrum is that sleptons are light while squarks are heavy.

Interplay with $`Br(bs\gamma )`$ is more subtle. It is known that the charged-Higgs contribution in the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) is always additive to the standard-model contribution, while the superparticle contribution can have either positive or negative sign. Since the measured branching ratio is consistent with the standard-model prediction, the charged-Higgs contribution should be cancelled by the other contributions. It is nontrivial whether the two requirements that the positiveness of $`a_\mu (\text{SUSY})`$ and the cancellation in $`Br(bs\gamma )`$ are simultaneously satisfied, and this will serve an important test of the mediation mechanisms of the SUSY breaking .

In the framework of supergravity, tree-level SUSY breaking scalar masses are given as curvatures of scalar potential in supergravity Lagrangian. These masses are thought to be given at some high-energy renormalization scale close to the Planck scale or the GUT scale. The low energy values of the scalar masses are evaluated by renormalization group (RG) methods. Generally speaking, squarks acquire large positive masses squared due to RG effects from gluon-gluino loop while sleptons do not. Thus the squarks become much heavier than the sleptons especially when the tree-level masses coming from the supergravity interactions are small and the gaugino mass contributions from the RG effects dominate. As we mentioned above, this pattern of the superparticle mass spectrum is favored from the $`a_\mu `$ and the Higgs mass bound.

This argument leads us to consider an interesting scenario where the SUSY breaking scalar masses vanish at some high energy scale close to the GUT scale or the Planck scale. Such boundary conditions are called no-scale boundary conditions (see below for a precise definition) . The purpose of the present paper is to study supersymmetric standard models with no-scale boundary conditions for SUSY breaking masses in the light of the new result on the muon anomalous magnetic moment. We will identify the preferred region for $`a_\mu `$, taking into account other constraints such as the Higgs boson mass bound, superparticle mass bounds from direct searches, and the branching ratio $`Br(bs\gamma )`$. We do not impose the cosmological requirement that the lightest superparticle (LSP) should be neutral or constitute a dominant part of the dark matter of the Universe. This is in fact an appealing requirement, but not necessary: one can consider, for e.g., $`R`$-parity violation, light gravitino LSP, or other candidates for the dark matter.

We will consider the following Kähler potential in the supergravity:

$$K=3\mathrm{ln}[f(z,z^{})+g(y,y^{})],$$
(2)
where $`f`$ is a function of hidden sector fields $`z`$ responsible for SUSY breaking and $`g`$ is a function of observable sector fields $`y`$ including the MSSM. Here the reduced Planck scale has been set to unity. It turns out that SUSY breaking scalar masses as well as trilinear scalar couplings (so-called $`A`$-terms) vanish at the energy scale where the boundary conditions are given, as the vacuum expectation value of the scalar potential (i.e. the cosmological constant) vanishes. The form (2) can be traced back to the original no-scale model with a non-compact global symmetry . The separation of the hidden sector from the observable sector in the form (2) was argued to be natural since it is obtained by the separation of the two sectors in the superspace density in the supergravity Lagrangian . Interestingly it is geometrically realized in the setting of two separated 3-branes in 5-dimensional total spacetime (bulk), namely the hidden sector lives on one brane and the observable sector lives on another . Gaugino masses can arise if, for instance, the gauge multiplets in the MSSM sector live in the bulk and the gauginos couple to the hidden sector brane directly (gaugino mediation) . The no-scale boundary conditions should be set at the scale of the inverse of the 5-th dimension’s length, which can be somewhat arbitrary.

The boundary conditions we will consider in this paper are therefore (i) vanishing scalar masses, (ii) vanishing $`A`$-terms, and (iii) non-vanishing gaugino masses $`M_i^0`$ ($`i=1`$, 2, 3) for three gauge groups $`U(1)_Y`$, $`SU(2)_L`$ and $`SU(3)_C`$. In addition, we assume that the higgsino mass parameter $`\mu `$ and Higgs mass mixing parameter (so-called $`B`$-parameter) are free parameters in our framework. The boundary conditions are given at some high energy scale $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ which we assume to be at the GUT scale or above. For simplicity we take all the mass parameters to be real.

The superparticle mass spectrum is obtained by solving the RG equations. Specifically we consider particle contents of the MSSM. We impose the electroweak symmetry breaking condition to reproduce the correct $`Z`$ boson mass for given $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. This constrains, for instance, $`\mu `$ and $`B`$ in our setting. Thus the masses of the superparticles and Higgs bosons depend on $`M_i^0`$ ($`i=`$1, 2, 3), $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$.

Let us first consider the case where the gaugino masses are universal at the energy scale $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$. In this case due to RG effects their values at electroweak scale become approximately $`M_1:M_2:M_31:2:6`$. As we will see shortly, the relative sign of the gaugino masses is important when discussing the correlation between $`a_\mu `$ and $`Br(bs\gamma )`$.

In Fig. 1, contours of the constant $`a_\mu (\text{SUSY})`$ are shown in the $`M_2`$ vs. $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ plane for the case of the universal gaugino masses. Here, the boundary conditions are given at $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}=2\times 10^{16}`$ GeV, and we take $`\mu >0`$ (and $`M_i>0`$) so that the SUSY loops give positive contributions to $`a_\mu `$. In the same figure, we also present several other constraints, which were already discussed in Ref. . First, we plot the contours of the constant $`m_h`$ in the dash-dotted lines. In addition, we also show the parameter region consistent with the measured $`Br(bs\gamma )`$. In this analysis, we use the branching ratio measured by the CLEO experiment :

$`Br(bs\gamma )=(3.15\pm 0.35\pm 0.32\pm 0.26)\times 10^4,`$ (3)
where the first (second, third) uncertainty is statistical (systematic, model dependence). Adding the uncertainties in quadrature, we obtained the 1-$`\sigma `$ bound as $`Br(bs\gamma )=(3.15\pm 0.54)\times 10^4`$. Parameter region consistent with this 1-$`\sigma `$ bound is shown by the darkly-shaded region in Fig. 1. In addition, the lightly-shaded region in Fig. 1 is the 95 % C.L. limit $`2.0\times 10^4<Br(bs\gamma )<4.5\times 10^4`$ given by CLEO . Remarkably one can find that the parameter region favored by the muon magnetic moment measurement is completely consistent with the allowed region by the other constraints. Notice that, even after imposing the Higgs mass bound of $`m_h113.5\mathrm{GeV}`$, wide parameter region remains.

In the no-scale-type models, the right-handed slepton masses are primarily from the $`U(1)_Y`$ gaugino mass. As a result, adopting the GUT relation among the gaugino masses, the right-handed sleptons become relatively light in this framework. This fact introduces other constraint on the no-scale-type models. Most importantly, the negative search for the sleptons at the LEP experiment sets a lower bound on $`M_2`$ since the slepton masses are increasing functions of $`M_2`$. In Fig. 1, this lower bound on $`M_2`$ is also shown. In fact, in some case, this bound is from the right-handed smuon, since the lightest stau mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}`$ is so close to the lightest neutralino mass $`m_{\chi _1}`$ that the decay products from the stau cannot be seen in the detector. In addition, it is well-known that, when $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}10^{16}`$ GeV, the right-handed stau may become lighter than the lightest neutralino and may become the lightest superparticle in the MSSM sector . Such a case should be cosmologically ruled out if the stau does not decay . In Fig. 1, we also indicate the region where the stau becomes lighter than the lightest neutralino. Even after including these two constraints, we find that there is still a region in the parameter space which satisfies all the constraints.

Now, we would like to comment on the correlation between $`a_\mu (\text{SUSY})`$ and $`Br(bs\gamma )`$. As was announced earlier, the relative sign of the gluino mass and the Wino mass plays an essential role. The chargino-sneutrino loop diagram dominates the SUSY contribution to the muon $`g2`$, and the sign of $`a_\mu (\text{SUSY})`$ is correlated with that of $`M_2\mu `$; the muon magnetic moment receive positive and preferred contribution when $`M_2\mu >0`$. On the other hand, as for $`Br(bs\gamma )`$, the SUSY contribution is mainly from chargino-stop loop diagram and its sign is correlated to the sign of $`A_t\mu `$ (where $`A_t`$ is the trilinear scalar coupling of the stop sector). Since the sign of $`A_t`$ is essentially controlled by that of the gluino mass $`M_3`$ through RG effects, the SUSY contribution to $`Br(bs\gamma )`$ interferes with the contributions from the standard model and the charged-Higgs sector either constructively or destructively depending on the sign of $`M_3`$. The measured $`Br(bs\gamma )`$ is in good agreement with the standard-model prediction, and hence the negative interference is favored. It turns out that this corresponds to $`M_3\mu >0`$. Thus, in the case of the universal gaugino mass where the sign of $`M_2`$ and $`M_3`$ is the same, one can choose the sign which is favored by the both measurements simultaneously.

Next, let us consider a case with higher $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$. In Fig. 2, we show the same figure as Fig. 1 except that the RG flow starts at $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}=10^{17}`$ GeV. Above the GUT scale, we use the RG equations for the minimal SUSY $`SU(5)`$ model. Superparticle masses are affected by the RG effects above the GUT scale. In particular, above the GUT scale, the right-handed sleptons receive large (positive) mass corrections which are proportional to the gaugino mass because they belong to 10 representation in $`SU(5)`$ and hence the gaugino loop contribution has a large group factor. Other superparticle masses are not modified drastically. It is well-known that in this case the cosmological constraint, if we impose, becomes substantially weakend as in a wide region of the parameter space the stau is heavier than the lightest neutralino and the neutralino LSP is guaranteed . On the contrary, the bounds from $`bs\gamma `$ and from the Higgs boson mass are almost unchanged when compared with Fig. 1. This is because these bounds are correlated to the squark masses, which do not significantly change when one includes the RG effects above the GUT scale.

As for $`a_\mu `$, the region favored by $`a_\mu `$ is not changed drastically. This can be understood if one recalls that the dominant contribution comes from the chargino-sneutrino loop where the left-handed slepton mass plays an important role. In $`SU(5)`$, the left-handed sleptons are in $`\mathrm{𝟓}^{}`$ representation and below the GUT scale they are $`SU(2)_L`$ doublets, and thus the RG effect from the GUT region is not very important.

Thus our main conclusion is that the region favored by $`a_\mu `$ is completely overlapped with the region preferred by $`Br(bs\gamma )`$. This conclusion remains unchanged even when the RG flow starts above the GUT scale.

In order to demonstrate the importance of the relative sign of $`M_2`$ and $`M_3`$, we consider the case where gluino mass has an opposite sign to the other two gaugino masses; namely we take $`M_1^0=M_2^0=M_3^0`$ with $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}=2\times 10^{16}\mathrm{GeV}`$, which results in $`M_1:M_2:M_31:2:6`$ at the electroweak scale. (For phenomenological discussions on the case of non-universal gaugino masses, see Ref. .) The result is shown in Fig. 3. One can see that the overlap region preferred by both $`a_\mu `$ and $`Br(bs\gamma )`$ gets substantially reduced. This is because, in this case, taking $`M_2\mu >0`$ for $`a_\mu (\text{SUSY})>0`$, the SUSY contribution to $`Br(bs\gamma )`$ constructively interferes with standard-model and charged-Higgs contributions. As a result, in order to suppress the effects of the charged-Higgs and chargino-stop loops, mass scale of the superparticles is required to be quite high and hence the region with small $`M_2`$ is disfavored in Fig. 3. Thus, unlike the universal gaugino mass case, the correct sign of $`M_2`$ from $`a_\mu `$ now gives the wrong sign of $`M_3`$ for $`Br(bs\gamma )`$ in this case. Besides, the Higgs mass bound constrains more severely than the previous case. This can be understood as follows. The left-right mixing mass in the stop sector has the form $`m_t(A_t+\mu \mathrm{cot}\beta )`$. In the present case where $`M_3\mu <0`$ the two terms tend to cancel each other. Thus the mixing term becomes small, reducing the radiative corrections from the stop-top sector to the Higgs boson mass. Combining the three constraints, preferred region remains only when the Wino mass is large, $`M_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{>}250`$ GeV. If we further impose the cosmological constraint that the LSP should be neutral, then the preferred region completely disappears.

Let us next briefly discuss other examples of non-universal gaugino masses. When $`M_1`$ is much larger than $`M_2`$, the Wino can be the LSP. The result with $`M_1^0:M_2^0:M_3^0=3:1:1`$ is shown in Fig.4. In this case, the right-handed slepton masses are significantly pushed up since they originate to the $`U(1)_Y`$ gaugino mass. Consequently, the slepton mass bounds disappear (see Fig.4). On the contrary, masses of other sfermions are insensitive to the change of $`M_1`$ since they are from $`SU(2)_L`$ and/or $`SU(3)_C`$ gaugino mass parameters. As a result, one finds that the constraints on $`a_\mu `$, $`Br(bs\gamma )`$ and the Higgs mass do not differ from the case of the universal gaugino mass (see Fig. 1).

Another example is the case with smaller $`M_3/M_2`$. In this case, for a fixed value of $`M_2`$, the RG effects on the squrak masses from the gluon-gluino loop becomes smaller and hence lighter squarks (in particular, lighter stops) are realized. This fact has an important implication; if the stops are light, the radiative corrections to the Higgs mass is suppressed. Thus, in order to evade the Higgs mass bound, overall mass scale is required to be pushed up. Then, the sleptons also become heavier and the SUSY contribution to the muon $`g2`$ is suppressed. Therefore, for small $`M_3/M_2`$, constraints on the parameter space are severer. To demonstrate this point, we considered an example with $`M_1^0:M_2^0:M_3^0=1:1:1/2`$. We checked that, in this case, the Higgs mass bound severely constrains the parameter space. Combining the 2-$`\sigma `$ constraints on $`a_\mu (\text{SUSY})`$ and $`Br(bs\gamma )`$ with the Higgs mass bound $`m_{h}^{}{}_{}{}^{>}113.5\mathrm{GeV}`$, we found that the parameter region with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta _{}^<7`$ and $`M_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{<}280\mathrm{GeV}`$ is excluded. Furthermore, if the 1-$`\sigma `$ bound on $`a_\mu (\text{SUSY})`$ or $`Br(bs\gamma )`$ is used, there is no allowed region in the parameter space. Therefore, among the models with non-universal gaugino masses, scenarios with lighter gluino are severely constrained by the combined informations about $`a_\mu (\text{SUSY})`$, $`m_h`$ and $`Br(bs\gamma )`$. Notice that there is another consequence of the lighter gluino. If $`M_3`$ is small, RG effects to the Higgs mass become smaller and hence the $`\mu `$-parameter determined by the radiative electroweak symmetry breaking condition becomes smaller. In this case, higgsino contamination in the lightest neutralino is larger than the universal gaugino mass case.

In this paper, we considered the case of no-scale boundary conditions. We should stress here the interesting interplay between $`a_\mu `$ and $`Br(bs\gamma )`$ we observed in this paper is very generic and will be seen in many other classes of SUSY breaking models.

Finally, let us discuss possible improvements of the constraints in the future. A new result is expected from the E821 experiment with a improved statistics. If the error in $`a_\mu (\text{E821})`$ is reduced by a factor of 2 without changing the center value, $`a_\mu (\text{SUSY})`$ is within the range of $`(2759)\times 10^{10}`$ at the 1-$`\sigma `$ level. In this case, the parameter space of the no-scale model is severely constrained. Importantly, when the gaugino masses obey the GUT relation, then even the region with $`a_\mu (\text{SUSY})=(2759)\times 10^{10}`$ is consistent with the constraints from $`Br(bs\gamma )`$ and the Higgs mass (see Figs. 1 and 2). On the contrary, if $`M_2`$ and $`M_3`$ has opposite sign, then the parameter space is severely constrained. In the case with $`M_1^0=M_2^0=M_3^0`$, for e.g., no allowed region remains even if we adopt the 95 % C.L. constraint from $`Br(bs\gamma )`$. In addition, more precise measurements of $`Br(bs\gamma )`$ has an important impact to constrain the scenario of the SUSY breaking, in particular if combined with the muon $`g2`$ anomaly. Therefore, improvements of the statistics in the measurement of the muon $`g2`$ as well as $`Br(bs\gamma )`$ will provide interesting and important informations in studying the scenarios of the SUSY breaking.

Note Added: In our analysis, we calculated the lightest Higgs mass using the one-loop effective potential given in Ref. . In Ref. , the lightest Higgs mass is calculated taking account of two-loop contributions, and it is pointed out that the lightest Higgs mass tends to decrease due to the two-loop effect. The authors would like thank M.M. Nojiri for useful conversations.

Acknowledgment: This work was supported in part by the Grant-in-aid from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan, priority area (#707) “Supersymmetry and unified theory of elementary particles,” and in part by the Grants-in-aid No.11640246 and No.12047201.


text:
# Dynamics of the Magnetic Flux Trapped in Fractal Clusters of a Normal Phase in Superconductor

## I INTRODUCTION

An important property of the clusters of a normal phase in superconductor consists in their capability to trap a magnetic flux. By virtue of their capacity to hold the vortices from moving under the action of the Lorentz force, such clusters can act as effective pinning centers -. This feature is used widely in the making new composite superconducting materials of high current-carrying capability , . The morphological characteristics of clusters of a normal phase exert an appreciable effect on magnetic flux dynamics in superconductors, especially when the clusters have fractal boundaries -. In the present work the geometric probability properties of such fractal clusters are considered in detail, and their influence on the dynamics of trapped magnetic flux and critical currents is analyzed.

The further consideration will be concerned with the superconductor containing inclusions of a normal phase, which are out of contact with one another. Let us assume that these inclusions are oriented in such a way that their extent along one of directions far exceeds other linear sizes. The similar columnar defects are of most interest for creating the artificial pinning centers , -. When such a superconducting structure is cooled below the critical temperature in the magnetic field along the direction of the longest size of these inclusions, the magnetic flux will be frozen in the normal phase clusters. Even after the external field has been turned off, the flux trapped in these clusters is kept unchanged due to the currents that are steadily circulating around them through the superconducting loops. The distribution of the trapped magnetic flux resulting from such a magnetization in the field-cooling regime will be two-dimensional. The similar distribution can readily be realized in the superconducting film where the normal phase inclusions are created during the growth process at the sites of defects on the boundary with the substrate in such a way that their orientation is normal to the surface of the film , , . Let us suppose that the film surface fraction covered by the normal phase is below the percolation threshold for the transfer of magnetic flux (50 % for 2D- percolation ). In this case the relative portion of superconducting phase exceeds the percolation threshold, so there is a superconducting percolation cluster in the plane of the film where a transport current can flow. Such a structure provides for effective pinning and thereby raises the critical current, because the magnetic flux is locked in finite clusters of a normal phase, and so the vortices cannot leave them without crossing the surrounding superconducting space. If the transport current is passed through the sample, the trapped magnetic flux remains unchanged as long as the vortices are still held in the normal phase clusters. When the current is increased, the magnetic flux starts to break away from the clusters of pinning force weaker than the Lorentz force created by the transport current. As this takes place, the vortices will first pass through the weak links, which connect the normal phase clusters between themselves. Such weak links form especially readily in high-temperature superconductors (HTS) characterized by an extremely short coherence length. Various structural defects, which would simply cause some additional scattering at long coherence length, give rise to the weak links in HTS. There is a hierarchy of weak links over a wide range of scales in HTS , -. At an atomic level the weak links are formed by the structural atomic defects, primarily, by oxygen vacancies , . On a mesoscopic scale twin boundaries are mainly responsible for weak links existence -, . The twins can be spaced up to several nanometers apart, so even single crystal has fine substructure caused by twins. At last, on a macroscopic scale there are manifold structural defects which can form weak links: that may be grain or crystallite boundaries as well as barriers arising from the secondary degrading the non-stoichiometric crystal into the domains with a high and low content of oxygen -. Moreover, a magnetic field further reduces a coherence length , thus resulting in more easy weak links formation. In conventional low-temperature superconductors, which are characterized by a large coherence length, the weak links can be formed due to the proximity effect in sites of minimum distance between the next normal phase clusters.

As soon as the transport current is turned on, this one is added to all the persistent currents, which maintain the magnetic flux trapped. Each of these currents is circulating through the superconducting loop around the normal phase cluster wherein the corresponding portion of the magnetic flux is trapped. The loop contains weak links that join the adjacent normal phase clusters transversely to the path of the current. As the transport current is increased, there will come a point when the overall current flowing through the weak link will exceed the critical value, so this link will turn into a resistive state. As this takes place, the space distribution of the currents throughout the superconducting cluster is changed in such a way that the resistive subcircuit will be shunted by the superconducting paths where weak links are not damaged yet. Magnetic field created by this re-distributed transport current acts via the Lorentz force on the current circulating around the normal phase cluster. As a consequence, the magnetic flux trapped therein will be forced out through the resistive weak link, which has become permeable to the vortices.

## II FRACTAL GEOMETRY OF NORMAL PHASE CLUSTERS

Thus, whatever the microscopic nature of weak links may be, they form the channels for vortex transport where the pinning force is weaker than the Lorentz force created by the transport current. It appears that according to their configuration each normal phase cluster has its own value of the critical current of depinning, which contributes to the overall statistical distribution. When a transport current is gradually increased, the vortices will break away first from clusters of small pinning force, and therefore, of small critical current. Thus the decrease in the trapped magnetic flux $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is proportional to the number of all the normal phase clusters of critical currents less than a preset value $`I`$. Therefore, the relative decrease in the trapped flux can be expressed with the cumulative probability function $`F=F(I)`$ for the distribution of the critical currents of clusters:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }}{\mathrm{\Phi }}=F(I)\text{ ,       where }F(I)=\mathrm{Pr}\left\{I_j<I\right\}$$
(1)
The right-hand side of Eq. (1) is the probability that any $`j`$-th cluster has the critical current $`I_j`$ less than a given upper bound $`I`$.

On the other hand, the magnetic flux trapped into a single cluster is proportional to its area $`A`$, so the decrease in the total trapped flux can be represented by the cumulative probability function $`W=W(A)`$ for the distribution of the areas of the normal phase clusters, which is a measure of the number of the clusters of area smaller than a given value of $`A`$:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }}{\mathrm{\Phi }}=1W(A)\text{ ,       where }W(A)=\mathrm{Pr}\left\{A_j<A\right\}$$
(2)
The distribution function $`W=W(A)`$ of the cluster areas can be found by the geometric probability analysis of electron photomicrographs of superconducting films . So, in the practically important case of thick YBCO films containing columnar defects ,  the exponential distribution can be realized:

$$W(A)=1\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{A}{\overline{A}}\right)$$
(3)
where $`\overline{A}`$ is the mean area of the cluster.

Thus, in order to clear up how the transport current acts on the trapped magnetic flux, it is necessary to find out the relationship between the distribution of the critical currents of the clusters (Eq. (1)) and the distribution of their areas (Eq. (2)). The larger the cluster size, the more weak links rise from its perimeter bordering with the surrounding superconducting space, and therefore, the smaller is the critical current at which the magnetic flux breaks away from this cluster. On the basis of this simple geometric argument, let us suppose that this critical current $`I`$ is inversely proportional to the perimeter $`P`$ of the normal phase cluster: $`I1/P`$, because the larger the perimeter is, the higher is the probability to get a weak link there. At this point it is assumed that the weak link concentration per unit perimeter length is constant for all clusters and all the clusters of equal perimeter have the same pinning force. Also suppose that after the vortex enters the weak link, it will pass all the way between two adjacent normal phase clusters without being trapped. Here, the magnetic flux is transferred by Josephson vortices. The Josephson penetration depth is large enough in the considered materials, so the size of the region, where the vortex is localized, much exceeds the characteristic length of all possible structural defects that can occur along the transport channel. Thus the probability that such a vortex will be trapped in passing through a weak link under the action of the Lorentz force is very small.

Thus, to deal with the distribution function of Eq. (1), the relation between perimeter and area of clusters should be studied. As has been first found in Ref. , the fractal nature of the normal phase clusters exerts an appreciable effect on the dynamics of a magnetic flux in superconductors. For fractal clusters a relation between perimeter and area has the form:

$$PA^{\frac{D}{2}}$$
(4)
where $`D`$ is the fractal dimension of the cluster perimeter (so-called coastline dimension) .

The relation of Eq. (4) is consistent with the generalized Euclid theorem , , which states that the ratios of the corresponding measures are equal when reduced to the same dimension. Hence it follows that $`P^{1/D}A^{1/2}`$, which is valid both for Euclidean ($`D=1`$), and for fractal clusters ($`D>1`$).

The fractal dimension value can be estimated by means of regression analysis of the sampling of the areas and perimeters of the normal phase clusters. Such geometric probability analysis was carried out by the procedure described in Ref. . For this purpose an electron photomicrograph of YBCO film, which was similar to that published earlier in Ref. , has been scanned. The perimeters and areas of clusters have been measured by covering their digitized pictures with a square grid of spacing $`60\times 60`$nm2. The results of the statistical treatment of these data are presented in Table I. The normal phase has occupied 20% of the total surface only, so the transport current can flow through the sufficiently dense percolation superconducting cluster. The primary sampling has contained 528 normal phase clusters located on the scanned region of a total area of 200 $`\mu `$m2. The distribution of the cluster areas is fitted well to exponential cumulative probability function of Eq. (3) with the mean cluster area $`\overline{A}=0.0765`$ $`\mu `$m2. All the points of the primary sampling are marked by crosses on the plot 1 of Fig. 1, which shows the perimeter-area relation for the normal phase clusters. Figure 1 also demonstrates such an important peculiarity of this relation: the scaling law of Eq. (4) is valid in the range of almost three orders of magnitude in cluster area. The scaling perimeter-area behavior means that there is no characteristic length scale between 0.1 $`\mu `$m and 10 $`\mu `$m in the linear size of the normal phase cluster. Whatever the shape and size of the clusters may be, all the points fall closely on the same straight line in logarithmic scale; so that there are no apparent kinks or crossovers on the graph. This enables the fractal dimension $`D`$ of the cluster perimeter to be estimated from the slope of the regression line of the form of Eq. (4), thus a least squares treatment of the perimeter-area data for the primary sampling gives the estimate of $`D=1.44\pm 0.02`$ with correlation coefficient 0.929.

This point that the found value of coastline fractal dimension differs appreciably from unity engages a great attention. What this means is that the fractal properties of the cluster boundary are of prime importance here. Two straight lines (5) in Fig. 1 bound the range of the slopes that the dependencies of the perimeter on the cluster area can have for any arbitrary fractal dimension. The least slope corresponds to Euclidean clusters $`(D=1)`$, the most one relates to the clusters of the greatest possible coastline dimension, which is equal to the topological dimension of a smooth surface $`(D=2)`$. Such a fractal dimension is inherent, for example, in Peano curves, which fill the whole plane . Whatever the geometric morphological properties of clusters may be, the slope of their perimeter-area graphs will be always bounded by these two limiting lines.

When we deal with the geometric features of the normal phase clusters, we are considering the cross section of the extended columnar defects by the plane carrying a transport current. Therefore, though normal phase clusters are self-affine fractals , it is possible to examine their geometric probability properties in the planar section only, where the boundaries of the clusters are statistically self-similar.

Next, using the relation of Eq. (4) between the fractal perimeter and the area of the cluster, as well as our initial assumption that the critical current of each cluster is inversely proportional to its perimeter, we get the following expression for the critical current: $`I=\alpha A^{D/2}`$, where $`\alpha `$ is the form factor. In accordance with starting formulas of Eq. (1) and Eq. (2), the exponential distribution of cluster areas of Eq. (3) gives rise to an exponential-hyperbolic distribution of critical currents:

$$F(i)=\mathrm{exp}\left[\left(\frac{2+D}{2}\right)^{\frac{2}{D}+1}i^{\frac{2}{D}}\right]$$
(5)
where $`iI/I_c`$ is the dimensionless transport current, and $`I_c=\left(\frac{2}{2+D}\right)^{\frac{2+D}{2}}\alpha \left(\overline{A}\right)^{\frac{D}{2}}`$ is the critical current of the resistive transition.

Thus, the geometric probability properties of the normal phase clusters are responsible for main features of the critical current statistical distribution. In turn, given the distribution of Eq. (5), the change in the trapped magnetic flux caused by the transport current can be found with the aid of Eq. (1). Two of these graphs are displayed in Fig. 2 both for the fractal clusters of coastline dimension $`D=1.44`$ found above (curve (2)) and for the Euclidean ones (curve (3)).

In order to get the relationship between the dynamics of the trapped magnetic flux and geometric morphological properties of the superconducting structure, the sample empirical function $`F^{}=F^{}(i)`$ of the distribution of the critical currents has been computed. This function gives a statistical estimate of the cumulative probability function $`F=F(i)`$. First, the empirical distribution function $`W^{}=W^{}(A)`$ for the primary sampling of the areas of the normal phase clusters has been found. The value $`W^{}\left(A\right)`$ was calculated for each order statistic as the relative number of clusters of area smaller than a given value $`A`$. Next, the empirical distribution of the critical currents was computed for the same order statistics (step line with open circles (1) in Fig. 2) using the following transformations:

$`\begin{array}{c}F^{}=1W^{}\\ i=\left(\frac{2+D}{2}\right)^{\frac{2+D}{2}}\left(\frac{\overline{A}}{A}\right)^{\frac{D}{2}}\end{array}\}`$

Figure 2 shows that in the range of currents $`i<6`$ the empirical distribution function, which describes the morphological properties of the superconducting structure (plot (1)), coincides ideally with the cumulative probability function (curve (2)) for the coastline fractal dimension of $`D=1.44`$. Starting with the value of the current $`i=6`$ the crossover is observed, resulting in that the empirical distribution function passes to the dependence for Euclidean clusters $`(D=1)`$. This transition into the Euclidean region is over at large transport currents, when the magnetic flux changes mainly for the breaking of the vortices away from the small clusters (as the smaller clusters have the larger pinning force). The observed crossover has its origin in the finite resolution capability of measuring the cluster geometrical sizes. The distinctive feature of the topologically one-dimensional fractal curve is that its measured length $`P`$ depends on the measurement accuracy in such a way: $`P\delta ^{1D}`$, where $`\delta `$ is the yardstick size used to measure this length, $`(1D)`$ is the Hausdorff codimension for the Euclidean 1D-space . In our case such a fractal curve is represented by the boundary of the normal phase cluster. That is why just the statistical distribution of the cluster areas, rather than their perimeters, is fundamental for finding the critical current distribution of Eq. (5). The topological dimension of perimeter is equal to unity and does not coincide with its Hausdorff-Besicovitch dimension, which strictly exceeds the unity. Therefore the perimeter length of a fractal cluster is not well defined, because its value diverges as the yardstick size is reduced infinitely. On the other hand, the topological dimension of the cluster area is the same as the Hausdorff-Besicovitch one (both are equal to two). Thus, the area restricted by the fractal curve is well-defined finite quantity.

Taking into account the effect of the measurement accuracy, the perimeter-area relationship of Eq. (4) can be re-written as

$$P(\delta )\delta ^{1D}\left(A\left(\delta \right)\right)^{\frac{D}{2}}$$
(6)
which holds true when the yardstick length $`\delta `$ is small enough to measure accurately all boundary of the smallest cluster in sampling. When the resolution is deficient, the Euclidean part of the perimeter length will dominate the fractal one, so there is no way to find the fractal dimension using the scaling relation of Eq. (6). It means that if the length of a fractal curve was measured too roughly with the very large yardstick, its fractal properties could not be detected, and therefore such a geometrical object would be manifested itself as Euclidean one. It is just the resolution deficiency of this kind occurs at the crossover point in Fig. 2. Starting with the cluster area less than 0.023 $`\mu `$m2 (corresponding to the currents of $`i>6`$) it is impossible to measure all “ skerries” and “ fjords” on the cluster coastlines, whereas all the clusters of area less than the size of the measuring cell ($`3.6\times 10^3`$ $`\mu `$m2 that relates to the currents of $`i>23`$), exhibit themselves as objects of Euclidean boundaries $`\left(D=1\right)`$. This resolution deficiency can be also observed in Fig. 1: some crosses at its lower left corner are arranged discretely with the spacing equal to the limit of resolution (60 nm), because some marks for smallest clusters coincide for the finite resolution of the picture digitization procedure.

The coastline fractal dimension was found above by means of regression analysis of the whole primary sampling, where the very small clusters of sizes lying at the breaking point of the resolution limit were also included. Therefore, it is necessary to control how much the estimated value of the fractal dimension could be distorted by the presence of such small clusters in that sampling. For this purpose the truncated sampling has been formed in such a way that only 380 clusters of the area greater than 0.0269 $`\mu `$m2, for which the resolution deficiency is not appeared, have been selected from the primary sampling. The corresponding points are plotted as open circles (2) in Fig. 1, whereas the results of statistical treatment of this truncated sampling are presented in the third column of Table I. The least squares estimation of these perimeter-area data gives the value of coastline fractal dimension $`D=1.47\pm 0.03`$ with correlation coefficient 0.869. The slope of the regression line for the truncated sampling (dotted line (4) in Fig. 1) is slightly steeper than for the primary one (solid line (3)). It is natural, because the presence in the primary sampling of small clusters, which exhibit themselves as Euclidean ones at the given resolution, leads to underrating the found magnitude of fractal dimension. Nevertheless, the values of fractal dimensions found for both samplings, virtually do not differ within the accuracy of the statistical estimation. This is due to the high robustness of procedure of the fractal dimension estimation on a basis of the scaling relation of Eq. (4): all the points both for the primary sampling and for the truncated one fall on the same straight line, without any bends or breaks (see Fig. 1). At the same time, it is necessary to note, that the empirical distribution function approach (see Fig. 2) provides the most data-sensitive technique of estimating the resolution capability required to study the fractal properties of clusters.

## III THE PINNING GAIN FOR THE MAGNETIC FLUX TRAPPED IN FRACTALLY BOUNDED CLUSTERS OF A NORMAL PHASE

The found cumulative probability function of Eq. (5) allows us to fully describe the effect of the transport current on the trapped magnetic flux. Using this function, the probability density $`f(i)dF/di`$ for the critical current distribution can be readily derived:

$$f\left(i\right)=\frac{2}{D}\left(\frac{2+D}{2}\right)^{\frac{2}{D}+1}i^{\frac{2}{D}1}\mathrm{exp}\left[\left(\frac{2+D}{2}\right)^{\frac{2}{D}+1}i^{\frac{2}{D}}\right]$$
(7)
This function is normalized to unity over all possible positive values of critical current. The use of the exponential-hyperbolic critical current distribution of Eq. (5) allows us to avoid the inevitable uncertainty caused by truncation of non-physical negative values of depinning currents, as it takes place, for example, in the case of a normal distribution -.

The exponential-hyperbolic distribution of Eq. (5) has such an important property: the function $`F=F(i)`$ is extremely “flat“ in the vicinity of the co-ordinate origin. It is easy to show that all its derivatives are equal to zero at the point of $`i=0`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^k}{di^k}}F(0)=0\text{ for any value of }k`$

Therefore even the Taylor series expansion in the vicinity of the origin converges to zero, instead of the quantity $`F`$ itself. This mathematical feature has a clear physical meaning: so small transport current does not affect the trapped magnetic flux, because there are no pinning centers of such small critical currents in the overall statistical distribution, so that all the vortices are still too strongly pinned to be broken away. As can be seen from Fig. 2, the change in the magnetic flux becomes appreciable after the transition into a resistive state only (in the transport current range of $`i>1`$).

The relative change in the trapped flux $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }`$, which can be calculated from Eq. (5), also defines the density of vortices $`n`$ broken away from the pinning centers by the current $`i`$:

$$n\left(i\right)=\frac{B}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}\underset{0}{\overset{i}{}}f\left(i^{}\right)𝑑i^{}=\frac{B}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }}{\mathrm{\Phi }}$$
(8)
where $`B`$ is the magnetic field, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0hc/\left(2e\right)`$ is the magnetic flux quantum ($`h`$ is Planck’s constant, $`c`$ is the velocity of light, $`e`$ is the electron charge). Figure 2 also displays such a practically important property of superconducting structure containing fractal clusters of a normal phase: the fractality intensifies the magnetic flux trapping, hindering its breaking away from pinning centers, and thereby enhances the critical current which sample is capable to withstand, remaining in a superconducting state. Really, the transport current of a magnitude $`i=2`$ causes the 43% of the total trapped magnetic flux to break away from the usual Euclidean clusters (curve (3)), whereas this value is equal only to 25% for fractal normal phase clusters of coastline dimension $`D=1.44`$ (curve (2)). It is equivalent to pinning reinforcement on 73% in the latter case. Thus the pinning amplification due to the fractality can be characterized by the pinning gain factor

$`k_D{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }\left(D=1\right)}{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\text{current value of }\text{D}\right)}}`$

which is equal to relative decrease in the fraction of magnetic flux broken away from fractal clusters of coastline dimension $`D`$ compared to the case of Euclidean ones $`\left(D=1\right)`$. This quantity can be calculated from the following formula:

$`k_D=\mathrm{exp}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{2+D}{2}}\right)^{\frac{2}{D}+1}i^{\frac{2}{D}}{\displaystyle \frac{3.375}{i^2}}\right]`$

The characteristic dependencies of the pinning gain on a transport current as well as on fractal dimension are given in Fig. 3. The highest amplification is reached when the cluster boundaries have the greatest possible fractality: $`\underset{D}{max}k_D=k_2=\mathrm{exp}\left((4i3.375)/i^2\right)`$, with the maximum of $`k_2`$ at transport current $`i=1.6875`$. Let us note that the pinning gain characterizes the properties of a superconductor in the range of the transport currents corresponding to a resistive state $`\left(i>1\right)`$. At smaller current the total trapped flux remains unchanged (see Fig. 2) for lack of pinning centers of such small critical currents, so the breaking of the vortices away has not started yet. When a transport current becomes greater than the current of a resistive transition, some finite resistance appears, so that the passage of electric current is accompanied by the energy dissipation. As for any hard superconductor (type-II, with pinning centers) this dissipation does not mean the destruction of phase coherence yet. Some dissipation always accompanies any motion of a magnetic flux that can happen in a hard superconductor even at low transport current. Therefore the critical current in such materials cannot be specified as the greatest non-dissipative current. The superconducting state collapses only when a growth of dissipation becomes avalanche-like as a result of thermo-magnetic instability.

The principal reason of pinning enhancement due to the fractality of the normal phase clusters lies in the fundamental properties of the critical current distribution. Figure 4 demonstrates the peculiarities of the fractal probability density specified by Eq. (7). As in Fig. 1, the thin lines show the extreme cases of Euclidean clusters $`\left(D=1\right)`$ and clusters of boundary with the maximum fractality $`(D=2)`$. As may be clearly seen from these graphs, the bell-shaped curve of the distribution broadens out, moving towards greater magnitudes of current as the fractal dimension increases. This shift can be described by dependencies of average and mode of the critical current distribution on the fractal dimension, as it is shown in the inset of Fig. 4. The mode of the distribution, which is equal to the value of the critical current that provides the maximum of the probability density of Eq. (7), depends linearly on the fractal dimension: mode$`f\left(i\right)=\left(2+D\right)/2`$. The average critical current obeys much more strong superlinear law specified by Euler gamma function:

$`\overline{i}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{2+D}{2}}\right)^{\frac{2+D}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{D}{2}}\right)`$

The mean value of the critical current for Euclidean clusters is equal to $`\overline{i}\left(D=1\right)=\left(3/2\right)^{3/2}\sqrt{\pi }=3.2562`$, while for clusters of maximum fractality this value becomes infinite: $`\overline{i}\left(D=2\right)\mathrm{}`$. Figure 4 clearly demonstrates that increasing the fractal dimension gives a growth of the contribution made by clusters of greater critical current to the overall distribution, resulting just in enhancement of the magnetic flux trapping.

## IV ELECTRIC FIELD IN THE RESISTIVE STATE

In the resistive state the hard superconductor is adequately specified by its voltage-current (V-I) characteristic. The critical current distribution of Eq. (7) allows us to find the electric field arising from the magnetic flux motion after the vortices have been broken away from the pinning centers. Inasmuch as each normal phase cluster contributes to the total critical current distribution, the voltage across a superconductor $`V=V\left(i\right)`$ is the response to the sum of effects made by the contribution from each cluster . Such a response can be expressed as a convolution integral:

$$V=R_f\underset{0}{\overset{i}{}}\left(ii^{}\right)f\left(i^{}\right)𝑑i^{}$$
(9)
where $`R_f`$ is the flux flow resistance. The similar approach is used universally to consider behavior of the clusters of pinned vortex filaments ; to analyze the critical scaling of V-I characteristics of superconductors ; that is to say, in all the cases where the distribution of the depinning currents occurs. The present consideration will be primarily concentrated on the consequences of the fractal nature of the normal phase clusters specified by the distribution of Eq. (7), so all the problems related to possible dependence of the flux flow resistance $`R_f`$ on a transport current will not be taken up here.

Let us consider the simplest case, wherein all of the pinning centers would have an identical critical current $`i_c`$ so all the vortices would be broken away simultaneously at $`i=i_c`$. Then, referring to Eq. (8), their density would have the following form:

$`n={\displaystyle \frac{B}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{i}{}}}\delta \left(i^{}i_c\right)𝑑i^{}={\displaystyle \frac{B}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}}h\left(ii_c\right)`$

where $`\delta \left(i\right)`$ is Dirac delta function,

$`h\left(i\right)\{\begin{array}{cc}1& \text{ for }i0\\ 0& \text{ for }i<0\end{array}`$ is Heaviside step function.

Thus, the trapped flux would change by 100% at once: $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }=h\left(ii_c\right)`$. Let us note that in this case $`i_c=1`$ due to the convenient normalization chosen above: $`iI/I_c`$.

In the model case of delta-shaped distribution of the critical currents the voltage across a superconductor in the flux flow regime, according to Eq. (9), would obey the simple linear law: $`V=R_f\left(ii_c\right)h\left(ii_c\right)`$. The corresponding V-I characteristic is shown in Fig. 5 by the dotted line (1).

For fractal distribution of critical currents the situation is quite different, because the vortices are being broken away now in a wide range of the transport currents. After the substitution of the function of Eq. (7) in Eq. (9), upon integration by parts, the voltage across a superconductor can be expressed with the cumulative probability function of Eq. (5):

$$V=R_f\underset{0}{\overset{i}{}}F\left(i^{}\right)𝑑i^{}$$
(10)
integration of which gives:

$$V=R_f\mathrm{exp}\left[\left(\frac{2+D}{2}\right)^{\frac{2}{D}+1}i^{\frac{2}{D}}\right]\left\{i\left(\frac{2+D}{2}\right)^{\frac{2+D}{2}}U[\frac{D}{2},\frac{D}{2},\left(\frac{2+D}{2}\right)^{\frac{2}{D}+1}i^{\frac{2}{D}}]\right\}$$
(11)
where $`U(a,b,z)`$ is Tricomi confluent hypergeometric function.

In extreme cases for $`D=1`$ and for $`D=2`$ expression of Eq. (11) can be simplified (see Appendix):

(a) Euclidean clusters $`(D=1)`$:

$$V=R_f\left[i\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{3.375}{i^2}\right)\sqrt{3.375\pi }\text{erfc}\left(\frac{\sqrt{3.375}}{i}\right)\right]$$
(12)
where erfc$`\left(z\right)`$ is the complementary error function.

(b) Clusters of boundary with the maximum fractality $`\left(D=2\right)`$:

$$V=R_f\left[i\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{4}{i}\right)+4Ei\left(\frac{4}{i}\right)\right]$$
(13)
where $`Ei\left(z\right)`$ is the exponential integral function.

The V-I characteristics of a superconductor containing fractal normal phase clusters are presented in Fig. 5. All the curves are virtually starting with the transport current value of $`i=1`$ that is agreed with the onset of the resistive state found above from cumulative probability function of Eq. (5). When the current increases the trapped flux remains unchanged until the vortices start to break away from the pinning centers. As long as the magnetic flux does not move, no electric field is arisen. Two thin lines (2), calculated using the formulas of Eq. (12) and Eq. (13), bound the region the V-I characteristics can fall within for any possible values of fractal dimension. As an example, the curve (3) demonstrates the V-I characteristic of a superconductor containing fractal clusters of previously obtained coastline dimension $`D=1.44`$. This figure shows that the fractality reduces appreciably an electric field arising from the magnetic flux motion. This effect is especially strong in the range of the currents $`1<i<3`$, where the pinning enhancement also has a maximum (see Fig. 3). Both these effects have the same nature, inasmuch as their reason consists in the peculiarities of fractal distribution of critical currents of Eq. (7). As is seen from Fig. 4, an increase of fractality causes a significant broadening of the tail of the distribution $`f=f\left(i\right)`$. It means that more and more of small clusters, which can best trap the magnetic flux, are being involved in the game. Hence the density of vortices broken away from pinning centers by the Lorentz force is reducing, so the smaller part of a magnetic flux can flow, creating the smaller electric field. In turn, the smaller the electric field is, the smaller is the energy dissipated when the transport current passes through the sample. Therefore, the decrease in heat-evolution, which could cause transition of a superconductor into a normal state, means that the current-carrying capability of the superconductor containing such fractal clusters is enhanced.

Thus, Fig. 5, as well as Fig. 3, obviously demonstrates such a practically important result: the fractality of the boundary of the normal phase clusters, which act as the pinning centers, prevents the destruction of a superconductivity by a transport current, and therefore, causes the critical current to increase.

## V CONCLUSION

Thus, the fractal properties of the normal phase clusters have an essential influence on the dynamics of the trapped magnetic flux. The crucial change of the critical current distribution caused by increasing of the coastline fractal dimension of the normal phase clusters forms the basis of this effect. The most important result is that the fractality of cluster boundary strengthens the flux pinning and thereby hinders the destruction of superconductivity by the transport current, resulting in enhancement of the current-carrying capability of a superconductor. This phenomenon provides the principally new possibilities for increasing the critical current value of composite superconductors by optimizing their geometric morphological properties.

## A ELECTRIC VOLTAGE ACROSS A SUPERCONDUCTOR CAUSED BY THE MAGNETIC FLUX MOTION IN EXTREME CASES OF EUCLIDEAN CLUSTERS AND CLUSTERS OF MAXIMUM FRACTALITY

In order to obtain the expressions of Eq. (11) - Eq. (13) for the voltage across a superconductor, it is necessary to integrate the cumulative probability function for the critical current distribution of Eq. (5). The substitution of exponential-hyperbolic distribution of Eq. (5) in Eq. (10) gives:

$$\frac{V}{R_f}=\underset{0}{\overset{i}{}}𝑑x\mathrm{exp}\left(Cx^{\frac{2}{D}}\right)\text{ ,            where }C\left(\frac{2+D}{2}\right)^{\frac{2}{D}+1}$$
(A1)
Using the change of a variable of the form $`yCx^{2/D}`$, we can get the following expression:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{V}{R_f}}={\displaystyle \frac{D}{2}}C^{\frac{D}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{Ci^{\frac{2}{D}}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑ye^yy^{\frac{2+D}{2}}`$

which, upon integration by parts, becomes:

$$\frac{V}{R_f}=i\mathrm{exp}\left(Ci^{\frac{2}{D}}\right)C^{\frac{D}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\frac{D}{2},Ci^{\frac{2}{D}})$$
(A2)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu ,z)_z^{\mathrm{}}𝑑ye^yy^{\nu 1}`$ is the incomplete gamma function. This function can be represented as:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu ,z)=e^zU(1\nu ,1\nu ,z)$$
(A3)
where $`U(a,b,z)\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(a\right)\right)^1_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑ye^{zy}y^{a1}\left(1+y\right)^{ba1}`$ is Tricomi confluent hypergeometric function; and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(a\right)_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑ye^yy^{a1}`$is Euler gamma function.

Thus with the help of Eq. (A3), the expression for the voltage across a superconductor of Eq. (A2) can be written in its final form:

$$\frac{V}{R_f}=\mathrm{exp}\left(Ci^{\frac{2}{D}}\right)\left[iC^{\frac{D}{2}}U(\frac{D}{2},\frac{D}{2},Ci^{\frac{2}{D}})\right]$$
(A4)
This formula is similar to the expression of Eq. (11). The corresponding V-I characteristic of a superconductor calculated using this expression at $`D=1.44`$ is shown in Fig. 5 by the curve (3).

The equation (A4) can be transformed to more simple form in two special cases:

(a) For clusters of Euclidean boundary $`\left(D=1\right)`$:

At $`D=1`$ the following representation is valid for Tricomi confluent hypergeometric function:

$`U({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},z)=\sqrt{\pi }e^z\text{erfc}\left(\sqrt{z}\right)`$

where erfc$`\left(z\right)\left(2/\sqrt{\pi }\right)_z^{\mathrm{}}𝑑ye^{y^2}`$ is the complementary error function.

The substitution of this representation into the equation ( A4) gives the same expression for the voltage across a superconductor as the formula of Eq. (12):

$$\frac{V}{R_f}=i\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{C}{i^2}\right)\sqrt{\pi C}\text{erfc}\left(\frac{\sqrt{C}}{i}\right)$$
(A5)
where, according to Eq. (A1), $`C=3.375`$.

(b) For clusters of boundary with the maximum fractality $`\left(D=2\right)`$:

At $`D=2`$ there is such a representation for Tricomi confluent hypergeometric function:

$`U(1,1,z)=e^zEi\left(z\right)`$

where $`Ei\left(z\right)_{\mathrm{}}^z𝑑y\frac{e^y}{y}`$, $`z>0`$, is the exponential integral function.

Taking into account this formula, the expression (A4) for the voltage across a superconductor can be re-written as:

$$\frac{V}{R_f}=i\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{C}{i}\right)+CEi\left(\frac{C}{i}\right)$$
(A6)
where, according to Eq. (A1), $`C=4`$. The last formula coincides with the expression of Eq. (13).

The formulas of Eqs. (A5), (A6) describe dependencies of the voltage across a superconductor in a resistive state on the transport current for extreme values of the coastline fractal dimension. Two corresponding V-I curves are shown in Fig. 5 by thin lines (2). Whatever the geometric morphological properties of the normal phase clusters may be, the V-I characteristics of a superconductor will fall within the region bounded by those two limiting curves, as it is shown in Fig. 5 (like the curve (3) drawn for $`D=1.44`$).


text:
# Is particle creation by the gravitational field consistent with energy conservation?

## Abstract

If particle creation is described by a Bogoliubov transformation, then, in the Heisenberg picture, the raising and lowering operators are time dependent. On the other hand, this time dependence is not consistent with field equations and the conservation of the stress-energy tensor. Possible physical interpretations and resolutions of this inconsistency are discussed.

PACS: 04.62.+v; 11.10.-z
Keywords: particle creation; Bogoliubov transformation; energy conservation

It is widely believed that background gravitational field can cause production of particles . However, the theoretical framework that describes this hypothetical effect, based on Bogoliubov transformation, is still far from being free of fundamental and conceptual problems. One of the problems is how particle creation from the vacuum can be consistent with the conservation of energy. It is often argued that creation of particles causes a backreaction on the background metric in such a way that energy is conserved. However, this conjecture has never been proved rigorously. In this letter we argue that the backreaction cannot solve the energy problem if the description of particle creation is based on Bogoliubov transformation. More precisely, we show that continuous change of the average number of particles is inconsistent with the local conservation of the stress-energy tensor.

The background metric is described by the semi-classical Einstein equation

$$\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }RR_{\mu \nu }=8\pi G\psi |T_{\mu \nu }|\psi .$$
(1)
We assume that the backreaction caused by all physical processes, including a possible particle production, is included in (1). We only exclude physical processes related to a collapse of the quantum state $`|\psi `$, because the semi-classical equation is not consistent when the collapse is taken into account . For simplicity, we assume that (1) refers to quantities renormalized such that other possible geometrical terms on the left-hand side  are not present. Since, by assumption, the backreaction is included exactly, equation (1) must be exact. The covariant divergence of the left-hand side vanishes identically, so the covariant divergence of the right-hand side must vanish too. We work in the Heisenberg picture (in which the state $`|\psi `$ is constant), which implies that the operator equation

$$D^\mu T_{\mu \nu }=0$$
(2)
must be valid exactly. For simplicity, we assume that $`T_{\mu \nu }T_{\mu \nu }(\varphi )`$ is determined by the action of a hermitian scalar field $`\varphi `$ coupled only to the exact background metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$. Therefore, the corresponding curved space-time Klein-Gordon equation

$$(D^\mu _\mu +m^2+\xi R)\varphi =0$$
(3)
should be valid exactly.

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(t)`$ denote some foliation of space-time into Cauchy spacelike hypersurfaces. The coordinates $`x=(t,𝐱)`$ are chosen such that $`t=\mathrm{constant}`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. We want to show that if the average number of particles at $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ changes continuously with time $`t`$, then equations (2) and (3) are not satisfied.

The field $`\varphi `$ can be expanded as

$$\varphi (x)=\underset{k}{}a_kf_k(x)+a_k^{}f_k^{}(x).$$
(4)
Here $`f_k(x)`$ are solutions of (3) such that they are positive-freqeuency solutions at some initial time $`t_0`$. We introduce the vacuum $`|0`$ as a state with the property $`a_k|0=0`$. This state has zero particles at $`t_0`$. A general state $`|\psi `$ is constructed by acting on $`|0`$ with the operators $`a_k^{}`$. To find the average number of particles at some other time $`t>t_0`$, we introduce a new set of functions $`u_l(x)`$ that satisfy (3) and are positive-freqeuency solutions at $`t`$. Instead of (4), we can use the expansion

$$\varphi (x)=\underset{l}{}A_lu_l(x)+A_l^{}u_l^{}(x).$$
(5)
The functions $`u_l`$ satisfy the relations

$`(u_l,u_l^{})=(u_l^{},u_l^{}^{})=\delta _{ll^{}},`$
$`(u_l,u_l^{}^{})=(u_l^{},u_l^{})=0,`$ (6)
where

$$(\phi ,\chi )=i_\mathrm{\Sigma }𝑑\mathrm{\Sigma }^\mu \phi ^{}\stackrel{}{_\mu }\chi .$$
(7)
When $`\phi (x)`$ and $`\chi (x)`$ are solutions of (3), then the scalar product (7) does not depend on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The relations analogous to (Is particle creation by the gravitational field consistent with energy conservation?) are also valid for $`f_k`$. The two sets of functions are related by the Bogoliubov transformation

$$u_l(x)=\underset{k}{}\alpha _{lk}f_k(x)+\beta _{lk}f_k^{}(x),$$
(8)
where

$$\alpha _{lk}=(f_k,u_l),\beta _{lk}=(f_k^{},u_l).$$
(9)
From the requirement that (4) and (5) should be equal, one finds

$$A_l=\underset{k}{}\alpha _{lk}^{}a_k\beta _{lk}^{}a_k^{}.$$
(10)
Equation (10) is sufficient to express the average number of particles in a state $`|\psi `$ at the time $`t`$. However, to see the relevance of the stress-energy tensor explicitly, we use a formalism which is equivalent, but more complicated. The time evolution is generated by the Hamiltonian

$$H(t)=_{\mathrm{\Sigma }(t)}𝑑\mathrm{\Sigma }^\mu n^\nu T_{\mu \nu }(\varphi ),$$
(11)
where $`n^\nu `$ is a unit vector normal to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(t)`$. The time dependence of the left-hand side is a consequence of the time dependence of the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$. One could also add the gravitational contribution to the right-hand side of (11). However, this contribution depends only on the c-numbers $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, not on the operators $`\varphi `$, so it is physically irrelevant to the time evolution of the operators that describe matter. The time evolution of the particle-number operator is described by

$$N(t)=U(t,t_0)N(t_0)U^{}(t,t_0),$$
(12)
where $`N(t_0)=_ka_k^{}a_k`$. The unitary operator $`U`$ satisfies the Schrödinger equation

$$i\frac{d}{dt}U(t,t_0)=H(t)U(t,t_0).$$
(13)
Putting (5) into the expression for $`T_{\mu \nu }(\varphi )`$ in (11), equations (12) and (13) give

$$N(t)=\underset{l}{}A_l^{}A_l.$$
(14)
Of course, we could obtain this directly, without using (11), (12) and (13).

The formalism presented above is not new. However, in order to understand the discussion that follows, it was important to explicitly explain the crucial steps in the derivation of (14). The problem is that $`A_l`$ in (5) are constant operators, so (14) implies $`dN(t)/dt=0`$. In other words, the average number of particles does not continuously change with time:

$$\frac{d}{dt}\psi |N(t)|\psi =0.$$
(15)
To avoid this difficulty, one expects that (14) should be replaced by an expression of the form

$$N(t)=\underset{l}{}A_l^{}(t)A_l(t).$$
(16)
It is not difficult to understand the origin of this extra time dependence. To describe the continuous creation of particles, we need a new set of functions $`u_l(x)`$ for each time $`t`$. This means that the modes $`u_l`$ possess an extra continuous time dependence, i.e. they become functions of the form $`u_l(x;t)`$. These functions do not satisfy (3). However, the functions $`u_l(x;\tau )`$ satisfy (3), provided that $`\tau `$ is kept fixed when the derivative $`_\mu `$ acts on $`u_l`$. For $`\phi (x;t)`$, $`\chi (x;t)`$ being two arbitrary functions with such an extra t-dependence, we define the scalar product as

$$(\phi ,\chi )_ti_{\mathrm{\Sigma }(t)}𝑑\mathrm{\Sigma }^\mu \phi ^{}(x;\tau )\stackrel{}{_\mu }\chi (x;\tau )|_{\tau =t},$$
(17)
where $`\tau `$ is kept fixed when the derivative acts. In general, this scalar product depends on $`t`$, even if $`\phi (x;\tau )`$ and $`\chi (x;\tau )`$ satisfy (3) when $`\tau `$ is kept fixed. The functions $`u_l(x;t)`$ satisfy relations (Is particle creation by the gravitational field consistent with energy conservation?) with respect to the scalar product (17). However, the Bogoliubov coefficients (9), calculated using the scalar product (17), become $`t`$-dependent. Therefore, (10) should be replaced by

$$A_l(t)=\underset{k}{}\alpha _{lk}^{}(t)a_k\beta _{lk}^{}(t)a_k^{}.$$
(18)
This relation can be derived from the requirement that (4) should be equal to

$$\varphi (x)=\underset{l}{}A_l(t)u_l(x;t)+A_l^{}(t)u_l^{}(x;t),$$
(19)
or

$$\varphi (x)=\underset{l}{}A_l(t)u_l(x)+A_l^{}(t)u_l^{}(x),$$
(20)
provided that the $`t`$-dependence of $`A_l(t)`$ is treated as an extra $`t`$-dependence in (17). In other words, (18) is valid if the relation $`(u_l^{},A_l(t)u_l)_t=A_l(t)(u_l^{},u_l)_t`$ (as well as other similar relations) is valid.

Now it seems that we have a consistent derivation of the extra time dependence in (16). However, it is not consistent. The fields (19) and (20) do not satisfy the Klein-Gordon equation (3). Therefore, (19) and (20) cannot be equal to (4). This implies that equation (18), which expresses the equality of (4), (19) and (20), cannot be consistent either. This is, indeed, true because the scalar product (17) is inconsistently defined. Namely, the “extra” t-dependence cannot really be distinguished from the “regular” t-dependence, because one can always write $`\phi (x;t)\stackrel{~}{\phi }(x)`$. On the other hand, to obtain a relation similar to (16) by using (11), (12) and (13), one needs to put (19) or (20) into the expression for $`T_{\mu \nu }(\varphi )`$. Since (19) and (20) do not satisfy (3), this $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ does not satisfy (2). Since the expression for $`T_{\mu \nu }(\varphi )`$ involves the time derivatives $`\dot{\varphi }`$, the resulting expression for $`N(t)`$ will take the form

$$N(t)=\underset{l}{}A_l^{}(t)A_l(t)+𝒩(\dot{A}_l(t),\dot{u}_l(\tau ,𝐱;t)|_{\tau =t}).$$
(21)
The extra term $`𝒩`$ obtained using (19) is not the same as that obtained using (20). This term is negligible if we assume that the change of the average number of particles is slow, i.e. that $`\dot{A}_l(t)0`$, $`\dot{u}_l(\tau ,𝐱;t)|_{\tau =t}0`$. If we take this approximation, then (3) and (2) are approximately valid. However, although the particle production can be slow, the total number of produced particles can be significant after a long time. Similarly, the total produced energy can be significant after a long time.

Our results can be summarized as follows: If particle creation is described by a Bogoliubov transformation, then, in the Heisenberg picture, the raising and lowering operators are time dependent. On the other hand, this time dependence is not consistent with the field equations and the conservation of the stress-energy tensor. Below we discuss several possible approaches to the resolution of this problem and show that none of them is completely satisfactory.

One possibility is to define the average of the stress-energy tensor in an independent way, without using (19) or (20). Indeed, the stress-energy tensor is often defined using a formalism based on the Schwinger-DeWitt representation of the Green function . The stress-energy tensor defined in this way is automatically conserved, but is not represented as $`\psi |T_{\mu \nu }|\psi `$ for some operator $`T_{\mu \nu }`$. Such an approach leads to an argument that particle production is consistent with the local conservation of the stress-energy tensor . However, we do not find this argument satisfactory, because the formalism in which the average number of particles is described by an operator, whereas the average stress-energy tensor is not described by an operator, does not seem to be consistent. Moreover, if one does not define the operator $`T_{\mu \nu }`$, then one cannot describe the particle production by the formalism based on (11). Finally, it is not clear in such an approach whether the Klein-Gordon equation (3) is satisfied.

Another possibility (that can be combined with the possibility above) is that a well-defined operator $`N(t)`$ simply does not exist, even when the foliation $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(t)`$ is chosen. Instead, the number of particles should be defined operationally, by the response of a “particle” detector of the Unruh-DeWitt type . Such detectors need a long time to measure the number of particles in a reliable way. The average number of particles at a given time $`t`$ loses its meaning. However, since all other observables in quantum mechanics can be represented by well-defined hermitian operators that evolve continuously with time and do not require a model of the correspoding detector, it is not clear why the number of particles should be an exception.

At this point it is instructive to compare the concepts of energy and particle number in flat space-time. In this case, both quantities are conserved. On the other hand, both quantities obey certain approximate uncertainty relations

$`\mathrm{\Delta }E\mathrm{\Delta }t1,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }N\mathrm{\Delta }tm^1,`$ (22)
where $`m`$ is the mass of the particle and $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is the time interval during which the measurement is performed. These relations cannot be derived from some fundamental quantum principles. They merely express the uncertainties related to typical methods of measurement. Actually, it is, in principle, possible to measure energy with an arbitrary accuracy inside an arbitrarily small time interval . There is no reason why this would not be the case for the number of particles as well. The uncertainty relations do not imply that the operators $`H(t)`$ and $`N(t)`$ are not well defined, even when they are not conserved.

Our discussion suggests a new approach to the resolution of the problem of inconsistency between particle creation and energy conservation. In this approach, equation (15) is interpreted as conservation of the particle number when the classical gravitational interaction described by (3) is the only interaction. It seems that in such an approach one has to reject a common belief that the definition of particles should be closely related to the definition of positive frequencies. We shall study such a possibility in more detail elsewhere.

A close relationship between the non-conservation of energy and particle number can also be seen in the following way: Assume that space-time is flat at $`t_0`$ and $`t`$, but not at the intermediate times. In this case, the non-conservation of energy is obvious from the relations

$`H(t_0)={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\omega _k(a_k^{}a_k+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}),`$
$`H(t)={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\omega _k(A_k^{}A_k+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}).`$ (23)
For example, $`0|H(t)|00|H(t_0)|0=_k_k^{}\omega _k|\beta _{kk^{}}|^2/2`$. The fact that the energy should be conserved suggests that certain operators should be renormalized such that the renormalized Hamiltonian is conserved. A formalism which renormalizes the Hamiltonian should also renormalize the number of particles. The equations given above suggest the following renormalization of the raising and lowering operators:

$$A_k^{\mathrm{ren}}=A_k\underset{k^{}}{}[(\alpha _{kk^{}}^{}\delta _{kk^{}})a_k^{}\beta _{kk^{}}^{}a_k^{}^{}].$$
(24)
Since $`A_k^{\mathrm{ren}}=a_k`$, such a renormalization leads to $`H^{\mathrm{ren}}(t)=H(t_0)`$. A necessary consequence of such a renormalization is that there is no particle production because $`N^{\mathrm{ren}}(t)=N(t_0)`$. The problem with this heuristic argument against particle production is that (24) is obtained in an ad hoc way. One needs a derivation that starts from more fundamental principles.

There is no doubt that the usual concept of particles that emerges from free fields in Minkowski space-time should be modified significantly when the generalization to arbitrary space-time is considered. Our analysis demonstrates that existing achievements in this field are far from being completely satisfying. Further investigation is needed in order to formulate a closed and consistent theory.

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Republic of Croatia under Contract No. 00980102.