text:
# Selected topics on Low Energy Antiproton Physics

## 1 Introduction

We review in this contribution some topics on the Low Energy Antiproton Physics that raised our interest since the early shutdown of LEAR, as well as their relation with the theoretical models.

The first section is devoted to N̄N system. We comment on the n̄p results obtained by the OBELIX group and discuss with some more details the protonium P-level energy shifts measured by the PS207 experiment.

The second section is devoted to the N̄d system. We present the first Faddeev calculations for the n̄d scattering length and review the future perspectives from the theoretical side. Unable to understand the annihilation at a quark level, we have here the possibility to understand it at the level of nucleons.

## 2 Selected topics on N̄N

### 2.1 Low energy n̄p cross section

The last OBELIX data on n̄p cross section , presented in this conference by A. Felicello , are very astonishing. The structures observed in the total and elastic cross section at antineutron laboratory momenta $`p_{lab}70`$ MeV/c are not trivial results and can hardly be explained without assuming a nearthreshold state .

These data have suffered from big fluctuations in the successive steps of their analysis  and the only interesting question – i.e. to what extend they are significant – can not longer be answered at LEAR. The anomalous behaviour indeed concerns only two data points but if they were a consequence of an experimental problem, why should it manifest only in these two intermediate points ? As strange as they could appear, these data still remain inside the unitarity constraints. It would be of high interest if the AD could allow low energy scattering experiments. If a direct n̄p measurement turns out to be not possible, one could see at least whether or not the structure is manifested in the p̄p cross section.

The problem is modelized by

$$(EH_0)\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{p}p}\\ \mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{n}p}\\ \mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{n}n}\end{array}\right)=\widehat{V}\mathrm{\Psi }\widehat{V}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}V_0+V_1+2V_c& 0& V_0V_1\\ 0& V_1& 0\\ V_0V_1& 0& V_0+V_1\end{array}\right)$$
(1)
where $`E=T_i+m_i`$ denotes the total energy – the same for all channels, $`V_i`$ the isospin components of the N̄N strong potential and $`V_c`$ the Coulomb attraction. The n̄p channel is dynamically decoupled from the two others. However, through the T=1 component of the N̄N potential, the n̄p structure could be visible in the p̄p elastic cross section near the n̄n threshold. Indeed, by assuming $`2\mu _{\overline{p}p}=2\mu _{\overline{n}p}=2\mu _{\overline{n}n}=\frac{1}{2}(m_p+m_n)`$ the center of mass momenta $`k_i`$ of the different channels are given by

$$k_{\overline{p}p}^2=k_{\overline{n}p}^2+\mathrm{\Delta }=k_{\overline{n}n}^2+2\mathrm{\Delta }$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }=m_nm_p=1.293`$ MeV. The n̄n threshold ($`k_{\overline{n}n}^2`$=0) correspond to the laboratory moment $`p_{\overline{p}p}`$=98.6 and $`p_{\overline{n}p}`$=69.7 MeV/c, i.e. the region of the observed anomaly. We would like to notice however that this coincidence is only kinematical. Calculations performed in the framework of both optical and unitary coupled-channel models showed that the influence of opening the n̄n threshold in the p̄p cross sections indeed exists but it is negligible. If some structure is seen in p̄p observables near the n̄n threshold it should have a dynamical origin.

### 2.2 Protonium P-level shifts

One of the most interesting results from LEAR post-mortem experiments is the 3P0 protonium level shifts obtained in . These authors found the values $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_R({}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{})=139\pm 28`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }({}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{})=120\pm 25`$ meV. The interest of this result is twofold. First because it is in qualitative agreement with a non trivial prediction of some meson exchange based models. Second for the underlying dynamics that it supports.

The predictions from KW , DR1 and DR2  optical models for the protonium P-level shifts  together with the corresponding p̄p scattering volumes  are given in Table 1. These models differ from each other both in the annihilation potential and in the meson contents defining its real part. One can see from this table that the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ width is well reproduced and that the energy shift is – in spite of the large predicted values – underestimated by a factor two. We would like to emphasize however that the very prediction of these models is that $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ must be a particular case. The reason for $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_R`$ being 2-10 times bigger than other P states is that V$`_{{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}}`$ has an unusually strong and attractive T=0 component at distances at which the OBEP theory should be reliable (see Figure 2). This large value cannot be reproduced by simple interactions: Bruckner et al. potential, for instance, which proved to be very successful at higher energy , gives $`a_{sc}`$=$`0.180.68i`$ fm3. This non trivial result seems be confirmed by experiment and – despite a factor two in $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_R`$ – gives support to meson exchange inspired models.

A little bit more hidden but even more interesting is the way in which the P-wave p̄p scattering volumes are obtained in terms of the N̄N isospin components. For that purpose we consider the DR1 prediction from Table 1. This value, denoted by $`a_{sc}=3.012.31i`$, was calculated using p̄p-n̄n coupled equations in which Coulomb ($`V_c`$) and proton-neutron mass difference ($`\mathrm{\Delta }`$) were included. By removing $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and Coulomb corrections, one is left with a purely strong value $`a_s`$, which in its turn is an average of both isospin components $`a_s=\frac{1}{2}\left(a_0+a_1\right)`$. The result of this analysis, performed in  for all partial amplitudes, is summarized in Table 2.

By applying the same kind of corrections to the experimental scattering volume $`a_{\overline{p}p}=5.682.45i`$ fm3 and keeping the same T=1 value (this approximation will be justified later) one gets $`a_015.75.77i`$. The large value of its real part is a consequence of the already large measured Re$`(a_{\overline{p}p})<0`$ and the destructive interference with the repulsive T=1 channel. It cannot be obtained without a nearthreshold N̄N state which enhances the scattering amplitude. To our opinion, the results of  constitutes a direct evidence for its existence. It is interesting to compare this situation with the singlet deuteron channel $`a_{np}20`$ fm which inspired the following conclusion: ”If deuteron had not been found experimentally one could infer its very existence by the big values of NN scattering parameters”. Does G-parity manifest itself with such a degree of refinement ?

In Figure 2 we have compared the different isospin components of the N̄N P states as they are given in  by the three considered optical models. One can see there, that if theoretical predictions for $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ were not ”normal”, the experimental findings at LEAR go well beyond. It is thus interesting to inquire whether or not the existing models are able to reproduce them.

Let us first consider the problem with Im(V)=0 and calculate the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ scattering volume $`a`$ as a function of the strength of Re(V), i.e. the cutoff radius $`r_c`$. The results for both isospin components are plotted in Figures 4 and 4. The $`{}_{}{}^{33}P_{0}^{}`$ state shows a remarkable stability due to the fact that the corresponding potential – displayed in Figure 2 – is repulsive and dominated by the centrifugal barrier. For the $`{}_{}{}^{13}P_{0}^{}`$ state, $`a`$ varies from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`+\mathrm{}`$ – what makes easy fitting any experimental result – the vertical asymptotics corresponding to the appearence of new N̄N bound states. One can also see from these figures that the negative sign of the scattering volume ($`a<0`$) implies attractive interaction whereas from $`a>0`$ nothing can be infered.

In presence of annihilation, the results for the $`{}_{}{}^{33}P_{0}^{}`$ state are only slightly modified. For a wide range of $`r_c`$ values, $`a`$ keeps nearly the same real part and gets only a very small imaginary part, indicating that annihilation cannot come from repulsive channels. On the contrary the behaviour of the $`{}_{}{}^{13}P_{0}^{}`$ is much more complex. The pole divergences are reduced to finite oscillations and $`a`$ can have large imaginary part. In order to agree with the experimental values, Re(a) and Im(a) should cross the corresponding horizontal line at the same value of $`r_c`$. If one takes the results from  this is not possible even modifying the cutoff parameter in a reasonable range. We have found several solutions to account for that interesting – though disappointing – situation. The first one, see Figure 8, keeps the same annihilation potential but uses a very large value of $`r_c`$=2 fm. The corresponding potential becomes only of $``$100 MeV but we notice that even in this case there is a quasibound state and the experimental data force the model to be in its vicinity. The second solution is obtained by a substantial change in Im(V), thus introducing a quantum number dependence in annihilation potential, as it was the case in Paris potential . Figure 8 shows a solution obtained with a factor 4 reduction in the strength $`W_0`$ of the imaginary potential ($`W_0`$=300 MeV instead of 1.2 GeV) and $`r_c=0.93`$ fm.

To conclude this section, we would like to emphasize the importance of low energy experiments as well as the partial wave resolution to get useful information about the interaction. The existence of $`{}_{}{}^{33}P_{0}^{}`$ state cannot directly by deduced from the total p̄p scattering cross section due to its small statistic weight compared to the large number of partial waves involved. In addition, it appears only in the T=0 part of the p̄p wavefunction and its influence is partially cancelled by the opposite contribution of the T=1 part. It is worth mentioning however that a similar conclusion was also reached in  based on an independent analysis.

## 3 Selected topics on N̄d

The interest in studying this process – apart from testing N̄N models in a more complex system – is to have an idea of how N̄N annihilation takes place in presence of other nucleons. Understanding annihilation at a quark level is made difficult by the fact that we have no appropriate theoretical tools to deal with quarks (q). Calculations are performed on a basis of constituent quarks (Q), mostly in a non relativistic approach. However Q is a very complex object which looks more like N than q except that it has no asymptotic states.

In N̄d, we know something – at least experimentally – about the elementary amplitudes and it seems in principle easier to inquire about the N̄-A annihilation mechanism. Does N̄ annihilate on a single N ? If yes, should we expect $`T_{\overline{p}A}T_{\overline{p}N}`$ ? or rather $`T_{\overline{p}A}T_{\overline{p}N_1}+T_{\overline{p}N_2}`$? and what is the role of the remaining nucleons ? Does on the contrary N̄ annihilate on the nuclear bulk ? From that purpose deuteron – quite an extended object – is the most interesting nucleus and low energy experiments are the only ones from which one can get useful information. The problem has some analogies with ”From where does the e- pass through ? ” in a Young experiment, where we learnt that naive pictures (and questions!) have hard life in Quantum Mechanics.

N̄d is a genuine problem for the Few-Body Physics community. Faddeev-Yakubovsky (FY) equations in configuration space seem to be the best adapted to deal with non hermitic problems where Coulomb interactions play a vital role. At present, the more complex system for which FY can be exactly solved is N=4 . The only N̄A problem that can be presently solved is N̄-d. It could be extended in coming years to N̄-3He and – if no bad surprises – to N̄-4He. A modest but already fascinating task.

From nuclear physics, we know that the scattering lengths are very dynamical quantities, i.e. very sensible to and determined by the interaction. Any interpretation in terms of geometry is purely lyric. For instance, the singlet n-p value is $`a_{np}^{(1)}`$=–23 fm for a nucleon r.m.s. radius of R=0.86 fm. On the other hand, the doublet and quartet n-d are respectively $`a_{nd}^{(2)}`$=0.65 fm and $`a_{nd}^{(4)}`$=6.4 fm, i.e. they concern the same geometrical object and differ by one order of magnitude. One should anyway remind that the size of a light nucleus is mainly determined by its binding energy rather than by the number of constituents: deuteron is bigger than $`\alpha `$ particle. This sensitivity to details of the interaction made powerful approximate methods fail at very low energies. Only well founded approaches that take into account the full dynamics produce there reliable results.

If the low energy parameters are dynamical, one cannot exclude some N̄A states having very weak annihilation rates. An example – concerning pd elastic scattering – is given by $`a_{pd}^{(2)}`$0 fm ! In p̄p, one has – according to theoretical predictions ) – Im($`a_{T=0}`$)=0.08 fm3 for 3P1.

The results that follow have been obtained by solving the Faddeev equations with the methods developed for N=3  and N=4 . In the Faddeev approach, the total n̄d wave function is obtained as a sum of three amplitudes:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }_{pn}(x_1,y_1)+\mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{n}p}(x_2,y_2)+\mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{n}n}(x_3,y_3)$$
(2)
each of them depending on a particular set of Jacobi coordinates:

These amplitudes obey a system of coupled equations

$`(EH_0V_{pn})\mathrm{\Psi }_{pn}`$ $`=`$ $`V_{pn}(\mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{n}p}+\mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{n}n})`$
$`(EH_0V_{\overline{n}p})\mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{n}p}`$ $`=`$ $`V_{\overline{n}p}(\mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{n}n}+\mathrm{\Psi }_{pn})`$
$`(EH_0V_{\overline{n}n})\mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{n}n}`$ $`=`$ $`V_{\overline{n}n}(\mathrm{\Psi }_{pn}+\mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{n}p})`$
and each of them is in its turn expanded in partial wave components

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_i=\underset{\alpha _i}{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{i,\alpha _i}\alpha _i=\{l_{x_i},\sigma _{x_i},j_{x_i},l_{y_i},j_{y_i}\}$$

on which the different partial waves of the NN and N̄N potentials act. Only each separate component has a well defined asymptotic behaviour which, for the scattering problem we are interested in, is:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{pn}(x_1,y_1)u_{pn}(x_1)\left[e^{iq_1y_1}S_{11}e^{iq_1y_1}\right]`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{n}p}(x_2,y_2)u_{\overline{n}p}(x_2)\left[S_{12}e^{iq_2y_2}\right]`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{n}n}(x_3,y_3)u_{\overline{n}n}(x_3)\left[S_{13}e^{iq_3y_3}\right]`$
where $`u_i(x_i)`$ is the N̄N two-body bound state wavefunction with energy $`E_i=\frac{2}{3}\frac{q_i^2}{M}`$ and $`S_{ij}`$ the S-matrix elements. For a given N̄N model, the values of $`E_i`$ depend on the quantum numbers {$`l_x\sigma _xj_x`$} of the N̄N state.

In practice, all models have one or several N̄N quasibound states with energies below the deuteron. The spectrum of KW model, for instance, is displayed in Table 3 for both isospin components of the potential as well as for their linear combination $`V_{\overline{n}n}=\frac{1}{2}(V_0+V_1)`$ which governs the n̄n channel. One can remark that there are no quasibound states for n̄p (T=1) but two in n̄n.

Even if the initial state has only one asymptotics, e.g. deuteron, the coupled equations will populate all the others and there will be always a non zero probability to leave the initial channel. As a consequence, even in absence of annihilation potential, the n̄d scattering length will have an imaginary part. We can thus distinguish two kinds of annihilation: the direct one and the one that takes place after the creation of a quasibound N̄N state. In a practical calculation we cannot avoid taking into account these rearrangement channels.

The results we have obtained for the two n̄d S-wave states – doublet ($`J^\pi =\frac{1}{2}^+`$) and quartet ($`J^\pi =\frac{3}{2}^+`$) – are respectively $`a_{\overline{n}d}^{(2)}`$=$`1.590.88i`$ fm and $`a_{\overline{n}d}^{(4)}`$=$`1.620.82i`$ fm, what gives an spin-averaged value $`\overline{a}_{\overline{n}d}`$=$`1.610.84i`$ fm. Each N̄N Faddeev amplitude involves the $`\{l_{x_i},\sigma _{x_i},j_{x_i},l_{y_i},j_{y_i}\}`$ components listed in Table 4 which include all $`V_{\overline{N}N}^{j1}`$ interactions.

It is interesting to compare these results to those given by the N̄N amplitudes which are relevant in n̄d. Their spin-averaged values, taken from Table 1 in , are $`\overline{a}_{\overline{n}n}`$=$`0.880.84i`$ fm and $`\overline{a}_{\overline{n}p}`$=$`0.850.76i`$ fm. One then has Im($`\overline{a}_{\overline{n}d}`$)$``$Im($`\overline{a}_{\overline{N}N}`$), in contrast to the findings of  for p̄d. In view of this results one is tempted to conclude that n̄d annihilation is dominated by the n̄n channel. However in order to get some light on the annihilation mechanism an analysis of the n̄d wavefunction is required.

We also remark that, contrary to nd case, there is very small spin dependence, that is $`a^{(2)}a^{(4)}`$. This could be expected from the fact that we are dealing with three non identical particles. It is worth noticing however that with Im(V)=0, the values are $`a^{(2)}2.0`$ and $`a^{(4)}1.5`$. The effect of annihilation potential is to move the two spin values in opposite directions towards an almost degenerate result. In Figures 10 and 10 is displayed the variation of the real and imaginary parts of $`a_{\overline{n}d}`$ as a function of a scaling factor $`\lambda `$ multiplying Im(V). They show a smoother behaviour than the one found in the model calculation of .

We note also that results can vary up to a factor two depending on the states included in the rearrangement channels. There are however dominant amplitudes which are 1S0 and 3SD1. P-wave seems to account for only $`10\%`$ variation.

To our knowledge, there is no any experimental value for n̄d to compare with. Wycech et al.  found $`a_2=1.490.41i`$ and $`a_4=1.530.45i`$ and even smaller values were found in . In view of comparing these results with those obtained in  from p̄d experiment – Im($`\overline{a}`$)=0.62$`\pm `$0.02 – Coulomb corrections should be included.

These calculations can be improved in several ways. For instance by including D-wave component in deuteron, by coupling the n̄n amplitude to the p̄p one and by disentangling the contribution of the different rearrangement channels. The sensitivity to asymptotic states would also require to use different N̄N models. This work is being pursued by extending to N̄d P-waves and by including Coulomb interactions in the p̄d system.

## 4 Conclusions

Some years after its shutdown, LEAR continues to produce interesting results. This shows that its unique characteristics – low energy and high resolution experiments – were very appropriate for understanding the N̄N interaction. If stopping LEAR was a mistake, it would be a fault to stop such an activity, not adapting the AD facility to low energy scattering experiments, against the request of several groups .

We have shown – if needed – the interest in pursuing low energy antiproton physics in three different problems. The intriguing low energy n̄p observed structure could be also seen – and thus confirmed – in the elastic p̄p cross section near the charge-exchange threshold. The measured $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ protonium level shift constitutes a strong indication of a N̄N nearthreshold state in isospin zero channel. This measure should be confirmed and if possible extended to other partial waves. The N̄d reaction is of interest in understanding the annihilation mechanism. We have presented the first n̄d results based on exact solutions of Faddeev equations. This theoretical effort should be pursued by extending the calculations to negative parity states – where the $`{}_{}{}^{33}P_{0}^{}`$ pole could also manifest – and to p̄d system.

We would like to emphasize that only the knowledge of the isolated partial wave contributions provides effective constraints to models. The $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ constitutes a nice illustration of how interesting phenomena, not even visible in the cross sections, can manifest after such a separation. For that purpose – and in absence of polarized beams – the atomic experiments seem to be the only ones offering such a possibility.

Acknowledgements. The numerical calculations were performed at CGCV (CEA Grenoble) and IDRIS (CNRS). We are grateful to the staff members of these two organizations for their constant support.


format: text

text:
# Random interactions and spin-glass thermodynamic transition in the hole-doped Haldane system Y2-xCaxBaNiO5

\[

## Abstract

Magnetization, DC and AC bulk susceptibility of the $`S`$=1 Haldane chain system doped with electronic holes, Y2-xCaxBaNiO5 (0$``$x$``$0.20), have been measured and analyzed. The most striking results are (i) a sub-Curie power law behavior of the linear susceptibility, $`\chi (T)`$$``$ $`T`$, for temperature lower than the Haldane gap of the undoped compound (x=0) (ii) the existence of a spin-glass thermodynamic transition at $`T`$g = 2-3 K. These findings are consistent with (i) random couplings within the chains between the spin degrees of freedom induced by hole doping, (ii) the existence of ferromagnetic bonds that induce magnetic frustration when interchain interactions come into play at low temperature.

\]

Intensive research work is currently devoted to charge doping in Mott-Hubbard and charge transfer insulators. In two- or three-dimensional (2D or 3D) transition metal oxides, which are ordered antiferromagnets, hole doping yields properties ranging from colossal magnetoresistance in the manganates to high-Tc superconductivity in the cuprates. In undoped one-dimensional (1D) compounds, enhanced quantum spin fluctuations may prevent the system from falling into a long-range ordered ground state (GS). Typical examples are the Heisenberg antiferromagnetic (AF) spin $`S`$=1 chain (Haldane chain)  or the $`S`$=1/2 spin ladder . Charge doping in this context occurs in a spin liquid GS. The nature of the GS emerging upon hole doping in these quantum disordered quasi-1D systems is clearly of interest. Due to quantum fluctuations, the GS could indeed be qualitatively different from the one appearing in 2D-3D systems .

Among the existing quasi-1D systems, the Haldane chain compound Y2BaNiO5 is an attractive case. The quasi-1D character of its magnetic properties is related to its crystal structure, made of chains of apex-sharing NiO6 octahedra . The two active eg orbitals associated with a strong ferromagnetic Hund’s rule, result in a $`S`$=1 spin per nickel. The degeneracy of the energy levels (dx2-y2 and d3z2-r2) of the electrons composing the $`S`$=1 state is lifted due to the strong compression of the NiO6 octahedra along the chain . These spins couple together to form 1D $`S`$=1 AF chains with a superexchange coupling $`J`$ $``$ 280 K and a Haldane spin gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $``$ 100 K . In this compound, hole doping is achieved by an off-chain substitution, Ca2+ for Y3+ .

On the experimental side, it was shown that the holes have O(2pz)-Ni(3d3z2-r2) character  and their mobility induces a dramatic reduction of the resistivity along the $`z`$ chain axis. The charges are however essentially localized and a Variable-Range-Hopping-like temperature dependence of the resistivity is observed below room temperature . Inelastic Neutron Scattering (INS) experiments reveal new magnetic states below the Haldane gap that interact with each other . A spin incommensurability (IC) appears for these subgap excitations with peaks symmetrically displaced about the q=$`\pi `$ point in the structure factor S(q). This spin IC is different from that seen in metallic cuprates since the IC shift is found to be weakly doping-dependent. Xu et al. proposed that hole doping into the NiO chains induces a ferromagnetic (FM) interaction between the Ni spins on both sides of the hole (which is located on the apical O(2pz) orbital) and that AF droplets develop around the hole . Magnetic susceptibility data measured in the 2-20 K range by Kojima and co-workers  give evidence for a spin-glass-like behavior below $`T`$f = 2.5 K and 2.9 K for x=0.095 and 0.149, respectively. Muon spin rotation experiments indicate the presence of spin fluctuations persisting down to 50 mK, suggesting an unconventional ground state.

Assuming that the doped hole has a strong apical O(2pz) character, several theoretical approaches  indicate the stabilization of a $`S`$=1/2 Zhang-Rice doublet (ZRD), due to a strong AF bond $`J_K`$ $``$ 1.4 eV between the residual $`S`$=1/2 spin on the oxygen in the chain and the $`S`$=1 spin of the nearest neighbor (NN) Ni2+ ions. It leads to a strong FM interaction $`J^{}`$ $``$ 0.3 eV between the $`S`$=1/2 ZRD and the NN Ni2+ $`S`$=1 ion, thus creating a polaron . On the other hand, models assuming fully mobile holes with a purely Ni(3d) character predict the existence of FM polarons due to the double-exchange mechanism . Low energy magnetic excitations exist within  and between polarons through the $`S`$=1 background  and thus explain the new magnetic states below the Haldane gap . The polarons were also shown to induce a magnetic frustration when interchain interactions come into play at low temperature . Hereafter, all the spin degrees of freedom induced by a doped hole, i.e. the spin of the hole, the FM bond and the AF droplets, will be referred to as ’polaron’.

In this context, we investigate in detail the bulk magnetic properties of Ca-doped Y2BaNiO5 through magnetization, DC and AC susceptibilities measurements. In an intermediate temperature range 8 K $``$ $`T`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ = 100 K, a distribution of couplings between polarons generates a power-law behavior of the bulk susceptibility $`\chi (T)`$$``$ $`T`$ with $`\alpha `$ $``$ 0.6. A true thermodynamic transition into a spin-glass state appears at $`T`$g $``$ 2 - 3 K. The frustration associated with the spin glass state can be seen as the combined effect of ferromagnetic bonds created by hole doping and interchain couplings.

Polycrystalline samples of Y2-xCaxBaNiO5 with x=0, 0.05, 0.10, 0.15 and 0.20 were prepared via solid-state reactions, as described elsewhere . X-ray diffraction characterization showed the samples to be single-phased and very well crystallized. Linear variations of the crystal cell parameters confirmed the existence of a homogeneous solid solution for x$``$0.20. Elemental microprobe analyses were in excellent agreement with nominal compositions and showed very weak dispersion of the Ca content for each doped sample. All AC and DC magnetization measurements were performed on a commercial SQUID magnetometer (Quantum Design, U.S.A.) between 2 and 600 K.

The DC susceptibilities measured in a field of H=0.1 T, $`\chi (T)`$, of Y2-xCaxBaNiO5 (0$``$x$``$0.20) are shown in Fig. 1. The results obtained for the undoped sample (x=0) compare well with those in the published literature . The $`\chi (T)`$ curve has a broad maximum at $`T_{max}`$ $``$ 380 K. The low-temperature susceptibility (5 K$``$T$``$50 K) is well fitted by the sum of a T-independent term $`\chi `$0 $``$ $`1.9\times 10^4`$ cm3 mol-1, a Curie law $`C/T`$ with $`C`$ $``$ $`6.3\times 10^3`$ cm3 K mol-1, and a thermally activated term with $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$$``$100 K (see Fig. 1). The fitted value of $`\chi _0`$ agrees with the sum of the Van Vleck susceptibility ($`\chi _{VV}`$=(2.5$`\pm 0.5`$) $`\times 10^4`$ cm3 mol-1 for a Ni2+ ion with a 3A1g electronic ground term) and the diamagnetic contribution ($`\chi _{dia}`$ = $`1.2\times 10^4`$ cm3 mol-1 ). The Curie contribution corresponds to about 1.5 percent of free $`S`$=1/2 spins per formula unit. As seen in Fig. 1, the main effect of hole doping is an enhancement of the susceptibility $`\chi (T)`$. In the high temperature regime, $`T`$ $``$ $`J`$ = 280 K, the susceptibility is little affected by doping. For $`T<J`$, a new regime appears where the enhancement of the susceptibility is stronger than for $`T>J`$. In particular, a non-Curie diverging behavior of $`\chi (T)`$ is observed for temperature smaller than the Haldane gap ($`\mathrm{\Delta }`$=100 K) of the undoped compound. At low temperature, $`T<510`$ K, the divergence slows down and a saturation of the susceptibility is observed for the highest Ca contents. As already reported in Ref. , all specimens with $`x>0.10`$ show a spin-freezing above 2 K. This can be observed in the inset of Fig. 1 that displays zero-field-cooled (ZFC) and field-cooled (FC) susceptibilities for a static applied field of $`H`$= 0.005 T. A clear maximum appears in $`\chi _{ZFC}`$$`(T)`$ at $`T`$f = 2.5, 2.9 and 3.0 K for x=0.10, 0.15 and 0.20, respectively, with the magnetic irreversibility starting just below $`T`$f. Based on the branching temperature between FC and ZFC data, $`T`$f decreases with increasing field for all samples, as observed in classical spin glass . Another aspect of the spin-freezing was investigated through AC susceptibility measurements, as depicted in the inset of Fig. 1. The cusp in $`\chi ^{}(T)`$ at $`T`$f is shifted towards lower temperature with decreasing frequency. The shift $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$$`T`$f/\[$`T`$f $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$(log $`\omega `$)\] over three orders of magnitude in frequency is around 0.023, which is intermediate between the values observed for insulating and metallic canonical spin glasses, but far from those observed in superparamagnets .

In order to confirm that the magnetic irreversibility in $`\chi (T)`$ indicates a spin-glass thermodynamic transition, and not a simple dynamic freezing, we have analyzed the behavior of the nonlinear magnetization. In the critical regime near a spin glass transition, the magnetization $`M`$($`H`$,$`T`$) can be written as an expansion in odd powers of the applied field $`H`$

$`M(H,T)`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _1Ha_3(\chi _1H)^3+a_5(\chi _1H)^5\mathrm{}`$ (1)
where $`\chi _1`$ is the linear susceptibility $`M/H`$ in the limit of $`H0`$ and the coefficient $`a_{2n+1}`$ are functions of temperature . It is also useful to examine the nonlinear susceptibility, $`\chi _{nl}(H,T)`$ $`=1M/(`$$`\chi _1H)`$ = - $`a_3`$($`\chi _1H)`$2 \+ $`a_5`$($`\chi _1H)`$4$`\mathrm{}`$ . In the low field limit, the first term ($`a_3`$) in the expression of $`\chi _{nl}(H,T)`$ dominates. All nonlinear terms $`a_{2n+1}`$$`(T)`$ are expected to show power-law critical divergences upon approaching the critical spin-glass temperature $`T_g`$. Fig. 2 shows the $`M(H,T)/H`$ data of Y1.8Ca0.2BaNiO5 (x=0.20) for several temperatures above $`T`$f = 3.0 K. Data were obtained under field-cooled conditions. The static field $`H`$ was switched on at $`T`$ $``$ 3 $`T`$f and kept constant during subsequent slow cooling down to the temperature of interest. We checked that data for x=0.1 and x=0.2 show the same qualitative behavior. The $`M(H,T)`$ data for x=0.20 have been fitted with the expression of Eq. 1 in the field range where the magnetic irreversibility is visible in the ZFC-FC set of measurements, i.e. $`H`$ $``$ 0.15 T, for $`T`$ $``$ 3.3 K (see Fig. 2). In this temperature range, the fitted values of the linear term, $`\chi _1`$, are the same as the $`\chi _{FC}`$ values obtained for H=0.005 T, to experimental uncertainties, and the $`a_3`$($`T`$) coefficient has a power-law divergence, $`a_3`$ $``$ $`(T/T`$f -1) with $`\gamma `$ $``$ 1.6 and $`T`$f =3.0 K, in the range 0.13$``$ $`(T/T`$f -1)$``$0.3. For $`T`$ $`<`$ 3.3 K, however, Eq. 1 seems to fail since a quadratic variation of $`M(H,T)/H`$ with $`H`$ is no longer observed (see Fig. 2). We looked for the reasons of this discrepancy by examining the nonlinear susceptibility. Fig. 3 shows $`\chi _{nl}(H,T)`$, with $`\chi _1`$ extracted from the $`H`$=0.005 T FC measurements, as a function of $`H^2`$. As one approaches $`T_f`$, the region where $`\chi _{nl}`$ is only linear in $`H^2`$ becomes much smaller due the divergence of the higher order nonlinear terms, $`a_{2n+1}`$ $`(n>1)`$. This observation most probably explains why our data for $`M/H`$ are no longer consistent with a quadratic variation in $`H`$ for $`T<3.3K`$.

The results depicted above clearly prove that the transitional aspects in doped Y2BaNiO5 are similar to those existing in canonical spin-glass, supporting the existence of a true thermodynamic transition at $`T_f`$. Departures from the standard phenomenology of spin-glasses are however observed below $`T_f`$. $`\chi _{FC}(T)`$ is temperature-dependent (Fig. 1), and the ratio $`\chi ^{}(0)/`$$`\chi ^{}(T_f`$) between the AC susceptibility at T=0 K and $`T_f`$ is close to 0.95 against 0.5-0.6 in the usual cases . These behaviors could result from an unconventional (quantum) spin glass state. Persistent spin dynamics were indeed observed by muon spin relaxation  much below $`T_f`$ in (Y,Ca)2BaNiO5, unlike in other standard spin glasses.

Let us turn now to the intermediate temperature range 8 K$`<`$T$`<`$$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$=100 K. The off-chain Ca2+ (hole) doping has here different effects on $`\chi (T)`$ compared to in-chain non-magnetic doping (substitution Zn2+ for Ni2+) . The enhancement of $`\chi (T)`$ starts at much higher temperature and the divergence is slower in the case of hole doping. This is in agreement with the distribution of the new magnetic states inside the Haldane gap on a broad energy range for hole doping  and restricted to the low energy region for nonmagnetic doping .

In a first phenomenological approach, we tried to describe the data using a modified Curie-Weiss law, $`\chi (T)`$=$`\chi _{TI}`$ \+ $`C/(T`$-$`\theta `$). In the range 10-50 K, the best fits yields $`C`$ $``$ 0.0316(3), 0.0837(1), 0.1247(4) and 0.1513(4) cm3 K/Ba-mol, $`\theta `$ $``$ -1.7, -5.6, -7.4, -8.2 K for x=0.05, 0.10, 0.15, and 0.20, respectively. Our fitted Curie constants $`C`$ are significantly smaller than those found in Ref. . A model in which one Ca creates three free $`S`$=1/2 spins is therefore not obeyed in our data. The fitted values of $`\chi _{TI}`$ are almost doping-independent but are much higher than the $`\chi _0`$ term of the undoped compound ($`8.5\times 10^4`$ against $`1.9\times 10^4`$ cm3 mol-1, see above). The validity of the modified Curie-Weiss model is therefore questionable.

Alternatively, it clearly appears in Fig. 1 that $`\chi (T)`$ can be described by a sub-Curie power-law over a significant temperature range $`T`$ $`<`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$=100 K, regardless of the doping level. The temperature range where this dependence exists varies with the doping level, from 8-25 K for x=0.05 to 20-75 K for x=0.20, as shown in the $`\chi `$ $`T^\alpha `$ vs $`T`$ plot in Fig. 4. We found a weak dependence of $`\alpha `$ upon doping with $`\alpha `$ $``$ 0.595, 0.62, 0.64 and 0.655 for x=0.05, 0.10, 0.15 and 0.20, respectively. This behavior implies that new magnetic couplings are induced by doping, in full agreement with INS experiments . Moreover, the broadening and the shift of the range where the power-law exists towards higher temperature with Ca content is a strong indication that the average magnitude of the new magnetic couplings increases with doping. An explanation is that the polarons interact with each other along the chain . The magnetic couplings between polarons are exponentially small with distance because of the short-range order of the $`S`$=1 background (correlation length $`\xi `$ $``$ 7-8 ) which persists upon doping. Their amplitude will therefore increase with doping since the average distance between neighboring polarons is greatly reduced at large Ca-content (down to 5 Ni-Ni distances for x=0.20). A broad random distribution of the couplings between polarons is moreover expected since no static charge order was detected in Y2-xCaxBaNiO5 .

Interestingly a power-law divergence in $`\chi (T)`$ is also observed in quasi-1D random exchange Heisenberg systems such as the warwickites MgVOBO3 ($`S`$=1 spins)  and Mg1-xTi1+xOBO3 ($`S`$=1/2 spins) . In MgVOBO3 ($`\alpha `$ $``$ 0.54), the Haldane gap is suppressed by a static bond disorder. The $`\alpha `$ exponent in Mg1-xTi1+xOBO3 ($`\alpha `$ $``$ 0.83) is independent of the concentration of Ti, i.e. of the disorder, in agreement with the properties of quasi-universality expected for a 1D random singlet ground state. Other bond disordered 1D $`S`$=1/2 systems such as some TCNQ salts  however display a power-law behavior $`\chi `$ $``$ $`T^\alpha `$ with a $`\alpha `$ exponent that decreases with the disorder, so these systems might be classified as Griffiths paramagnets . The physics of Y2-xCaxBaNiO5 is certainly different from the above examples since its behavior could be governed by polarons interacting through a $`S`$=1 medium, with a possible residual mobility of the polarons. In this sense, Y2-xCaxBaNiO5 could correspond to a new type of 1D random exchange behavior.

Departures from the power-law are however observed at low temperature, as seen in Fig. 4. It is however difficult to state whether it corresponds to pre-transitional effects or to the existence of a new energy scale. Interestingly, Ammon and Imada suggested that fully mobile FM polarons may have a tendency to form pairs that share the magnetic disturbance induced by holes . It would thus reduce the randomness and consequently the power-law behavior could disappear. Besides the power-law behavior, the polaron picture provides a microscopic explanation for magnetic frustration, since a polaron induces a $`\pi `$ shift of the staggered magnetization along the chain as depicted in Fig. 2 of Ref.. Turning on the interchain interactions therefore generates frustration, as suggested by Batista and co-workers .

In summary, the main features of the static magnetic properties of the hole-doped Haldane chain Y2-xCaxBaNiO5 can be accounted for by the interplay of magnetic degrees of freedom induced by doping, interchain interactions and quantum fluctuations. In particular, we propose that the power-law dependence of $`\chi (T)`$ is a direct consequence of random couplings between polarons within the chain. We have also established that a true thermodynamic transition into a spin-glass state occurs at low-temperature, pointing out the role played by interchain interaction in determining the low-T behavior of doped Y2BaNiO5, as already suggested .

We thank C.D. Batista, A.A. Aligia and B. Ammon for helpful discussions.


text:
# Renormalisation in Quantum Mechanics

## Abstract

We study a recently proposed quantum action depending on temperature. We construct a renormalisation group equation describing the flow of action parameters with temperature. At zero temperature the quantum action is obtained analytically and is found free of higher time derivatives. It makes the quantum action an ideal tool to investigate quantum chaos and quantum instantons.

PACS numbers: 03.65.Ca, 05.45.Mt, 11.10.Gh

1. Introduction.– Renormalisation is a well known concept in $`QFT`$ as well as in Q.M. . In Ref. we proposed the conjecture that to each classical action $`S=𝑑t\frac{m}{2}\dot{x}^2V(x)`$ corresponds a quantum/renormalized action $`\stackrel{~}{S}=𝑑t\frac{\stackrel{~}{m}}{2}\dot{x}^2\stackrel{~}{V}(x)`$. The quantum action takes into account quantum effects via renormalized action parameters. The physical principle is well known from solid state physics: A charged particle propagating in a solid interacts with atoms. This results in an effective mass and charge, different from that of free propagation. Here we refer to renormalisation to describe the difference in propagation between classical and quantum physics. The definition of the quantum action $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ is

$$G(x_{fi},t_{fi};x_{in},t_{in})=\stackrel{~}{Z}\mathrm{exp}[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{S}[\stackrel{~}{x}_{cl}]|_{x_{in},t_{in}}^{x_{fi},t_{fi}}],$$
(1)
where $`G`$ is the transition amplitude, $`\stackrel{~}{x}_{cl}`$ is the classical path, which minimizes the action $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Z}`$ is a normalisation factor. Eq.(1) is valid with the same $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Z}`$ for all sets of boundary positions $`x_{fi}`$, $`x_{in}`$ for a given time interval $`T=t_{fi}t_{in}`$. Any dependence on $`x_{fi},x_{in}`$ enters via the trajectory $`\stackrel{~}{x}_{cl}`$. $`\stackrel{~}{Z}`$ and the parameters of $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ depend on time $`T`$.

It has become very popular to study classical and quantum chaos in billard systems. Milner et al. and Friedman et al. studied the motion of ultra-cold atoms in a billard formed by laser beams. Dembrowski et al. tested the prediction of a generalized semi-classical trace formula for billards in the regime between regular and chaotic motion. The quantum action is a new link between classical and quantum physics. In Refs. the quantum action has been used to define quantum instantons and quantum chaos, and to present first numerical results. Here we ask: (A) Can one obtain the quantum action analytically when the temperature goes to zero or infinity? (B) Is the quantum action suitable to describe a double well potential with a bi-stable ground state? (C) In $`QFT`$ the renormalisation group equation predicts the flow of parameters when changing the scale. Can one find a similar equation for the quantum action when changing temperature?

2. Analytic quantum action for small and large T.– In statistical field theory with a single phase transition, there are two fixed points of the renormalisation group, namely at zero and infinite temperature. In those limits we find an analytical form for the quantum action. (i) Limit $`T0`$. In this limit, according to Dirac, the transition amplitude is given by the classical action,

$$G(x,T;x_{in},0)\stackrel{T0}{}Z\mathrm{exp}[S[x_{cl}]|_{x_{in},0}^{x,T}/\mathrm{}].$$
(2)
Consequently, we have the analytical result $`\stackrel{~}{Z}=Z`$, $`\stackrel{~}{S}=S`$. (ii) Limit $`T\mathrm{}`$. In this limit the transition amplitude is determined by the ground state (Feynman-Kac),

$$G(x_{fi},T;x_{in},0)\stackrel{T\mathrm{}}{}x_{fi}|\psi _{gr}e^{E_{gr}T/\mathrm{}}\psi _{gr}|x_{in}.$$
(3)
We assume that the quantum potential $`\stackrel{~}{V}(x)`$ is a positive, parity symmetric function increasing without bounds when $`|x|\mathrm{}`$ (”confining potential”), with a non-degenerate minimum at $`x=0`$. As shown in Fig., the trajectory $`\stackrel{~}{x}_{cl}`$ starts at $`x_{in}`$ and arrives at $`x_{fi}`$ such that the action $`\stackrel{~}{S}=_0^T𝑑t\stackrel{~}{m}\dot{x}^2/2+\stackrel{~}{V}(x)`$ becomes a minimal. For large $`T`$ the trajectory stays most of the time close to the bottom of the potential valley $`\stackrel{~}{V}=\stackrel{~}{v}_0`$. Energy is conserved, $`ϵ=\stackrel{~}{T}_{kin}+\stackrel{~}{V}=\text{const}`$. In the limit $`T\mathrm{}`$, this implies $`\stackrel{~}{V}\stackrel{~}{v}_0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{kin}0`$ and $`ϵ\stackrel{~}{v}_0`$ (note that $`\stackrel{~}{v}_0`$ is independent of $`x_{in}`$, $`x_{fi}`$). Then holds

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\stackrel{~}{S}[\stackrel{~}{x}_{cl}]|_{x_{in},0}^{x_{fi},T}={\displaystyle _0^T}𝑑t\stackrel{~}{T}_{kin}+\stackrel{~}{V}={\displaystyle _0^T}𝑑t2\stackrel{~}{T}_{kin}+ϵ`$ (4)
$`=\stackrel{~}{v}_0T+\stackrel{~}{m}{\displaystyle _0^T}𝑑t\dot{x}^2=\stackrel{~}{v}_0T+\stackrel{~}{m}\left({\displaystyle _0^{T/2}}+{\displaystyle _{T/2}^T}𝑑t\dot{x}^2\right)`$ (5)
$`=\stackrel{~}{v}_0T+\stackrel{~}{m}\left({\displaystyle _{x_{in}}^0}+{\displaystyle _0^{x_{fi}}}𝑑x\dot{x}\right)`$ (6)
$`=\stackrel{~}{v}_0T+\left({\displaystyle _{x_{in}}^0}+{\displaystyle _0^{x_{fi}}}𝑑x{}_{\pm }{}^{}\sqrt{2\stackrel{~}{m}(\stackrel{~}{V}(x)\stackrel{~}{v}_0)}\right).`$ (7)
Energy conservation allows to express $`\dot{x}=\pm \sqrt{\frac{2}{\stackrel{~}{m}}(\stackrel{~}{V}(x)\stackrel{~}{v}_0)}`$, where the sign depends on initial and final data. In Fig. we considered the case: $`x_{in}<0`$, $`\dot{x}_{in}>0`$, $`x_{fi}>0`$, $`\dot{x}_{fi}>0`$. The conjecture says $`G=\stackrel{~}{Z}\mathrm{exp}[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}/\mathrm{}]`$. Subsuming $`\stackrel{~}{Z}/\stackrel{~}{Z}_0`$ into $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ (where $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_0`$ is a constant of dimension $`1/L`$) this gives

$`G(x_{fi},T;x_{in},0)=\stackrel{~}{Z}_0e^{\stackrel{~}{v}_0T/\mathrm{}}\times `$ (8)
$`e^{_0^{x_{fi}}𝑑x\sqrt{2\stackrel{~}{m}(\stackrel{~}{V}(x)\stackrel{~}{v}_0)}/\mathrm{}}e^{_{x_{in}}^0𝑑x\sqrt{2\stackrel{~}{m}(\stackrel{~}{V}(x)\stackrel{~}{v}_0)}/\mathrm{}}.`$ (9)
Comparison of Eqs.(3,8) shows agreement in the form. The wave function normalisation misses subleading terms in the $`1/T`$ expansion of $`\stackrel{~}{v}_0`$ , $`\stackrel{~}{v}_0(T)_T\mathrm{}A+B/T+C/T^2+\mathrm{}`$. Including the term $`B`$ gives the proper normalisation. Comparing Eqs.(3,8) yields

$$\psi _{gr}(x)=\frac{1}{N}e^{_0^{|x|}𝑑x^{}\sqrt{2\stackrel{~}{m}(\stackrel{~}{V}(x^{})\stackrel{~}{v}_0)}/\mathrm{}},E_{gr}=\stackrel{~}{v}_0,$$
(10)
with $`N=(\stackrel{~}{Z}_0\mathrm{exp}[B/\mathrm{}])^{1/2}`$. From this we compute

$`\mathrm{}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\psi _{gr}^{\prime \prime }(x)}{\psi _{gr}(x)}}=2\stackrel{~}{m}(\stackrel{~}{V}(x)\stackrel{~}{v}_0){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{m}\frac{d}{dx}\stackrel{~}{V}(x)}{\sqrt{2\stackrel{~}{m}(\stackrel{~}{V}(x)\stackrel{~}{v}_0)}}}\text{sgn}(x).`$ (11)
Comparison with the stationary Schrödinger equation

$$\mathrm{}^2\frac{\psi _{gr}^{\prime \prime }(x)}{\psi _{gr}(x)}=2m(V(x)E_{gr}),$$
(12)
leads to the transformation law

$`2m(V(x)E_{gr})=`$ (13)
$`2\stackrel{~}{m}(\stackrel{~}{V}(x)\stackrel{~}{v}_0){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{d}{dx}2\stackrel{~}{m}(\stackrel{~}{V}(x)\stackrel{~}{v}_0)}{\sqrt{2\stackrel{~}{m}(\stackrel{~}{V}(x)\stackrel{~}{v}_0)}}}\text{sgn}(x).`$ (14)
Example. Consider a particle of mass $`m`$ moving in the potential $`V(x)=v_4x^4\mathrm{}\sqrt{2v_4/m}|x|`$. Choosing $`\stackrel{~}{m}=m`$, Eq.(13) determines the quantum potential and Eq.(10) reproduces exactly the ground state wave function $`\psi _{gr}(x)=\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{exp}[\sqrt{2mv_4}|x|^3/(3\mathrm{})]`$ and energy $`E_{gr}=0`$.

Another example is the inverse square potential, given by the potential $`V(x)=\frac{1}{2}m\omega ^2x^2+g/x^2`$, $`g>0`$. It can be considered as a double well potential with an infinitely high wall at the origin. We consider the motion of the particle only for $`x>0`$. The transition amplitude is known analytically . The ground state energy is given by $`E_{gr}=\mathrm{}\omega (1+\gamma )`$, with $`\gamma =\frac{1}{2}[1+8mg/\mathrm{}^2]^{1/2}`$. Its wave function is $`\psi _{gr}(x)=N^1x^{\gamma +1/2}\mathrm{exp}[\frac{m\omega }{2\mathrm{}}x^2]`$. We write the quantum action $`\stackrel{~}{S}=𝑑t\frac{\stackrel{~}{m}}{2}\dot{x}^2+\stackrel{~}{V}(x)`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{V}(x)=\mu x^2+\nu /x^2`$, and choose $`\stackrel{~}{m}=m`$. The quantum potential has a minimum at $`x_{min}=(\nu /\mu )^{1/4}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{v}_{min}=2\sqrt{\mu \nu }`$.

The transformation law with the minimum at $`x_{min}`$ now reads

$`2m(V(x)E_{gr})=`$ (15)
$`2\stackrel{~}{m}(\stackrel{~}{V}(x)\stackrel{~}{v}_{min}){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{d}{dx}2\stackrel{~}{m}(\stackrel{~}{V}(x)\stackrel{~}{v}_{min})}{\sqrt{2\stackrel{~}{m}(\stackrel{~}{V}(x)\stackrel{~}{v}_{min})}}}\text{sgn}(xx_{min}).`$ (16)
This determines $`\mu =\frac{1}{2}m\omega ^2`$, $`\nu =\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}[1/2+\gamma ]^2`$ and reproduces the exactly $`E_{gr}`$. The wave function derived from the quantum action is now given by (for $`x>x_{min}`$)

$$\psi _{gr}(x)=\frac{1}{N}e^{_{x_{min}}^x𝑑x^{}\sqrt{2\stackrel{~}{m}(\stackrel{~}{V}(x^{})\stackrel{~}{v}_{min})}/\mathrm{}},$$
(17)
which reproduces the exact wave function. Moreover, one finds that $`E_{gr}=\stackrel{~}{v}_{min}`$ and the location of the minimum of the quantum potential coincides exactly with the maximum of the wave function. This is an example where the renormalized action has the same structure as the classical action, and only a single coefficient ($`1/x^2`$) has been tuned.

The previous results can be generalized to 3-D. Consider a rotationally invariant potential $`V(r)`$ with a unique minimum at $`r=0`$ and giving an s-wave ground state, $`\psi _{gr}(𝐱)=Y_{00}(\theta ,\varphi )\varphi _{gr}(r)`$. The path $`\stackrel{~}{x}_{cl}`$ (bottom-of-the-valley) minimizes the action. It starts out from $`𝐱_{in}`$ goes in radial direction towards the origin, and after a long time departs from the origin in radial direction to arrive at $`𝐱_{fi}`$. This gives, in analogy to Eq.(4),

$`\stackrel{~}{S}[\stackrel{~}{x}_{cl}]|_{x_{in},0}^{x_{fi},T}=\stackrel{~}{v}_0T+\left({\displaystyle _0^{r_{in}}}+{\displaystyle _0^{r_{fi}}}𝑑r\sqrt{2\stackrel{~}{m}(\stackrel{~}{V}(r)\stackrel{~}{v}_0)}\right).`$ (18)
The ground state properties are given by

$$\varphi _{gr}(r)=\frac{1}{N}e^{_0^r𝑑r^{}\sqrt{2\stackrel{~}{m}(\stackrel{~}{V}(r^{})\stackrel{~}{v}_0)}/\mathrm{}},E_{gr}=\stackrel{~}{v}_0.$$
(19)
Finally, the transformation law reads

$`2m(V(r)E_{gr})=2\stackrel{~}{m}(\stackrel{~}{V}(r)\stackrel{~}{v}_0)`$ (21)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{d}{dr}2\stackrel{~}{m}(\stackrel{~}{V}(r)\stackrel{~}{v}_0)}{\sqrt{2\stackrel{~}{m}(\stackrel{~}{V}(r)\stackrel{~}{v}_0)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{}}{r}}\sqrt{2\stackrel{~}{m}(\stackrel{~}{V}(r)\stackrel{~}{v}_0)}.`$
Eaxamples. (a) For the harmonic oscillator (mass $`m`$ and potential $`V(r)=\frac{1}{2}m\omega ^2r^2`$), choosing $`\stackrel{~}{m}=m`$, Eq.(21) determines the quantum potential (coinciding with the classical one up to an additive constant) and Eq.(19) yields the exact ground state wave function $`\varphi _{gr}(r)=\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{exp}[m\omega r^2/(2\mathrm{})]`$, and energy $`E_{gr}=\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{}\omega `$.

(b) Secondly, consider the system with mass $`m`$ and potential $`V(r)=\stackrel{~}{v}_6r^65\mathrm{}\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{v}_6/(2m)}r^2`$. Again, Eqs.(21,19) determine the quantum potential and reproduce the exact ground state wave function $`\varphi _{gr}(r)=\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{exp}[\sqrt{2m\stackrel{~}{v}_6}r^4/(4\mathrm{})]`$ and energy $`E_{gr}=0`$.

(c) Finally, let us consider the radial motion (stationary Schrödinger equation) in a fixed sector of angular momentum $`l>0`$ in the hydrogen atom. Classically, this corresponds to $`S=𝑑tT+V`$, $`T=\frac{m}{2}\dot{r}^2`$, $`V_l(r)=\frac{\mathrm{}^2l(l+1)}{2m}/r^2e^2/r`$ (centrifugal plus Coulomb term). In the zero temperature limit, the transition amplitude is projected onto the states of lowest energy compatible with quantum number $`l`$. This is the state with quantum number $`n=l+1`$ (held fixed in the following). The radial Schrödinger equation gives the energy $`E_n=R/n^2`$ ($`R`$ Rydberg constant) and the wave function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{n,l}(r)=1/N_{n,l}(r/a_0)^l\mathrm{exp}[r/(na_0)]`$ ($`a_0`$ Bohr radius). For the quantum action we make the ansatz $`\stackrel{~}{m}=m`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{V}(r)=\mu /r^2\nu /r`$. The quantum potential has a minimum at $`r_{min}=\mu /\nu `$, with $`\stackrel{~}{v}_{min}=\nu ^2/(4\mu )`$. The transformation law reads now

$`2m(V(r)E_n)=2\stackrel{~}{m}(\stackrel{~}{V}(r)\stackrel{~}{v}_{min})`$ (22)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{d}{dr}2\stackrel{~}{m}(\stackrel{~}{V}(r)\stackrel{~}{v}_{min})}{\sqrt{2\stackrel{~}{m}(\stackrel{~}{V}(r)\stackrel{~}{v}_{min})}}}sgn(rr_{min})`$ (23)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{}}{r}}\sqrt{2\stackrel{~}{m}(\stackrel{~}{V}(r)\stackrel{~}{v}_{min})}sgn(rr_{min}).`$ (24)
From this we determine the coefficients of the quantum action $`\mu =\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}l^2`$, $`\nu =e^2l/(l1)`$ and reproduce exactly the energy $`E_n`$. The quantum action also predicts the wave function, given by (for $`r>r_{min}`$)

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{gr}(r)=\frac{1}{N}e^{_{r_{min}}^r𝑑r^{}\sqrt{2\stackrel{~}{m}(\stackrel{~}{V}(r^{})\stackrel{~}{v}_{min})}/\mathrm{}},$$
(25)
which coincides with the exact wave function for $`n=l+1`$. Also we find that $`E_n`$ coincides with the minimum of the quantum potential, and the location of this minimum coincides with the maximum of the radial wave function. The renormalized action has the same structure as the classical action, but both the centrifugal and the Coulomb term get tuned. It is remarkable that the quantum potential has only terms with exactly the same $`r`$-dependence, which is a necessary condition for the existence of the Runge-Lenz vector and at the quantum level of the higher $`O(4)`$ symmetry. In this case the quantum action at zero temperature is capable of reproducing a part of the excitation spectrum. Finally, the previous results valid for $`l>0`$ can be continued to $`n=1,l=0`$ and reproduce the exact ground state energy and wave function.

We found at the zero temperature (i) analytic expressions for the quantum action, ground state wave function and energy. The transformation law does not specify both, potential and mass, but only the product $`\stackrel{~}{m}(\stackrel{~}{V}\stackrel{~}{v}_0)`$. The reason is that this product is an invariant under the global scale transformation ($`\alpha >0`$) $`\stackrel{~}{m}\stackrel{~}{m}/\alpha `$, $`\stackrel{~}{V}(x)\alpha \stackrel{~}{V}(x)`$, $`TT/\alpha `$ (similar to a global gauge transformation in gauge theory). Another invariant is $`\stackrel{~}{S}[\stackrel{~}{x}_{cl}]`$. Applying the same scale transformation to $`m`$, $`V(x)`$ and $`T`$ leaves invariant the Q.M. transition amplitude $`G(y,T;x,0)`$ and the wave function of the ground state and excited states. (ii) While the quantum action is local, the standard effective action displays non-localities, as discussed by Gosselin et al. . This shows up in the kinetic term given by an asymptotic series of increasing order time derivatives .

3. Quantum action for double-well potential.– The scalar $`\varphi ^4`$ theory in $`QFT`$ has a symmetric and a spontaneously broken phase, corresponding to a degenerate vacuum. The $`QM`$ analogue of this is the symmetric double-well potential. The $`QM`$ analogue of the symmetric phase is a ground state wave function with a single maximum, while the degenerate vacuum has its analogue in a ground state with two maxima. This distinction visible in the wave function also shows up in the quantum action, i.e. in the quantum potential. One can show that the location of the maxima of the wave function coincide with the minima of the quantum potential. As an example, we considered $`m=1`$, $`V(x)=\frac{1}{2}2x^2+\frac{1}{2}x^4`$. We present (Fig.) the ground state computed from the stationary Schrödinger equation and the double-well quantum potential, obtained by fitting the quantum action to transition amplitudes.

4. Renormalisation group equation for temperature dependence of action parameters.– In $`QFT`$ the dependence of action parameters upon variation of a scale parameter (cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, lattice spacing $`a_s`$ and $`a_t`$) is governed by a renormalisation group equation (Callan-Symanzik). In the $`QM`$ system considered here, we are close to the continuum limit ($`\mathrm{\Delta }x/a_B=0.045`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }t/a_B=5\times 10^6`$, $`a_B`$ is the groundstate Bohr radius of the system considered below (Tab.)). As scale and temperature dependence of the action are similar, we apply here the term renormalisation group to describe temperature dependence. We consider the transition amplitude as a function of $`x`$ and $`t`$, keeping initial data $`x_{in}`$, $`t_{in}`$ fixed. It satisfies the Schrödinger equation and initial condition

$`\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}G(x,t;x_{in},t_{in})`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dx^2}}+V(x)\right]G(x,t;x_{in},t_{in})`$ (26)
$`\underset{tt_{in}}{lim}G(x,t;x_{in},t_{in})`$ $`=`$ $`\delta (xx_{in}).`$ (27)
In the limit $`tt_{in}`$, the transition amplitude is given by the classical action, Eq.(2), consistent with the initial condition, Eq.(26). Going over to inverse temperature $`\beta `$, the conjecture $`G_{ij}=\stackrel{~}{Z}_\beta \mathrm{exp}[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\beta ,ij}]`$ and Eq.(26) imply

$$\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{Z}^\beta }\frac{d\stackrel{~}{Z}_\beta }{d\beta }+\frac{d\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_\beta }{d\beta }+\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}[(\frac{d\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_\beta }{dx})^2\frac{d^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_\beta }{dx^2}]V=0.$$
(28)
$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_\beta `$ is given by the quantum action along its classical trajectory from $`x_{in},\beta _{in}=0`$ to $`x,\beta `$

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_\beta `$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{S}_\beta [\stackrel{~}{x}_{cl}]|_{x_{in},0}^{x,\beta }={\displaystyle _{x_{in},0}^{x,\beta }}𝑑\beta ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{m}}{2\mathrm{}^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{x}_{cl}}{d\beta ^{}}})^2+\stackrel{~}{V}(\stackrel{~}{x}_{cl})`$ (29)
$`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_\beta [\stackrel{~}{m}(\beta ),\stackrel{~}{v}_0(\beta ),\stackrel{~}{v}_1(\beta ),\mathrm{},x,\beta ].`$ (30)
It is convenient to parametrize the potential $`\stackrel{~}{V}(x)`$ in terms of $`\stackrel{~}{v}_k|x|^k`$, if $`V(x)`$ is parity symmetric. In general the number of terms is infinite. The weight of higher terms decreases rapidly (Tab.). Eqs.(29,28) yield the renormalisation group equation for the action parameters, $`\stackrel{~}{m}(\beta ),\stackrel{~}{v}_0(\beta ),\stackrel{~}{v}_1(\beta ),\mathrm{}`$ as function of $`\beta `$,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{Z}_\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{Z}_\beta }{d\beta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_\beta }{\stackrel{~}{m}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{m}}{\beta }}+{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_\beta }{\stackrel{~}{v}_k}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{v}_k}{\beta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_\beta }{\beta }}`$ (31)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}[({\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_\beta }{dx}})^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_\beta }{dx^2}}]V=0.`$ (32)
This equation is valid for all $`x`$, $`x_{in}`$. The parameters $`\stackrel{~}{m}(\beta )`$, $`\stackrel{~}{v}_k(\beta )`$ are independent of $`x`$, $`x_{in}`$. This constitutes a system of equations to determine $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_\beta /\beta `$, $`\stackrel{~}{m}/\beta `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{v}_k/\beta `$. The solution of the differential equations requires initial values. For $`\beta =0`$, Eq.(2) suggests to choose as initial values $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_\beta (\beta 0)Z(\beta 0)`$ (note: singularity at origin), $`\stackrel{~}{m}(\beta =0)=m`$, $`\stackrel{~}{v}_k(\beta =0)=v_k,k=0,1,\mathrm{}`$. Starting from initial values the renormalisation group equation determines the flow of the renomalized parameters when $`\beta `$ increases.

For the system $`m=1`$, $`V(x)=x^2+0.01x^4`$, we have carried out a numerical solution of the flow of the quantum action parameters, by solving a set of differential equations, Eq.(31), for a common initial point and a number of end points. We have compared this with a global fit of the quantum action to $`QM`$ transition amplitudes (see Ref.). The comparison is shown in Fig.. One observes reasonable agreement in the range of $`\beta `$ between 0.5 and 4.

Acknowledgements.– H.K. and K.M. are grateful for support by NSERC Canada. X.Q. Luo has been supported by NNSF of China. H.K. is grateful for discussions with L.S. Schulman.