format: text

text:
# Search for low-mass PMS companions around X-ray selected late B stars Based on observations obtained at the European Southern Observatory, La Silla, Chile (ESO programme No. 62.I-0477, and Swiss 70cm photometric telescope)

## 1 Introduction

In the ROSAT All-sky Survey (RASS), high X-ray fluxes, up to $`10^{31}`$ erg/sec, were found for 86 late B-type dwarfs of spectral types B7–B9 (Berghöfer et al. BSC96 (1996)). This was very surprising, since from a theoretical point of view stars in the spectral range B5-A7 should not have any significant X-ray emission. This was essentially confirmed for B-type stars by Grillo et al. (GSMVH92 (1992)) from their Einstein Observatory SAO-based catalog of B-type stars. In the few cases when X-ray emission had been detected in such B5-A7 stars, it was found to originate from a cool companion. In order to search for the source of the X-rays, 17 B stars of the RASS sample which were known to be visual binaries, were observed with ROSAT’s High-Resolution Imager (HRI), which has a spatial resolution of 5 arcsec. Quite unexpectedly, only in a few cases could the X-ray emission be linked to the known visual companion (Berghöfer & Schmitt BS94 (1994), Berghöfer & Schmitt BS01 (2001)). Berghöfer et al. (BSDC97 (1997)) noticed that 77% of the RASS detected stars are known spectroscopic binaries. It is striking that, for a large number of these systems, the observed X-ray fluxes are much too high to be explained by main sequence SB secondaries of spectral type F, G, K and M having L$`{}_{X}{}^{}`$1029ergs-1 (Schmitt Sch97 (1997)). The most likely source of the X-rays might, therefore, be a very active late-type companion, such as a PMS star or a very young star on the main sequence. This hypothesis is also supported by the fact that a significant fraction of the late-B stars found in the ROSAT survey belongs to rather young stellar groups: Sco-Cen association, Sco OB2, and the Pleiades cluster and supercluster.

It was shown that approximately two-thirds of all solar-type field stars are members of multiple systems (e.g. Duquennoy & Mayor DM91 (1991)), and the fraction of stars which are formed in binary or multiple systems may be even higher (e.g. Ghez et al. GNM93 (1993), Leinert et al. LZW93 (1993)). However, only a few systems with highly differing masses are known. A pioneering study had been carried out by Gahm et al. (GAL83 (1983)) and by Lindroos (L86 (1986)) who found 78 likely pairs with an early-type and a late-type companion. X-ray observations from a part of the Lindroos systems were carried out by Huelamo et al. (HNSSZ00 (2000)); they found several of the late-type companions to be bona fide PMS stars.

The scientific interest in binarity studies of higher mass stars derives from the question of whether the different processes of high-mass and low-mass star formation (Shu et al. SAL87 (1987)) reflect themselves in different binary frequencies and distribution of mass ratios.

One method to study whether late B-type stars are intrinsic X-ray emitters or whether the detected X-ray emission originates from a hitherto undetected companion is diffraction-limited imaging in the optical or infrared spectral range on a sample of X-ray selected late B-type stars. Optical speckle methods are not suitable for the detection of possible X-ray emitting PMS companions, as the magnitude differences between the bright early-type primaries and the faint late-type secondaries in the visual is rather extreme, i.e. of the order of 8-10 magnitudes. However, in the near-infrared (J,H,K) the contrast between the primary and secondary components is much more favorable, i.e. only 4-5 magnitudes difference. This much improved contrast in the infrared and the fact that the primaries are very bright visual objects (V=1m.8–6m.5) made this a perfect project for high angular resolution imaging using a high order adaptive optics system.

In Sect. 2, we describe the observations performed with the ADONIS instrument and the data reduction procedure. In Sect. 3, we present the results. In Sect. 4, we discuss the implication of these results for the formation and evolution of binary and multiple stars.

## 2 Observations and data reduction

A total of 49 late-type X-ray emitting B dwarfs were observed. The observations were performed with the ESO adaptive optics system ADONIS and SHARPII+ (System for High Angular Resolution Pictures) near infrared (NIR) imaging camera with a NICMOS III 256$`\times `$ 256 pixel array at the 3.6-m telescope with a plate scale of 0.050 arcsec/pixel, yielding a camera field-of-view of 12.″8$`\times `$12.″8. Since all observed objects are bright stars they were used as reference stars for wavefront sensing. Forty stars were observed in the normal imaging mode in the K band during two nights in March 1999. Whenever the star appeared to be multiple it was immediately observed in the J and H bands. The K-band survey was the priority during these nights. A few companions could be detected from K band images only during the later careful data reduction. For those objects only K-band images are available.

The AO system and NIR camera settings time overheads are of the order of a few minutes for every target in such a survey. Given the time constraints, we decided: 1) not to optimize the AO system performance when switching to the next target and the result of such a choice was the lower resolution in J and H bands; 2) to spend minimum time to adjust individual integration time, although the PSF peak intensity may vary by more than 10% between consecutive frames. Therefore, for a few systems the central pixels in the image core of the primary star are saturated. As a result, the photometric calibration for these stars provides only a lower limit of the K magnitude.
Every target was observed at five positions on the NIR array using a dither pattern. As a result, the size for the observed area is of 24″$`\times `$24″ centered on the target. For every position we recorded 16 frames with an individual integration time between 300 and 1200 ms, depending on the star brightness. For the stars with detected companions, we have subsequently observed calibrator stars for point spread function (PSF) measurements and a posteriori deconvolution. Photometric standards were observed under the same conditions to get absolute JHK photometry. As measured by the La Silla Differential Image Motion Monitor (DIMM), the atmospheric seeing during our run was varying with time, ranging from 0.″8 to 1.″2. In the K-band, the diffraction limit was reached at all times (FWHM $``$ 0.″13), with the Strehl ratio ranging from 15 to 35%. In the J and H bands the images are not diffraction-limited with the angular resolution varying from 0.″13 to 0.″20. Additionally, 9 late-type B X-ray emitting B dwarf stars were imaged with the coronographic mask during the night of 26 September 1999. Thus, the whole sample of studied stars consist of 49 objects.

In Table 1 we present the list of the observed late B-type stars. Their visual magnitudes and spectral types were retrieved from the SIMBAD data base. The X-ray luminosity $`\mathrm{log}`$ LX given in column 4 was taken from Berghöfer et al. (BSC96 (1996)). In the last column we give some remarks about the observing mode and binarity.

For the data reduction we used our own C-shell scripts based on the ESO/eclipse data reduction C routines (Devillard DE97 (1997)). The background emission was computed for every pixel as a median value of the stack of 16$`\times `$5 frames. For each exposure we subtracted background sky emission, divided by flat field, corrected for bad pixels and used shift-and-add method to yield the final images.

The photometry was performed using the IRAF/DIGIPHOT package. For the systems with an angular separation larger than 2″ we applied a standard aperture photometry method. For other systems we combined PSF fitting of the components and aperture photometry to get the absolute fluxes of the stars.

For a few systems with angular separation smaller than 0.″4, we cross-checked PSF fitting with PLucy deconvolution, which is provided by IRAF Space Telescope Science Data Analysis System. No discrepancy was found between PSF fitting and PLucy deconvolution results, either for photometric fluxes or for star astrometric positions. The average rms error is 0.03 mag for differential photometry, 0.05 mag for absolute photometry, 0.″005 on the projected separation, and 0.2 on the position angle. For objects observed in the coronographic mode, the average rms error for absolute photometry is 0.1 mag, 0.″05 for the projected separation and 0.2 for the position angle, respectively.

The detection limits for these observations depend on the separation range, as we cannot detect any companions below 0.1″, and on the contrast between primary and companion(s). This contrast also depends on separation: photon noise prevents from detecting very close binaries (0.1 to 0.3″), while detector read-out noise is the limiting factor for wider systems. The detection limit values estimated for our observational data set are: $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$K $`2`$ at separations of $`0.3`$″ and below, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$K $`5`$ at separations $`2`$″and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$K $`9`$ at separations of $`4`$″ and beyond.

Most stars had been measured in the GENEVA photometric system (Golay G80 (1980); Rufener & Nicolet RN88 (1988); Cramer C99 (1999)), with the photoelectric photometer P7 (Burnet & Rufener BR79 (1979)) installed on the 70cm Swiss telescope at La Silla (ESO, Chile). The photometric data in the GENEVA system are collected in the General Catalogue (Rufener R88 (1988)) and its up-to-date database (Burki et al. B01 (2001)).

## 3 Results

For 25 of our 49 X-ray selected late B-type stars we could find companions in the scanned 24″x 24″area. Six of these systems were already known as visual binaries. The discovered companions have K magnitudes between 6$`^\mathrm{m}.`$5 and 17$`^\mathrm{m}.`$3 and angular separations ranging from 0.″2 to 14.″1.

The photometric and astrometric results of our observations are presented in Table 2, where we list the HD numbers; the separations and position angles; J, H and K magnitudes; the magnitude difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$K between the primary and the companion in the K-band; and the $`JH`$ and $`HK`$ colors. Only in two systems – HD 1685 and HD 73952 – do the companions have a considerable \[$`\mathrm{\Delta }(HK)0.2`$ mag\] NIR excess. Usually, NIR excess betrays the existence of substantial amounts of circumstellar matter around the stars.

### 3.1 Probability for random pairing

In order to check whether some of our late-type binary identifications could be due to a random positional coincidence with field stars, we calculated the probability P that a stellar K-band source occurs by random coincidence in the total area of our image fields at given K magnitude.

For our calculations we used the density of infrared K-band sources as measured by both DENIS (Deep Near-Infrared Survey of the Southern Sky; Epchtein E98 (1998)) and 2MASS surveys (Two Microns All Sky Survey111see http://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/applications/Stats; Skrutskie S2000 (2000)). For DENIS, it was not possible to calculate individual numbers for the different galactic latitudes of our target stars, since star counts from this survey have so far been published only for a few selected fields. In order to get conservative upper limits, we used the field with the highest K-band star count density we found in the literature. This is a one-square-degree field centered around the galactic coordinates l=331o, b=-1.81o (Ruphy R98 (1998)). This field is in a very crowded area close to the galactic plane.

The probabilities for the presence of a background star for our total ADONIS image field of view of 24″$`\times `$ 24″ is presented in Table 3 for a number of K-band magnitudes.

For 2MASS, we could compute the probability of finding a companion for 14 out of the 19 systems found, by counting stars of a given magnitude in a circle centered on the primary and with a $`1\mathrm{°}`$ radius. Sorting the companions by their $`K`$ magnitudes and selecting the largest probability in each $`0.5`$ magnitude bin, we obtain the numbers listed in Column 3 of Table 3. The very large probability given for $`K=13`$ comes from HD 159376, which lies in an exceptionally crowded field.

The DENIS numbers are very conservative upper limits only, since they were calculated on the basis of most pessimistic assumptions. First, all of our objects are located at higher galactic latitudes where the star counts drastically decrease. For instance, as shown by Ruphy et al. (REC97 (1997)) for areas located at $`l=303\mathrm{°}`$ the star counts decrease by about a factor of 10 between $`b=2.37\mathrm{°}`$ and $`b=14.63\mathrm{°}`$. Second, they were calculated for the whole field of 576 arcsec2, whereas the mean distance of the companion stars found is 4.3 arcsec only.

It is worth noting that out of 29 detected companions in our 24″$`\times `$24″ field K images, 17 are found at a distance less than 5″ from the primary (note that 8 out of the 29 companions detected were already known). And 27 of the 29 detected companions are at distances smaller than or equal to 10″. In other words, 93% of the detected companions are found in the 55% central part of the scanned area around the primary. Our estimate is that on average the probabilities for a random positional coincidence of our sources are at least a factor of two lower than the numbers in Table 3. In view of these facts, we can safely assume that – with the exception of the six sources fainter than 13th magnitude – random positional coincidences do not play a significant role. For HD 21790 and HD 29589 where objects with K=16.2 and K=17.3 were found at relatively large distances of 14.″12 and 10″ arcsec, respectively, a random positional coincidence can definitely not be excluded. These conclusions are entirely confirmed by the 2MASS results, which add much weight to them.

### 3.2 Fundamental parameters of primaries

In Table 4 we present the basic data for the late-B primaries. We give the distances $`d`$ calculated from Hipparcos parallaxes, relative uncertainties of parallaxes, absolute visual magnitudes, bolometric luminosities, effective temperatures, masses (in solar masses) and the ages. We only accepted those parallaxes which exceed their corresponding error by at last a factor of three. This criterion is not fulfilled only for one star in our sample, HD 36408, which was already known to have a visual companion at the distance 9.″74 before our observations. In the last column we give values for LX. We use the standard equations (see e.g. Berghöfer et al. BSC96 (1996), equations 2 through 5) to calculate LX, MV and $`\mathrm{L}_{\mathrm{Bol}}`$. For the calculation of LX we use Hipparcos values for the distances and $`f_X`$ values from Berghöfer et al. (BSC96 (1996)). We assume R=3.1 for the standard interstellar reddening law in which the $`E(BV)`$ values have been calculated from $`(BV)`$ colors taken from the Bright Star Catalogue (HJ82 (1982), henceforth BSC) and from intrinsic $`(BV)_{}`$ colors for late B-type stars taken from FitzGerald (F70 (1970)). Finally, the bolometric luminosities were calculated using bolometric corrections published by Schmidt-Kaler (SK82 (1982))

The effective temperatures of all stars but one (HD 119055) were determined using Geneva photometry calibrated by Künzli et al. (KNKN97 (1997)), assuming a metallicity \[M/H\]=0.0. The most appropriate grid was chosen, i.e. that of the reddening-free $`X`$ and $`Y`$ parameters, which are mostly sensitive to $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and luminosity respectively (Cramer & Maeder CM79 (1979)). The formal errors given by the code are propagated from typical photometric errors and are generally lower than 100 K. They are optimistic in the sense that they are only random errors and do not include possible systematic errors linked with the calibration or with cosmic causes such as unresolved duplicity. In the case of the Bp Si stars HD 78556, HD 133880 and HD 159376, the temperature was determined using the recipe given by North (N98 (1998)), still using Geneva photometry. For them, the error on $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ was arbitrarily set to 300 K because the temperature estimate is less reliable than for normal stars.

The effective temperature of HD 119055 was determined by interpolating in the uvby$`\beta `$ grid of Strömgren indices computed for \[M/H\]=0.0, from ATLAS9 models and fluxes (Castelli C00 (2000)). Observed Strömgren indices were taken from the catalogue of Mermilliod et al. (MMH97 (1997)) and were dereddened using the UVBYLIST code of Moon (M85 (1985)). The errors associated with the parameters were derived by assuming an uncertainty of $`\pm 0.015`$ mag for all the observed indices, except $`\beta `$, for which a probable error of $`\pm `$ 0.005 mag was adopted. The accuracy of the determination of the effective temperatures based on Strömgren photometry is better than 100 K.

For the star HD 36408, which has a very bad parallax accuracy, all fundamental parameters are based on purely photometric estimates.

To derive the masses and ages of late B-type primaries, we used the grids of stellar models provided by Schaller et al. (SSMM92 (1992)). The luminosities were estimated from the Hipparcos parallaxes (except for HD 36408, for which they were obtained from photometric $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, $`\mathrm{log}g`$ and evolutionary tracks) and from visual absorption obtained from Geneva $`X`$ and $`Y`$ photometric parameters through the calibration of Cramer (C82 (1982)), assuming $`A_v/E[BV]=3.65`$. The bolometric corrections are those of Schmidt-Kaler (SK82 (1982)).

The masses were interpolated in the evolutionary tracks (using a code by PN) while the ages were interpolated in the isochrones of the same models (using a code kindly made available by Drs. C. Jordi and F. Figueras). Fig. 1 shows the positions of the late B-type primaries in the H-R diagram. For comparison we show also the evolutionary tracks of stars with masses of 2.5, 3.0, 4.0 and 5.0 M/M.

Since the late B-type primary always dominates in the combined spectrum, we can safely assume that the measured spectral type is always that of the primary. Some uncertainty in the vertical positioning in the H-R diagram might arise by some overestimate of the primary’s luminosity due to the presence of the companion(s). In the case of a close binary consisting of two nearly identical stars the stellar luminosity can be overestimated by $`\delta \mathrm{log}\mathrm{L}=0.3`$. However, when only faint late-type companions are found, the actual error is negligible, as the companion luminosity is fainter by more than two orders of magnitude than the primary’s. There is still a possibility that the binary nature of the star induces a measurement error for the parallax. To test Hipparcos parallaxes on multiple stars, Shatskii & Tokovinin (ST98 (1998)) compared the dynamical parallaxes of visual binaries with their Hipparcos trigonometrical parallaxes. No systematic difference was found between them. The parallaxes have been found in good agreement for all distant ($`\pi <15`$ mas) systems, while at intermediate distances ($`15<\pi <30`$ mas) authors found cases of large errors in Hipparcos parallaxes attributable to short-period binaries that have been disregarded. Of all systems in our sample only three systems are distant systems. The closest system with a late B-type binary has a parallax $`\pi `$ = 22.55 mas.

### 3.3 Fundamental parameters of companions

In order to determine the evolutionary state of detected companions we need to know their position in the H-R diagram or in the MK-(MJ-MK) color-magnitude diagram (CMD).

Since late B-type stars are rather young, less than a few hundred million years old (Table 4), we expect that a significant fraction of the companions with low masses are PMS stars or very young main sequence stars. The masses, luminosities and effective temperatures for PMS companions can be then obtained from the location of the companions in MK-(MJ-MK) color-magnitude diagram using evolutionary models for low-mass PMS stars calculated by Baraffe et al. (BCA98 (1998)) (hereafter B98). These models include the most recent interior physics and the latest generation of non-grey atmosphere models. In fact, two sets of models of Baraffe et al. (BCA98 (1998)), namely B98LMS and B98Sun, can be used to derive the fundamental parameters of PMS companions. The set B98LMS uses a helium abundance Y=0.275 for \[M/H\]=0 and a general mixing length parameter $`\alpha `$ = $`l`$/HP = 1.0. It is calculated for the masses in the range from 0.020 M to 1.2 M. The models B98Sun were computed to reproduce the properties of the Sun at 4.61 Gyrs, with $`\alpha `$ = 1.9 and Y = 0.282. It is difficult to decide which mixing length parameter is the better one for PMS models. There are no theoretical arguments and the few observations available so far do not give any clear picture either. Since the models B98Sun are computed only for 0.7 to 1.2 M we decided to use for this work the set B98LMS with the wider mass range, although for some stars the comparison was made with the B98Sun too.

For 11 of our systems, we have observations in three bands, J, H and K. In Figures 2 and 3 we show the position of PMS companions in CMD for the set B98LMS and set B98Sun, respectively. The comparison of both figures reveals rather conspicuous differences in the position of the companions and, therefore, in the inferred fundamental parameters. In four systems, HD~1685, HD~32964, HD~33802 and HD~169022, the companions cannot be fitted by PMS evolutionary tracks. It is very likely that the system HD~1685 does not form a physical pair. In the systems HD~32964, HD~33802 and HD~169022, the new companions discovered are in an advanced evolutionary state, i.e. they have already evolved to the main sequence and cannot be fitted by PMS evolutionary tracks. Their position on the main sequence can be obtained by using evolutionary models for main-sequence stars calculated by Schaller et al. (SSMM92 (1992), hereforth Sch92) or by Charbonnel et al. (CDS99 (1999)) for masses below 0.8 M. However, to apply these models to our companions we need their magnitudes in the visual bandpass, which are unknown. Therefore, we first estimated the masses of the companions in an empirical way using M(JHK)-mass relations (MLR) of Henry & McCarthy (HC93 (1993)). These relations were determined for stars with masses 0.08 to 1.0 M. Under the assumption of coeval formation of studied systems, the goal was to place in the H-R diagram the companions with an empirical mass estimated from the M(JHK) MLR of Henry & McCarthy (HC93 (1993)), along the isochrones of the B primaries. In this way we were able to estimate their masses, luminosities and effective temperatures.

For 14 systems the only available information are our K-band data. Knowing the age of late B-type primaries and assuming that systems are coeval, we placed the companions with known MK values along the isochrones of the B primaries to estimate their masses, luminosities and effective temperatures.

Further constraints on the companion properties can be obtained from the saturation limits of $`\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{L}_X/\mathrm{L}_{\mathrm{bol}})`$ found for late-type coronal sources. They can emit up to $`10^3`$ of their total luminosity in the soft X-ray band (Schmitt Sch97 (1997)). For example, a study of X-ray-discovered T Tauri stars in the Taurus-Auriga T Association (Neuhäuser et al. NSS95 (1995)) revealed $`\mathrm{L}_X/\mathrm{L}_{\mathrm{Bol}}`$ values of $`\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{L}_X/\mathrm{L}_{\mathrm{bol}})=4.06`$ for G-type and $`3.56`$ for M-type TTS. The studies of nearby young open clusters show a considerable spread in coronal activity for stars with different rotational velocities. Although most stars appear to saturate at about $`10^3`$ of the stellar bolometric luminosity, a few stars reach higher X-ray activity levels, up to $`\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{L}_X/\mathrm{L}_{\mathrm{bol}})`$-$`2.9`$…-$`2.8`$ (Stauffer et al. SHP97 (1997); Stauffer et al. SCG94 (1994); Randich et al. RSP95 (1995)). To place a lower limit on the mass of the companion, we use the condition that the ratio $`\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{L}_X/\mathrm{L}_{\mathrm{bol}})`$ does not exceed -3.

In cols. 2, 3 and 4 of Table 5 we present absolute J, H and K magnitudes for the companions. The masses of PMS companions and corresponding luminosities and effective temperatures were obtained by interpolation in the evolutionary tracks of the models B98LMS. As our systems are located at rather short distances, they are unlikely to exhibit significant interstellar reddening. Nevertheless, we have computed the colour excess $`E[BV]`$ of the B stars in the Geneva system using the calibration of Cramer (C82 (1982)) and obtained the more widely used $`E(BV)`$ colour excess of Johnson’s system through the relation $`E(BV)=0.842E[BV]`$ (Cramer C84 (1984)). One object not measured in the Geneva system but having $`uvby\beta `$ colours in the literature (HD 119055) has $`E(by)=0.028`$ according to Crawford’s (C78 (1978)) calibration, which implies $`E(BV)=0.036`$. In this way we could verify that all but 4 stars have $`E(BV)0.05`$, the others having $`E(BV)0.08`$ to $`0.17`$. The largest colour excess is that of HD 159376, a Si star, so it is not very reliable because of the anomalous colours. In this worst case, the extinctions in the $`J`$, $`H`$ and $`K`$ bands are respectively 0.15, 0.09 and 0.06 mag. Therefore null extinction was assumed in calculation of absolute JHK magnitudes. In column 6 we give the companion masses interpolated from theoretical evolutionary models calculated by Baraffe et al. (BCA98 (1998)). The mass-ratios in the systems are presented in column 7. From the B98 models inferred luminosities and effective temperatures are given in columns 8 and 9. The last column displays the expected ratios $`\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{L}_X/\mathrm{L}_{\mathrm{Bol}}`$).

In Table 6 we present fundamental parameters of the companions on the main sequence. For companions with masses $``$0.8 M we used evolutionary tracks of Schaller et al. (SSMM92 (1992)), which cover the range of 0.8 to 120 M, to estimate $`\mathrm{log}(L/L_{})`$, $`\mathrm{log}(T_{\mathrm{eff}})`$ and $`\mathrm{log}(L_X/L_{\mathrm{bol}})`$. For companions with lower masses we used the evolutionary tracks of Charbonnel et al. (CDS99 (1999)). As in the paper of Berghöfer et al. (BSC96 (1996)) we adopt for calculation of $`\mathrm{log}(L_X/L_{\mathrm{bol}})`$ a typical error of 0.3 dex.

### 3.4 Notes on stars

In the following we give a brief overview of the studied systems.

HD~1685 = HR 83: We cannot fit the companion with the B98 models. It is quite possible that this system does not form a physical pair. Using the magnitude MK alone and assuming the coeval formation of the system we obtain for the mass of the companion the value 0.6 M. We calculate a fractional X-ray luminosity of $`\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{L}_X/\mathrm{L}_{\mathrm{Bol}})=2.60`$ which is above the saturation limit. HD~21790 = HR 1070: This system is the widest system in our sample. No images with the J and H filters were taken and the probability to find a background star of such a faint magnitude of 16.2 is high. If we assumed that this system is a physical pair, the mass of the companion inferred from the absolute K-magnitude would be very low (M = 0.04 M) and the companion would be expected to be a brown dwarf. Another problem is that in either case (background object or physical pair) the companion discovered here cannnot produce the observed X-ray luminosity. We suggest that the X-radiation very likely originates from an additional close unresolved late-type companion with coronal X-ray emission.

HD~27376 = HR 1347: This star is an SB2 star with an orbital period of 5.0 days and a mass ratio close to $`1.0`$ (Batten et al. BFM89 (1989)). The estimated angular separation of the components of this system is 0.″0016 (Halbwachs H81 (1981)). According to the B98LMS model the detected companion is a PMS star. Two additional companions at 49.″4 and at 0.″2 are mentioned in the Hipparcos Input Catalogue (CDS Catalogue I/196), (henceforth HIC) and in the BSC. Thus, this system could consist of five stars. We calculate a fractional X-ray luminosity of $`\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{L}_X/\mathrm{L}_{\mathrm{Bol}})=3.42`$. This value is well below the saturation limit of $`\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{L}_X/\mathrm{L}_{\mathrm{Bol}})3`$.

HD~29589 = HR 1484: The companion has a very low MK magnitude (12.2) and cannot be fitted by B98 models. No images with the J and H filters were taken and the probability to find a background star of such a faint magnitude is very high.

HD~32964 = HR 1657: This star is an SB2 star with an orbital period of 5.5 days and a mass ratio close to $`1.0`$ (Batten et al. BFM89 (1989)). The estimated angular separation of the component of this system is 0.″0012 (Halbwachs H81 (1981)). We cannot fit the detected companion with the model B98LMS. Therefore, we assume that it is rather a main sequence star with a mass of 0.67 M computed from the MLR relation of Henry & McCarthy (HC93 (1993)), even though it might be a $`0.7`$ M PMS star according to the B98Sun model. The companion’s fractional X-ray luminosity amounts to $`\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{L}_X/\mathrm{L}_{\mathrm{Bol}})=2.88`$, a value which is close to the saturation limit of $`\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{L}_X/\mathrm{L}_{\mathrm{Bol}})3`$. An additional companion at the angular distance of 52.″2 is mentioned in the HIC and in the BSC. Hence, this system may be, in fact, a quadruple system.

HD~33802 = HR 1696: The companion is not a PMS star. Using the M(JHK)-mass relations given by Henry & McCarthy (HC93 (1993)) for main-sequence stars we estimate the mass of the companion to be $`1.05`$ M. As these relations were determined only for stars with masses 0.08 to 1.0 M, only a lower limit of the mass of the companion can be estimated. As far as we know, the infrared MLRs have not been extended to higher masses through other studies. According to the Sch92 models, the detected companion could be a very young main-sequence star with a fractional X-ray luminosity of $`\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{L}_X/\mathrm{L}_{\mathrm{Bol}})2.85`$. An additional companion at 12.″1 is mentioned in the HIC and in the BSC. Therefore, this system could be a triple system.

HD~73340 = HR 3413: According to the B98LMS models the companion is a PMS star with a mass of 1.20 M. This system belongs to the open cluster IC 2391 (BSC).

HD~73952 = HR 3435: We cannot fit the companion with the B98 models. It is quite possible that this system does not form a physical pair. Using the magnitude MK alone and assuming coeval formation of the system we obtain for the mass of the companion the value 0.62 M. We calculate a fractional X-ray luminosity of $`\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{L}_X/\mathrm{L}_{\mathrm{Bol}})=3.02`$ which is very close to the saturation limit. The star HD 73952 belongs to the open cluster IC 2391 (BSC). An additional companion at 22.″3 is mentioned in the HIC and in the BSC.

HD~75333 = HR 3500: According to the B98LMS models the companion is a PMS star. We calculate a fractional X-ray luminosity of $`\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{L}_X/\mathrm{L}_{\mathrm{Bol}})=3.00`$, which is at the level of the saturation limit. This system possibly belongs to the Pleiades Group (BSC).

HD~110073 = HR 4817: This star is an SB1 star (Schneider S81 (1981)). According to the B98LMS models the companion is a PMS star. This system belongs to the Pleiades group (BSC).

HD~114911 = HR 4993: This is an SB2 star with an orbital period of 20.0 days and a mass ratio close to one (Batten et al. BFM89 (1989)). The mass of the companion obtained by interpolation in B98LMS models is 0.57 M. However the age of the companion with such a mass based on isochrone fitting (0.01$`10^8`$) is in strong disagreement with the age of the primary star (1.31$`10^8`$). Using the magnitude MK alone and assuming the coeval formation of the system we obtain for the mass of the companion the value 0.88 M. We calculate a fractional X-ray luminosity of $`\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{L}_X/\mathrm{L}_{\mathrm{Bol}})=3.14`$ As an additional companion at 60.″2 is mentioned in the HIC and in the BSC, this system could be a quadruple system.

HD~133880 = HR 5624: According to the B98LMS models the companion is a PMS star with a mass of 1.17 M. This system belongs to the Scorpius-Centaurus OB association (BSC).

HD~134837 = HR 5653: No images were taken for this star with the J and H filters. If we assume that the companion is gravitationally bound and not a background object, we obtain from B98LMS models that the mass of the companions is 0.18 M. We calculate a fractional X-ray luminosity of $`\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{L}_X/\mathrm{L}_{\mathrm{Bol}})=2.68`$ which is above the saturation level.

HD~134946 = HR 5655: No images were taken for this star with the J and H filters. If we assume a coeval formation of this system we obtain, according to the B98LMS models, that the companion is a PMS star with a mass of 0.30 M. We have derived a fractional X-ray luminosity of $`\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{L}_X/\mathrm{L}_{\mathrm{Bol}})=1.62`$. This value is much larger than the saturation limit of $`\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{L}_X/\mathrm{L}_{\mathrm{Bol}})3`$. It is possible that the X radiation might originate from an additional close, unresolved low-mass companion with coronal X-ray emission.

HD~135734 = HR 5683: Only K imaging has been done for this system. Under the assumption of a coeval formation we obtain, according to the B98LMS models, that the companion at the angular distance of 6.″15 is a PMS star of the mass 0.05M. Given the very low mass inferred from the absolute K-magnitude, the faint companion could be a brown dwarf. We have derived a fractional X-ray luminosity of $`\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{L}_X/\mathrm{L}_{\mathrm{Bol}})=0.16`$. This value is much larger than the saturation limit of $`\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{L}_X/\mathrm{L}_{\mathrm{Bol}})3`$. This system is likely a quadruple system. The companion observed at 1.″0 was already known (HIC & BSC) and, according to B98 models, it is not a PMS star. We estimate for this companion a mass $`>1.00`$ and calculate a fractional X-ray luminosity of $`\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{L}_X/\mathrm{L}_{\mathrm{Bol}})`$ $`<3.31`$. An additional companion at 23.″5 is mentioned in the HIC and in the BSC. We suggest that X-radiation very likely originates either from the already known companion at 1.″0 or from the companion at the angular distance of 23.″5. This system belongs to the Scorpius-Centaurus OB association (BSC).

HD~145483 = HR 6029: No images were taken with the J and H filters. The companion at the angular distance of 3.″8 was already known (HIC & BSC). According to the B98LMS models it is not a PMS star. Using M(JHK)-mass relations given by Henry & McCarthy (HC93 (1993)) for main-sequence stars, we estimate that the mass of the companion is $`1.28`$. According to the Sch92 models the known companion is a ZAMS star. The companion discovered at the angular distance of 0.″2 has a mass M = 1.08 M and is a PMS star according to the B98LMS models. This triple system belongs to the upper Scorpius region (BSC).

HD~159376 = HR 6545: . Only K imaging has been done for this system. The field around this star is very crowded and the probability of finding a background star is high. If we assume the coeval formation of this system, we obtain, according to the B98LMS models, that all three companions are PMS stars. The calculated fractional X-ray luminosity of all three companions is much larger than the saturation limit of $`\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{L}_X/\mathrm{L}_{\mathrm{Bol}})3`$. In other words, the detected companions alone cannot produce the observed X-ray luminosity.

HD~169022 = HR 6879: According to the B98 models the companion is not a PMS star. From the empirical mass estimate using the M(JHK)-mass relations given by Henry & McCarthy (HC93 (1993)) we obtain the value 0.95 M. Using Sch92 models we find that the companion is a ZAMS star. An additional companion at the angular distance of 32”.3 is mentioned in HIC and BSC.

HD~169978 = HR 6916: No images were taken with the J and H filters. According to the B98LMS models the companion is a PMS star of 0.15 M. The calculated fractional X-ray luminosity of the companions is much larger than the saturation limit of $`\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{L}_X/\mathrm{L}_{\mathrm{Bol}})3`$.

HD~27657 = HR 1372: No images were taken with the J and H filters. The presence of a companion was already known before we observed this star (HIC & BSC). According to the B98 models the companion is not a PMS star. From the Henry & McCarthy’s (HC93 (1993)) models we obtain a lower limit for the mass M$``$1.18 M. According to the Sch92 models the companion is a very young main-sequence star.

HD~36408 = HR 1847: This is an SB star (BSC). No images were taken with the J and H filters. The visual companion was already known before we observed this star. The magnitude difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$K between the primary and the companion in the K-band is very small (0.25). Considering the position of the primary in the H-R diagram, we conclude that a gravitationally bound companion should be a main sequence star.

HD~78556 = HR 3630: This is an SB star (BSC). No images were taken in J and H. The visual companion was already known before our observations (HIC & BSC). According to the B98 models the companion is not a PMS star. Models of Henry & McCarthy give a lower limit of M$``$1.40 M. According to the Sch92 model the companion could be a ZAMS star.

HD~90972 = HR 4118: This is an SB2 star (BSC) and the companion was known before we observed this system (HIC &BSC). No images in J and H were taken. According to the B98 models the companion is not a PMS star. For the mass we get M$``$1.15 M. From the Sch92 models, we conclude that the companion could be a ZAMS star.

HD~119055 = HR 5144: No images were taken with the J and H filters. The companion was already known (HIC & BSC). According to the B98LMS models the companion is a PMS star of the mass 1.02 M.

HD~184707 = HR 7440: Only K imaging has been done for this system. The companion was already known (HIC & BSC). According to the B98LMS models the companion is a PMS star of the mass 0.92 M.

## 4 Discussion

The results of our study clearly confirm our suspicion that most late B-type stars which are detected in X-rays are accompanied by a low-mass late-type companion. Although we have no formal evidence that the X-ray emission is due the low-mass companion (e.g. spectra showing that the companions are indeed active, or lack of active low-mass companions in a control sample of B stars which are not X-ray sources), this hypothesis appears strongly backed by our data. If we admit that the late type companions are gravitationally bound in the studied systems, we expect that out of 19 detected companions, 15 are PMS stars. Among the six already known visual binary systems, two contain a PMS companion. A very interesting project would be to investigate these systems more closely with near infrared spectrographs used together with adaptive optics systems. Such spectroscopic studies would provide a much more accurate estimate of the stellar masses of the components through their spectral type and would allow to conclusively determine whether the companion is, indeed, a PMS star or a background star.

The issue whether all studied systems form physical pairs or not deserves further investigation. The detected companions have projected separations ranging from 0.″2 to 14.″1 (18-2358 AU). We cannot rule out that the widest systems are not physical ones. Estimates of cut-off separation for the gravitational binding of the pairs by several authors (Chandrasekhar B44 (1944), Bahcall et al. BRJ86 (1986), Duquennoy & Mayor DM91 (1991)) place it between $`210^3`$ and $`210^4`$ AU. The radial velocity measurements and proper motion studies would tell us whether the stars in these systems are gravitationally bound or not. Out of the 49 late B-type stars in our sample, 25 have additional companions in the field of view. Of the studied systems, 6 were already known as visual binaries, and 19 are newly detectied by us. The sample of the systems with companions probably consists of 9 binary systems, 5 triple, 4 quadruple systems and one system consisting of 5 stars. That yields an observed binary frequency of 51 % for our star sample.

As mentioned in the Introduction, the formation mechanism of massive stars is not well understood yet, and it is important to compare the multiplicity of higher mass stars to that of lower mass stars. However, massive stars are less frequent than low mass stars and the large brightness of the massive primaries prevents the detection of close visual low mass companions. Previous studies of the spectroscopic binary frequency of B stars have shown that on average the percentage of spectroscopic binaries is higher than among solar type stars (e.g., Abt et al. A90 (1990); Morell & Levato ML91 (1991)). McAlister et al. (M93 (1993)) carried out speckle interferometric observations for 2088 OB stars and found a binary frequency of B stars of about 14%. Bouvier & Corporon (BC2001 (200)) observed a sample of 63 Herbig Ae/Be stars among which 22 were B0–B8 stars and 34 B9–A9 stars. They found an observed binary frequency for the two groups of stars of, respectively, 36 % and 42 %. These values are slightly lower than that in the present work.

In our study, the random pairing, that we estimated to 2 cases over 49 studied stars, might affect the observed binary frequency. On the other hand, very recent results obtained from higher angular resolution imaging on the same star sample using Keck Observatory AO facilities already revealed two new companions (among 8 targets) with a separation of the order of 50 milli-arcseconds (Le Mignant L2001 (2001)). A very likely reason for the higher binary frequency in the present work is that the sample has been X–ray selected. As a consequence, the multiplicity study in our late-B star sample is biased towards low-mass companions (which have strong X-ray emission). For statistical purposes it will be of crucial importance to study in the future a sample of late-B type stars not detected in the ROSAT all-sky survey. Such a study will represent a systematic multiplicity study of early type stars which would set important constraints to any theory of binary and multiple star formation.

Nearly 20% of the late-B stars found in the ROSAT survey belong to young stellar groups: Sco-Cen association, Sco OB2, and the Pleiades cluster and supercluster. The remaining X-ray emitting B stars are field stars. A further study of X-ray emission of the systems with late B-type primaries, e.g. with the Chandra X-ray Observatory which offers rather high spatial resolution, will provide a good opportunity to examine the link between X-ray emission and age in the stars having different masses and different formation histories.

###### Acknowledgements.

DLM wishes to acknowledge the support from the European Southern Observatory during the data reduction in Garching. We would like to thank Dr. Isabelle Baraffe (Ecole Polytechnique of Lyon) for providing her stellar evolutionary models and Dr. Fiorella Castelli for calculation of effective temperatures of a few late B-type stars using Strömgren photometry. Observing support during direct and coronagraphic imaging observations from the the 3.6 m telescope team is also gratefully acknowledged, especially Victor Merino, Dr. Franck Marchis and Dr. Olivier Marco (ESO La Silla/Santiago). PN acknowledges the support of the Swiss National Science Foundation. Finally, we wish to thank Patricia Goudé from Keck Observatory for the technical editing work she did on the paper, and the referee, Dr. F. Walter, for constructive comments.


text:
# Spin filtering and magnetoresistance in ballistic tunnel junctions

## I Introduction

The recent experimental demonstrations of spin-polarized currents in Mn-based semiconductors - represent a crucial first step towards understanding spin-dependent transport in these systems and possibly devising real spintronic devices . So far spin injection has been verified only at cryogenic temperatures. Low temperature spin transport is, however, extremelly important as a testing ground for novel ideas and concepts in the emerging fields of semiconductor spintronics and (possibly) quantum computing .

The spin-injection experiments involving a semimagnetic layer as a spin aligner  reported to date - pertain to transport in the diffusive limit. Moreover, the high voltages used ($`eV`$ Fermi energy) make transport highly non-linear. More recently Schmidt et al. have investigated MR in diffusive spin transport through a non-magnetic semiconductor (NMS) layer with dilute-magnetic semiconductor (DMS) contacts. In the regime of linear response they find a positive MR due to the suppression of one spin channel in the non-magnetic region.

The ballistic or quantum-coherent limit is another interesting regime in which to look at spin-polarized transport. In this regime, spin filtering  can give rise to a spin-polarized flow. As detailed in Ref. , spin filtering in semimagnetic systems is due to selective electron transmission. The s-d interaction gives rise to a spin-dependent potential: spin-up and spin-down electrons see different barrier heights. Hence one spin-component is blocked while the other is not. Observe that in diffusive transport spin aligning  due to spin-flip processes is the dominant mechanism behind the generation of spin-polarized currents in semimagnetic semiconductors.

Here we theoretically investigate MR for ballistic transport in semimagnetic heterojunctions with several arrangements of semimagnetic contacts and tunnel barriers as shown in Fig. 1(a)-1(h). The idea is to find signatures of the spin-filtering effect in the MR; so far no experimental evidence for spin filtering in semimagnetic heterostructures has been reported. Our current density calculation follows that of Ref. properly generalized to account for spin-dependent contacts. We calculate the spin-up and spin-down linear  conductances in terms of the respective transmission coefficients and present explicit formulas for single- and double-barrier cases.

Findings. For single-barrier structures with DMS contacts and NMS barriers, Fig. 1(a),(b), we find that spin filtering and the spin-dependent changes of the Fermi seas in the contacts give rise to an enhanced and essentially positive MR, Fig. 2(a). Spin-split kinks in MR are also seen, Fig. 2(b); these result from subsequent spin-resolved Landau levels crossing the Fermi surface in the contacts and hence closing the corresponding conducting channels. For double-barrier systems comprised of DMS contacts and well with non-magnetic barriers, Fig. 1(c),(d), we find particularly interesting beating in the MR. This robust feature comes about because of the significantly enhanced spin splitting of the resonant levels in the well; this results from the unique alignement of spin-dependent band edges in the contacts with the respective bottom of the potential well – provided by the particular geometry used. For semimagnetic barriers with non-magnetic contacts, Fig. 1(e),(f), spin filtering suppresses the Landau-level-induced kinks and makes MR essentially negative, Fig. 3.

The above features markedly contrast with the MR in non-magnetic heterostructures. We believe the peculiar structures in the MR of semimagnetic heterojunctions constitute unique signatures of the interplay between quantum spin filtering and spin-dependent phase-space modulation in the contacts.

## II Model system

Consider a two-terminal geometry with DMS contacts separated by a tunneling region. In the presence of a magnetic field $`B`$ along the growth direction $`z`$, the transverse motion is quantized into Landau levels . Along the field we have parabolic spin-dependent bands $`\xi _{\sigma _z}(k_z,B)=\epsilon _{\sigma _z}(B)+E_z(k_z)`$ with $`E_z(k_z)=\mathrm{}^2k_z^2/2m_e^{}`$, $`k_z`$ is the electron wave vector and $`m_e^{}`$ the effective mass. The spin-dependent band edges are $`\epsilon _{\sigma _z}\pm ϵ(B)`$, where the upper sign refers to spin-up electrons and $`ϵ(B)x_{eff}|S_z|N_0\alpha /2>0`$, $`x_{eff}=x(1x)^{12}`$ is the effective Mn concentration (accounting for Mn-Mn antiferromagnetic pairing), $`S_z`$ is the 5/2 Brillouin function describing the thermal average of the Mn spin components, and $`N_0\alpha `$ is the s-d exchange constant for conduction electrons.

Current density. The tunneling region is described by a spin-dependent transmission coefficient $`T_{\sigma _z}(E_z,V,B)`$. By extending the approach in Ref.  to the present case we can write the current density across the tunneling region at zero temperature  and for $`eV<E_F`$ as

$`J_{\sigma _z}(B)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{J}_0\mathrm{}\omega _c\{{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{E_F^{\sigma _z}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}\omega _c}{}}}[int({\displaystyle \frac{E_F^{\sigma _z}E_z}{\mathrm{}\omega _c}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})+1]T_{\sigma _z}(E_z,V,B)dE_z`$ (2)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{E_F^{\sigma _z}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}\omega _ceV}{}}}[int({\displaystyle \frac{E_F^{\sigma _z}eVE_z}{\mathrm{}\omega _c}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})+1]T_{\sigma _z}(E_z,V,B)dE_z\},`$
where $`\overline{J}_0em_e^{}/4\pi ^2\mathrm{}^3`$, $`E_F^,=E_Fϵ(B)`$, $`\omega _c`$ is the cyclotron frequency, and $`int(x)`$ denotes the largest integer smaller than or equal to $`x.`$ Equation (2) is the $`B0`$ Tsu-Esaki formula with spin-dependent trasmission coefficientes.

### A Linear response

Linear spin-dependent conductance. To determine the linear conductance we linearize Eq. (2). Taylor expanding (2) around $`eV=0`$ and using

$$\frac{dint(x)}{deV}=\frac{dint(x)}{dx}\frac{x}{eV}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}\omega _c}\underset{n}{}\delta (xn),\text{ }$$
(3)
where n is an integer and $`x=\frac{E_F^{\sigma _z}eVE_z}{\mathrm{}\omega _c}\frac{1}{2}`$, we find to linear order in $`eV`$

$$J_{\sigma _z}(B,E_F,eV)=\overline{J}_0\mathrm{}\omega _c\underset{n=0}{\overset{n_0^{\sigma _z}}{}}T_{\sigma _z}(E_{F,n}^{\sigma _z},0,B)eV,$$
(4)
with $`n_0^{\sigma _z}=int\left(\frac{E_F^{\sigma _z}}{\mathrm{}\omega _c}\frac{1}{2}\right)`$ and $`E_{F,n}^{\sigma _z}E_F^{\sigma _z}\left(n+\frac{1}{2}\right)\mathrm{}\omega _c`$. The spin-dependent linear conductance per unit area $`G_{\sigma _z}(B,E_F)/AJ_{\sigma _z}(B,E_F,eV)/V`$ is

$$G_{\sigma _z}(B,E_F)/A=\frac{e^2m_e^{}}{4\pi ^2\mathrm{}^3}\mathrm{}\omega _c\underset{n=0}{\overset{n_0^{\sigma _z}}{}}T_{\sigma _z}(E_{F,n}^{\sigma _z},0,B).$$
(5)
Observe that the transmission coefficient in Eq. (5) is calculated in the absence of any external potential; this is just the general philosophy of linear response: the response depends upon only the system configuration in equilibrium. It is straightforward to verify that Eq. (5) reduces to the well known result

$$G_0(E_F)/A=\frac{e^2m_e^{}}{4\pi ^2\mathrm{}^3}\underset{0}{\overset{E_F}{}}𝑑E_zT_0\left(E_z\right),$$
(6)
in the $`B=0`$ limit, where $`G_0(E_F)G_{}(E_F,0)=G_{}(E_F,0)`$ and $`T_0\left(E_z\right)T_{}(E_z,0)=T_{}(E_z,0)`$.

### B Magnetoresistance

Let $`R`$ ($`R_0`$) and $`G`$ ($`\stackrel{~}{G}_0=2G_0`$) be the total  resistance and conductance, respectively, in the presence (absence) of magnetic fields. The MR of the system is defined by $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }R}{R_0}=\frac{R}{R_0}1=\frac{\stackrel{~}{G}_0}{G}1=\frac{2G_0(E_F)}{G_{}(B,E_F)+G_{}(B,E_F)}1`$. Hence

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }R}{R_0}=\frac{2\underset{0}{\overset{E_F}{}}𝑑E_zT_0(E_z)}{\mathrm{}\omega _c\left[\underset{n=0}{\overset{n_0^{}}{}}T_{}(E_{F,n}^{},B)+\underset{n=0}{\overset{n_0^{}}{}}T_{}(E_{F,n}^{},B)\right]}1.$$
(7)
In deriving Eq. (7) we assume a negligible contact resistance.

### C Transmission coefficients

Single- and double-barrier potentials. In order to determine $`\mathrm{\Delta }R/R_0`$ from Eq. (7) we only need the transmission coefficients for zero applied voltage (equilibrium configuration) since we are in the linear response regime. For a single barrier of width $`L_b`$ and height $`V_b`$ we readily find

$$T_,^{SB}(E_{F,n}^,,B)=\left\{1+\frac{\mathrm{sinh}^2\left[\sqrt{\frac{2m_e^{}(V_,E_{F,n}^,)}{\mathrm{}^2}}L_b\right]}{4\left(\frac{E_{F,n}^,}{V_,}\right)\left(1\frac{E_{F,n}^,}{V_,}\right)}\right\}^1,$$
(8)
with $`V_,=V_bϵ(B)`$ and $`E_{F,n}^,=E_Fϵ(B)(n+1/2)\mathrm{}\omega _c`$.

For a symmetric DMS-contacted double-barrier structure with a semimagnetic well of width $`L_w`$ and NMS barriers of width $`L_b`$ and height $`V_b`$, we have

$`T_,^{DB}(E_{F,n}^,,B)`$ $`=`$ $`|[\mathrm{cosh}\left(\kappa _n^,L_b\right)i{\displaystyle \frac{2E_{F,n}^,V_,}{2\sqrt{E_{F,n}^,(V_,E_{F,n}^,)}}}\mathrm{sinh}\left(\kappa _n^,L_b\right)]^2e^{ik_n^,L_w}+`$ (10)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{V_,^2}{4E_{F,n}^,(V_,E_{F,n}^,)}}\mathrm{sinh}^2\left(\kappa _n^,L_b\right)e^{ik_n^,L_w}|^2,`$
where $`k_n^,=\sqrt{2m_e^{}E_{F,n}^,}/\mathrm{}`$ and $`\kappa _n^,=\sqrt{2m_e^{}(V_,E_{F,n}^,)}/\mathrm{}`$. Equations (8) and (10) hold for $`V_,E_{F,n}^,`$. In what follows we discuss some plots of $`\mathrm{\Delta }R/R_0`$ vs $`B`$ for both single- and double-barrier heterostructures. In the subsequent graphs we use $`x=0.06`$ and $`m_e^{}=0.16m_0`$. Fermi energies and potential heights (and widths) are shown in the figures.

## III Results

Results. Figure 2 shows the MR of a DMS/NMS/DMS structure, Fig. 1(a),(b), for several NMS barrier widths. Observe that the MR is enhanced and mostly positive for wider barriers and high fields, as compared to the non-magnetic case (dashed lines). These features are due to spin filtering resulting from the relative change of the band edges in the DMS contacts together with the concomitant reduction and increase of the Fermi seas for spin-up and spin-down electrons, respectively. Positive MR is expected for high enough fields above which the spin-up channels are unavailable. Here, for $`B>4.7`$ T the spin-up conductance is identically zero; see the kink and the steep rise of $`\mathrm{\Delta }R/R_0`$ around $`B=4.7`$ T for all barrier widths. Note that because the conductance of the system is essentially a sum over spin-resolved Landau channels smaller than $`n_0^,`$, Eq. (5), the abrupt closing of channels manifests itself directly in $`\mathrm{\Delta }R/R_0`$ via Eq. (7). Figure 2(b) illustrates the connection between the shut down of spin-resolved transmission channels and the kinks in the MR more clearly. Note that the more abruptly a channel shuts down, the steeper $`\mathrm{\Delta }R/R_0`$ rises in its vicinity. Note also that the spin-resolved Landau levels give rise to spin-split kinks in the MR. The inset shows that the interplay between spin-dependent phase space in the DMS contacts and spin filtering can also lead to negative MR for larger barriers and smaller fields. All the above features contrast with the no s-d exchange case (dashed lines).

Figure 3 shows a plot similar to that in Fig. 2 but for a single DMS barrier with NMS contacts. Note that the MR is now mostly negative. Here this happens entirely because of quantum-coherent spin filtering . As the magnetic field increases the spin-up (spin-down) electrons see a larger (smaller) barrier. The corresponding exponential suppression of $`T_{}`$ and the concomitant enhancement of $`T_{}`$ is asymmetric. Because the wave function penetration in the DMS barrier is larger for spin down than for spin up electrons, the former see a stronger s-d modulation of the barrier height than the latter; $`T_{}`$ then increases faster than $`T_{}`$ decreases. Hence the total trasmission coefficient $`T_{}+T_{}`$ increases as compared to the $`B=0`$ case thus leading to $`\mathrm{\Delta }R/R_0<0`$. This effect is more pronounced for larger barrier widths. For narrower barriers $`\mathrm{\Delta }R/R_0`$ vs $`B`$ also presents kinks and regions of positive and negative MR (see curves for the 5 and 10 nm barriers).

Figure 4 shows our results for a symmetric DMS-contacted double-barrier system with a semimagnetic well and non-magnetic barriers. The $`B=0`$ configuration is chosen so that there is a resonant level below $`E_F`$ for the parameters used. A remarkable feature in Fig. 4 is the beating in the MR . As shown in the lower part of this figure, this beating is directly related to the peculiar overlap of the s-d spin-split transmission channels. The unique pattern in $`\mathrm{\Delta }R/R_0`$ is made particularly noticeable by the geometry used – which effectively enhances s-d induced features. By considering semimagnetic contacts and well, we are essentially forcing the spin-resolved resonant states in the well to have larger spin splittings, Fig. 1(c),(d). This happens because the spin-dependent bottom of the potential well lines up with the corresponding spin-split band edges in the DMS contacts. In simpler terms, we are referring the spin-resolved states to spin-split origins in the contacts. The end result is indeed a larger effective spin-splitting of the resonant levels. Note that the DMS contacts do not need to be fully spin polarized.

Feasibility. Recent advances in DMS materials technology make the short term realization of the structures suggested in this paper realistic . For instance, combined DMS-NMS heterostructures have already been demonstrated  in ZnBeMnSe/ZnBeSe quartenary materials. The band offsets and doping densities achievable by varying the concentrations of these compounds are flexible enough to produce the potential profiles and Fermi energies considered here. Furthermore, we estimate the electron coherence lenghts in these materials to be longer than the total length of our structures thus allowing for quantum-coherent transport.

Summary. We have shown that DMS-contacted tunnel junctions display very peculiar MR due to quantum-coherent spin filtering in conjunction with the reduction/enhancement of the spin-dependent Fermi seas in the contacts. The features in the MR reported here (e.g., beating and spin-split kinks) are unique signatures of spin filtering in ballistic transport. We expect these effects to be easily resolved experimentally.

This work was supported by FAPESP and Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, SFB 410). J.C.E. acknowledges the kind hospitality at the Physikalisches Institut, Universität Würzburg, where part of this work was developed, and financial support for his visit.

Electronic address: egues@if.sc.usp.br


text:
# A Solitonic 3-Brane in 6D Bulk

## I Introduction

In the Brane World scenario the Standard Model gauge and matter fields are assumed to be localized on branes (or an intersection thereof), while gravity lives in a larger dimensional bulk of space-time . There is a big difference between the footings on which gauge plus matter fields and gravity come in this pictureThis, at least in some sense, might not be an unwelcome feature - see, e.g., .. Thus, for instance, if gauge and matter fields are localized on D-branes , they propagate only in the directions along the D-brane world-volume. Gravity, however, is generically not confined to the branes - even if we have a graviton zero mode localized on the brane as in , where the volume of the extra dimension is finite, massive graviton modes are still free to propagate in the bulk. On the other hand, as was discussed in , in the cases with infinite volume extra dimensions, we can have almost completely localized gravity on higher codimension ($`\delta `$-function-like) branes with the $`p^2=0`$ modes penetrating into the bulk.

Recently in  it was pointed out that we can have complete localization of gravity on a $`\delta `$-function-like solitonic codimension-1 brane world solution. That is, there are no propagating degrees of freedom in the bulk, while on the brane we have 4-dimensional Einstein-Hilbert gravity (assuming that the solitonic brane is a 3-brane). In fact, in this solution, even though the classical solitonic background is 5-dimensional, the quantum theory perturbatively§§§Non-perturbatively at the semi-classical level we can a priori have breakdown of causality via creation of “baby” branes. is actually 4-dimensional - there are no loop corrections in the bulk as we have no propagating bulk degrees of freedom.

The setup of  is the 5-dimensional Einstein-Hilbert theory with a (negative) cosmological term augmented with a Gauss-Bonnet term. The solitonic brane world solution arises in this theory for a special value of the Gauss-Bonnet coupling. The fact that there are no propagating degrees of freedom in the bulk is then due to a perfect cancellation between the corresponding contributions coming from the Einstein-Hilbert and Gauss-Bonnet terms, which occurs precisely for this value of the Gauss-Bonnet coupling. Since the bulk theory does not receive loop corrections, the classical choice of parameters such as the special value of the Gauss-Bonnet coupling (or the Gauss-Bonnet combination itself) does not require perturbative order-by-order fine-tuning. Also, the entire setup can be supersymmetrized, and then the aforementioned solitonic solution becomes a BPS state, which preserves 1/2 of the original supersymmetries.

In this paper we would like to address the question whether there are higher codimension solitonic brane world solutions in (the appropriate higher dimensional versions of) the setup of . In fact, we do find codimension-2 solitonicCodimension-2 solutions in the 6-dimensional Einstein-Hilbert gravity in the presence of source (that is, non-solitonic) branes were discussed in . solutions, which are 3-branes if the bulk is 6-dimensional. Thus, we have a $`\delta `$-function-like codimension-2 solitonic solution. This solution, where the solitonic brane world-volume is flat, exists for a continuous range of values of the solitonic brane tension. However, as we explain in the following, this is not a “self-tuning” solution for two reasons. First, it turns out that to have a consistent tree-level coupling between gravity and brane matter the latter must be conformal. Second, the aforementioned special choice of the Gauss-Bonnet coupling (unlike in the codimension-1 solution of ) is sensitive to quantum corrections in the bulk. This is because in this codimension-2 solution we do have propagating degrees of freedom in the bulk.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In section II we discuss our setup. In section III we find the aforementioned solitonic codimension-2 brane world solutions and discuss their properties. In section IV we discuss the coupling between gravity and brane matter. Section V contains various remarks.

## II The Setup

In this section we discuss the setup within which we will construct the aforementioned codimension-2 solitonic brane world solutions. The action for this model is given by (for calculational convenience we will keep the number of space-time dimensions $`D`$ unspecified, but we are mostly interested in the $`D=6`$ case):

$$S=M_P^{D2}d^Dx\sqrt{G}\left\{R+\lambda \left[R^24R_{MN}^2+R_{MNST}^2\right]\mathrm{\Lambda }\right\},$$
(1)
where $`M_P`$ is the $`D`$-dimensional (reduced) Planck scale, and the Gauss-Bonnet coupling $`\lambda `$ has dimension $`(\mathrm{length})^2`$. Finally, the bulk vacuum energy density $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a constant.

The equations of motion following form the action (1) read:

$`R_{MN}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G_{MN}R{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda G_{MN}\left(R^24R^{MN}R_{MN}+R^{MNRS}R_{MNRS}\right)+`$ (2)
$`2\lambda \left(RR_{MN}2R_{MS}R_{}^{S}{}_{N}{}^{}+R_{MRST}R_{N}^{}{}_{}{}^{RST}2R^{RS}R_{MRNS}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G_{MN}\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.`$ (3)
Note that this equation does not contain terms with third and fourth derivatives of the metric, which is a special property of the Gauss-Bonnet combination .

### A Codimension-1 Solitonic Brane-World

In  it was shown that, for a special combination of the Gauss-Bonnet coupling $`\lambda `$ and the vacuum energy density $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, this theory possesses a codimension-1 solitonic brane-world solution. Since this solution will be relevant for our subsequent discussions, let us briefly review it here. Thus, let us focus on solutions to the above equations of motion with the warped  metric of the form

$$ds_D^2=\mathrm{exp}(2A)\eta _{MN}dx^Mdx^N,$$
(4)
where $`\eta _{MN}`$ is the flat $`D`$-dimensional Minkowski metric, and the warp factor $`A`$, which is a function of $`zx^D`$, is independent of the other $`(D1)`$ coordinates $`x^\mu `$. With this ansätz, we have the following equations of motion for $`A`$ (prime denotes derivative w.r.t. $`z`$):

$`(D1)(D2)(A^{})^2\left[1(D3)(D4)\lambda (A^{})^2\mathrm{exp}(2A)\right]+\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{exp}(2A)=0,`$ (5)
$`(D2)\left[A^{\prime \prime }(A^{})^2\right]\left[12(D3)(D4)\lambda (A^{})^2\mathrm{exp}(2A)\right]=0.`$ (6)
This system of equations has a set of solutions where the $`D`$-dimensional space is an AdS space for a continuous range of parameters $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\lambda `$. The volume of the $`z`$ direction for this set of solutions is infinite.

There, however, also exists a solution where the volume of the $`z`$ direction is finite if we “fine-tune” the Gauss-Bonnet coupling $`\lambda `$ and the bulk vacuum energy density $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as followsThis special value of the Gauss-Bonnet coupling has appeared in a somewhat different context in . In fact, it was argued in  that for other values of these parameters the Einstein-Hilbert-Gauss-Bonnet theory is non-unitary.:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{(D1)(D2)}{(D3)(D4)}\frac{1}{4\lambda },$$
(7)
where $`\lambda >0`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$. This solution is given by (we have chosen the integration constant such that $`A(0)=0`$):

$$A(z)=\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{|z|}{\mathrm{\Delta }}+1\right],$$
(8)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^2=2(D3)(D4)\lambda .$$
(9)
Note that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ can be positive or negative. In the former case the volume of the $`z`$ direction is finite: $`v=2\mathrm{\Delta }/(D1)`$. On the other hand, in the latter case it is infinite.

Note that $`A^{}`$ is discontinuous at $`z=0`$, and $`A^{\prime \prime }`$ has a $`\delta `$-function-like behavior at $`z=0`$. Note, however, that (6) is still satisfied as in this solution

$$12(D3)(D4)\lambda (A^{})^2\mathrm{exp}(2A)=0.$$
(10)
Thus, this solution describes a codimension-1 soliton. The tension of this soliton, which is given by

$$f_{D1}=\frac{4(D2)}{\mathrm{\Delta }}M_P^{D2},$$
(11)
is positive for $`\mathrm{\Delta }>0`$, and it is negative for $`\mathrm{\Delta }<0`$. As was shown in , in the latter case the theory is non-unitary (which is attributed to the negativity of the brane tension). The solution with positive brane tension, on the other hand, is consistent. Here we are referring to the $`z=0`$ hypersurface as the brane.

It was further shown in  that the graviton propagator in the above solitonic solution vanishes in the bulk, while on the brane we have completely localized gravity. In particular, (at least perturbatively\**\**\**As was pointed out in , a priori semi-classically there can be non-perturbative effects breaking causality via creation of “baby” branes, so that gravity could in this way propagate into the bulk.) gravity on the brane is purely $`(D1)`$-dimensional.

## III Codimension-2 Solitonic Brane-World

In this section we would like to point out that in the above setup, precisely for the special combination of the parameters (7), there also exists a codimension-2 solitonic brane world solution. Thus, consider the following ansätz for the metric:

$$ds_D^2=\mathrm{exp}(2A)\left[\eta _{\alpha \beta }dx^\alpha dx^\beta +(dr)^2+\mathrm{exp}(2B)r^2(d\varphi )^2\right],$$
(12)
where $`\eta _{\alpha \beta }`$ is the flat $`(D2)`$-dimensional Minkowski metric corresponding to the first $`(D2)`$ coordinates $`x^\alpha `$, and the other two coordinates are chosen in the polar basis $`(r,\varphi )`$; the warp factors $`A`$ and $`B`$, which are functions of $`r`$, are assumed to be independent of $`(x^\alpha ,\varphi )`$ (that is, we are looking for axially symmetric solutions); the angular coordinate $`\varphi `$ takes values between 0 and $`2\pi `$, while the radial coordinate $`r`$ takes values between $`0`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$.

With the above ansätz we have the following equations of motion for $`A`$ and $`B`$ (dot denotes derivative w.r.t. $`r`$):

$`\left[\ddot{B}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r}}\dot{B}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}\dot{B}^2+(D2)\left(\ddot{A}\dot{A}^2\right)\right]\left[12(D3)(D4)\lambda \dot{A}^2\mathrm{exp}(2A)\right]`$ (13)
$`4(D3)(D4)\lambda \left[\ddot{A}\dot{A}^2\right]\dot{A}\left[\dot{B}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\right]\mathrm{exp}(2A)=0,`$ (14)
$`(D1)(D2)\dot{A}^2\left[1(D3)(D4)\lambda \dot{A}^2\mathrm{exp}(2A)\right]+\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{exp}(2A)`$ (15)
$`+2(D2)\dot{A}\left[\dot{B}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\right]\left[12(D3)(D4)\lambda \dot{A}^2\mathrm{exp}(2A)\right]=0,`$ (16)
$`(D1)(D2)\dot{A}^2\left[1(D3)(D4)\lambda \dot{A}^2\mathrm{exp}(2A)\right]+\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{exp}(2A)`$ (17)
$`+2(D2)\left[\ddot{A}\dot{A}^2\right]\left[12(D3)(D4)\lambda \dot{A}^2\mathrm{exp}(2A)\right]=0.`$ (18)
The first equation is a linear combination of the $`(\alpha \beta )`$ and $`(rr)`$ equations, the second equation is the $`(rr)`$ equation, and the third equation is the $`(\varphi \varphi )`$ equation. Only two of the above three equations are independent, which, as usual, is a consequence of Bianchi identities.

### A $`\delta `$-function-like Solitonic Brane World

Here we would like to discuss a solution of the above equations of motion corresponding to a $`\delta `$-function-like codimension-2 solitonic brane world. This solution is given by:

$$A(r)=\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{r}{\mathrm{\Delta }}+1\right),B(r)=\beta ,$$
(19)
where $`\beta `$ is a constant, which we will assume to be positive, while $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, which is also assumed to be positive, is related to $`\lambda `$ via (9). The metric is given by:

$$ds_D^2=\left(\frac{r}{\mathrm{\Delta }}+1\right)^2\left[\eta _{\alpha \beta }dx^\alpha dx^\beta +(dr)^2+\mathrm{exp}(2\beta )r^2(d\varphi )^2\right].$$
(20)
Note that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}`$ in this solution corresponds to the flat bulk limit. Also note that the presence of the Gauss-Bonnet term (as well as the fact that the Gauss-Bonnet coupling takes a special value (7)) is crucial for the existence of the solution (19) - indeed, (16) could not be satisfied without the Gauss-Bonnet term.

Near the origin $`r0`$ the above metric takes the following form:

$$ds_D^2=\eta _{\alpha \beta }dx^\alpha dx^\beta +(dr)^2+\mathrm{exp}(2\beta )r^2(d\varphi )^2.$$
(21)
This metric describes a product of the $`(D2)`$-dimensional flat Minkowski space with a 2-dimensional “wedge” with the deficit angle

$$\theta =2\pi \left[1\mathrm{exp}(\beta )\right].$$
(22)
This wedge is locally $`𝐑^2`$ except for the origin $`r=0`$, where we have a $`\delta `$-function-like singularity. Thus, we have a $`\delta `$-function-like codimension-2 solitonic brane located at $`r=0`$.

The tension of this solitonic brane can be determined as follows. Consider the following action

$$S_1=M_P^{D2}d^Dx\sqrt{G}Rf_{D2}_\mathrm{\Sigma }d^{D2}x\sqrt{\widehat{G}},$$
(23)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a $`\delta `$-function-like codimension-2 source brane, which is the hypersurface $`x^i=0`$ ($`x^i`$, $`i=1,2`$, are the two coordinates transverse to the brane); the tension $`f_{D2}`$ of this brane is assumed to be positive; finally,

$$\widehat{G}_{\alpha \beta }\delta _{\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{M}\delta _{\beta }^{}{}_{}{}^{N}G_{MN}|_\mathrm{\Sigma },$$
(24)
where $`x^\alpha `$ are the $`(D2)`$ coordinates along the brane (the $`D`$-dimensional coordinates are given by $`x^M=(x^\alpha ,x^i)`$).

The equations of motion following from the action (23) are given by:

$$R_{MN}\frac{1}{2}G_{MN}R+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\sqrt{\widehat{G}}}{\sqrt{G}}\delta _{M}^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }\delta _{N}^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta }\widehat{G}_{\alpha \beta }\stackrel{~}{f}_{D2}\delta ^{(2)}(x^i)=0,$$
(25)
where $`\stackrel{~}{f}_{D2}f_{D2}/M_P^{D2}`$.

Next, consider the following ansätz for the metric:

$$ds_D^2=\eta _{\alpha \beta }dx^\alpha dx^\beta +\mathrm{exp}(2\omega )\delta _{ij}dx^idx^j,$$
(26)
where $`\omega `$ is a function of $`x^i`$ but is independent of $`x^\alpha `$. With this ansätz we have

$`R_{\alpha \beta }=0,R_{ij}=\stackrel{~}{R}_{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{G}_{ij}\stackrel{~}{R},`$ (27)
$`\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{G}}\stackrel{~}{R}=\stackrel{~}{f}_{D2}\delta ^{(2)}(x^i),`$ (28)
where $`\stackrel{~}{R}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{R}_{ij}`$ are the 2-dimensional Ricci scalar respectively Ricci tensor constructed from the 2-dimensional metric

$$\stackrel{~}{G}_{ij}\mathrm{exp}(2\omega )\delta _{ij}.$$
(29)
Since this metric is conformally flat, we have $`\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{G}}\stackrel{~}{R}=2^i_i\omega `$ (where the indices are lowered and raised using $`\delta _{ij}`$ and $`\delta ^{ij}`$, respectively), so that

$$^i_i\omega =\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{f}_{D2}\delta ^{(2)}(x^i).$$
(30)
The solution to this equation is given by

$$\omega =\frac{1}{8\pi }\stackrel{~}{f}_{D2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{x^2}{a^2}\right),$$
(31)
where $`x^2\delta _{ij}x^ix^j`$ , and $`a`$ is an integration constant.

Let us go to the polar coordinates $`(\rho ,\varphi )`$: $`x^1=\rho \mathrm{cos}(\varphi )`$, $`x^2=\rho \mathrm{sin}(\varphi )`$ ($`\rho `$ takes values from 0 to $`\mathrm{}`$, while $`\varphi `$ takes values from 0 to $`2\pi `$). In these coordinates the two dimensional metric is given by

$$d\stackrel{~}{s}_2^2=\left(\frac{a^2}{\rho ^2}\right)^\nu \left[(d\rho )^2+\rho ^2(d\varphi )^2\right],$$
(32)
where

$$\nu \frac{1}{4\pi }\stackrel{~}{f}_{D2}.$$
(33)
Let us change the coordinates to $`(r,\varphi )`$, where

$$r\frac{1}{1\nu }a^\nu \rho ^{1\nu },$$
(34)
where we are assuming that $`\nu <1`$. Then we have

$$d\stackrel{~}{s}_2^2=(dr)^2+\mathrm{exp}(2\beta )r^2(d\varphi )^2,$$
(35)
where

$$\mathrm{exp}(\beta )1\nu .$$
(36)
Thus, we see that the brane tension $`f_{D2}`$ is related to the deficit angle $`\theta `$ (given by (22)) via

$$f_{D2}=2M_P^{D2}\theta .$$
(37)
In particular, this expression gives the tension of the $`\delta `$-function-like codimension-2 solitonic brane located at $`r=0`$ in the solution described by the metric (20).

Before we end this section let us note that for large $`r`$ ($`r\mathrm{\Delta }`$) the metric (20) approaches that of AdS$`{}_{D1}{}^{}\times S^1`$

$$ds_D^2=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{r^2}\left[\eta _{\alpha \beta }dx^\alpha dx^\beta +(dr)^2\right]+r_{}^2(d\varphi )^2,$$
(38)
where the radius of $`S^1`$ is given by $`r_{}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{exp}(\beta )`$.

## IV Coupling to Brane Matter

In this section we would like to discuss how gravity couples to matter localized on the above $`\delta `$-function-like codimension-2 solitonic brane. Since this brane is solitonic, it breaks $`D`$-dimensional diffeomorphisms only spontaneously. This has certain implications to which we now turn.

Thus, let us consider small fluctuations around the solution (20):

$$G_{MN}=\mathrm{exp}(2A)\left[\overline{G}_{MN}+\overline{h}_{MN}\right],$$
(39)
where $`\overline{G}_{MN}`$ is the background metric up to the warp factor $`\mathrm{exp}(2A)`$ (that is, $`\overline{G}_{\alpha \beta }=\eta _{\alpha \beta }`$, $`\overline{G}_{rr}=1`$, $`\overline{G}_{\varphi \varphi }=\mathrm{exp}(2\beta )r^2`$, $`\overline{G}_{\alpha r}=\overline{G}_{\alpha \varphi }=\overline{G}_{r\varphi }=0`$), and for convenience reasons instead of the metric fluctuations $`h_{MN}\mathrm{exp}(2A)\overline{h}_{MN}`$ we choose to work with $`\overline{h}_{MN}`$.

In terms of $`\overline{h}_{MN}`$ the $`D`$-dimensional diffeomorphisms (corresponding to $`x^Mx^M\xi ^M`$) read:

$`\delta \overline{h}_{\alpha \beta }=_\alpha \overline{\xi }_\beta +_\beta \overline{\xi }_\alpha +2\eta _{\alpha \beta }\dot{A}\overline{\xi }_r,`$ (40)
$`\delta \overline{h}_{\alpha r}=_\alpha \overline{\xi }_r+\dot{\overline{\xi }}_\alpha ,`$ (41)
$`\delta \overline{h}_{\alpha \varphi }=_\alpha \overline{\xi }_\varphi +_\varphi \overline{\xi }_\alpha ,`$ (42)
$`\delta \overline{h}_{rr}=2\dot{\overline{\xi }}_r+2\dot{A}\overline{\xi }_r,`$ (43)
$`\delta \overline{h}_{r\varphi }=\dot{\overline{\xi }}_\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{2}{r}}\overline{\xi }_\varphi +_\varphi \overline{\xi }_r,`$ (44)
$`\delta \overline{h}_{\varphi \varphi }=2_\varphi \overline{\xi }_\varphi +2\mathrm{exp}(2\beta )r^2\left[\dot{A}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\right]\overline{\xi }_r,`$ (45)
where $`\overline{\xi }_M\mathrm{exp}(2A)\xi _M`$. Note that using these diffeomorphisms we can set two of the graviscalar components ($`\overline{h}_{rr}`$ and $`\overline{h}_{r\varphi }`$) as well as one of the graviphotons ($`\overline{h}_{\alpha r}`$) to zero. We are then left with the $`(D2)`$-dimensional graviton ($`\overline{h}_{\alpha \beta }`$), a graviphoton ($`\overline{h}_{\alpha \varphi }`$), and a graviscalar ($`\overline{h}_{\varphi \varphi }`$).

Next, let us assume that we have matter localized on the $`\delta `$-function-like codimension-2 solitonic brane. Let $`T_{\alpha \beta }`$ be the corresponding conserved energy momentum tensor:

$$^\alpha T_{\alpha \beta }=0.$$
(46)
The coupling of gravity to the brane matter is described by the following term in the action:

$$\frac{1}{2}_\mathrm{\Sigma }d^{D2}xT^{\alpha \beta }\overline{h}_{\alpha \beta },$$
(47)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the $`r=0`$ hypersurface corresponding to the brane (note that on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ $`h_{\alpha \beta }`$ and $`\overline{h}_{\alpha \beta }`$ coincide as $`A(r=0)=0`$). Since $`\dot{A}(r=0)=1/\mathrm{\Delta }0`$, this coupling is invariant under the aforementioned diffeomorphisms if and only if

$$TT_\alpha ^\alpha =0,$$
(48)
that is, if and only if the brane matter is conformal.

So, at the tree level, to have a consistent coupling between gravity and the brane matter we must assume that the latter is conformal††††††This is similar to what happens in the setup of .. Note, however, that the conformal property cannot generically persist beyond the tree-level. Indeed, the volume of the extra two dimensions in the above solution is finite:

$$\stackrel{~}{v}_2=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑r_0^{2\pi }𝑑\varphi \sqrt{\overline{G}}\mathrm{exp}(DA)=2\pi \mathrm{exp}(\beta )\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{(D1)(D2)}.$$
(49)
This implies that the $`(D2)`$-dimensional Planck scale on the brane is finite:

$$\widehat{M}_P^{D4}=M_P^{D2}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑r_0^{2\pi }𝑑\varphi \sqrt{\overline{G}}\mathrm{exp}[(D2)A]=4\pi \lambda \mathrm{exp}(\beta )M_P^{D2}.$$
(50)
That is, we have a quadratically normalizable $`(D2)`$-dimensional graviton zero mode. The conformal invariance of the matter localized on the brane is then generically expected to be broken by loop corrections involving gravity.

Thus, in the above brane world solution we have a quantum inconsistency discussed in  in other setups. Note that such an inconsistency does not arise in the setup of . The key reason is that in the codimension-1 solution of  (which we reviewed in section II) there are no propagating degrees of freedom in the bulk. In the above codimension-2 solution, however, we do have such degrees of freedom, in particular, the aforementioned graviscalar degree of freedom $`\overline{h}_{\varphi \varphi }`$ propagates in the bulk. A simple way to see this is to recall that, as we pointed out at the end of the previous section, at large $`r`$ the metric in this solution approaches that of AdS$`{}_{D1}{}^{}\times S^1`$, so we do have a propagating degree of freedom corresponding to the reduction on $`S^1`$. This then implies that (unlike in the codimension-1 solution) here we do have loop corrections in the bulk, and the corresponding higher curvature terms will generically delocalize gravity .

## V Comments

We would like to end our discussion with a few remarks. First, note that the above codimension-2 solution, where the brane world-volume is flat, exists for a continuous range of values of the solitonic brane tension‡‡‡‡‡‡More precisely, it exists for $`0<f_{D2}<f_{\mathrm{crit}}`$; at the critical brane tension $`f_{\mathrm{crit}}=4\pi M_P^{D2}`$ the deficit angle $`\theta =2\pi `$.. However, this is not a “self-tuning” solution for two reasons. First, to have a consistent tree-level coupling between gravity and brane matter the latter must be conformal. Second, the aforementioned special choice of the Gauss-Bonnet coupling (unlike in the codimension-1 solution of ) is sensitive to quantum corrections in the bulk.

Note that the issues (which are expected to arise at the quantum level as we discussed at the end of the previous section) with the coupling between the brane matter and gravity as well as with delocalization of gravity by higher curvature terms in the bulk need not arise in scenarios with infinite volume extra dimensions , at least in higher codimension cases. Here the four-dimensional gravity on the brane is obtained via the Einstein-Hilbert term on the brane, which is generically expected to be generated by quantum effects on the brane as long as the brane world-volume theory is not conformal . As was pointed out in , this is expected to be the case in the string theory context as well. Thus, in the orbifold examples of \**\**\**The following is also correct for the orientifold examples of . In considering such examples with, say, $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry, however, some caution is needed due to the subtleties discussed in . we always have non-conformal $`U(1)`$ factors. Also, in other examples such as conifolds  already the non-Abelian gauge subgroups are non-conformal in the ultra-violet (albeit they are conformal in the infra-red). As was argued in , in the aforementioned examples (which are conformal in the infra-red, but are non-conformal in the ultra-violet) in the context of AdS/CFT correspondence  on the Type IIB side various higher curvature terms intrinsically due to the compactification\*†\*†\*†These should not be confused with the higher dimensional terms already present in ten dimensions, which do not affect conformality . become important. Finally, recently non-conformal theories (that is, theories that are not conformal even in the infra-red) were discussed in  within a modification of the setup of . Some of these theories can be discussed in the context of a certain brane-bulk duality , which might provide a framework for computing gravitational corrections (such as the Einstein-Hilbert term) on D-branes.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank Gregory Gabadadze and Slava Zhukov for valuable discussions. This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation. Z.K. would also like to thank Albert and Ribena Yu for financial support.


text:
# Laplacian Growth and Diffusion Limited Aggregation: different universality classes

## Abstract

It had been conjectured that Diffusion Limited Aggregates and Laplacian Growth Patterns (with small surface tension) are in the same universality class. Using iterated conformal maps we construct a 1-parameter family of fractal growth patterns with a continuously varying fractal dimension. This family can be used to bound the dimension of Laplacian Growth Patterns from below. The bound value is higher than the dimension of Diffusion Limited Aggregates, showing that the two problems belong to two different universality classes.

Laplacian Growth Patterns are obtained when the boundary $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of a 2-dimensional domain is grown at a rate proportional to the gradient of a Laplacian field $`P`$. Outside the domain $`^2P=0`$, and each point of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is advanced at a rate proportional to $`\mathbf{}P`$ . It is well known that without ultra-violet regularization such growth results in finite time singularities . In correspondence with experiments on viscous fingering one usually adds surface tension, or in other words solves the above problem with the boundary condition $`P=\sigma \kappa `$ where $`\sigma `$ is the surface tension and $`\kappa `$ the local curvature of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ . The other boundary condition is that as $`r\mathrm{}`$ the flux is $`\mathbf{}P=\mathrm{const}\times \widehat{r}/r`$. Fig. 1 (left) shows a typical Laplacian Growth Pattern.

Diffusion Limited Aggregation (DLA)  begins with fixing one particle at the center of coordinates in 2-dimensions, and follows the creation of a cluster by releasing fixed size random walkers from infinity, allowing them to walk around until they hit any particle belonging to the cluster. Since the particles are released one by one and may take arbitrarily long time to hit the cluster, the probability field is quasi-stationary and in the complement of the cluster we have again $`^2P=0`$. In this case the boundary condition on the cluster is $`P=0`$, but finite time singularities are avoided by having finite size particles. The boundary condition at infinity is exactly as above. A typical DLA is shown on Fig.1 (right).

In spite of the different ultra-violet regularizations of Laplacian Growth and DLA, it was speculated by many authors  that the two problems belong to the same “universality class”, and it was expected that the resulting fractal patterns will have the same dimension. In this Letter we argue that this is not the case: there are deep differences between the two problems, and in particular Laplacian Growth Patterns have a dimension considerably higher than DLA. In one sentence, the differences between the problems stem from the fact that Laplacian Patterns are grown layer by layer, whereas DLA is grown particle by particle. Unfortunately, traditional techniques used to grow Laplacian Growth patterns, either numerical  or experimental , fail to achieve patterns large enough to extract reliable dimensions (and see Fig.9 in  for example). The numerical algorithms are extremely time consuming due to the stiffness of the equations involved; experimentally it is difficult to construct large quasi two-dimensional (Hele-Shaw) cells without introducing serious deformations.

The aim of this Letter is to provide a scheme to simulate the zero surface tension Laplacian Growth that has a finite size regularization and thus does not suffer from finite time singularities. We introduce a 1-parameter family of growth processes based on iterated conformal maps . Contrary to DLA which grows particle by particle, we will construct the family of growth processes to mimic Laplacian Growth, in which a layer is added to the boundary $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ at each growth step, with a width proportional to the gradient of the field. Consider then $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(n)}(w)`$ which conformally maps the exterior of the unit circle $`e^{i\theta }`$ in the mathematical $`w`$–plane onto the complement of the (simply-connected) cluster of $`n`$ particles in the physical $`z`$–plane. The unit circle is mapped onto the boundary of the cluster. The map $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(n)}(w)`$ is made from compositions of elementary maps $`\varphi _{\lambda ,\theta }`$,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{(n)}(w)=\mathrm{\Phi }^{(n1)}(\varphi _{\lambda _n,\theta _n}(w)),$$
(1)
where the elementary map $`\varphi _{\lambda ,\theta }`$ transforms the unit circle to a circle with a “bump” of linear size $`\sqrt{\lambda }`$ around the point $`w=e^{i\theta }`$. In this Letter we employ the elementary map

$`\varphi _{\lambda ,0}(w)=\sqrt{w}\{{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\lambda )}{2w}}(1+w)`$ (2)
$`\times [1+w+w(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{w^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{w}}{\displaystyle \frac{1\lambda }{1+\lambda }})^{1/2}]1\}^{1/2}`$ (3)
$`\varphi _{\lambda ,\theta }(w)=e^{i\theta }\varphi _{\lambda ,0}(e^{i\theta }w),`$ (4)
With this choice the map $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(n)}(w)`$ adds on a new semi-circular bump to the image of the unit circle under $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(n1)}(w)`$. The bumps in the $`z`$-plane simulate the accreted particles in the physical space formulation of the growth process. The recursive dynamics can be represented as iterations of the map $`\varphi _{\lambda _n,\theta _n}(w)`$,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{(n)}(w)=\varphi _{\lambda _1,\theta _1}\varphi _{\lambda _2,\theta _2}\mathrm{}\varphi _{\lambda _n,\theta _n}(\omega ).$$
(5)
With the present technique it is also straightforward to determine the dimension. The conformal map $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(n)}(\omega )`$ admits a Laurent expansion

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{(n)}(\omega )=F_1^{(n)}\omega +F_0^{(n)}+\frac{F_1^{(n)}}{\omega }+\mathrm{}.$$
(6)
The coefficient of the linear term is the Laplace radius, and was shown to scale like

$$F_1^{(n)}S^{1/D},$$
(7)
where $`S`$ is the area of the cluster (the sum of the actual areas of the bumps in the physical space). On the other hand $`F_1^{(n)}`$ is given analytically by

$$F_1^{(n)}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}\sqrt{(1+\lambda _k)},$$
(8)
and therefore can be determined very accurately.

Different growth processes can be constructed by proper choices of the itineraries $`\{\theta _i\}_{i=1}^n`$ , and rules for determining the areas of the bumps $`\{\lambda _i\}_{i=1}^n`$. In DLA growth  one wants to have fixed size bumps in the physical space, say of fixed area $`\lambda _0`$. Then one chooses in the $`n`$th step

$$\lambda _n=\frac{\lambda _0}{|\mathrm{\Phi }_{}^{(n1)}{}_{}{}^{}(e^{i\theta _n})|^2},\mathrm{DLA}\mathrm{growth}.$$
(9)
The probability to add a particle to the boundary of the DLA cluster is the harmonic measure, which is uniform on the circle. Thus in DLA the itinerary $`\{\theta _i\}_{i=1}^n`$ is random, with uniform probability for $`\theta _i`$ in the interval $`[0,2\pi ]`$.

For our present purposes we want to grow a layer of particles of varying sizes, proportional to the gradient of the field, rather than one particle of fixed size. This entails three major changes. First, if we want to grow one particle of size proportional to the gradient of the field, (i.e. area proportional to $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_{}^{(n1)}{}_{}{}^{}(e^{i\theta _n})|^2`$) we need to choose

$$\lambda _n=\frac{\lambda _0}{|\mathrm{\Phi }_{}^{(n1)}{}_{}{}^{}(e^{i\theta _n})|^4},\mathrm{present}\mathrm{models}.$$
(10)
Second, to grow a layer, we need to accrete many particles without updating the conformal map. In other words, to add a new layer of $`p`$ particles when the cluster contains $`m`$ particles, we need to choose $`p`$ angles on the unit circle $`\{\stackrel{~}{\theta }_{m+k}\}_{k=1}^p`$. At these angles we grow bumps which in the physical space are proportional in size to the gradient of the field around the $`m`$-particle cluster:

$$\lambda _{m+k}=\frac{\lambda _0}{|\mathrm{\Phi }_{}^{(m)}{}_{}{}^{}(e^{i\stackrel{~}{\theta }_{m+k}})|^4},k=1,2\mathrm{},p.$$
(11)
Lastly, and very importantly, we need to choose the itinerary $`\{\stackrel{~}{\theta }_{m+k}\}_{k=1}^p`$ which defines the layer. This itinerary is chosen to achieve a uniform coverage of the unit circle before any growth takes place. The parameter that will distinguish one growth model from another, giving us a 1-parameter control, is the degree of coverage. In other words we introduce the parameter

$$𝒞=\frac{1}{\pi }\underset{k+1}{\overset{p}{}}\sqrt{\lambda _{m+k}}.$$
(12)
This parameter is the fraction of the unit circle which is covered in each layer, with the limit of Laplacian Growth obtained with $`𝒞=1`$. It turns out to be rather time consuming to grow fractal patterns with $`𝒞`$ close to unity. But we will show below that this is hardly necessary; already for $`𝒞`$ of the order of 1/2 we will find patterns whose fractal dimension significantly exceeds that of DLA, offering a clear lower bound on the dimension of Laplacian Growth patterns.

Once a layer with coverage $`𝒞`$ had been grown, the field is updated. To do this, we define a series $`\{\theta _k\}_{k=1}^p`$ according to

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{(m)}(e^{i\stackrel{~}{\theta }_{m+k}})\mathrm{\Phi }^{(m+k1)}(e^{i\theta _{m+k}}).$$
(13)
Next we define the conformal map used in the next layer growth according to

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{(m+p)}(\omega )\mathrm{\Phi }^{(m)}\varphi _{\theta _{m+1},\lambda _{m+1}}\mathrm{}\varphi _{\theta _{m+p},\lambda _{m+p}}(\omega ).$$
(14)
It is important to notice that on the face of it this conformal map appears very similar to the one obtained in DLA, Eqs.(1), (5). But this is deceptive; the distribution of $`\theta `$ values is different, we do not update the map after each particle, and the growth rule is different.

We can achieve a uniform coverage $`𝒞`$ using various itineraries. One way is to construct the “golden mean trajectory” $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }_{m+k+1}=\stackrel{~}{\theta }_{m+k}+2\pi \rho `$ where $`\rho =(\sqrt{5}1)/2`$. At each step we check whether the newly grown bump may overlap a previous one in the layer. If it does, this growth step is skipped and the orbit continues until a fraction $`𝒞`$ is covered. Another method is random choices of $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }_{m+k}`$ with the same rule of skipping overlaps. We have tried several other itineraries. Of course, to be an acceptable model of Laplacian growth the resulting cluster should be invariant to the itinerary. This invariance is demonstrated below. The central thesis of this work is that the dimension of the resulting growth patterns is dependent on $`𝒞`$ only, and not on the itinerary chosen to achieve it. Numerically it is more efficient to use the golden mean itinerary since it avoids as much as possible previously visited regions. In order to achieve comparable growth rates for different layers we inflated $`\lambda _0`$ in Eq.(11) according to $`\lambda _0m\lambda _0`$ in the layer composed of $`p`$ particles $`\{m+k\}_{k=1}^p`$. In Fig. 2 we show $`F_1`$ of clusters grown by choosing 3 different itineraries to produce the layers and for two values of $`𝒞`$.

We conclude that the dimension (determined by the asymptotic behavior of $`F_1`$ vs. $`S`$) does not depend on the itinerary used to form the layers but on $`𝒞`$ only.

In Fig.3 we show three fractal patterns grown with this method, with three different values of $`𝒞`$. Even a cursory observation should convince the reader that the dimension of these patterns grows upon increasing $`𝒞`$.

In order to calculate the dimension we averaged $`F_1`$ of many clusters produced by the golden mean itinerary, each with another random initial angle in each layer. Plots of the averages $`F_1`$ for 3 values of $`𝒞`$ are presented in Fig. 4.

We conclude that the dimension of the growth pattern increases monotonically with $`𝒞`$, with $`D1.85`$ when $`𝒞=0.6`$.

The main point of this analysis is that the dimension of Laplacian growth patterns is bounded from below by the supremum on the dimensions obtained in this family of models. First, Laplacian Growth calls for $`𝒞=1`$. Second, in Laplacian Growth the boundary condition is $`P=\sigma \kappa `$, suppressing growth at the tips (and relatively favoring growth in the fjords) compared to growth with the boundary condition $`P=0`$. Accordingly, on the basis of the results shown in Fig.4, we propose that the dimension of Laplacian Growth patterns exceeds 1.85, putting it distinctively away from the dimension of DLA which is about 1.71 .

In hindsight, it is difficult to understand how the consensus formed in favor of DLA and Laplacian Growth being in the same universality class. Superficially one could say that in DLA the update of the harmonic measure after each particle is not so crucial, since the effect of such an update is relatively local . Thus it may just work that a full layer of particles would be added to the cluster before major interaction between different growth events takes place. However this view is completely wrong. An incoming random walker lands on top of a previously attached one very often. To see this, consider how many angels $`\{\theta _j\}`$ can be chosen randomly on the unit circle before the first overlap between bumps (of linear sizes $`ϵ_j=\sqrt{\lambda _n(e^{i\theta _j})}`$). To get the order of magnitude take $`ϵ_j=ϵ=\sqrt{\lambda _n}`$. The average number of times that we can choose randomly an angle before the first overlap is $`𝒩(ϵ)\frac{1}{\sqrt{ϵ}}`$. The Length of the unit circle that is covered at that time by the already chosen bumps is $`(ϵ)=ϵ𝒩(ϵ)\sqrt{ϵ}`$. It was shown in  that for DLA $`\lambda _n\frac{1}{n}`$, so that $`ϵ\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}`$, implying $`𝒩(n)n^{1/4}`$. Notice that this result means in particular that for a DLA cluster of 1 million particles only less than 50 random walkers can be attached before two of them will arrive at the same site! Moreover, $`(n)\frac{1}{n^{1/4}}0`$ for $`n\mathrm{}`$, which means that as the DLA cluster grows, our coverage parameter $`𝒞`$ goes to zero, rather than to unity where Laplacian Growth is. Taking spatial fluctuations of $`\lambda _n`$ into account may change the exact exponents but not the qualitative result. This argument clarifies the profound difference between growing a whole layer simultaneously and particle-by-particle. Note however that DLA is NOT the $`𝒞0`$ limit of our 1-parameter family due to the difference between Eqs.(9) and (10).

The results of this study underline once more the delicacy of the issues involved. Fractal patterns depend sensitively on the details of the growth rules. Even though the analytic presentation seems very similar, to the degree that many researchers were led to believe in wide universality classes, we showed here that one must be much more cautious. By lifting the models into families of growth patterns depending on a parameter we could demonstrate strong variability of the fractal dimension. Here we constructed the family to bound from below Laplacian Growth patterns.A similar family can be constructed to bound DLA from above. This and other aspects of this method will be reported elsewhere.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work has been supported in part by the European Commission under the TMR program and the Naftali and Anna Backenroth-Bronicki Fund for Research in Chaos and Complexity.