format: text

text:
# Dephasing Effect in Photon-Assisted Resonant Tunneling through Quantum Dots

\[

## Abstract

We analyze dephasing in single and double quantum dot systems. The decoherence is introduced by the Büttiker model with current conserving fictitious voltage leads connected to the dots. By using the non-equilibrium Green function method, we investigate the dephasing effect on the tunneling current. It is shown that a finite dephasing rate leads to observable effects. The result can be used to measure dephasing rates in quantum dots.

\]

Recently, several experimental and theoretical studies have been devoted to the analysis of effects of a time-dependent field on the resonance tunneling through coupled double quantum dots. Quantum dot systems are of great current interests because of their fundamental physics as well as potential applications as possible quantum-computing devices. For the purpose of quantum computation, phase coherence plays an important role. However, in the previous studies of double-dot systems, the dephasing effect, caused by the electron-electron or electron-phonon interaction, has been ignored.

In this paper we study the decoherence effect on I-V characters in single and double dot systems. In a single-dot system, we find that dephasing causes minor changes in the tunneling current. On the other hand, in the pumping set-up of a double-dot system, in which the chemical potentials on the left and right measurement leads are equal, we find that the photon-assisted resonant tunneling current is sensitive to the dephasing rate. Thus, it provides a possible way to measure the dephasing rate in double-dot systems.

To introduce the dephasing effect into the system, we use the Büttiker model. In this approach, a system is connected to virtual electron reservoirs through fictitious voltage leads. With certain possibility, electrons are scattered into these reservoirs, lose their phase memories, then re-injected into the system. The chemical potential of the reservoir is chosen such that there is no net current flow between the system and the reservoir in order to satisfy the current conservation in the system. In the original Büttiker model, only dc transport has been considered. In our case, the gate voltage is modulated by injected microwave. Consequently, we have to extend the constraint such that each Fourier component of the current through a fictitious voltage lead vanishes.

Single Quantum Dot. Before discussing the more interesting case of double-dot systems, we first consider the simpler system of a single quantum dot. The dot is connected to two reservoirs ($`l`$ and $`r`$) and a fictitious voltage probe ($`\varphi `$). The potential on the dot is controlled by a side-gate voltage. The Hamiltonian can be written as

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`H_0+H_\varphi ,`$
where

$`H_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha k}{}}ϵ_{\alpha k}(t)c_{\alpha k}^+c_{\alpha k}+ϵ(t)d^+d+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha k}{}}[t_{\alpha k}c_{\alpha k}^+d+h.c.],`$
and

$`H_\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}ϵ_k(t)c_{\varphi k}^+c_{\varphi k}+{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}[t_{\varphi k}c_{\varphi k}^+d+h.c.].`$
$`H_0`$ is the Hamiltonian of the system without the fictitious probe and $`\alpha =l,r`$ are the indices for the left and right leads. $`c_{\alpha k}^+`$($`c_{\alpha k}`$) creates (annihilates) an electron in lead $`\alpha `$ while $`d^+`$($`d`$) creates (annihilates) an electron in the dot. $`H_\varphi `$ is the Hamiltonian of the fictitious probe, and $`c_{\varphi k}^+(c_{\varphi k})`$ is the electron creation (annihilation) operator in the fictitious probe. The microwave injection is modeled as ac side-bias which imposes a time-dependent site energy of the quantum dot $`ϵ(t)=ϵ_0+ev_{ac}\mathrm{cos}\omega _0t`$. The chemical potential and the time-dependent voltage of the fictitious probe are determined by the condition that the total current flowing through the probe $`\varphi `$ vanishes.

The time-dependent current from reservoir $`\alpha `$ to the dot can be expressed as

$`I_\alpha (t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2e}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}dt_1{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{dϵ}{2\pi }}\mathrm{Im}\{e^{iϵ(tt_1)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha (ϵ)`$ (1)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[i{\displaystyle _{t_1}^t}d\tau \mathrm{\Delta }_\alpha (\tau )\right][G^<(t,t_1)+f_\alpha (ϵ)G^r(t,t_1)]\},`$ (2)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha (ϵ)=2\pi \rho _\alpha (ϵ)|t_\alpha |^2`$ and $`\rho _\alpha `$ is the density of states of the reservoir $`\alpha `$. $`\alpha `$ is the index for the left, right, or fictitious voltage lead. For simplicity, we use the wide-band approximation, i.e., treating the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha (ϵ)`$ as a constant, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha (ϵ)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha `$. Within the wide-band approximation, the retarded Green function $`G^r`$ takes the form

$`G^r(t,t^{})`$ $`=`$ $`i\theta (tt^{})\mathrm{exp}\{i[ϵ_0i{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0+\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi }{2}}](tt^{})`$
$`i{\displaystyle _t^{}^t}d\tau \mathrm{\Delta }_{ac}(\tau )\},`$
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ac}(\tau )=ev_{ac}\mathrm{cos}\omega _0\tau `$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=\mathrm{\Gamma }_l+\mathrm{\Gamma }_r`$ is the energy broadening of the quantum dot due to the left and right leads, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi `$ is the broadening due to the fictitious voltage lead. The spectral density, which relates to $`G^r`$ through

$$A_\alpha (ϵ,t)=_{\mathrm{}}^t𝑑t_1e^{iϵ(tt_1)}e^{i_{t_1}^t𝑑\tau _{ac}(\tau )}G^r(t,t_1),$$
(3)
is given by

$`A_\alpha (ϵ,t)={\displaystyle \underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{J_m(\stackrel{~}{u}_\alpha )}{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_m^{(\varphi )}(ϵ)}}e^{i\stackrel{~}{u}_\alpha \mathrm{sin}\omega _0t}e^{im\omega _0t},`$

where $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_m^{(\varphi )}(ϵ)=ϵϵ_0m\mathrm{}\omega _0+i(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0+\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi )/2`$, $`\stackrel{~}{u}_0=ev_{ac}/\omega _0`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{u}_\varphi =e(v_\varphi v_{ac})/\omega _0`$.

The Keldysh Green function is related to the retarded and advanced Green functions through the Keldysh equation,

$`G^<(t,t^{})={\displaystyle 𝑑t_1𝑑t_2G^r(t,t_1)\mathrm{\Sigma }^<(t_1,t_2)G^a(t_2,t^{})}.`$

Again, using the wide-band approximation, we obtain the Keldysh self-energy

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }^<(t_1,t_2)=i[{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}f_\alpha (ϵ)\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha +f_\varphi (ϵ)\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi ]\delta (t_1t_2).`$

The Keldysh Green function is related to $`A_\alpha (ϵ,t)`$ through

$`2{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^t}𝑑t_1\mathrm{Im}\left\{e^{iϵ(tt_1)}\mathrm{exp}\left[i{\displaystyle _{t_1}^t}𝑑\tau \mathrm{\Delta }_\alpha (\tau )\right]G^<(t,t_1)\right\}=`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}f_\alpha (ϵ)\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha |A_\alpha (ϵ,t)|^2.`$
After some algebra, the current flowing through the fictitious probe is found to be

$$I_\varphi (t)=\frac{e}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi \underset{m,n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{dϵ}{2\pi }\frac{e^{i(mn)\omega _0t}}{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_m^{(\varphi )}(ϵ)[\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_n^{(\varphi )}(ϵ)]^{}}_{mn}^{(\varphi )}(ϵ),$$
(4)
where

$`_{mn}^{(\varphi )}(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`f_\varphi (ϵ)J_m(\stackrel{~}{u}_\varphi )J_n(\stackrel{~}{u}_\varphi )[i(mn)\omega _0)\mathrm{\Gamma }_0]`$
$`+[f_l(ϵ)\mathrm{\Gamma }_l+f_r(ϵ)\mathrm{\Gamma }_r]J_m(\stackrel{~}{u}_0)J_n(\stackrel{~}{u}_0).`$
To satisfy the condition that the total current flowing through the fictitious voltage probe $`\varphi `$ vanishes, one gets

$$f_\varphi (ϵ)J_m(\stackrel{~}{u}_\varphi )J_n(\stackrel{~}{u}_\varphi )=\overline{f}(ϵ)\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\frac{J_m(\stackrel{~}{u}_0)J_n(\stackrel{~}{u}_0)}{i(mn)\omega _0+\mathrm{\Gamma }_0},$$
(5)
where $`\overline{f}(ϵ)=(f_l\mathrm{\Gamma }_l+f_r\mathrm{\Gamma }_r)/\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ is an effective Fermi function of the dot without the fictitious voltage probe.

Using Eq.(2) and Eq.(5), the time-dependent current flowing through lead $`\alpha `$ can be expressed as

$`I_\alpha (t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{dϵ}{2\pi }\underset{m,n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e^{i(mn)\omega _0t}\mathrm{\Phi }_{mn}_{mn}^{(\varphi )}(ϵ)}`$ (7)
$`\times \left\{i(mn)\mathrm{}\omega _0f_\alpha (ϵ)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{\alpha }}\left[f_\alpha (ϵ)f_{\overline{\alpha }}(ϵ)\right]\right\},`$
where

$`_{mn}^{(\varphi )}(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{J_m(\stackrel{~}{u})J_n(\stackrel{~}{u})}{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_m^{(\varphi )}[\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_n^{(\varphi )}]^{}}}`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{mn}`$ $`=`$ $`(mn)\mathrm{}\omega _0{\displaystyle \frac{i(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0+\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi )}{(mn)\mathrm{}\omega _0i\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}},`$
Dephasing effect is represented in $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{mn}`$ through $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi `$.

The average current through the quantum dot can be obtained by summing the terms with $`m=n`$ in Eq.(7),

$`{\displaystyle \frac{<I>}{I_0}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dϵ}{2\pi }[f_l(ϵ)f_r(ϵ)]}`$ (8)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0+\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi }{(ϵϵ_0m\mathrm{}\omega _0)^2+\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0+\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi }{2}\right)^2}},`$ (9)
where

$`I_0={\displaystyle \frac{e}{h}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_l\mathrm{\Gamma }_r}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_l+\mathrm{\Gamma }_r}}.`$

Figure 1 shows the time-averaged current versus $`\omega _0`$. It can be clearly seen that the average current density through the quantum dot consists of a series of the resonant peaks at $`ϵ_0+m\mathrm{}\omega `$ and the dephasing causes the broadening of the resonant peaks. The dephasing only has a minor effect on the $`IV`$ curve since the current amplitude is insensitive to the dephasing. In particular, at large $`\mu _R\mu _L`$, $`<I>`$ approaches $`I_0`$, independent of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi `$.

Double Quantum Dots. We can generalize the single dot to a coupled double-dot system. The Hamiltonian is

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`H_0+H_\varphi `$
$`H_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,k}{}}ϵ_{\alpha ,k}(t)c_{\alpha ,k}^+c_{\alpha ,k}+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}ϵ_\alpha (t)d_\alpha ^+d_\alpha `$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,k}{}}[t_{\alpha k}c_{\alpha k}^+d_\alpha +h.c.]+[\mathrm{\Delta }d_l^+d_r+h.c.],`$
$`H_\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,k}{}}ϵ_{\alpha ,k}^{(\varphi )}(t)c_{\alpha ,k}^{(\varphi )+}c_{\alpha ,k}^{(\varphi )}+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,k}{}}[t_{\alpha k}^{(\varphi )}c_{\alpha k}^{(\varphi )+}d_\alpha +h.c.].`$
Comparing with the Hamiltonian for a single dot, two fictitious voltage probes $`c_{\alpha ,k}^{(\varphi )}`$ ($`\alpha =l,r`$) are connected to the two dots. The current flowing in and out the reservoirs can still be calculated by Eq.(2) provided that $`𝐆^r`$ and $`𝐆^<`$ are now $`2\times 2`$ matrices with the matrix elements associated with the left and right dots. The time-dependent current flowing through the measurement lead $`\alpha `$ ($`\eta =0`$, $`\alpha =l,r`$) or the fictitious voltage lead $`\alpha `$ ($`\eta =\varphi `$, $`\alpha =l,r`$) can be expressed as

$`I_\alpha ^{(\eta )}(t)={\displaystyle \frac{e}{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha {\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{dϵ}{2\pi }}[{\displaystyle \underset{\beta }{}}f_\beta ^{(\varphi )}(ϵ)\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi ^{(\beta )}|A_{\alpha \beta }^{(\varphi ,\beta )}(ϵ,t)|^2`$ (10)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\beta }{}}f_\beta (ϵ)\mathrm{\Gamma }_\beta |A_{\alpha \beta }^{(\beta )}(ϵ,t)|^2+2f_\alpha (ϵ)\mathrm{Im}A_{\alpha \alpha }^{(\eta ,\alpha )}(ϵ,t)],`$ (11)
where $`A_{\alpha \beta }^{(\eta ,\beta )}(t,ϵ)`$ ($`\eta =0,\varphi `$) are the matrix elements of the spectral function. The diagonal elements are

$`A_{\alpha \alpha }^{(\eta ,\alpha )}(ϵ,t)=e^{i\stackrel{~}{u}_\alpha ^{(\eta )}\mathrm{sin}\omega _0t}{\displaystyle \underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{J_m(\stackrel{~}{u}_\alpha ^{(\eta )})e^{im\omega _0t}}{_\alpha ^{(\varphi )}(ϵ,m)}},`$

and the non-diagonal elements ($`\alpha \beta `$) are

$`A_{\alpha \beta }^{(\eta ,\beta )}(ϵ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }e^{i(\stackrel{~}{u}_\beta ^{(\eta )}+\stackrel{~}{u}_0)\mathrm{sin}\omega _0t}`$ (12)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{J_m(\stackrel{~}{u}_\beta ^{(\eta )})e^{im\omega _0t}}{_\beta ^{(\varphi )}(ϵ,m)}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{J_k(\stackrel{~}{u}_0)e^{ik\omega _0t}}{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_\alpha ^{(\varphi )}(m+k)}},`$ (13)
with

$`_m^{(\alpha )}(ϵ,\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_\alpha ^{(\varphi )}(m)|\mathrm{\Delta }|^2{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{J_k^2(\stackrel{~}{u}_0)}{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{\overline{\alpha }}^{(\varphi )}(m+k)}},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_\alpha ^{(\varphi )}(m)`$ $`=`$ $`ϵϵ_\alpha m\mathrm{}\omega _0+i{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha +\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi ^{(\alpha )}}{2}},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{u}_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u_\alpha v_\alpha }{\mathrm{}\omega _0}},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{u}_\alpha ^{(\varphi )}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u_\alpha v_\alpha ^{(\varphi )}}{\mathrm{}\omega _0}},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{u}_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u_1u_2}{\mathrm{}\omega _0}}.`$
We further require the net current through each fictitious probe to vanish, i.e., $`I_\alpha ^{(\varphi )}(t)=0`$. From this constraint, we can obtain relations among $`f_\beta ^{(\varphi )}(ϵ)`$, $`f_\beta (ϵ)`$, $`A_{\alpha ,\beta }^{(\varphi ,\beta )}(ϵ,t)`$ and $`A_{\alpha ,\beta }^{(\beta )}(ϵ,t)`$. Using these relations to replace $`_\beta f_\beta ^{(\varphi )}(ϵ)\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi ^{(\beta )}|A_{\alpha \beta }^{(\varphi ,\beta )}(ϵ,t)|^2`$ in Eq.(11), we obtain the current through lead $`\alpha `$,

$`I_\alpha (t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dϵ}{2\pi }\underset{m,n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e^{i(mn)\omega _0t}\mathrm{\Phi }_{mn}(ϵ)\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha }`$ (15)
$`[i(mn)\mathrm{}\omega _0f_\alpha (ϵ)𝒬_{mn}^{(\alpha )}(ϵ,\varphi )+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{\alpha }}|\mathrm{\Delta }|^2_\alpha (ϵ)].`$
In the above equation,

$`_\alpha ^{(j)}(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`f_\alpha (ϵ)_{mn}^{(\alpha )}(ϵ,\varphi )f_{\overline{\alpha }}(ϵ)_{mn}^{(\overline{\alpha })}(ϵ,\varphi ),`$
$`_{mn}^{(\alpha )}(ϵ,\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{J_m(\stackrel{~}{u}_\alpha )J_n(\stackrel{~}{u}_\alpha )}{_m^{(\alpha )}(ϵ,\varphi )_n^{(\alpha )}(ϵ,\varphi )}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{mn}^{(\overline{\alpha })}(ϵ,\varphi ),`$
$`𝒬_{mn}^{(\alpha ,\varphi )}(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{J_m(\stackrel{~}{u}_\alpha )J_n(\stackrel{~}{u}_\alpha )}{_m^{(\alpha )}(ϵ,\varphi )_n^{(\alpha )}(ϵ,\varphi )}}[1+|\mathrm{\Delta }|^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{mn}^{(\overline{\alpha })}(ϵ,\varphi )`$
$`+\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi ^{(\overline{\alpha })}{\displaystyle \frac{1|\mathrm{\Delta }|^4\mathrm{\Lambda }_{mn}^{(\alpha )}(ϵ,\varphi )\mathrm{\Lambda }_{mn}^{(\overline{\alpha })}(ϵ,\varphi )}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{2,mn}^{(\overline{\alpha })}(ϵ)}}]`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{mn}^{(\alpha )}(ϵ,\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{J_k^2(\stackrel{~}{u}_0)}{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_\alpha ^{(\varphi )}(m+k)[\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_\alpha ^{(\varphi )}(n+k)]^{}}}`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{mn}(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{1,mn}^{(l)}(ϵ)\mathrm{\Omega }_{1,mn}^{(r)}(ϵ)/\mathrm{\Omega }_{0,mn}^{(l)}(ϵ)\mathrm{\Omega }_{0,mn}^{(r)}(ϵ)}{1|\mathrm{\Delta }|^4\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi ^{(l)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi ^{(r)}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{mn}^{(l)}(ϵ,\varphi )\mathrm{\Lambda }_{mn}^{(r)}(ϵ,\varphi )}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{0,mn}^{(l)}(ϵ)\mathrm{\Omega }_{0,mn}^{(r)}(ϵ)}}}`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,mn}^{(\alpha )}(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`i(mn)\omega _0\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha +j\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi ^{(\alpha )}\right)+`$
$`|\mathrm{\Delta }|^2\left[i(mn)\omega _0\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{\alpha }}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi ^{(\overline{\alpha })}\right)\right]\mathrm{\Lambda }_{mn}^{(\alpha )}(ϵ,\varphi )`$
The time average of the current $`\overline{I}=I_l(t)_t=I_r(t)_t`$ can be obtained

$`\overline{I}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_l\mathrm{\Gamma }_r|\mathrm{\Delta }|^2{\displaystyle \frac{dϵ}{2\pi }\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{mm}(ϵ)}`$ (17)
$`[f_l(ϵ)_{mm}^{(l)}(ϵ,\varphi )f_r(ϵ)_{mm}^{(r)}(ϵ,\varphi )].`$
From the above expression, one finds a non-zero tunneling current even without dc bias between the right and left leads. It is consistent with the experimental observations.

Figure 2 shows the time-averaged tunneling current $`<I>`$ for different dephasing strength $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi `$. $`<I>`$ strongly depends on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi `$. In real systems, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi `$ is a function of temperature. Temperature has two effects on the tunneling current: the direct contribution from Fermi distribution function and the indirect contribution through $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi `$. We find that at low temperatures the temperature dependence of the current is essentially determined by the temperature dependence of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi `$. The current is almost independent of temperature within $`kT|ϵ_lϵ_r|`$ while the dephasing strength $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi `$ is set to a constant. Thus, by measuring the temperature dependence of the current, it is possible to determine the temperature dependence of the dephasing rate in double-dot systems.

It is commonly believed that the dephasing strength $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi `$ is a power law function of temperature $`T`$. Hence, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi `$ approaches zero as $`T`$ goes to zero. However, this consensus has been challenged in a recent experiment in which $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi `$ was found to saturate to finite values in many one or two dimensional systems. The question remains whether such a saturation exists in the zero-dimensional quantum dots. We suggest that this issue can be resolved in double-dot systems by studying the temperature dependence of the tunneling current. Figure 3 shows the temperature dependence of the average current. The current is calculated by assuming two different kinds of temperature dependence of the dephasing strength $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi `$ . The first kind is the normal linear dependence (Other power-law dependence gives rise to qualitatively similar results.) with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi =\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\frac{T}{T_0}`$ ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=0.5`$ and $`T_0=2`$ in the plot.). The second kind is the abnormal temperature dependence with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi =\mathrm{\Gamma }_0/\mathrm{tanh}(\frac{T_0}{T})`$, in which the dephasing rate saturates at low temperatures. Figure 3 clearly shows that the average current exhibits distinct behaviors at low $`T`$ for these two temperature dependence of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi `$. Thus, one can detect the possible dephasing rate saturation in a double-dot system by measuring the tunneling current.

Before summary, we would like to comment on the difference between single-dot and double-dot systems. Although the dephasing effect shows up in both single-dot and double-dot systems, the most pronounced effect is under the pumping situation (Fig.2) in double dots (There is no pumping effect in single-dot systems.). In a non-pumping situation in double dots, i.e., the chemical potentials are not equal on the left and the right leads, the dephasing effect is reduced. To see this, one can rewrite the current (Eq.(8)) into two terms, one contains $`(f_l(ϵ)f_r(ϵ))(_{mm}^{(l)}(ϵ,\varphi )+_{mm}^{(r)}(ϵ,\varphi ))`$ and the other contains $`(f_l(ϵ)+f_r(ϵ))(_{mm}^{(l)}(ϵ,\varphi )_{mm}^{(r)}(ϵ,\varphi ))`$. The first term shows a similar behavior for the current in a single-dot, whereas the second term gives a similar behavior for the pumping current. Thus, in a non-pumping set-up, the tunneling current is like the pumping case (Fig.2) superimposed by a curve similar as shown in Fig.1 which makes the dephasing effect less pronounced.

In summary, we analyze the dephasing effects in photon-assisted tunneling in quantum dots. The dephasing effect is introduced by using fictitious voltage probes. We find that the time-averaged current is insensitive to dephasing in single-dot systems. However, in the pumping set-up of double-dot systems, dephasing has profound effect in the tunneling current which can be measured to determine the dephasing rate.

Acknowledgments: This work was supported by US-DOE and NSF-China.


text:
# Why stripes? Spontaneous formation of inhomogeneous structures due to elastic interactions

## Abstract

We argue that elastic interactions between ions in different valence states can play an essential role in stabilization of stripes (or $`2D`$ “sheets”) in doped oxides. These interactions are in general long-range and anisotropic (attractive in certain directions and repulsive in others). This can naturally give rise to stripe-like structures in insulating materials. We illustrate this general idea with certain specific examples and show that the situation can be described by the Ising model with anisotropic interactions. The case of anisotropic impurities, relevant e.g. for manganites, is also briefly discussed. ***Accepted for publication in Europhysics Letters

PACS numbers: 71.28.+d, 61.50.Ah, 64.75.+g

The notion of stripes became recently one of the most important concepts in the physics of doped Mott insulators. There are many theoretical  and experimental  indications that they indeed arise in doped transition metal oxides; there exist also serious arguments that they may play an important role in high-temperature superconductivity .

Despite very intense studies in this field, the origin of stripes in real materials is far from being well understood. Following the pioneering work  the main attention is paid to the purely electronic and magnetic mechanisms of stripe formation . However the existence of stripes in this approach is still controversial .

When discussing the origin of stripes in doped oxides, one usually starts with Mott insulators with an integer number of electrons per site forming local magnetic moments. Generically their ground state is antiferromagnetic. In this case, one argues that with doping a superstructure may develop consisting of antiferromagnetic domains, the doped charge carriers being localised at the domain walls. This reflects the general tendency: instability of a homogeneous state in doped strongly correlated electron systems toward phase separation . Stripe phases are possible manifestations of this tendency.

Why are stripe phases better than any other forms of phase separation? This is the main question, which, in our opinion, still did not find a satisfactory answer. One can argue that in systems with only short-range interaction, such as the conventional Hubbard or $`t`$$`J`$ models, one would rather expect a total phase separation into two phases: an antiferromagnetic insulator without any holes ($`n=1`$) and another phase—metallic and probably ferromagnetic—containing all the holes; this state allows to gain the full kinetic energy of holes, and simultaneously it costs a minimum of surface energy.

To stabilize the stripe phase, one often invokes long-range Coulomb interaction which prevents the large-scale phase separation . However, for the strong long-range repulsion we would rather expect not stripes but a sort of Wigner crystal, in which the doped carriers keep as far away from each other as possible. In this case, stripes, and even more so two-dimensional sheets observed e.g. in manganites , are definitely less favourable. One then argues that stripes would be stable in the intermediate case. And although this scenario is of course not excluded, it seems that some important physical factors are missing from such a picture. Note also that in nickelates and manganites, in contrast to cuprates, the metal-centered stripes would not correspond to the antiferromagnetic domain walls inherent to the conventional theories .

We argue that there is indeed one such factor, which exists in all real systems and which can, in principle, stabilize the stripe and sheet phases. This factor is the long-range elastic interaction. We consider below the insulating materials (nickelates, overdoped manganites) with the so called filled stripes (one hole per site); the situation in cuprates with presumably half-filled stripes may be more complicated, although we believe that the factors invoked below can also play an important role there.

When we dope a stoichiometric system, e.g. substitute Ca for La in LaMnO3, we create Mn4+ ions in the Mn3+ matrix. Or, in the overdoped La1-xCaxMnO3 with $`x>0.5`$ (this is the situation, in which the stripe, or rather sheet phases were observed in manganites ), one can speak of a certain amount of Mn3+ ions in the Mn4+ matrix.

Classically, Mn3+ ions differ from Mn4+ (or Ni2+ from Ni3+ in nickelates ) not only by their charge, but also by their ionic radius. This factor is usually ignored in the conventional treatment of stripes. In contrast, we pay the main attention here just to this factor (which, of course, should be considered alongside with the other factors, usually accounted for ).

As is known from the theory of elasticity, when we create a lattice distortion (in simple case—a dilatation, e.g. by cutting out a small sphere of radius $`A`$ and substituting it by the sphere of radius $`A^{}A`$), we also create a field of lattice strains, which is long-range and, in general, anisotropic . This leads to a long-range interaction between impurities ($`1/R^3`$), which depends on the elastic constants of the medium and on the shape of impurities.

The most important point is that typically this interaction resembles a quadrupole–quadrupole interaction, being repulsive in certain directions but attractive in others. This long-range attraction opens a possibility to form regular structures—clusters of impurities forming one-dimensional objects (needles or stripes) or two-dimensional structures (lamellae or sheets); this can be one of the mechanisms stabilizing stripe or sheet phases.

The interaction of dilatation impurities in crystals vanishes in isotropic media, but it is nonzero in crystals. Thus, in crystals with cubic anisotropy it is given by

$$V(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{r}^{})=CdQ_1Q_2\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{}{n})}{|\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}^{}|^3}$$
(1)
where $`C`$ is a constant of the order of unity, $`\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}^{}=|\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}^{}|\stackrel{}{n}`$, $`Q_1`$ and $`Q_2`$ are the “strengths” of impurities ($`Q_i(v_iv_0)`$ where $`v_i`$ is the volume of the impurity and $`v_0`$ is the corresponding volume of the matrix), and

$$d=c_{11}c_{12}2c_{44},$$
(2)
where $`c_{ij}`$ are the elastic moduli of the crystal. The angular dependence of the interaction (1) is determined by a function of the direction cosines of the vector $`\stackrel{}{R}=\stackrel{}{r}_1\stackrel{}{r}_2`$:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{}{n})=n_x^4+n_y^4+n_z^4\frac{3}{5}.$$
(3)
From (1)–(3) we can see that the interaction between impurities is long-range ($`1/R^3`$) and has different signs in different directions. Thus, for the situation with $`d>0`$ it is attractive along ,  and  directions ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }([100])=\frac{2}{5}`$) and is repulsive along ,  etc. ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }([110])=\frac{1}{10}`$) and along the cube diagonals : $`\mathrm{\Gamma }([111])=\frac{4}{15}`$, and vice versa for $`d<0`$. Thus, if we put a few dilatation impurities in a cubic crystal, they will attract each other along certain directions (e.g. , , ) and repel along others, thus causing a formation of inhomogeneous structures (stripes, sheets etc.)Note also that in contrast to the Coulomb forces, these elastic interactions are not screened (except by the “mirror forces” due to the surface of the crystal ).

In real systems (not the weakly anisotropic crystals considered above as an example), the ratios of the interaction constants between different neighbors may differ from those given above; thus, e.g., in bcc iron the interaction with  neighbor is stronger than with  one . But again, as in the example treated above, the interactions have different signs in different directions. Thus, we can consider the situation of a cubic lattice with the nearest-neighbor ($`nn`$) and next-nearest-neighbor ($`nnn`$) interaction of opposite signs as a typical one, treating the ratio of these couplings as an arbitrary parameter. This naturally leads to the lattice gas, or the Ising model of the type

$$H=J\underset{ij=nn}{}\sigma _i\sigma _j+J^{}\underset{ij=nnn}{}\sigma _i\sigma _j+\mathrm{const}$$
(4)
where $`\sigma _i=\pm 1`$; the density at site $`i`$ is $`n_i=\frac{1}{2}(1+\sigma _i)`$, and the model has to be considered for fixed density $`n=n_i`$ (or fixed “magnetisation”). We treat below the case of a cubic lattice.

For $`J`$, $`J^{}>0`$ (which corresponds to $`d>0`$ in Eq. (1)) we have the following solutions:

1. Totally phase separated state, in which all the “impurities” (or electrons) form one big cluster. The energy of this state (per impurity) in a simple cubic lattice is $`E_{\mathrm{ph}.\mathrm{sep}.}=Jz_{nn}/2+J^{}z_{nnn}/2=3J+6J^{}`$. Here $`z`$ are the corresponding numbers of nearest and next nearest neighbours.

2. Occupied sites forming $`2D`$ sheets parallel to $`(xy)`$, $`(xz)`$ or $`(yz)`$ planes, such that the distance between them exceeds one lattice spacing. The energy of such state is $`E_{\mathrm{sheet}}=2J+2J^{}`$.

3. The $`1D`$ stripes in $`x`$, $`y`$ or $`z`$ directions, which do not cross or approach one another to one lattice spacing. The energy of such a state is $`E_{\mathrm{stripe}}=J`$.

One can easily show that all the other possible structures have higher energy.

By comparing the energies of these states, we see that the totally phase separated state will be stable if $`J^{}/J<\frac{1}{4}`$; for $`\frac{1}{4}<J^{}/J<\frac{1}{2}`$ the 2D “sheets” are stable, and for $`J^{}/J>\frac{1}{2}`$ the 1D stripes would give a minimum of the energy. Thus, we see that the sheet or stripe phases appear quite naturally if the dominant interaction is the elastic interaction between impurities which is intrinsically anisotropic and long-range. For $`d<0`$, we similarly obtain, instead of the vertical, the diagonal stripes, but in this case, we should also include the interaction with third neighbors.

For low electron (or impurity) density in 3D case the lamellae phase is formed by parallel sheets; the distance between them in model (4) with only $`nn`$ and $`nnn`$ interactions is arbitrary, provided only that it exceeds the lattice spacing. Longer-range interactions will make this arrangement regular, but for weak interaction of this kind the discommensurations could be easily formed.

The situation is a bit more complicated for the stripe phase. In layered materials, it will be similar to that with the sheets in $`3D`$ crystals (parallel equally spaced stripes). In $`3D`$ crystals there may in principle exist mutually perpendicular stripes. Again, one may expect that longer-range interaction can make these stripes parallel; this question, however, goes beyond the scope of our treatment. Thus, we see that the elastic interaction of the “spherical” impurities in crystals may quite naturally lead to the formation of inhomogeneous structures—$`1D`$ stripes, $`2D`$ sheets or $`3D`$ phase-separated clusters, which can be described by the Ising-like model (4) . Note also that this process does not require the atomic diffusion: it is realized by the electron hopping between, say, $`Mn^{3+}`$ and $`Mn^{4+}`$ (with the corresponding lattice relaxation).

The problem of formation of regular structures, when we have two components with different atomic volumes, is well-known in the physics of segregating alloys. Theoretical studies (see e.g. ) have shown that the shape of inclusions of one phase in another is to a large extent determined by the elastic strains: the shape is such as to minimize the total elastic energy. As is shown in the corresponding studies, the best way is to create the second phase in the form of infinitely thin layers having certain specific orientation in given matrix. In the corresponding alloys it gives rise to the so called Guinier–Preston zones : inclusions of the second phase appear as a regular array of parallel platelets. One can speculate that the physics of the stabilization of stripe phases (actually sheets) in La1-xCaxMnO3 at $`x=0.67`$, 0.75, etc.  is the same, and that it is just these long-range anisotropic elastic forces which stabilize such structures. This is supported by the fact that this stripe charge ordering is obtained in the insulating materials at temperatures above the eventual magnetic ordering; thus, the often invoked magnetic mechanisms play here a minor role, if any. The inclusion of the electron hopping will, of course, tend to destabilize these ordered structures, which could survive if the hopping integrals are not too large.

The situation may be different (and actually much richer) if the “impurities” are not simple dilatation centers (“spheres”), but are anisotropic (“ellipsoids”). This is the typical situation with Jahn-Teller ions, e.g. Mn3+ “impurities” in overdoped manganites R1-xCaxMnO3 (R = La, Pr, Nd) for $`x>0.5`$. The interaction between such impurities also decays as $`1/R^3`$ and has different signs depending on both the relative position of such centres in a crystal and on the orientation of corresponding orbitals (i.e. local distortions) . Thus, for example, for two quadrupolar ions along the $`z`$-axis with the electron density elongated parallel to $`x`$, $`y`$, or $`z`$ axes, as is the case of $`e_g`$-ions like Mn3+ one obtains from the general expressions  the interaction in the form

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(c_{11}+c_{44})}{8\pi (c_{11}+2c_{44})R^3}}\{5\sigma _{zz}^{(1)}\sigma _{zz}^{(2)}+`$ (7)
$`+2(\sigma _{xx}^{(1)}\sigma _{xx}^{(2)}+\sigma _{yy}^{(1)}\sigma _{yy}^{(2)})\}+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi R^3}}\left(2\sigma _{zz}^{(1)}\sigma _{zz}^{(2)}\sigma _{xx}^{(1)}\sigma _{xx}^{(2)}\sigma _{yy}^{(1)}\sigma _{yy}^{(2)}\right)`$
where $`c_{11}`$ and $`c_{44}`$ are elastic moduli, and $`\sigma _{\alpha \alpha }`$ is a stress tensor such that e.g. for the center with the occupied orbital $`3z^2r^2`$ we have $`\sigma _{zz}=1`$, $`\sigma _{xx}=\sigma _{yy}=1/2`$ (and corresponding expressions for $`zx,y`$).

From this expression one can see that e.g. two $`3z^2r^2`$ orbitals along $`z`$-axis strongly repel one another, whereas $`3z^2r^2`$ and $`3x^2r^2`$ (or $`3y^2r^2`$) along the same direction attract. This can quite naturally explain the well-known orbital structure of undoped LaMnO3 (cf. ), and also a special stability of the Mn3+-planes, with the corresponding orbital ordering, in lightly doped manganites, e.g. La1-xSrxMnO3, $`x1/8`$  and in Pr1-xCaxMnO3, $`x1/4`$ . With the assumption of a checkerboard charge ordering it also gives the orbital ordering of CE type observed in R1-xCaxMnO3 at $`x=0.5`$ . Indeed, in both cases the orbitals of the neighbors along $`x`$ and $`y`$ directions are mutually orthogonal (e.g. $`3x^2r^2`$ and $`3y^2r^2`$ orbitals); according to (7) they have an attractive interaction which stabilizes these structures. One can also show that the interaction along diagonals ( direction) is attractive for the parallel orbitals $`3x^2r^2`$ or $`3y^2r^2`$ but repulsive for the perpendicular ones ($`3x^2r^2`$ at one site and $`3y^2r^2`$ at the other); this gives extra stability to the observed orbital ordering in undoped LaMnO3, and these diagonal interactions nearly cancel for the CE-type phase in the $`x=0.5`$ system. The same factors may favor single stripes (”Wigner crystal”)  as compared to the bi-stripes .

Summarizing, we suggest that the elastic interactions, always present in systems with mixed valence, e.g. in doped Mott insulators, may play an important role in stabilizing particular types of inhomogeneous structures, such as stripes or two-dimensional sheets. These interactions decay rather slowly ($`R^3`$) and are anisotropic, being repulsive in some directions but attractive in others. Thus, the interaction of dilatation impurities in weakly anisotropic cubic crystals has different signs along , , and  directions and along face or body diagonals. Such an interaction may quite naturally lead to the formation of stripes or sheets in manganites or nickelates. Similar interactions in the case of anisotropic (Jahn-Teller) ions can produce analogous inhomogeneous structures with specific orbital ordering. The importance of lattice effect in the stripe formation is supported by the observation of a large isotope effect on the stripe ordering temperature . Thus, we can conclude that the elastic or, more generally, electron–lattice interactions may be very important in providing a mechanism for stripe formation in doped systems.

We are grateful to S.-W. Cheong, M. V. Eremin, A. Ya. Fishman, J. Hill, S. Kivelson, F. Kusmartsev, V. Ya. Mitrofanov, and G. Sawatzky for very useful discussions.

The work was supported by INTAS (grants 97-0963 and 97-11954), the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (grant 00-15-96570), the Netherlands Foundation for the Fundamental Research of Matter (FOM), and the Netherlands Organization for the Advancement of Pure Research (NWO).


text:
# Untitled Document

DELAY EQUATION

FOR CHARGED BROWN PARTICLE

Alexander A. Vlasov

High Energy and Quantum Theory

Department of Physics

Moscow State University

Moscow, 119899

Russia

In previous work ( physics/0004026) was shown, with the help of numerical calculations, that the effective Brown temperature for charged particle is lower than that for particle without charge. Here we derive this result without numerical calculations, integrating the delay equation analytically, as for zero, so for nonzero viscosity.

03.50.De

1.

To describe motion of charged Brown particle in so called ”extended quasi-stationary approximation” in  was used the Sommerfeld model  of charged rigid sphere. The equation of straightline motion of such Brown particle in dimensionless form reads :

$$\dot{y}(x)=f(x)+\gamma \left[y(x\delta )y(x)\right]$$
$`(1)`$
here

$`y(x)`$ \- is dimensionless velocity of the particle;

$`x`$ \- is dimensionless ”time”;

$`f(x)`$ \- is some external (stochastic) force;

$`\delta `$ \- is ”time” delay;

$`\gamma `$ \- is coefficient: $`\gamma \delta `$ is proportional to the ratio of particle’s electromagnetic mass to the mechanical mass: $`\gamma \delta =(2/3)(Q^2/a)/(mc^2)`$ ( $`2a`$ \- is the size of Sommerfeld particle of charge $`Q`$ and mass $`m`$);

the viscosity $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the surrounding medium is zero.

In  was shown, with the help of numerical calculations, that the effective Brown temperature for charged particle is lower than that for particle without charge. Here we derive this result without numerical calculations, integrating the delay equation (1) analytically.

With zero initial conditions:

$`y=\dot{y}=0`$ for $`x<0`$

dividing the $`x`$-axis into $`\delta `$ \- intervals $`(i1)\delta xi\delta `$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},`$

and integrating eq. (1) step by step with boundary conditions $`y_i(x=i\delta )=y_{i+1}(x=i\delta )`$, we finally get the recurrence formula:

for $`(N1)\delta xN\delta `$

$$y(x)=y_N(x)=$$

$$_0^x𝑑zf(z)\mathrm{exp}\gamma (zx)+\gamma _{(N2)\delta }^{x\delta }𝑑zy_{N1}(z)\mathrm{exp}\gamma (z+\delta x)$$

$$+\gamma \underset{i=1}{\overset{N2}{}}_{(i1)\delta }^{i\delta }𝑑zy_i(z)\mathrm{exp}\gamma (z+\delta x)$$
$`(2)`$
with

$$y_1(x)=_0^x𝑑zf(z)\mathrm{exp}\gamma (zx),0<x\delta $$

Let’s consider one interesting case:

$`f(x)`$ for intervals $`(i1)\delta xi\delta `$ is constant and is equal to $`f_i`$.

Then the eq.(2) for $`x=N\delta x_N`$ yields

$$y_N^{}y_N(x=x_N)=\frac{1}{\gamma }\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}f_k\left[1C(Nk;p)\right]\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}f_kD_k$$
$`(3)`$
where the function $`C(n;p)`$ is defined as

$$C(n;p)=\mathrm{exp}(p(n+1))\underset{m=0}{\overset{n}{}}(p\mathrm{exp}p)^m(n+1m)^m/(m!);$$
$`(4)`$
here $`p\gamma \delta `$.

Function $`C(n;p)`$ is positive and for sufficiently large $`n`$ (for ex., $`n>20`$ for $`p=1.0`$ ) is equival to $`\frac{1}{1+p}`$:

$$C(n;p)_{n1}=\frac{1}{1+p}D_n\frac{p}{(1+p)\gamma }$$
$`(5)`$
Thus if $`f_i=f_0`$=const $`i`$, then from (3,5) we get for $`N1`$

$$y_N^{}f_0N\frac{p}{(1+p)\gamma }=\frac{f_0}{1+p}x_N$$

in accordance with the exact solution of (1) for $`f=f_0`$=const:

$$y(x)=\frac{f_0}{1+p}x$$

Also for $`N1`$ one can rewrite (3) in the form

$$y_N^{}\frac{p}{(1+p)\gamma }\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}f_k=\frac{\delta }{(1+p)}\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}f_k$$
$`(6)`$
This result resembles the classical Brown result: from eq.(4) with $`\gamma =0`$ one immediately gets

$$y(x)=_0^xf(z)𝑑z,$$
$`(7)`$
dividing $`x`$-interval of integration in (7) into $`\delta `$\- intervals with $`f(x)=f_k`$ for $`(k1)\delta xk\delta `$, one can take the integral in (7) in the following manner:

$$y(x=x_N)=\delta \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}f_k$$
$`(8)`$
This result differs from (6) only in the multiplier $`\frac{1}{(1+p)}`$.

Thus one can say that the effect of delay (effect of retardation) for eq.(1) reduces to the effect of mass renormalization: $`mm/(1+p)`$, or consequently to the effect of reduction of the external force:

$$ff/(1+p)$$
$`(9)`$
This result also says that the reduction of the external force is model-independent one, and instead of $`\gamma \delta `$ one can write the classical ratio of self-electromagnetic mass to the mechanical mass $`m`$ in its general form:

$$\gamma \delta \frac{1}{mc^2}𝑑\stackrel{}{r}𝑑\stackrel{}{r^{}}\frac{\rho (\stackrel{}{r})\rho (\stackrel{}{r^{}})}{|\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r^{}}|}$$
$`(10)`$
here $`\rho `$ \- is distribution of charge of a particle.

If $`f_k,k=1,\mathrm{}`$ \- is the range of stochastic numbers with average value $`f_a`$: $`<f_k>=f_a`$ (here brackets $`<>`$ denote time average with the same definition as in the classical theory of Brownian motion), then eq.(3) yields

$$<y_N^{}>=f_a\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}D_kf_ax_N/(1+p)$$
$`(11)`$
Consequently the dispersion $`D`$ is

$$D=(y_N^{}<y_N^{}>)^2=\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\underset{m=1}{\overset{N}{}}D_kD_m<(f_kf_a)(f_mf_a)>$$

$$=\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\underset{m=1}{\overset{N}{}}D_kD_mR(km)$$
$`(12)`$
here $`R(km)`$ \- is correlation function of stochastic force $`f`$. If $`R`$ is compact:

$$R(km)=R_0\delta _{mk}/\delta $$
$`(13)`$
then the dispersion (12) is

$$D=R_0/\delta \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}(D_k)^2R_0x_n/(1+p)^2$$
$`(14)`$
This result should be compared with classical one.

The theory of Brownian motion without viscosity tells ( eq. (1) with $`\gamma =0`$ ) that the dispersion $`D_B`$ is

$$D_B=_0^x𝑑z_1_0^x𝑑z_2R(z_1z_2)$$
$`(15)`$
here $`R(z_1z_2)=<(f(z_1)f_a)(f(z_2)f_a)>`$ \- is the correlation function. If

$$R(z_1z_2)=R_0\delta (z_1z_2)$$

then

$$D_B=R_0x$$
$`(16)`$
Consequently we see that (eqs. (16) and (14) ) the dispersion of the Sommerfeld charged particle is lower than that of the classical Brown particle without electric charge: $`D=D_B(1+p)^2`$. Thus one can say that the effective temperature of Sommerfeld particle is lower than that of the Brown one. This result is model independent one (see the remark made above - eq. (10) ).

So we confirm the result of the work .

2.

If the viscosity $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is not zero, the main equation reads:

$$\dot{y}(x)+\mathrm{\Gamma }y(x)=f(x)+\gamma \left[y(x\delta )y(x)\right]$$
$`(17)`$
For $`f=f_0=const`$ eq.(17) has the exact solution

$$y(x)=\frac{f_0}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(1\mathrm{exp}(ax))$$
$`(18)`$
and $`a`$ is determined by the eq.

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }+\gamma a=\gamma \mathrm{exp}(a\delta )$$
$`(19)`$
Iterative solution $`y(x_N)=y_N^{}`$ of eq.(17), if $`f(x)=f_i=const`$ for intervals $`(i1)\delta xi\delta `$, can be put in the form:

$$y_N^{}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}f_kD_k$$
$`(20)`$
here $`D_k`$ \- some discrete function which can be found from recurrence formula, analogous to (2). But it is convenient to find $`D_k`$ from the following considerations, using exact results (18,19). Solution (20) must tend to the exact solution (18) (in the case $`f_i=f_0=consti`$) if the $`x`$-axis is divided into infinitesimally small $`\delta `$-intervals: $`\delta 0`$ and $`N\mathrm{}`$ in such a way that $`x_N=\delta N=const`$. Thus one can rewrite

$$y_N^{}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}f_kD_k=f_0\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}D_k=\frac{f_0}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(1\mathrm{exp}(ax_N))$$

so

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}D_k=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(1\mathrm{exp}(a\delta N))$$
$`(21)`$
If $`\delta 0`$ we can replace the sum in lhs of (21) by the integral:

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}D_k^ND_k𝑑k=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(1\mathrm{exp}(a\delta N))$$
$`(22)`$
Differentiation of (22) with respect to $`N`$ provides us with this expression for $`D_N`$:

$$D_N\frac{a\delta }{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\mathrm{exp}(a\delta N)$$
$`(23)`$
Substitution of (23) back into (21) gives

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{a\delta }{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\mathrm{exp}(a\delta k)=\frac{a\delta }{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\frac{1\mathrm{exp}(a\delta N)}{\mathrm{exp}(a\delta )1}$$
$`(24)`$
Consequently the required result (rhs of (21) ) is reproduced if we expand the denominator in (24) in the following way:

$$\mathrm{exp}(a\delta )1a\delta $$
$`(24)`$
Using this representation of $`D_k`$, one can find the dispersion D. For correlation function (13) we have

$$D=\frac{R_0}{\delta }\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}(D_k)^2$$

$$\frac{R_0}{\delta }(\frac{a\delta }{\mathrm{\Gamma }})^2\frac{1\mathrm{exp}(2a\delta N)}{\mathrm{exp}(2a\delta )1}\frac{R_0a}{2(\mathrm{\Gamma })^2}(1\mathrm{exp}(2a\delta N))$$
$`(25)`$
here we expanded the expression $`\mathrm{exp}(2a\delta )1`$ in the same manner as in (24): $`\mathrm{exp}(2a\delta )12a\delta `$.

Solving the eq.(19) in approximation (24), we find

$$a\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{(1+\gamma \delta )}$$
$`(26)`$
So with (26) and (25) the dispersion D takes the form

$$D=\frac{R_0}{2(\mathrm{\Gamma })(1+\gamma \delta )}(1\mathrm{exp}(2a\delta N))$$
$`(27)`$
Dispersion (27) for $`\gamma 0`$ is exactly the same as Brownian dispersion $`D_B`$:

$$D_B=\frac{R_0}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }}(1\mathrm{exp}(2\mathrm{\Gamma }x_N))$$

If $`ax_N1`$, solution (27) yields

$$D\frac{R_0x_N}{(1+\gamma \delta )^2}$$

i.e. the solution we have got earlier (14).

If $`ax_N1`$, (27) yields

$$D\frac{R_0}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\gamma \delta )}=\frac{D_B}{(1+\gamma \delta )}$$

Thus dispersion $`D`$ differs from the Brownian one. Consequently the effective temperature of charged particle, undergoing Brownian motion, is lower then that of particle without charge. Now we have proved this result in general case of nonzero viscosity. Of course, our general conclusion is model-independent one - see the above remark (10).

REFERENCES

1. T.Erber, Fortschr. Phys., 9, 343 (1961).
2. Alexander A.Vlasov, physics/0004026.
3. A.Sommerfeld, Gottingen Nachrichten, 29 (1904), 363 (1904), 201 (1905).


text:
# Hyperon ratios at RHIC and the coalescence predictions at mid-rapidity

## 1 The Linear Coalescence Model

In the following we shall demonstrate the deficiency of the linear coalescence model in a very simple case. The idea of coalescence was created many years ago for the understanding of some low energy nuclear physics problems. Among others the production of deuterons in low energy heavy ion reaction was explained by the assumption that a neutron and a proton will coalesce if they are near to each other in space and momentum space. We shall denote by $`k`$ the number of particles of type $`k`$ within the rapidity interval, in which the particle ratios are constant. (In low energy reactions these numbers are the total numbers of particles within the fireball.) The number of produced deuterons, $`d`$, is assumed to be proportional to the number of protons, $`p`$, and the number of neutrons, $`n`$. The factor of proportionality, $`c_\mathrm{d}`$, can be calculated from the elementary cross sections and the phase-space distribution of protons and neutrons. This leads to the linear coalescence model prediction

$$d=c_\mathrm{d}pn.$$
(1)
This kind of relationship expresses the essence of the linear coalescence model. It is an acceptable approximation as long as a small fraction of protons and neutrons will coalesce into deuterons, $`c_\mathrm{d}<<1`$. The linear coalescence model, however, has a serious deficiency if a substantial part of the nucleons are forced into deuterons. To demonstrate the problem, let us assume, that $`p=n=A`$, and all the nucleons have to be confined into deuterons at the end of the fireball lifetime. This way we model a situation similar to the hadronization of the constituent quark matter. The conservation of baryon number demands that the baryon charge should be preserved during the coalescence process:

$$p+n=2d$$
(2)
which leads to the requirement

$$p+n=2c_\mathrm{d}pn,$$
(3)
that implies

$$2A=2c_\mathrm{d}A^2.$$
(4)
Baryon number conservation and linear coalescence thus requires

$$c_\mathrm{d}=1/A.$$
(5)
However, the coalescence coefficient $`c_\mathrm{d}`$ can be calculated from the cross section of the $`p+nd`$ reaction and the phase-space distribution of protons and neutrons, independently of the total number of these particles, $`2A`$. Hence eq. (5) cannot be fullfilled in the general case and the assumption of linear coalescence leads to contradiction.

What is the logical error in the linear coalescence model which leads to the above, obviously unacceptable result? Essentially this is the lack of a feed-back: those nucleons, who are already bound in a deuteron, cannot be used any further for the formation of new deuterons. Out of $`A`$ protons and $`A`$ neutrons, exactly $`A`$ deuterons can be formed, if a bound state formation happens with unit probability. However, linear coalescence calculation would predict $`A^2`$ deuterons, which is way too large, if $`A>>1`$.

This sort of error in linear coalescence can be corrected by introducing a suitable renormalization factor, $`b`$, which takes care of the additional reduction of produced particles due to the lack in the reactivity of the already bound constituents. This leads to reconciliation of the constraints from conservation laws and the proportionality of produced particles with the available number of their constituents.

With this re-normalization factor, the coalescence equation eq. (1) is modified,

$$d=c_\mathrm{d}b_\mathrm{p}pb_\mathrm{n}n,$$
(6)
and eq.(3) still ensures the conservation of the baryon charge. In the simple case of $`p=n=A`$, this determines the normalization factor, $`b_\mathrm{p}=b_\mathrm{n}=b`$ and predicts the of deuterons, $`d`$, as follows:

$`b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(c_\mathrm{d}A)^{1/2}}},`$ (7)
$`d`$ $`=`$ $`Apn=A^2.`$ (8)
Note also that the total number of deuterons after the completion of the recombination becomes independent from the exact value of the coalescence coefficient $`c_\mathrm{d}`$, because of the constraint that all protons and neutrons have to be converted to deuterons in this example. This has to be contrasted to the result of linear coalescence calculations, where the formation of a small number of deuterons from a gas of protons and neutrons depends essentially on the coefficient of coalescence, $`c_\mathrm{d}`$.

The method of introduction of normalization coefficients can be generalized for more complex cases that involve the full recombination of different type of constituents into various kind of bound states subjected to conservation laws. In case of hadronization (recombination of valence quarks into hadrons), the resulting non-linear quark coalescence model is the ALCOR model, the name of which stands for ALgebraic COalescence in Rehadronization.

## 2 ALCOR: Quark Combinatorics in Rehadronization

The nonlinear ALCOR coalescence model was created for situations, where the subprocesses are not independent, they compete with each other. In this model the coalescence equations relating the number of a given type of hadron to the product of the numbers of different quarks from which the hadron consists reads as:

$`p=C_\mathrm{p}b_\mathrm{q}b_\mathrm{q}b_\mathrm{q}qqq`$ $`\overline{p}=C_{\overline{p}}b_{\overline{\mathrm{q}}}b_{\overline{\mathrm{q}}}b_{\overline{\mathrm{q}}}\overline{q}\overline{q}\overline{q}`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }=C_\mathrm{\Lambda }b_\mathrm{q}b_\mathrm{q}b_\mathrm{s}qqs`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=C_{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}b_{\overline{\mathrm{q}}}b_{\overline{\mathrm{q}}}b_{\overline{\mathrm{s}}}\overline{q}\overline{q}\overline{s}`$
$`\mathrm{\Xi }=C_\mathrm{\Xi }b_\mathrm{q}b_\mathrm{s}b_\mathrm{s}qss`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}=C_{\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}}b_{\overline{\mathrm{q}}}b_{\overline{\mathrm{s}}}b_{\overline{\mathrm{s}}}\overline{q}\overline{s}\overline{s}`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }=C_\mathrm{\Omega }b_\mathrm{s}b_\mathrm{s}b_\mathrm{s}sss`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}=C_{\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}}b_{\overline{\mathrm{s}}}b_{\overline{\mathrm{s}}}b_{\overline{\mathrm{s}}}\overline{s}\overline{s}\overline{s}`$ (9)
$`\pi `$ $`=`$ $`C_\pi b_\mathrm{q}b_{\overline{\mathrm{q}}}q\overline{q}`$
$`K`$ $`=`$ $`C_Kb_\mathrm{q}b_{\overline{\mathrm{s}}}q\overline{s}`$
$`\overline{K}`$ $`=`$ $`C_{\overline{K}}b_{\overline{\mathrm{q}}}b_\mathrm{s}\overline{q}s`$
$`\eta `$ $`=`$ $`C_\eta b_{\overline{\mathrm{s}}}b_\mathrm{s}\overline{s}s`$ (10)
Here the normalization coefficients, $`b_\mathrm{i}`$, are determined uniquely by the requirement, that the number of the constituent quarks do not change during the hadronization — which is the basic assumption for all quark counting methods:

$`s`$ $`=`$ $`3\mathrm{\Omega }+2\mathrm{\Xi }+\mathrm{\Lambda }+\overline{K}+\eta `$
$`\overline{s}`$ $`=`$ $`3\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}+2\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}+\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}+K+\eta `$
$`q`$ $`=`$ $`3p+\mathrm{\Xi }+2\mathrm{\Lambda }+K+\pi `$
$`\overline{q}`$ $`=`$ $`3\overline{p}+\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}+2\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}+\overline{K}+\pi .`$ (11)
In eq. (11) $`\pi `$ is the number of directly produced pions. (Most of the observed pions are created in the decay of resonances.) Substituting eqs. (9-10) into eq. (11) one obtains equations for the normalization constants. These constants are then given in terms of quark numbers and $`C_\mathrm{i}`$ factors.

## 3 ALCOR Predictions Compared to Preliminary RHIC Data

### 3.1 Parameter independent hyperon ratios for SPS and RHIC

In order to arrive at the detailed predictions of the ALCOR model, one has to solve numerically the set of equations eqs. (9-11). The ALCOR predictions for the particle multiplicities (especially for the antihyperon to hyperon ratios), were shown in Refs. for the SPS energy.

Later on an interesting observation was pointed out in Ref. Namely it was shown, that within the framework of the linear coalescence model in the antiparticle/particle ratios the uncertain $`c_\mathrm{i}`$ coalescence factors drop out, and thus one obtains direct relations between particle ratios. Unfortunately the linear coalescence model contradiscts to the different conservation laws.

In the later development, however, it was shown in Refs.  that even in the charge conserving normalized (non-linear) coalescence model one can obtain parameter independent ratios between particle multiplicities. These relations have the form:

$$\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=D\frac{\overline{p}}{p},\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}}{\mathrm{\Xi }}=D\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }},\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}}{\mathrm{\Omega }}=D\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}}{\mathrm{\Xi }},$$
(12)
where

$$D=\frac{K^+}{K^{}}.$$
(13)
Thus if the dynamics of hadronization is the coalescence process, then these relations should hold among the measured quantities. The preliminary results of the STAR experiment  for Au+Au collision at $`\sqrt{s}=130`$ AGeV,

$`\overline{p}/p`$ $`=`$ $`0.61\pm 0.06`$
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`0.73\pm 0.03`$
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}/\mathrm{\Xi }`$ $`=`$ $`0.82\pm 0.08`$
$`K^+/K^{}`$ $`=`$ $`1.12\pm 0.06`$ (14)
clearly satisfy the relations eqs.(12-13), as required by quark combinatorics.

Similar results support the quark coalescence mechanism, observed in Pb+Pb collision at $`E_{\mathrm{beam}}=158`$ AGeV energy at CERN SPS:

$`\overline{p}/p`$ $`=`$ $`0.07\pm 0.01`$
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`0.133\pm 0.007`$
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}/\mathrm{\Xi }`$ $`=`$ $`0.249\pm 0.019`$
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}/\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`=`$ $`0.383\pm 0.081`$ (15)
which also satisfy the relations among the ratios demanded by quark coalescence with

$$K^+/K^{}=1.8\pm 0.2.$$
(16)
Hence the multi-strange baryon to anti-baryon ratios in central Au+Au collisions at RHIC and in central Pb+Pb collisions at CERN SPS are consistent with the formation and the sudden rehadronization of Quark Matter, consisting of valence quarks and anti-quarks.

### 3.2  Detailed ALCOR predictions for RHIC

The first ALCOR predictions for RHIC were given for Au+Au collision at $`\sqrt{s}=200GeV`$ in Ref. The first data sets were taken at the bombarding energy of $`\sqrt{s}=130`$ A GeV, and the preliminary values for particle ratios were reported by the STAR Collaboration in October 2000 at the XXXth International Symposium on Multiparticle Dynamics  as well as at the Quark Matter in January 2001.. These data were similar to the ALCOR predictions for particle ratios at $`\sqrt{s}=200`$ AGeV. Here we re-evaluate the ALCOR predictions for the lower than expected values of $`\sqrt{s}`$. We utilize the capability of the ALCOR model to work in a reasonably small rapidity bin ($`\mathrm{\Delta }y1`$) where all the available quarks and antiquarks are able to interact to form the measured mesons and baryons. The calculation of hadron multiplicities in the ALCOR model is based on the number of quarks and antiquarks in the rapidity interval under study. These quark and antiquark numbers consist of the $`u\overline{u}`$, $`d\overline{d}`$, $`s\overline{s}`$ pairs produced in the collision and the $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks of the colliding nuclei. We utilize the measured (preliminary) value of the central rapidity density of the negatively charged hadrons:

$$\mathrm{d}N_\mathrm{h}^{}/\mathrm{d}y=264\pm 18.$$
(17)
If we apply the parameter of the strangeness ($`f_\mathrm{s}=N_{\mathrm{s}\overline{\mathrm{s}}}/(N_{\mathrm{u}\overline{\mathrm{u}}}+N_{\mathrm{d}\overline{\mathrm{d}}})=0.22`$) and baryon production ($`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}=0.85`$) determined at CERN SPS energy, then we are very close to make a full calculation of all hadronic ratios. The only missing information is the number of stopped nucleons in this rapidity region. (In previous calculations at CERN SPS energy we have not used this information, because total hadron numbers were calculated including all stopped nucleons.) Choosing 197 newly produced $`u\overline{u}`$ and $`d\overline{d}`$ pairs (this means 86 $`s\overline{s}`$ pairs) and assuming that 5 % of the total nucleon numbers stopped into the central unit of rapidity (which means 8 proton and 12 neutron), we can calculate the measured rapidity densities and hadronic ratios for the Au+Au collision at $`\sqrt{s}=130`$ AGeV in the central rapidity as displayed in Table 1.

Investigating particle production in the central rapidity we repeat our calculation for Pb+Pb collision also at CERN SPS energy. The central rapidity density of the negatively charged hadrons was measured by NA49 Collaboration:

$$\mathrm{d}N_\mathrm{h}^{}/\mathrm{d}y=195\pm 15.$$
(18)
In the ALCOR calculation we use 121 newly produced $`u\overline{u}`$ and $`d\overline{d}`$ pairs (this means 53 $`s\overline{s}`$ pairs) and assume 17 % of the total nucleon numbers to be stopped into the central unit of rapidity (which means 28 proton and 42 neutron). For this case ALCOR model yields $`\mathrm{d}N_\mathrm{h}^{}/\mathrm{d}y=195`$ in the central rapidity and the following baryon/antibaryon ratios: $`\overline{p}/p=0.07`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.125`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}/\mathrm{\Xi }=0.230`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}/\mathrm{\Omega }=0.425`$. The obtained ratio $`K^+/K^{}=1.73`$ fullfils also the expectation, see eqs.(15-16).

The calculated and the measured antibaryon/baryon ratios at SPS and RHIC energies are displayed in Figure 1.

## 4 Summary: Quark Matter at CERN SPS and at RHIC

It seems that the gluonic degrees of freedom are liberated in the initial state in Au+Au collisions at RHIC, as evident from data on jet quenching, and this initial state seems to be different from that of Pb+Pb collisions at CERN SPS. As the fireball expands and cools the gluon dominated initial state in the $`\sqrt{s}=130`$ AGeV Au+Au reactions at RHIC decays to a quark matter kind of state, where constituent quark and antiquark degrees of freedom are dominant. This quark-antiquark matter undergoes a sudden hadronization similarly to that at CERN SPS.

The success of the coalescence model to describe the experimental data at RHIC and SPS strongly supports the validity of the basic assumption behind the ALCOR model: before the hadronization, the basic degrees of freedom of the expanding fireball are massive (constituent) quarks and antiquarks. These elements of the deconfined phase coalesce into final state hadrons in a sudden process.

## Acknowledgments

This research has been supported by the two Bolyai Fellowships of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (T. Cs. and L. P.), by the Hungarian OTKA grants T024094, T025579, T026435, T034269, by the US-Hungarian Joint Fund MAKA 652/1998 and by the NWO-OTKA grant N025186.