text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Current astronomical observations suggest that the universe is well-approximated by a world with a positive cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$ . If this is the case, string theorists must contend with two strange facts. First, a small, positive cosmological constant is surprisingly hard to construct within the usual framework of string theory and the low energy supergravities that arise from it. Of course, we might expect that nothing prevents the generation of a cosmological constant after supersymmetry is broken. However, finding a satisfactory SUSY breaking mechanism is itself a difficult problem in string theory. We might suppose that this state of affairs is simply a failure of imagination among theorists, but there is a more troubling fact. De Sitter space is expanding so rapidly that inertial observers see a cosmological horizon, and application of the Bekenstein-Hawking bound to this horizon implies that $`D`$ dimensional de Sitter space has an entropy $`S\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(D2)/2}/G_N`$. This is particularly disturbing since it suggests that the entire observable universe should perhaps have a finite number of degrees of freedom. This interpretation would certainly contradict both field theory and perturbative string theory.

A potential conclusion based on these facts, and particularly the latter one, is that the world cannot harbour a positive cosmological constant. In that case, the astronomical data must be interpreted to say that we are yet to settle into the true vacuum. Either we continue to roll slowly down a potential, realizing something like quintessence (see, e.g., ), or else we await a sharp phase transition in the future.

Regardless, during the epoch preceding descent to the true vacuum, the world is rapidly expanding as though there is a cosmological constant, and any inertial observer sees an apparent cosmological horizon. In recent years, evidence has arisen that the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of event horizons can be extended to a more local statement regarding the entropy enclosed within, or encoded on, any closed surface . This suggests that during the epoch of rapid expansion an inertial observer will appear to be in contact with a universe of finite entropy. We therefore return to the question of whether a rapidly expanding space like de Sitter actually has a finite entropy. If it is physically meaningful, the entropy of de Sitter, like any classical gravitational entropy, is a striking example of non-decoupling, where a large-scale feature of a gravitating system reflects microscopic details like the number of degrees of freedom available to the theory.

In this note, we present a picture of Euclidean de Sitter space in string theory which allows us to relate de Sitter entropy to the number of degrees of freedom in a dual quantum mechanics. This leads to an argument that Euclidean de Sitter spaces in divers dimensions may have dual descriptions in string theory in terms of certain quantum mechanical models.

## 2 Classic facts

It is worth our while to begin with a review of known facts about semiclassical de Sitter space111For example, see .. De Sitter is a maximally symmetric solution to Einstein’s equations with a positive cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Defining a length scale $`\mathrm{}=\sqrt{1/\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$, D-dimensional de Sitter space ($`\mathrm{dS}_D`$) has a metric:

$$ds^2=dt^2+\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{cosh}^2(t/\mathrm{})d\mathrm{\Omega }_{D1}^2.$$
(1)
Equal time sections of this metric, which covers $`\mathrm{dS}_D`$ globally, are (D-1)-spheres ($`\mathrm{S}^{D1}`$). These spatial sections have no asymptotic region, and therefore there is no global notion of a conserved energy in de Sitter space .

Because of the exponential growth of the spatial sections at late times, an inertial observer in $`\mathrm{dS}_D`$ sees a cosmological horizon. The region of spacetime visible to such an observer can be described by a static metric:

$$ds^2=V(r)dt^2+\frac{1}{V(r)}dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{D2}^2;V(r)=1\frac{r^2}{\mathrm{}^2}.$$
(2)
Here polar coordinates have been constructed around an inertial observer placed at $`r=0`$, which could be the north pole of the sphere in (1). The static patch displays an event horizon at $`r=\mathrm{}`$, and the inertial observer has access to phenomena within the region $`r\mathrm{}`$. Essentially, de Sitter space can be viewed as a finite cavity surrounding the observer, with the horizon as its boundary. While the metric (1) does not have any globally defined timelike Killing vectors, the SO(D,1) isometry group does give rise to a timelike Killing vector inside the static patch (2). Abbott and Deser have shown that there is a perturbative positive energy theorem with respect to this Killing vector for excitations with support restricted to the static patch . Therefore, the static patch of de Sitter space is perturbatively stable with respect to fluctuations that are accessible to its inertial observer.

Applying the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy formula to the cosmological event horizon yields an entropy

$$S=\frac{A}{4G_N}=\frac{(2\mathrm{})^{D2}\pi ^{(D1)/2}}{G_N\mathrm{\Gamma }((D1)/2)}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(D2)/2}}{G_N}.$$
(3)
Gibbons and Hawking showed that the classical laws of horizon mechanics appearing in the physics of black holes apply equally to the de Sitter horizon, so that every inertial observer sees a world with horizons obeying the formal rules of thermodynamics  with area playing the role of entropy. It has been further argued that the entropy of empty de Sitter space bounds the total thermodynamic entropy of matter systems that can be placed within a horizon volume of any world with a positive cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ .

The analogy of static patch physics with thermodynamics is greatly strengthened by the remarkable observation that detectors held by any inertial observer in de Sitter space , for example, one stationed at $`r=0`$ in the static patch (2) register a thermal bath with a temperature

$$T=\frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{}}.$$
(4)
Every inertial observer in de Sitter space detects this temperature and a horizon with entropy (3) suggesting that these are properties of the spacetime, and not of the frames occupied by individual observers. To clarify the situation it is helpful to examine the thermodynamics of de Sitter space in semiclassical Euclidean gravity.

### 2.1 Euclidean de Sitter space and thermodynamics

The Euclidean continuation of the static patch (2) is obtained by rotating $`tit`$ and identifying $`tt+2\pi \mathrm{}`$, in order to obtain a non-singular space. Making the coordinate transformations $`t=\mathrm{}\tau `$ and $`r=\mathrm{}\mathrm{sin}\theta `$ gives the metric

$$ds^2=\mathrm{}^2[d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\mathrm{\Omega }_{D2}^2+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta d\tau ^2]=\mathrm{}^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_D^2$$
(5)
In other words, Euclidean de Sitter (EdS) is a D-sphere with a round metric. The Euclidean horizon is the set of fixed points of the time translation and is therefore a $`(D2)`$-sphere of maximum size within EdS. The periodicity of Euclidean time implies a temperature

$$T=\frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{}}.$$
(6)
The Euclidean continuation of global de Sitter time ($`tit`$, $`tt+2\pi \mathrm{}`$, $`t=\mathrm{}\tau `$) similarly yields

$$ds^2=\mathrm{}^2[d\tau ^2+\mathrm{cos}^2\tau d\mathrm{\Omega }_{D1}^2],$$
(7)
which is the same as (5) in different coordinates; thus the round D-sphere is the unique Euclidean continuation of Lorentzian de Sitter space.222Recall that global anti-de Sitter space (AdS) and the Poincaré patch both continue to the same Euclidean manifold.

The Euclidean action with a positive cosmological constant is

$$I=\frac{1}{16\pi G_N}\sqrt{g}(R2\mathrm{\Lambda }).$$
(8)
Since EdS has no boundary there are no boundary terms in the Euclidean action. As discussed by Gibbons and Hawking , the Euclidean approach to gravitational thermodynamics requires us to evaluate the partition function with periodic boundary conditions in time:

$$Z=\text{tr}e^{\beta H}=𝒟\varphi e^{I(\varphi )}e^{I_{cl}(\varphi )},$$
(9)
where $`\varphi `$ includes all fields in the system and the last equality represents the semiclassical limit. In this limit, then,

$$\mathrm{ln}ZI_{cl}\beta (ETS).$$
(10)
We can evaluate this on empty de Sitter space, using $`R=4\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and the fact that $`E=0`$ for a closed space like EdS (see, e.g., ). This gives

$$S\frac{(2\mathrm{})^{D2}\pi ^{(D1)/2}}{G_N\mathrm{\Gamma }((D1)/2)}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(D2)/2}}{G_N}.$$
(11)
Since both global de Sitter and the static patch are obtained as continuations of the same Euclidean space, this suggests that de Sitter space is associated with an entropy $`S\mathrm{}^{D2}/G_N`$.

### 2.2 The meaning of entropy

The purpose of this note is to analyze whether and how the entropy of de Sitter space can be understood from string theory. But what does entropy mean in quantum gravity? Recapitulating controversies over black hole entropy, several interpretations are possible:

1. dS entropy is just a formal analogy and should not be interpreted a real thermodynamic quantity. We will set aside this skeptical position.
2. dS entropy arises by quantizing degrees of freedom associated with a horizon. In $`\mathrm{dS}_{2+1}`$, Carlip’s horizon boundary conditions have yielded an account of de Sitter entropy .333A different approach has appeared recently in . However, it is unclear at present how to extend this approach, relying on features of $`2+1`$ gravity, directly to higher dimensions. For some ideas in this direction see .
3. dS entropy arises from quantum entanglement with degrees of freedom that are hidden behind the cosmological horizon. If Newton’s constant is wholly induced from matter fluctuations, black hole entropy can be understood in terms of entanglement . In a brane-world scenario  this has been used to analyze de Sitter entropy.
4. dS entropy counts the number of initial conditions that can evolve into empty de Sitter space.
5. dS entropy counts the number of microscopic configurations that are macroscopically de Sitter. This is the approach that succeeded for a large class of extremal and near-extremal black holes in string theory .
6. dS entropy is the finite dimension of the Hilbert space describing the quantum gravity of de Sitter. This radical conclusion has been particularly advocated by Banks .
7. dS entropy counts the number of degrees of freedom of quantum gravity in de Sitter space.

Several of these philosophies have their roots in the principle of holography proposed by ’t Hooft and Susskind .

Note that there is a difference between (6) and (7), since a single degree of freedom like a harmonic oscillator can have an infinite dimensional Hilbert space. Of course, at a fixed finite temperature, only a finite dimensional Hilbert space will be effectively accessible to a system with a finite number of degrees of freedom.

In any case, holographic arguments  strongly suggest that de Sitter entropy is at least meaningful as a bound on the functionally accessible entropy of matter systems within one horizon volume of a world with a cosmological constant. We might suppose that this quantity is relevant to an inertial observer’s effective description of the world within a static patch, and that this is the right way to think about de Sitter physics since there is a positive energy theorem for the relevant fluctuations . To make sense of physics in global coordinates, it has been argued that different static patches should be considered gauge copies of each other so that dS entropy measures a property of the entire universe . In our approach, we will evade this interpretational issue by simply discussing the entropy of de Sitter space in the Euclidean framework.

## 3 Seeking de Sitter space

#### No Go:

Any attempt to realize de Sitter space within string theory must contend with several no go theorems in the literature. These include one stating that de Sitter compactifications of conventional supergravity cannot be found under the following conditions : (a) The action does not contain higher derivative terms, (b) The scalars have a potential $`V(\varphi )0`$, (c) The form fields have positive kinetic terms, (d) The Newton constant on de Sitter is finite, namely gravitons interact with a finite strength. The low energy gravities arising from string theory certainly have higher derivative corrections. Likewise, not all scalar potentials arising in string theory are strictly non-negative. However, we will not explore these avenues in this paper. There is also a theorem stating that 11d supergravity does not admit a cosmological constant , and therefore does not give rise to the 11d de Sitter space. Finally, attempts to construct a maximal ($`𝒩=8`$) cosmological supergravity theory in four dimensions by starting with an Einstein term and a positive cosmological constant  revealed that de Sitter superalgebras do exist, but result in a Lagrangian with two closely related unpalatable features: (a) the R-symmetry group $`SO(6,2)`$ is non-compact, and therefore (b) the gauge field has some ghostlike components with the wrong sign kinetic term. Another curious feature of the de Sitter superalgebra is that the supercharges square to zero ,

$$\{Q,Q^{}\}=0,$$
(12)
instead of anticommuting to the Hamiltonian, $`\{Q,Q^{}\}=H`$, as usual. Note that the absence of $`H`$ on the right hand side of (12) implies that a positive energy theorem cannot be proved for de Sitter space by appealing to the supersymmetry algebra. What is more, the de Sitter superalgebras have no non-trivial representation on a positive Hilbert space, which certainly precludes any naive attempt to construct a Fock space of multi-particle states. These facts seem to suggest a possible connection with topological field theory.444A relation between de Sitter and topological field theories has been explored by Hull . The SO(6,2) de Sitter gravity is also presented in these papers.

#### Go?:

Hull and Warner showed that de Sitter spaces can arise from compactification of supergravity on hyperbolic manifolds. Problems with wrong sign kinetic terms were avoided in this approach by squashing the hyperbolic space to remove non-compact isometries . There have been attempts to escape these no go theorems by changing the rul1es of the theories in which they were derived. Hull  and Hull and Khuri  have discussed type II strings and M theory which can arise from timelike T-dualities of the conventional systems. These theories can have a variety of different spacetime signatures and admit Euclidean brane solutions whose near-horizon limits realize de Sitter space. In another approach, Chamblin and Lambert  have discussed a massive form of the 11d supergravity equations that admit de Sitter solutions. It is unclear at present whether these theories can be made stable and quantum mechanically consistent.

#### Go Around:

We will evade the no go theorems reviewed above by not requiring that dimensional reduction of the fundamental theory on a compact manifold yields de Sitter space. Rather, we are inspired by the result of  that a maximal supergravity on $`\mathrm{dS}_4`$ would have an SO(6,2) R-symmetry group. This is suggestive because that SO(6,2) is the isometry group of $`\mathrm{AdS}_7`$. M-theory admits $`\mathrm{S}^4\times \mathrm{AdS}_7`$ solutions in which the sphere is supported by a four-form flux passing through it. In these compactifications, the isometry group of the $`\mathrm{S}^4`$ acts as the SO(5) R-symmetry group of supergravity on $`\mathrm{AdS}_7`$. Turning things around we might expect that a theory on $`\mathrm{S}^4`$ obtained by “compactification” of M-theory on $`\mathrm{AdS}_7`$ should have an SO(6,2) R-symmetry arising from the AdS isometry group. Now recall that $`\mathrm{S}^4`$ is exactly the same manifold as 4d, Euclidean de Sitter space, $`\mathrm{EdS}_4`$, i.e., $`\mathrm{S}^4\times \mathrm{AdS}_7\mathrm{EdS}_4\times \mathrm{AdS}_7`$. We therefore suggest that:

The $`\mathrm{S}^D\times \mathrm{AdS}_{k+1}`$ solutions of M-theory should be regarded as $`\mathrm{EdS}_D\times \mathrm{AdS}_{k+1}`$ compactifications. In this picture, the cosmological constant is implemented by a D-form flux passing through the de Sitter world.

We will examine this proposal in the four basic $`\mathrm{EdS}_D\times \mathrm{AdS}_{k+1}`$ compactifications of M-theory, which have $`(D,k+1)=(5,5),(3,3),(4,7),(7,4)`$.

At first sight there are two problems with this proposal. First of all, in usual compactifications, the Newton constant on the noncompact factor is given by the higher dimensional $`G_N`$ divided by the volume of the internal space. AdS has an infinite volume and this threatens to give an effective vanishing Newton constant on the EdS side. Secondly, Lorentzian time is in the wrong place – it is in the AdS factor.555Possible compactifications on a Euclidean hyperbolic space to a Lorentz-signature de Sitter have been discussed by Hull . This tempting “double Wick rotation” of the AdS backgrounds requires Ramond-Ramond fields with the wrong-sign kinetic terms, and therefore belongs to the realm of M-theory. We will address these issues in turn.

### 3.1 Localization on AdS

We are interested in the physics of fluctuations of EdS and not of AdS. Therefore we should isolate a sector of the dynamics of $`\mathrm{EdS}_D\times \mathrm{AdS}_{k+1}`$ which describes fluctuations of the sphere. To do this we focus on supergravity modes that are minimally excited on the anti-de Sitter factor. The metric of AdS creates an effective potential well that localizes states of finite energy, although the space is non-compact. This is in marked contrast to flat space. This feature implies that the modes of interest to us effectively explore a finite volume of AdS.

To illustrate these points, it is helpful to examine the scalar wave equation on $`\mathrm{EdS}_D\times \mathrm{AdS}_{k+1}`$. Placing a mode in a spherical harmonic on the EdS factor yields a massive wave equation $`(^2+m^2)\varphi =0`$, where $`m^2`$ is the eigenvalue of the Laplacian on the sphere. Working with a global AdS metric

$$ds^2=L^2[\mathrm{sec}^2\rho dt^2+\mathrm{sec}^2\rho d\rho ^2+\mathrm{tan}^2\rho d\mathrm{\Omega }_{k1}^2],$$
(13)
the normalizable mode solutions to the wave equation on AdS are:

$`\varphi _+`$ $``$ $`e^{i\omega t}Y_{lp}(\mathrm{cos}\rho )^{2h_+}(\mathrm{sin}\rho )^l\times `$ (14)
$`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(h_++(l+\omega )/2,h_++(l\omega )/2,l+k/2;\mathrm{sin}^2\rho ),`$
$`2h_+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{k^2+4m^2L^2}}{2}},`$ (15)
$`\omega L`$ $`=`$ $`2h_++l+2n.`$ (16)
Here $`Y_{lp}`$ is a spherical harmonic on the AdS factor of the space, $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}`$ is a hypergeometric function  and $`L`$ is the AdS radius. (Recall that in the $`\mathrm{AdS}\times \mathrm{EdS}`$ compactifications of string theory $`L`$ is equal to $`\mathrm{}`$, the EdS scale, up to factors of two.) In particular, ground states, with $`n=l=0`$, have the form:

$$\varphi ^+e^{i\omega t}(\mathrm{cos}\rho )^{2h_+}$$
(17)
and are therefore localized within one AdS radius. It is easy to check that as $`l`$ increases, the modes (14) are pushed rapidly outward by the angular momentum barrier, and represent ripples of AdS, and not fluctuations of EdS. On the other hand, as $`n`$ increases, the wavefunction remains substantially localized inside the AdS scale. Higher harmonics on EdS increase the effective mass $`m^2`$ and hence $`h_+`$, localizing the $`l=0`$ modes still further. Although we have illustrated these point by studying scalar fields on AdS, similar behaviour occurs for higher spin fields. This analysis suggests that all the physics of EdS is already contained in modes that can be localized within one AdS radius.

One might prefer an alternative point of view in which we simply impose a cutoff at one AdS radius. In the CFT dual to AdS space, such a cutoff should correspond to a reduction to a matrix theory . We will later consider the consequences of enlarging the cutoff. However, we cannot decrease it without cutting off part of the wavefunctions of ground state modes on AdS.

Among the modes that we have admitted are the giant gravitons that expand inside EdS. These states, with $`l=n=0`$, are subject to a bound on $`h_+`$ , and expand into co-dimension two spheres on EdS. Interestingly, the largest giant graviton fills out the Euclidean de Sitter horizon.

### 3.2 “Compactifying” on AdS

We have argued that a finite spatial volume of AdS is accessible during interactions between the modes of interest for EdS physics. This does not yet imply a finite Newton constant on EdS, as we are still left with the non-compact time dimension in the AdS factor. In order to complete the effective compactification on AdS we will now make time in (13) periodic.

Supergravity modes on $`\mathrm{AdS}_{k+1}\times \mathrm{EdS}_D`$ are known to have quantized frequencies in units of the AdS scale.666For references, see the review . In essence, this happens because, despite its non-compactness, the AdS geometry creates an effective potential well for the supergravity fluctuations. Therefore, at the level of supergravity, we can compactify time with a period $`L`$.

Having made time periodic, we can also make it Euclidean at the same period. There are no normalizable mode solutions in Euclidean time, and the frequencies of non-normalizable modes are not quantized. The compactification of time projects out many of these modes, and only a quantized set of frequencies survives. Earlier we argued that the physics of EdS is already contained within the normalizable modes which are localized within one AdS radius. The analogous statement in Euclidean signature is that the non-normalizable modes of interest show pure scaling behaviour outside an AdS radius.

#### Estimating $`G_N`$:

We have argued that all the physics of EdS is already contained in the physics of excitations within one AdS radius $`L`$. The interaction strengths of such modes are governed by the overlaps of their localized wavefunctions on the AdS side. Since these wavefunctions are effectively contained in finite spatial volume $`L^k`$, their overlap can be estimated by cutting off the AdS space at one AdS radius and including the volume factor $`L^k`$ in the effective interaction strength of harmonic modes on the sphere. Moreover, the compactification of the AdS time at the scale $`L`$ implies that the effective volume of the AdS space-time accessible to the modes of interest is finite, and scales as $`L^{k+1}`$. Therefore, the effective Newton constant for the excitations of the $`\mathrm{EdS}_D`$ factor is finite, and scales as

$$G_D\frac{G_N}{L^{k+1}}\frac{G_N}{\mathrm{}^{k+1}}.$$
(18)
Here, and in future equations, we will only keep track of the scaling of quantities, and will not attempt to determine numerical factors.

## 4 De Sitter entropy

Using our estimate of $`G_N`$ we can examine the entropy of the EdS factors in the $`\mathrm{EdS}\times \mathrm{AdS}`$ compactifications of string theory.

#### EdS5 $`\times `$ AdS5:

The geometric area of the Euclidean horizon of $`\mathrm{EdS}_5`$ in units of the effective Newton constant $`G_5`$ gives the entropy:

$$S_5\frac{\mathrm{}^3}{G_5}.$$
(19)
We have argued that because the modes of interest for the study of EdS physics are effectively localized on AdS,

$$G_5\frac{G_{10}}{\mathrm{}^5}.$$
(20)
The $`\mathrm{EdS}_5\times \mathrm{AdS}_5`$ compactification of IIb string theory is dual to the superconformal Yang-Mills theory of the $`SU(N)`$ gauge group, defined on the 4d $`\mathrm{AdS}_5`$ boundary. The $`\mathrm{EdS}`$ radius is given in terms of the string length and $`N`$ as

$$\mathrm{}l_s(g_sN)^{1/4}.$$
(21)
In these variables the entropy is given by

$$S_5N^2.$$
(22)
All factors of $`l_s`$ had to cancel for dimensional reasons, but it is significant that the string coupling $`g_s`$ drops out. Since the matrices of the CFT are $`N\times N`$, the quantum mechanics obtained by dimensionally reducing it to a point will have

$$N_{\mathrm{d}.\mathrm{o}.\mathrm{f}.}N^2$$
(23)
degrees of freedom. In short, the gravitational entropy of $`\mathrm{EdS}_5`$ (22) matches the number of degrees of freedom (23) in the matrix mechanics. This is in accord with the expectation that the region in the deep interior of AdS, which we have argued contains the modes relevant for EdS physics, has a dual description in a matrix model .

#### EdS7 $`\times `$ AdS4:

In this case, the gravitational entropy is $`S_7\mathrm{}^5/G_7`$, in terms of $`\mathrm{}`$, the radius of $`\mathrm{EdS}_7`$ and $`G_7`$, the effective 7d Newton constant. Following earlier reasoning, $`G_7l_p^9\mathrm{}^4`$, where $`l_p`$ is the 11-dimensional Planck length. The $`\mathrm{EdS}_7\times \mathrm{AdS}_4`$ compactification of M-theory is dual to the strong coupling limit of the $`SU(N)`$ SYM in $`2+1`$ dimensions. This is a 3d CFT with $`SO(8)`$ R-symmetry arising from $`N`$ coincident M2-branes. According to the AdS/CFT dictionary $`\mathrm{}N^{1/6}l_p`$ . Assembling these facts, the gravitational entropy of $`\mathrm{EdS}_7`$ is $`S_7N^{3/2}`$. Although the dual CFT is strongly coupled, the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of non-extremal 2-branes suggests that there are $`O(N^{3/2})`$ independent degrees of freedom in it . Presumably, dimensionally reducing to a point gives a quantum mechanics with $`O(N^{3/2})`$ degrees of freedom, which matches the scaling of the $`\mathrm{EdS}_7`$ entropy.

#### EdS4 $`\times `$ AdS7:

The gravitational entropy of $`\mathrm{EdS}_4`$ is $`S_4\mathrm{}^2/G_4`$. As discussed, $`G_4l_p^9\mathrm{}^7`$. The $`\mathrm{EdS}_4\times \mathrm{AdS}_7`$ compactification of M-theory is dual to the strongly coupled $`(2,0)`$ CFT in 6 dimensions. This is the worldvolume theory of $`N`$ coincident M5-branes. The AdS/CFT dictionary states that $`\mathrm{}N^{1/3}l_p`$. These relations yield an $`\mathrm{EdS}_4`$ entropy $`S_4N^3`$. The Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of the non-extremal M5-brane system suggests that there are $`O(N^3)`$ degrees of freedom in the $`(2,0)`$ theory . We would expect that dimensionally reducing to a point yields a quantum mechanics with $`N^3`$ degrees of freedom, matching the $`\mathrm{EdS}_4`$ entropy.

#### EdS3 $`\times `$ AdS3:

Finally, consider the $`\mathrm{EdS}_3\times \mathrm{AdS}_3\times `$ compactifications of IIB string theory, with $`=K3`$ ($`T^4`$). The gravitational entropy is $`S_3\mathrm{}/G_3`$, where $`\mathrm{}`$ is the radius of $`\mathrm{EdS}_3`$ and $`G_3g_s^2l_s^4\mathrm{}^3`$. Furthermore, $`\mathrm{}^2l_6^2\sqrt{N}`$ where $`l_6`$ is the 6d Planck length resulting from the compactification on $`K3`$ ($`T^4`$). Putting these facts together, the gravitional entropy is $`S_5N`$. The dual theory is the $`(4,4)`$ symmetric product sigma model on the target $`(K3)^N/S_N`$ ($`(T^4)^N/S_N`$). The central charge of this theory is $`cN`$, and so we expect that the quantum mechanical reduction has $`N`$ degrees of freedom. Again, this coincides with the $`\mathrm{EdS}_3`$ entropy.

####

We have argued that in a variety of examples, the number of degrees of freedom of a quantum mechnical model derived from the AdS/CFT correspondence matches the entropy of Euclidean de Sitter space.

####

This picture makes one wonder whether there is a precise dual to Euclidean de Sitter space in terms of a matrix quantum mechanics. We have suggested that the physics of Euclidean de Sitter can be understood in terms of the lowest modes of fields which are localized within one AdS radius. In the dual CFT, this sector is described by a quantum mechanical theory in which the spatial dynamics has been completely suppressed. There are two ways of seeing this. First of all, the duals to the bulk $`l=0`$ states are created by the lowest Fourier modes of CFT operators. What is more, the UV/IR connection in the AdS/CFT correspondence, and the holographic renormalization group , teach us that phenomena localized deep in the AdS interior should be described by the long wavelength limit of the CFT. In particular, we expect that the physics of EdS that we are trying to isolate is contained within the quantum mechanical theory obtained by dimensionally reducing the dual CFT to a point .

One can effectively view our calculation in this section as cutting off AdS space at a radius $`r\mathrm{}`$ to get a finite Newton constant on EdS. Instead of keeping the physics inside one AdS radius, we could have chosen a different cutoff $`\epsilon \mathrm{}`$, effectively localizing inside a bigger portion of AdS. The holographic argument of Susskind and Witten  implies that the number of CFT degrees of freedom required to describe this region is then rescaled by $`\epsilon ^k`$. This change of the cutoff also rescales the effective $`G_D`$ on EdS by $`1/\epsilon ^k`$, and therefore the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy is multiplied by $`\epsilon ^k`$. Therefore, the relation between the entropy of EdS and the number of degrees of freedom in the quantum mechanical dual scales correctly with changes in the cutoff.

## 5 Discussion

In summary, we have argued that Euclidean de Sitter space makes an appearance in string theory as the sphere in the $`\mathrm{AdS}\times S`$ compactifications. The dynamics of EdS is carried by modes that are localized on AdS, yielding a finite effective Newton constant on the EdS factor. The resulting de Sitter entropy, measured as the area of the horizon in units of this effective $`G_N`$, scales as the number of degrees of freedom in the corresponding dual.

Our construction does not provide a decoupled theory of de Sitter gravity. Rather, the ambient AdS space acts like a regulator for the de Sitter theory, in much the same way that the massive states of strings regulate a theory of gravity that would otherwise be ill-defined.

The effective cutoff in AdS space certainly breaks conformal invariance. Since de Sitter space has a finite temperature, we also expect that supersymmetry should also be broken by the choice of the spin structure around the AdS time. An alternative way of making the Newton constant on EdS finite would be to orbifold AdS by a sufficiently large discrete symmetry group to get a space of finite volume. Precedents in this regard include .

It remains a challenge to continue our picture to Lorentzian de Sitter space. Since we started with Lorentzian time in the AdS factor, we must either move it to de Sitter or deal with a theory with two times. The second option arises if we rotate the EdS time back to Lorentzian signature while leaving AdS untouched. These geometries appear as formal solutions of M and Type II theories . If we eliminate the Lorentzian AdS time by Wick rotation, the Ramond-Ramond fields pick up wrong-sign kinetic terms . Clearly, there are questions about the stability and the quantum mechanical definition of these theories. Still, one is left with a sense that de Sitter is asking for two times. (In this regard, recall the non-compact R-symmetry groups in de Sitter superalgebras .)

An alternative approach is to attempt to make sense of the one Lorentzian time that is already present on the AdS side, perhaps by “grafting” it onto the EdS time. Consider choosing a new generator of Lorentzian time translations $`H^{}=H+J`$, where $`H`$ is the Hamiltonian on AdS and $`J`$ is the EdS rotation generator corresponding to Euclidean time translations. This procedure is somewhat reminiscent of topological twisting, since it mixes the original Hamiltonian with an R-symmetry generator.

If we can make sense of our picture in Lorentzian signature, it would be natural to attempt an interpretation of de Sitter entropy in terms of a counting of states. Which states should be counted? There is a natural bound on the energy of excitations that can be localized within a de Sitter volume. This bound is given by the mass of the largest black hole that can be placed within a horizon volume. The mass of the D-dimensional extremal Schwarschild-de Sitter solution, known as the Nariai black hole , is given by

$$M\frac{\mathrm{}^{D3}}{G_D}$$
(24)
In the CFT variables of our scenario $`\frac{\mathrm{}^{D2}}{G_D}`$ scales precisely as the number of degrees of freedom, or central charge $`c`$, of the dual theory. Therefore, the Nariai bound for the bulk energy translates into a bound on dimensionless CFT energies of the form $`E\mathrm{}Mc`$. This picture would suggest that the entropy of de Sitter space should be interpreted in terms of the finite dimension of the Hilbert space of states satisfying the Nariai bound.

Acknowledgements

We have benefitted from conversations with many colleagues including Tom Banks, Jan de Boer, Raphael Bousso, Sean Carroll, Robbert Dijkgraaf, Willy Fischler, Rajesh Gopakumar, Aki Hashimoto, Chris Hull, Sunny Itzhaki, Antal Jevicki, Igor Klebanov, Amanda Peet, Arvind Rajaraman, Lenny Susskind, Herman Verlinde, and Edward Witten. We thank Chris Hull for useful comments on this manuscript. V.B., P.H., and D.M. are supported respectively by the DOE grants DE-FG02-95ER40893, DE-FG02-96ER40959, and DE-FG03-84ER40168. In final stages of this work we enjoyed the hospitality of the ITP, Santa Barbara, and were supported by NSF grant PHY99-07949. The results in this paper were presented by one of us (P.H.) at “Strings 2001”, in Mumbai, India. We are grateful to the organizers for a stimulating conference.


format: text

text:
# 1 Left figures: the oscillatory part 𝑀_osc of the magnetization in the vortex state (full lines) as compared with the normal-state one (dotted lines) for the three cases of Eq. (). Right figures: the corresponding Dingle plots (points with error bars) compared with theoretical predictions.

\[

Gap Anisotropy and de Haas-van Alphen Effect in Type-II Superconductors

Kouji Yasui and Takafumi Kita

Division of Physics, Hokkaido University, Sapporo 060-0810, Japan

()

We present a theoretical study on the de Haas-van Alphen (dHvA) oscillation in the vortex state of type-II superconductors, with a special focus on the connection between the gap anisotropy and the oscillation damping. Numerical calculations for three different gap structures clearly indicate that the average gap along the extremal orbit is relevant for the magnitude of the extra damping, thereby providing support for experimental efforts to probe gap anisotropy through the dHvA signal. We also derive an analytic formula for the extra damping which will be useful to estimate angle- and/or band-dependent gap amplitudes.

\]

A considerable number of materials have been found in the 1990s to exhibit de Haas-van Alphen (dHvA) oscillation in the superconducting vortex state, the phenomenon discovered by Graebner and Robbins in 2H-NbSe2. Many theories have been put forward during the same period to explain this fundamental phenomenon observed in the system without a well-defined Fermi surface. However, there is yet no established theory comparable with the normal-state Lifshitz-Kosevich (LK) theory. Moreover, what is lacking seems to be a clear physical picture of the mechanism of the extra oscillation damping in the vortex state. To improve the situation, we present here a numerical study combined with an analytical one.

Novel aspects in our study are summarized as follows:

(i) We perform three-dimensional numerical calculations for the dHvA oscillations in the vortex state using the Bogoliubov-de Gennes equations. To date, numerical studies have been carried out only for the two-dimensional $`s`$-wave model, such as that of Norman et al. (NMA). Our results show that dHvA oscillations in three dimensions are quantitatively different in the vortex state from those in two dimensions.

(ii) To clarify the connection between the oscillation attenuation and the gap anisotropy, we use three different gap structures: $`s`$-wave, $`d`$-wave with four point nodes in the extremal orbit, and $`p`$-wave with a line node in the extremal orbit; see Eq. (13) below. It is thereby shown that the attenuation is determined by the average gap along the extremal orbit in zero magnetic field (see Fig. 1), in disagreement with the theory of Miyake. This result still indicates that one can probe the angle- and/or band-dependent gap amplitude in zero field with the dHvA effect in the vortex state. The origin of the discrepancy from Miyake’s result is discussed in some detail.

(iii) We derive a new analytic formula for the extra Dingle temperature in the vortex state:

$`k_\mathrm{B}T_\mathrm{\Delta }=0.5\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}|\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐩|^2_{\mathrm{eo}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mathrm{b}c}{\pi e\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1B/H_{c2}}{B}}.`$ (1)
Here, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}=0.125`$ is a dimensionless quantity characterizing the Landau-level broadening due to the pair potential, $`|\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐩|^2_{\mathrm{eo}}`$ denotes the average gap along the extremal orbit in zero field, $`m_\mathrm{b}`$ is the band mass, and $`B`$ and $`H_{c2}`$ are the average flux density and the upper critical field, respectively.

Equation (1) is derived below through the second-order perturbation with respect to the pair potential, i.e., an approach from $`H_{c2}`$, which is useful to estimate the gap amplitude along the extremal orbit. A difference from Maki’s formula lies in the prefactor where the Fermi velocity $`v_\mathrm{F}`$ is absent. Indeed, a dimensional analysis on the second-order perturbation tells us that the Landau-level broadening in the vortex state should be of order $`|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{(0)}(B)|^2/\mathrm{}\omega _\mathrm{c}`$, where $`\mathrm{}\omega _\mathrm{c}`$ is the cyclotron energy and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{(0)}(B)\sqrt{|\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐩|^2_{\mathrm{eo}}(1B/H_{c2})}`$ is essentially the average gap along the extremal orbit. This leads to Eq. (1) except for the numerical constant.

Terashima et al. reported a dHvA experiment on YNi2B2C where an oscillation (labeled $`\alpha `$) is seen to persist down to a field of order $`0.2H_{c2}`$. On the other hand, a specific-heat experiment at $`H=0`$ shows a power-law behavior $`T^3`$ at low temperatures, indicating the existence of the gap anisotropy in this material. This gap anisotropy may also play an important role for the dHvA signal far below $`H_{c2}`$. By using Eq. (1), the average gap of this band $`\alpha `$ will be estimated at the end of the paper.

Model: Our starting point is the Bogoliubov-de Gennes equation for the quasiparticle wavefunctions $`𝐮_s`$ and $`𝐯_s^{}`$ labeled by a quantum number $`s`$ with a positive eigenvalue $`E_s`$:

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫_2\left[\begin{array}{cc}\underset{¯}{}(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)& \underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)\\ \underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)& \underset{¯}{}^{}(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}𝐮_s(𝐫_2)\\ 𝐯_s^{}(𝐫_2)\end{array}\right]}`$ (6)
$`=E_s\left[\begin{array}{c}𝐮_s(𝐫_1)\\ 𝐯_s^{}(𝐫_1)\end{array}\right].`$ (9)
Here $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ is the pair potential and $`\underset{¯}{}`$ denotes the normal-state Hamiltonian in the external field $`𝐇\widehat{𝐳}`$; both are $`2\times 2`$ matrices to describe the spin degrees of freedom. We adopt as $`\underset{¯}{}`$ the free-particle Hamiltonian. As for the pair potential, we wish to consider three cases to yield the following energy gaps at $`H=0`$:

$`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_𝐩=\{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }_0W_pi\underset{¯}{\sigma }_y\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Delta }_0W_p\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _𝐩\mathrm{cos}2\phi _𝐩i\underset{¯}{\sigma }_y\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Delta }_0W_p\mathrm{cos}\theta _𝐩i\underset{¯}{\sigma }_z\underset{¯}{\sigma }_y\hfill \end{array},`$ (13)
where $`𝐩`$ is the momentum, $`W_p`$ denotes some cut-off function with $`W_{p_\mathrm{F}}=1`$ ($`p_\mathrm{F}`$: Fermi momentum), $`\theta _𝐩`$ ($`\phi _𝐩`$) is the polar (azimuthal) angle, and $`\underset{¯}{\sigma }_j`$’s are the Pauli matrices. The first one is the isotropic $`s`$-wave state, whereas the latter two have four point nodes ($`d`$-wave) and a line node ($`p`$-wave), respectively, in the extremal orbit of the $`xy`$ plane perpendicular to $`𝐇\widehat{𝐳}`$. It then turns out that the orbital part of the corresponding pair potentials in finite fields can be expanded with respect to $`𝐫𝐫_1𝐫_2`$ and $`𝐑\frac{1}{2}(𝐫_1+𝐫_2)`$ as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒩_\mathrm{f}}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{N_\mathrm{c}}{}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{(N_\mathrm{c})}(B)\psi _{N_\mathrm{c}𝐪}^{(\mathrm{c})}(𝐑_{}){\displaystyle \underset{N_\mathrm{r}mp_z}{}}(1)^{N_\mathrm{r}}`$ (18)
$`\times \psi _{N_\mathrm{r}m}^{(\mathrm{r})}(𝐫_{}){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{ip_zz/\mathrm{}}}{L_z}}\times \{\begin{array}{c}W_p\hfill \\ \frac{1}{2}W_p\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _𝐩\hfill \\ W_p\mathrm{cos}\theta _𝐩\hfill \end{array}.`$
Here $`N_\mathrm{c}`$ and $`N_\mathrm{r}`$ denote the Landau levels in the average flux density $`B`$, $`𝐪`$ is an arbitrarily chosen center-of-mass magnetic Bloch vector, and $`m`$ signifies the relative angular momentum along the $`z`$ axis so that $`m=0`$, $`0`$, and $`\pm 2`$ for the three cases, respectively, in a system with $`𝒩_\mathrm{f}^2/2`$ flux quanta and the length $`L_z`$ along the $`z`$ axis. The arguments $`𝐫_{}`$ and $`𝐑_{}`$ denote the $`xy`$ components, and $`p`$ and $`\theta _𝐩`$ are to be evaluated at $`p=(p_z^2+\mathrm{}^2N_\mathrm{r}/l_B^2)^{1/2}`$ and $`\theta _𝐩=\mathrm{tan}^1\frac{\mathrm{}\sqrt{N_\mathrm{r}}/l_B}{p_z}`$ with $`l_B(\mathrm{}c/eB)^{1/2}`$. See ref.  for the expressions of the basis functions $`\psi _{N_\mathrm{c}𝐪}^{(\mathrm{c})}`$ and $`\psi _{N_\mathrm{r}m}^{(\mathrm{r})}`$.

A significant advantage of Eq. (18) is that the coefficients $`\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{(N_\mathrm{c})}\}_{N_\mathrm{c}=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$ completely specify the pair potential, and the first few terms suffice to describe those of $`B\begin{array}{c}>\\ \end{array}0.1H_{c2}`$. The self-consistent mean-field theory predicts an oscillatory reentrant behavior of $`H_{c2}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{(N_\mathrm{c})}`$. On the contrary, such a singular behavior of $`H_{c2}`$ has never been identified definitely in any materials displaying the dHvA oscillation in the vortex state. Leaving the puzzling discrepancy for a future study, we here adopt the quasiclassical $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{(N_\mathrm{c})}`$ rather than the fully self-consistent one, with the square-root behavior

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{(0)}=a(1B/H_{c2})^{1/2}$$
(19)
of the mean-field second-order transition for the dominant $`N_\mathrm{c}=0`$ level. Then the best choice for $`\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{(N_\mathrm{c})}\}_{N_\mathrm{c}=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$ would be to use the results from the Eilenberger equations. Since our main interest lies in studying the differences in the oscillation damping among various gap structures, however, we here adopt a model form of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{(N_\mathrm{c})}`$ determined by requiring that the maximum of $`\frac{1}{V}𝑑𝐑|𝑑𝐫\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)\mathrm{e}^{i𝐩𝐫/\mathrm{}}|^2`$ be equal to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2(1B/H_{c2})`$, where $`V`$ is the volume of the system and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ denotes the maximum energy gap of the weak-coupling theory at $`T=H=0`$. This is possible within the lowest-Landau-level approximation of retaining only $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{(0)}`$, which is excellent for $`B\begin{array}{c}>\\ \end{array}0.1H_{c2}`$. The resulting $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{(0)}`$ also displays the square-root behavior, and our numerical calculation shows that $`a^20.5\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2`$ in all the three cases. We are planning to report on the best choice for $`a`$ from the Eilenberger equations.

The use of the quasiclassical pair potential (19) has an advantage: Self-consistent calculations for the continuum model necessarily result in a rather small number of Landau levels below the Fermi energy $`\epsilon _\mathrm{F}`$, i.e., $`N_\mathrm{F}10`$ at $`H_{c2}`$, hence failing to meet the condition $`N_\mathrm{F}1`$ appropriate for real materials. The present calculation with Eq. (19) is free from such a limitation. We have performed calculations including about $`50`$ Landau levels below $`\epsilon _\mathrm{F}`$ for the extremal orbit at $`H_{c2}`$.

Since the relevant materials have large Ginzburg-Landau parameter $`\kappa 1`$, we also neglect the screening in the magnetic field. Indeed, the effect has been shown to be irrelevant for the oscillation damping. We put $`T=0`$, adopt $`W_p=\mathrm{e}^{(\xi _p/0.1\epsilon _\mathrm{F})^4}`$ with $`\xi _p`$ the normal-state one-particle energy measured from $`\epsilon _\mathrm{F}`$, and choose the cyclotron energy at $`H_{c2}`$ as $`\mathrm{}\omega _{\mathrm{c2}}=k_\mathrm{B}T_c`$, in accordance with $`\mathrm{}\omega _{\mathrm{c2}}/k_\mathrm{B}T_c=13`$ for real materials.

Numerical Method: To solve it numerically for the above model, we transform Eq. (9) into the eigenvalue problem for the expansion coefficients of $`𝐮_s`$ and $`𝐯_s`$ in the quasiparticle basis functions $`\{\psi _{N𝐤\alpha }\}`$, where $`𝐤`$ is a quasiparticle magnetic Bloch vector and $`\alpha `$ $`(=1,2)`$ signifies twofold degeneracy of the orbital states. Then it can be solved separately for each $`𝐤\alpha `$ due to the translational symmetry of the vortex lattice. The overlap integral between $`\psi _{N_\mathrm{c}𝐪}^{(\mathrm{c})}(𝐑_{})\psi _{N_\mathrm{r}m}^{(\mathrm{r})}(𝐫_{})`$ and $`\psi _{N_1𝐤_1\alpha _1}(𝐫_1)\psi _{N_2𝐤_2\alpha _2}(𝐫_2)`$ vanishes unless $`𝐪=𝐤_1+𝐤_2`$ and $`\alpha _1=\alpha _2`$ so that the calculations are simplified greatly. The corresponding eigenstate is labeled explicitly by $`s=(\nu 𝐤\alpha p_z\sigma )`$ with $`\nu `$ ($`\sigma `$) the band (spin) index.

Numerical results: Figure 1(a) presents the oscillation of the $`s`$-wave magnetization as compared with the normal-state one. We see clearly that the oscillation frequency is unchanged from that of the normal state. With $`\mathrm{}\omega _\mathrm{c}=k_\mathrm{B}T_c`$ at $`H_{c2}`$, the oscillation is observed to persist down to a rather low field of $`H_{c2}/B\begin{array}{c}<\\ \end{array}1.8`$, i.e., $`B\begin{array}{c}>\\ \end{array}0.55H_{c2}`$, which is lower than $`0.8H_{c2}`$ where $`\mathrm{}\omega _\mathrm{c}`$ becomes equal to the spatial average of the energy gap: $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0(1B/H_{c2})^{1/2}`$. This is partly because the gap is smaller within the extremal orbit, as shown by Brandt et al. The points with error bars in Fig. 1(b) comprise the corresponding Dingle plot for the extra damping factor $`R_\mathrm{s}`$ obtained by numerical differentiation. This extra damping at high fields shows the behavior $`1B/H_{c2}`$ in the logarithmic scale, but an irregularity sets in around $`0.55H_{c2}`$ where the oscillation disappears. We attribute this irregularity to the effect of the bound-state formation in the core region. The lines are the predictions from various theoretical formulas. The Maki formula repro-

duces the correct functional behavior $`1B/H_{c2}`$ at high fields, but the prefactor is too large. The NMA formula, deduced from the two-dimensional self-consistent numerical results with $`N_\mathrm{F}10`$ at $`H_{c2}`$, clearly shows a more rapid attenuation incompatible with our numerical data. The theory of Dukan and Tešanović, which would predict $`R_\mathrm{s}=0`$ in the clean limit of $`T=0`$, is also inconsistent with the data. The solid line is due to Eq. (1) derived below; it reproduces both the functional dependence and the attenuation magnitude of the numerical data.

The above discrepancy between our numerical results and those of NMA may be attributed mainly to a difference in dimension. Indeed, the dHvA signal in three dimensions differs from that of two dimensions in that some finite region $`\delta p_z`$ around the extremal orbit is relevant. Most of the Landau levels in the region do not satisfy the particle-hole symmetry with respect to $`\epsilon _\mathrm{F}`$, so that the effect of the pair potential is rather small to be handled with the second-order perturbation. This may be the reason why the oscillation is more persistent in our three-dimensional numerical results. This point is crucial in our derivation of the analytic formula below.

Figures 1(c) and 1(d) show the results for the second energy gap in Eq. (13) which vanishes at four points on the Fermi surface along the extremal orbit. The damping is seen to be strong and not much different from the $`s`$-wave case. Equation (1) gives a good fit to the numerical data for $`H_{c2}/B\begin{array}{c}<\\ \end{array}1.8`$, thereby indicating that the average gap along the extremal orbit is relevant for the extra damping. This result is in disagreement with Miyake’s theory that point nodes in the extremal orbit should weaken the attenuation. Indeed, Miyake obtained his analytic formula by applying a semiclassical quantization condition for the expression of the electron number $`N`$ at $`B=0`$. Neither of his starting point $`N(B=0)`$ nor the use of the quantization condition may be justified for describing the dHvA signals observed mainly near $`H_{c2}`$.

In the line-node case of Figs. 1(e) and 1(f), in contrast, we observe a much weaker damping in favor of Miyake’s idea. However, the non-zero extra damping can only be explained by considering the contribution of some finite width near the extremal orbit. Using Eq. (1) to obtain the best fit to the numerical data, i.e., the solid line of Fig. 1(f), we estimate that the region $`|p_z|\begin{array}{c}<\\ \end{array}p_\mathrm{F}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\pi }{5}`$ contributes to the extra attenuation. This is in rough agreement with the estimation from the Fresnel integral $`_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}[i(\sqrt{2\pi N_\mathrm{F}}p_z/p_\mathrm{F})^2]𝑑p_z`$ which appears in obtaining the LK formula: Cutting the infinite integral at $`\sqrt{2\pi N_\mathrm{F}}|p_z|/p_\mathrm{F}10`$ with $`N_\mathrm{F}50`$ yields a similar value for the relevant range of $`p_z`$.

Analytic Formula: The Luttinger-Ward free-energy functional corresponding to Eq. (9) is given by

$`\mathrm{\Omega }={\displaystyle \frac{k_\mathrm{B}T}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{ln}`$ $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}\underset{¯}{}i\epsilon _n\underset{¯}{1}& \underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\\ \underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}& \underset{¯}{}^{}i\epsilon _n\underset{¯}{1}\end{array}\right]`$ (25)
$`\times \left[\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{e}^{i\epsilon _n0_+}\underset{¯}{1}& \underset{¯}{0}\\ \underset{¯}{0}& \mathrm{e}^{i\epsilon _n0_+}\underset{¯}{1}\end{array}\right]+\mathrm{},`$
where $`\epsilon _n/\mathrm{}`$ is the Matsubara frequency and $`0_+`$ is an infinitesimal positive constant. The terms $`\mathrm{}`$ may be expressed solely with respect to the pair potential so that they can be neglected in the present model to consider the oscillatory part. This $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ may be transformed into

$`\mathrm{\Omega }={\displaystyle \underset{s}{}}[k_\mathrm{B}T\mathrm{ln}(1+\mathrm{e}^{E_s/k_\mathrm{B}T})+E_s{\displaystyle |𝐯_s(𝐫)|^2𝑑𝐫}].`$ (26)
Since we are interested in the extra damping in the vortex state, we adopt as $`E_s`$ and $`𝐯_s`$ the expressions from the second-order perturbation with respect to $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$. They are

$`E_{N𝐤\alpha p_z\sigma }`$ $`=|\xi _{Np_z\sigma }|+\eta _{N𝐤p_z}^{(1)}\mathrm{sign}(\xi _{Np_z\sigma }),`$ (27)
$`{\displaystyle |𝐯_{N𝐤\alpha p_z\sigma }(𝐫)|^2𝑑𝐫}`$ $`=\theta (\xi _{Np_z\sigma })+\eta _{N𝐤p_z}^{(2)}\mathrm{sign}(\xi _{Np_z\sigma }),`$ (28)
where $`\theta (\xi )`$ is the step function and $`\eta _{N𝐤p_z}^{(n)}_N^{}|`$ $`\psi _{N𝐤\alpha }^{}(𝐫_1)\psi _{N^{}𝐪𝐤\alpha }^{}(𝐫_2)\frac{\mathrm{e}^{ip_z(z_1z_2)/\mathrm{}}}{L_z}\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)d𝐫_1d𝐫_2|^2/`$ $`(\xi _{Np_z\sigma }+\xi _{N^{}p_z\sigma })^n`$. The first terms on the right-hand side of these equations are just the normal-state expressions. The second terms, on the other hand, denote the finite quasiparticle dispersion in the magnetic Brillouin zone and the smearing of the Fermi surface, respectively, due to the scattering by the growing pair potential. It is useful to express $`\eta _{N𝐤p_z}^{(n)}`$ in terms of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{(0)}(B)`$ and the cyclotron energy $`\mathrm{}\omega _\mathrm{c}`$ of the extremal orbit as

$`\eta _{N𝐤p_z}^{(n)}={\displaystyle \frac{|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{(0)}(B)|^2}{(\mathrm{}\omega _\mathrm{c})^n}}\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{N𝐤p_z}^{(n)}.`$ (29)
The quantity $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{N𝐤p_z}^{(n)}`$ thus defined is dimensionless, and we realize that the main $`B`$ dependence in Eq. (29) lies in the prefactor $`|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{(0)}(B)|^2/(\mathrm{}\omega _\mathrm{c})^n`$. The explicit expression of $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{N𝐤p_z}^{(n)}`$ is given by

$`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{N𝐤p_z}^{(n)}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒩_\mathrm{f}^2}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{N^{}mm^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{|NN^{}|0N+N^{}|^2N+N^{}+m|2𝐤𝐪}{[N+N^{}2(N_\mathrm{F}+\delta )]^n}}`$ (34)
$`\times 2𝐤𝐪|N+N^{}+m^{}\times \{\begin{array}{c}1\hfill \\ \mathrm{sin}^4\theta _𝐩\hfill \\ \mathrm{cos}^2\theta _𝐩\hfill \end{array},`$
where the overlap integrals are given by eqs. (3.23) and (3.29) of ref. , $`\delta =\delta (B,p_z)`$ ($`|\delta |<1/2`$) specifies the location of $`\epsilon _\mathrm{F}`$ between the two closest Landau levels, and $`m,m^{}=0`$, $`0`$, and $`\pm 2`$ for the three cases of Eq. (18), respectively. The corresponding normalized density of states:

$`D_{Np_z}^{(n)}(\stackrel{~}{\eta }){\displaystyle \frac{2}{𝒩_\mathrm{f}^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤\alpha }{}}\delta (\stackrel{~}{\eta }\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{N𝐤p_z}^{(n)}),`$ (35)
will play a central role in the following.

Substituting eqs. (27) and (28) into Eq. (26), we find that the terms containing $`\eta _{N𝐤p_z}^{(2)}`$ may be neglected due to the cancellation between the particle and hole contributions. The remaining term can be transformed with the standard procedure. We thereby obtain, for the first harmonic of $`\mathrm{\Omega }/V`$, the expression:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_1}{V}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{k_\mathrm{B}T}{2\pi ^2l_B^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}{\displaystyle _{1/2}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑N\mathrm{cos}(2\pi N){\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑p_z{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{\eta }`$ (37)
$`\times D_{Np_z}^{(1)}(\stackrel{~}{\eta })\mathrm{ln}\left[1+\mathrm{e}^{(\xi _{Np_z\sigma }+\stackrel{~}{\eta }|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{(0)}(B)|^2/\mathrm{}\omega _\mathrm{c})/k_\mathrm{B}T}\right].`$
The function $`D_{Np_z}^{(1)}(\stackrel{~}{\eta })`$ depends on $`(N,p_z)`$, but may be replaced by a representative one $`\overline{D}_{\mathrm{}}^{(1)}(\stackrel{~}{\eta })`$ to be placed outside the $`N`$ and $`p_z`$ integrals, where the recovered index $`\mathrm{}`$ specifies the $`s`$-, $`d`$-, or $`p`$-wave case of Eq. (34). It may also be acceptable to use a Lorenzian for it: $`\overline{D}_{\mathrm{}}^{(1)}(\stackrel{~}{\eta })=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\mathrm{}}/\pi (\stackrel{~}{\eta }^2+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\mathrm{}}^2)`$. We thereby obtain an expression for the magnetization which carries an extra damping factor:

$`R_\mathrm{s}(B)`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\overline{D}_{\mathrm{}}^{(1)}(\stackrel{~}{\eta })\mathrm{exp}\left[2\pi i\stackrel{~}{\eta }|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{(0)}(B)|^2/(\mathrm{}\omega _\mathrm{c})^2\right]𝑑\stackrel{~}{\eta }`$ (39)
$`=\mathrm{exp}\left[2\pi \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\mathrm{}}|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{(0)}(B)|^2/(\mathrm{}\omega _\mathrm{c})^2\right].`$
Thus, the superconductivity gives rise to an extra Dingle temperature of $`k_\mathrm{B}T_\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\mathrm{}}|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{(0)}(B)|^2/\pi \mathrm{}\omega _\mathrm{c}`$, or equivalently, the extra scattering rate of $`\tau _\mathrm{s}^12\pi k_\mathrm{B}T_\mathrm{\Delta }/\mathrm{}`$.

Equation (39) may have an advantage that one can trace the origin of the extra dHvA damping definitely to the growing pair potential, which brings about a finite quasiparticle dispersion (34) in the magnetic Brillouin zone and the corresponding Landau-level broadening, Eq. (35). Moreover, Eq. (34) reveals that this broadening near $`H_{c2}`$ is closely connected with the zero-field gap structure, Eq. (13).

There seems to be no analytic way to estimate $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_s`$, so we determine it using the best fit to the numerical data of Fig. 1(b). Using Eq. (19) with $`a^2=0.5\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2`$, the procedure yields $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_s=0.125`$, as noted before. It is also clear for the anisotropic cases that the average gap around the extremal orbit is relevant for the extra attenuation, as may be realized from Eq. (34). We hence put $`a^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\mathrm{}}=0.5|\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐩|^2_{\mathrm{eo}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_s`$. We thereby obtain Eq. (1), which gives a good fit to the $`d`$-wave numerical data without any adjustable parameters; see Fig. 1(d).

Concluding Remarks: We have shown explicitly that the dHvA effect in the vortex state can be a powerful tool to probe the average gap along the extremal orbit. Such an experiment has recently been performed on UPd2Al3 by Inada et al., and Eq. (1) will be useful in similar experiments to estimate angle- and/or band-dependent gap amplitudes. Using the $`\alpha `$ oscillation of YNi2B2C observed by Terashima et al., for example, we obtain $`|\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐩|^2_{\mathrm{eo}}=1.5`$meV for this $`\alpha `$ band, a value much smaller than 2.5meV from the specific-heat measurement. It should be noted, however, that the numerical factor $`0.5`$ in Eq. (1) comes from our model described below Eq. (19). It has to be replaced by the result from the Eilenberger equations. We are planning to report on this together with detailed comparisons with experiments in the near future.

We acknowledge stimulating discussions with Y. Inada and Z. Tešanović. We are also grateful for the hospitality of the members of Institut für Theorie der Kondensierten Materie at Universität Karlsruhe and Physikalisches Institut at Universität Bayreuth, where a part of the work has been performed. T.K. acknowledges Yamada Science Foundation for financial support. Numerical calculations were performed on an Origin 2000 in “Hierarchical matter analyzing system” at the Division of Physics, Graduate School of Science, Hokkaido University.