format: text

text:
# Andreev bound states and 𝜋-junction transition in a superconductor / quantum-dot / superconductor system

## I INTRODUCTION

Superconductivity has the nature of quantum condensation in a macroscopic scale, which can be described by a wavefunction with phase factor $`e^{\text{i}\varphi }`$. When two superconductors are weak linked, the phase difference will manifest in the dc Josephson current, with the current-phase relation $`I=I_c\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _1\varphi _2)`$. If the weak link area is controlled by certain external conditions, the magnitude of the critical current $`I_c`$ may be either suppressed  or enhanced . In some occasions, even the sign of $`I_c`$ may be reversed , or equivalently the phase factor $`\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _1\varphi _2)`$ changes to $`\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _1\varphi _2+\pi )`$, referred to as the $`\pi `$-junction transition. One of the simplest example is the so-called superconducting quantum diffraction, in which a superconductor / insulator / superconductor tunnel junction is tuned by an external magnetic field. The dc Josephson current vs the magnetic flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }_B`$ has the form $`I=I_c\left[\frac{\mathrm{sin}\pi \mathrm{\Phi }_B/\mathrm{\Phi }_0}{\pi \mathrm{\Phi }_B/\mathrm{\Phi }_0}\right]\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _1\varphi _2)`$, and changes its sign at every $`\mathrm{\Phi }_B/\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ equal to an integer. Unfortunately, the $`\pi `$-junction transition cannot be directly detected in the two terminal tunnel junction because the current source is used in the measurement to control supercurrent rather than phase difference. However, in a mesoscopic superconductor / normal-metal / superconductor (SNS) junction with the N-region coupled to normal electrode(s) , the phase difference can be determined independently by the coherent Andreev reflection current which is proportional to $`\left|e^{\text{i}\varphi _1}+e^{\text{i}\varphi _2}\right|^2=2\left[1+\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _1\varphi _2)\right]`$. Thus, direct observation of the $`\pi `$-junction transition becomes accessible.

In mesoscopic SNS junctions, supercurrent is conducted through the N-region by Andreev reflection (AR) process . The energy gaps of two superconducting electrodes serve as two ”mirrors”, reflecting electron into hole and hole into electron. For ballistic SNS junctions, discrete Andreev bound states are formed in the N–region, each state carries positive or negative supercurrent. For diffusive SNS junctions, the so-called current carrying density of states (CCDOS) plays the similar role, which also has positive and negative contributions to the supercurrent. Recent experiment  demonstrated the $`\pi `$-junction transition in the diffusive SNS junction by applying control voltage on the N-region. In fact, the biased normal reservoirs across mesoscopic N–region induce a non-equilibrium distribution in the N-region, and make the occupied fraction of CCDOS deviating from the equilibrium one. When the control voltage is excess a certain value, the non-equilibrium distribution has so much weight on the negative part of CCDOS that the total current reverses its sign. Many theoretical works have been addressed on this issue, either for ballistic SNS junctions , or for diffusive SNS junctions .

In addition to non-equilibrium distribution, there is a completely different mechanism to realize the $`\pi `$-junction transition, i.e., coupling superconductors by an Anderson impurity or an interacting quantum dot (QD). The works of Glazman $`\mathrm{𝑒𝑡}`$ $`\mathrm{𝑎𝑙}`$.  and Spivak $`\mathrm{𝑒𝑡}`$ $`\mathrm{𝑎𝑙}`$.  revealed that when the impurity is single occupied, the sign of Josephson current for infinite Coulomb repulsion is opposite to that without the repulsion. Ishizaka $`\mathrm{𝑒𝑡}`$ $`\mathrm{𝑎𝑙}`$.  obtained the condition for $`\pi `$-junction transition, by using non-crossing approximation and varying the strength of the Coulomb repulsion, the bare level position, the tunneling strength, and the temperature. Rozhkov $`\mathrm{𝑒𝑡}`$ $`\mathrm{𝑎𝑙}`$.  analyzed the system in a non-perturbative way, and found a novel intermediate phase in which one of $`\varphi =0`$ and $`\varphi =\pi `$ is stable while the other is metastable, with the energy $`E(\varphi )`$ having a kink somewhere in between. Clerk $`\mathrm{𝑒𝑡}`$ $`\mathrm{𝑎𝑙}`$.  studied the case of infinite-$`U`$ and the regime where the superconducting gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the Kondo temperature $`T_K`$ are comparable, showing that the position of the sub-gap resonance in the impurity spectral function develops a strong anomalous phase dependence, and the $`\pi `$-junction behavior is lost as the position of the bound state moves above the Fermi energy.

Recently, there are growing interests in the physics of superconductor in contact with ferromagnetic material, and the following works revealed another approach to achieve $`\pi `$-junction. Prokić $`\mathrm{𝑒𝑡}`$ $`\mathrm{𝑎𝑙}`$.  presented a theory of the $`\pi `$-junction transition in atomic-scale superconductor / ferromagnet (S/F) superlattices. They found that the critical Josephson current has a non-monotonic dependence on the exchange field $`h`$ in the ferromagnetic layer, becoming zero at the critical value, corresponding to the transition between $`\varphi =0`$ and $`\varphi =\pi `$ in the ground state. Yip $`\mathrm{𝑒𝑡}`$ $`\mathrm{𝑎𝑙}`$.  and Heikkilä $`\mathrm{𝑒𝑡}`$ $`\mathrm{𝑎𝑙}`$.  demonstrated that the supercurrent through a mesoscopic SFS junction oscillates with an exponential decreasing envelope as a function of the exchange field or the distance between the electrodes. They also proposed that the suppressed supercurrent by the exchange field can be recovered by a proper non-equilibrium distribution.

With these in mind, we are curious whether there is any relationship among the above three mechanisms for $`\pi `$-junction transition. Motivated by this question, we investigate the following cases of $`\pi `$-junction transition in a superconductor / quantum dot / superconductor (S-QD-S) system and provide a unified picture based on Andreev bound states. In section II, we study the $`\pi `$-junction transition caused by Zeeman splitting. Assuming the QD with two spin levels $`E_{}`$ and $`E_{}`$, we find that the surface of the Josephson current $`I(\frac{\pi }{2})`$ vs the configuration of $`(E_{},E_{})`$ exhibits interesting profile: a sharp peak around $`E_{}=E_{}=0`$; a positive ridge in the region of $`E_{}E_{}>0`$; and a $`\mathrm{n}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{v}\mathrm{e}`$, flat, shallow plain in the region of $`E_{}E_{}<0`$. In section III, we study the $`\pi `$-junction transition caused by intra-dot interaction. We model QD by $`H_{dot}=E_0_\sigma c_\sigma ^{}c_\sigma +Un_{}n_{}`$, and handle the interaction term by Hartree-Fock approximation. Thus this case is reduced to the first one except a self-consistent calculation for $`n_\sigma `$. We show that the $`\pi `$-junction transition occurs when QD becomes a magnetic dot due to the interaction. The conditions for $`\pi `$-junction transition are also discussed. In section IV, we study the $`\pi `$-junction transition caused by non-equilibrium distribution in QD. By replacing the Fermi distribution $`f(\omega )`$ with a non-equilibrium one $`\frac{1}{2}\left[f(\omega V_c)+f(\omega +V_c)\right]`$, and allowing Zeeman splitting in QD as $`E_{}=E_{}=h,`$ we find that for $`h=0`$, the supercurrent reverses its sign when control voltage $`V_c`$ is excess a certain value, which is agree with previous work  and the experiment . For $`h0`$, the curves of Josephson current vs control voltage show a novel effect of interplay of non-equilibrium distribution with the magnetization in QD. Finally, we summarize our understanding of $`\pi `$-junction transition in S-QD-S system in section V.

## II  QD WITH TWO SPIN LEVELS

### A model Hamiltonian and formulation

In this section, we study the S-QD-S system modeled by the following Hamiltonian:

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`H_L+H_R+H_{dot}+H_T,`$ (1)
$`H_L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k\sigma }{}}ϵ_ka_{k\sigma }^{}a_{k\sigma }+{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}[\mathrm{\Delta }e^{i\varphi _L}a_k^{}a_k^{}+h.c],`$ (2)
$`H_R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{p\sigma }{}}ϵ_pb_{p\sigma }^{}b_{p\sigma }+{\displaystyle \underset{p}{}}[\mathrm{\Delta }e^{i\varphi _R}b_p^{}b_p^{}+h.c],`$ (3)
$`H_{dot}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}E_\sigma c_\sigma ^{}c_\sigma ,`$ (4)
$`H_T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k\sigma }{}}[t_La_{k\sigma }^{}c_\sigma +h.c]+{\displaystyle \underset{p\sigma }{}}[t_Rb_{p\sigma }^{}c_\sigma +h.c],`$ (5)
where $`H_L`$, $`H_R`$ describe the left and right superconducting leads with phase difference $`\varphi _L\varphi _R`$ , $`H_{dot}`$ describes the quantum dot with two spin levels, and $`H_T`$ is the coupling between the quantum dot and the superconducting leads.

Since Josephson current can be expressed in terms of the Green functions of the QD, we first derive the Green function by solving Dyson equation. Following the formulation in , we denote $`𝐆`$ and $`𝐠`$ as the Green functions of QD in Nambu representation, with and without the coupling to leads, respectively; and denote $`𝚺`$ as the self-energy due to the coupling between QD and the leads. The retarded Green function (Fourier transformed) of isolated QD is

$$𝐠^r=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{\omega E_{}+\text{i}0^+}& 0\\ 0& \frac{1}{\omega +E_{}+\text{i}0^+}\end{array}\right).$$
(6)
The retarded self-energy (Fourier transformed) under the wide bandwidth approximation can be derived as ,

$$𝚺_{L/R}^r(\omega )=\frac{\text{i}}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{L/R}\rho (\omega )\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\omega }e^{\text{i}\varphi _{L/R}}\\ \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\omega }e^{\text{i}\varphi _{L/R}}& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(7)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{L/R}`$ is the coupling strength between the superconducting leads and QD, defined by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{L/R}2\pi N_{L/R}t_{L/R}^2`$, in which $`N_L`$ and $`N_R`$ are the density of states in the left and right leads in normal state. The factor $`\rho (\omega )`$ is defined as,

$$\rho (\omega )\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{|\omega |}{\sqrt{\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}& |\omega |>\mathrm{\Delta }\\ \frac{\omega }{\text{i}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }^2\omega ^2}}& |\omega |<\mathrm{\Delta }\end{array}.$$
(8)
Notice that $`\rho (\omega )`$ is the ordinary dimensionless BCS density of states when $`|\omega |>\mathrm{\Delta }`$, but has an imaginary part when $`|\omega |<\mathrm{\Delta }`$, corresponding to Andreev reflection process within the superconducting gap. For simplicity, we assume that the two superconducting leads are identical except a phase difference . Let $`\varphi _L=\frac{\varphi }{2}`$, $`\varphi _R=\frac{\varphi }{2}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L=\mathrm{\Gamma }_R\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, then we obtain

$`𝚺^r`$ $``$ $`𝚺_L^r+𝚺_R^r=\text{i}\mathrm{\Gamma }\rho (\omega )\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\omega }\mathrm{cos}\frac{\varphi }{2}\\ \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\omega }\mathrm{cos}\frac{\varphi }{2}& 1\end{array}\right),`$ (11)
$`\stackrel{~}{𝚺}^r`$ $``$ $`𝚺_L^r𝚺_R^r=\text{i}\mathrm{\Gamma }\rho (\omega )\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\omega }(\text{i})\mathrm{sin}\frac{\varphi }{2}\\ \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\omega }\text{}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\varphi }{2}& 0\end{array}\right).`$ (14)
By using Dyson equation, the retarded Green function of QD can be obtained as,

$$𝐆^r=\left[𝐠^{r^1}𝚺^r\right]^1=\frac{1}{A}\left(\begin{array}{cc}g_{22}^{r^1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{22}^r& \mathrm{\Sigma }_{12}^r\\ \mathrm{\Sigma }_{21}^r& g_{11}^{r^1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}^r\end{array}\right),$$
(15)
where $`A=A(\omega )`$ defined as

$$A(\omega )det\left[𝐠^{r^1}𝚺^r\right]=(g_{22}^{r^1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{22}^r)(g_{11}^{r^1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}^r)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{12}^r\mathrm{\Sigma }_{21}^r.$$
(16)
The general current formula for a mesoscopic hybrid multi-terminal system has been derived in . For the time-independent case and QD with two spin levels under consideration, the current formula can be rewritten in a compact form (in units of $`e=\mathrm{}=1`$):

$$I_{L/R}=I_{L/R,}+I_{L/R,}=\frac{d\omega }{2\pi }2Re\left[𝐆𝚺_{L/R}\right]_{1122}^<,$$
(17)
where $`\left[CD\right]^<C^<D^a+C^rD^<`$, $`\left[\right]_{1122}\left[\right]_{11}\left[\right]_{22}`$, and $`𝐆`$, $`𝚺_{L/R}`$ are the Fourier transformed $`2\times 2`$ Nambu matrices. Since $`I=I_L=I_R`$ in the stationary transport, the current formula can be further reduced to

$$I=\frac{1}{2}(I_LI_R)=\frac{d\omega }{2\pi }Re\left[𝐆\stackrel{~}{𝚺}\right]_{1122}^<,$$
(18)
with $`\stackrel{~}{𝚺}𝚺_L𝚺_R`$ . Applying the fluctuation-dissipation theorem, one has $`𝐆^<=f(\omega )\left[𝐆^a𝐆^r\right]`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝚺}^<=`$ $`f(\omega )\left[\stackrel{~}{𝚺}^a\stackrel{~}{𝚺}^r\right]`$, where $`f(\omega )=1/(e^{\beta \omega }+1)`$ is the Fermi distribution function. Notice that $`(𝐆^r)^{}=𝐆^a`$, $`(\stackrel{~}{𝚺}^r)^{}=\stackrel{~}{𝚺}^a`$, the expression in the integrand can be simplified to

$$Re\left[𝐆\stackrel{~}{𝚺}\right]_{1122}^<=f(\omega )2\mathrm{sin}\varphi \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}\left[Im\frac{1}{A(\omega )}\right].$$
(19)
Consequently, the Josephson current is expressed as

$$I=2\mathrm{sin}\varphi \frac{d\omega }{2\pi }f(\omega )j(\omega ),$$
(20)
in which the current carrying density of states (CCDOS) $`j(\omega )`$ is defined by

$$j(\omega )\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}\left[Im\frac{1}{A(\omega )}\right].$$
(21)
Because the singularities of $`j(\omega )`$ lie in the same half-plain, CCDOS $`j(\omega )`$ satisfies the condition $`j(\omega )𝑑\omega =0`$.

Since $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^r(\omega )`$ is purely imaginary when $`\left|\omega \right|>\mathrm{\Delta }`$ while purely real when $`\left|\omega \right|<\mathrm{\Delta }`$, so $`A(\omega )`$ has finite imaginary part when $`\left|\omega \right|>\mathrm{\Delta }`$, while infinitesimal imaginary part when $`\left|\omega \right|<\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Correspondingly, the Josephson current can be divided into two parts, contributed from the continuous spectrum and from the discrete spectrum, respectively:

$`I`$ $`=`$ $`I_c+I_d,`$ (22)
$`I_c`$ $``$ $`2\mathrm{sin}\varphi \left({\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^\mathrm{\Delta }}+{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{}}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{2\pi }}f(\omega )j(\omega ),`$ (23)
$`I_d`$ $``$ $`2\mathrm{sin}\varphi {\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Delta }^\mathrm{\Delta }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{2\pi }}f(\omega )j(\omega ).`$ (24)
We shall show in the appendix that when $`|\omega |<\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\varphi 0`$, the equation $`A(\omega )=0`$ has two real roots denoted by $`\stackrel{~}{E}_1=\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}\theta _1`$and $`\stackrel{~}{E}_2=\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}\theta _2`$, where $`\theta _1`$ and $`\theta _2`$ are the two roots of the following equation,

$$\left(\mathrm{sin}\theta +\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\mathrm{tan}\theta \frac{E_{}}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)\left(\mathrm{sin}\theta +\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\mathrm{tan}\theta +\frac{E_{}}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\varphi }{2}=0$$
(25)
with $`\theta (\frac{\pi }{2},\frac{\pi }{2})`$. Equation (15) completely determines the properties of Andreev bound states. The roots $`\stackrel{~}{E}_1`$and $`\stackrel{~}{E}_2`$ are just the Andreev bound states. In the range of $`\left|\omega \right|<\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`A(\omega )`$ can be written as $`a(\omega )(\omega \stackrel{~}{E}_1+`$i$`0^+)(\omega \stackrel{~}{E}_2+`$i$`0^+)`$, and $`\left[Im\frac{1}{A(\omega )}\right]`$ is reduced to

$$Im\frac{1}{A(\omega )}=\pi \left[\frac{1}{A^{}(\stackrel{~}{E}_1)}\delta (\omega \stackrel{~}{E}_1)+\frac{1}{A^{}(\stackrel{~}{E}_2)}\delta (\omega \stackrel{~}{E}_2)\right].$$
(26)
Finally, the Josephson current through S-QD-S system can be expressed as,

$`I`$ $`=`$ $`I_c+I_d,`$ (27)
$`I_c`$ $``$ $`2\mathrm{sin}\varphi \left({\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^\mathrm{\Delta }}+{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{}}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{2\pi }}f(\omega ){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}\left[Im{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A(\omega )}}\right],`$ (28)
$`I_d`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi \left[f(\stackrel{~}{E}_1){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{\stackrel{~}{E}_1^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A^{^{}}(\stackrel{~}{E}_1)}}+f(\stackrel{~}{E}_2){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{\stackrel{~}{E}_2^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A^{^{}}(\stackrel{~}{E}_2)}}\right].`$ (29)
This current formula will be used in the following numerical study .

### B numerical results and discussions

Now we discuss the numerical results for Andreev bound states and the Josephson current. In all numerical studies of this paper, we take $`e=\mathrm{}=k_B=1`$, set $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1`$, i.e., measure all energies in units of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.1`$ for symmetric and weak coupling case, and fix the phase difference $`\varphi =\frac{\pi }{2}`$.

Fig.1 presents the solution of Eq.(15), i.e., Andreev bound states of S-QD-S system. In the limit of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{}`$, Eq.(15) gives $`\stackrel{~}{E}_1=\left|\mathrm{cos}\frac{\varphi }{2}\right|`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{E}_2=\left|\mathrm{cos}\frac{\varphi }{2}\right|`$, the well-known Andreev bound states for a clean superconducting point contact . Conversely, in the limit of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }0`$, the two roots of Eq.(15) are $`\stackrel{~}{E}_1=E_{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{E}_1=E_{}`$, i.e., the bare levels of electron with spin$``$ and hole with spin$``$ of the QD. (We describe spin$``$ quasiparticle in electron language and spin$``$ quasiparticle in hole language due to the choice of Nambu representation.) For the case of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ under consideration, where QD is weakly coupled with the superconducting leads, the solutions of Eq.(15) depend strongly on the configuration of QD levels $`(E_{},E_{})`$, but weakly on the phase difference $`\varphi `$. The surfaces of $`\stackrel{~}{E}_1`$ vs $`(E_{},E_{})`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{E}_2`$ vs $`(E_{},E_{})`$ for $`\varphi =\frac{\pi }{2}`$ are shown in Fig.1a and Fig.1b, respectively. In this case, the electron level $`E_{}`$ and the hole level $`E_{}`$ are coupled by AR tunneling. Therefore, Andreev bound states can be viewed as hybrid states of $`E_{}`$ and $`E_{}`$, and an energy gap of the order $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is opened where $`E_{}`$ and $`E_{}`$ are equal (see Fig.1c and Fig.1d). Further study on the relations of $`\stackrel{~}{E}_1`$ vs $`\varphi `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{E}_2`$ vs $`\varphi `$ can provide the information of supercurrent carried by each Andreev bound state (not shown).

Fig.2 presents the surface of Josephson current $`I`$ vs the configuration of $`(E_{},E_{})`$. First, the surface is symmetric to the diagonal lines of $`E_{}=E_{}`$ and $`E_{}=E_{}`$, which reflects the symmetry between electron and hole and the fact that supercurrent are non-spin-polarized. Second, the surface exhibits interesting profile: a sharp peak around $`E_{}=E_{}=0`$; a positive ridge in the region of $`E_{}E_{}>0`$; and a negative, flat, shallow plain in the region of $`E_{}E_{}<0`$. Note that the positive ridge and negative plain share a sharp edge. Third, consider two special but typical cases, $`E_{}=E_{}E_0`$ (Fig.2b), and $`E_{}=E_{}E_0`$ (Fig.2c), which are actually the diagonal cuts of Fig.2a. For the case of $`E_{}=E_{}`$, the $`I`$ vs $`E_0`$ curve has a peak at $`E_0=0`$ with a width of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, which reproduces the result for QD with one spin-degenerate level . For the case of $`E_{}=E_{}`$, the $`I`$ vs $`E_0`$ curve has the same maximum at $`E_0=0`$, but jumps suddenly from the positive maximum to a small negative value around $`E_0=\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }`$, which is quite similar to the curve of the critical current vs the exchange field in an atomic scale S/F superlattice (see Fig.2 of ).

To understand these features, we plot CCDOS $`j(\omega )`$ for different configurations of $`(E_{},E_{})`$ in Fig.3. The supercurrent can be expressed as $`I=2\mathrm{sin}\varphi \frac{d\omega }{2\pi }f(\omega )j(\omega )`$, and only the spectrum of $`\omega <0`$ devotes to the current at zero temperature. For the spectrum of $`E_{}=E_{}=0`$ , $`j(\omega )`$ has two $`\delta `$-function type discrete spectrum within the superconducting gap, corresponding to two Andreev bound states. They carry supercurrent with opposite signs, positive for $`\stackrel{~}{E}_1<0`$, and negative for $`\stackrel{~}{E}_2>0`$. $`j(\omega )`$ also has continuous spectrum outside the superconducting gap, negative and positive for $`\omega <\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\omega >\mathrm{\Delta }`$, respectively. Since the contribution from the discrete spectrum is much larger than that from the continuous one, the current peak at $`E_{}=E_{}=0`$ is mostly contributed from $`\stackrel{~}{E}_1`$. For the spectrum of $`E_{}=E_{}=E_00`$, $`\stackrel{~}{E}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{E}_2`$ move toward $`\pm \mathrm{\Delta }`$, symmetric to the Fermi surface (see also Fig.1c). The contribution from the discrete spectrum $`\stackrel{~}{E}_1`$ decreases continuously with $`E_0`$, corresponding to the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-width broadening of the $`E_0=0`$ peak in Fig.2c. For the spectrum of $`E_{}=E_{}=E_00`$, however, $`\stackrel{~}{E}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{E}_2`$ move in the same direction. When $`E_0<\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ or $`E_0>\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, both $`\stackrel{~}{E}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{E}_2`$ are below or above the Fermi surface (see also Fig.1d). As a consequence, they have little net contribution to the supercurrent, and the relatively small negative continuous spectrum of $`\omega <\mathrm{\Delta }`$ dominates. Because the crossover of $`\stackrel{~}{E}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{E}_2`$ from different sides of the Fermi surface to one side occurs abruptly, sudden jumps between the positive maximum and the negative valleys appear in Fig.2d. Similarly, one can understand the whole surface of Fig.2 with the help of the Andreev bound states in Fig.1 and the properties of CCDOS in Fig.3.

The above results are for zero temperature, the temperature dependence of the Josephson current is shown in Fig.4. Notice that the supercurrent is sensitive to the temperature. The height of $`E_{}=E_{}=0`$ peak (referred as $`I_0`$) decreases rapidly with the increase of the temperature, $`I_0=0.06,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.004},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.001}`$ for $`T=0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.25},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.50}`$, respectively. The sharp edge between $`I>0`$ and $`I<0`$ is also smeared out at finite temperatures. This reason is, at finite temperature not only the Andreev bound state below the Fermi surface but also the one above the Fermi surface has contribution to the supercurrent.

## III QD WITH INTRA-DOT INTERACTION

### A Hartree-Fock approximation

In this section, we investigate the $`\pi `$-junction transition caused by the intra-dot interaction. The quantum dot with Coulomb interaction can be described by $`H_{dot}=E_0_\sigma c_\sigma ^{}c_\sigma +Un_{}n_{}`$. As in the problem of local moment in nonmagnetic metals , we deal with the interaction term by Hartree-Fock approximation (HFA), in which $`Un_{}n_{}`$ is replaced by $`Un_{}n_{}+Un_{}n_{}`$. Thus, $`H_{dot}`$ becomes $`_\sigma E_\sigma ^{}c_\sigma ^{}c_\sigma ,`$ with the effective levels $`E_\sigma ^{}`$ $`E_0+Un_{\overline{\sigma }}`$. Despite of the roughness of HFA, it contains the physics of magnetization due to Coulomb interaction. More important, the approximation allows us to obtain a solution including infinite order of tunneling processes, which is crucial for describing the Andreev bound states and the supercurrent they carried. However, HFA fails in the Kondo regime. As discussed in , if $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_K\sqrt{U\mathrm{\Gamma }}e^{\pi |E_0\mu |/\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$, the spin of the impurity is completely screened by Kondo effect, and there will be no $`\pi `$-junction behavior. In this work, we will constrain ourselves to the weak coupling case where magnetization effect dominates, corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_K`$ regime.

Then most of the formula in the previous section can be transplanted, except the averaged occupation number $`n_\sigma `$ needs a self-consistent calculation. Notice that $`n_\sigma `$ can be derived from the retarded Green function of QD as

$`n_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{2\pi }f(\omega )\left[2ImG_{11}^r(\omega )\right]},`$ (30)
$`1n_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{2\pi }f(\omega )\left[2ImG_{22}^r(\omega )\right]}.`$ (31)
Similar to the current formula, $`n_\sigma `$ can be divided into two parts, the contribution from discrete spectrum and the contribution from continuous spectrum,

$`n_{}`$ $`=`$ $`n_{}_c+n_{}_d,`$ (32)
$`n_{}_c`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^\mathrm{\Delta }}+{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{}}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{2\pi }}f(\omega )\left[2Im{\displaystyle \frac{g_{22}^{r^1}(\omega )\mathrm{\Sigma }_{22}^r(\omega )}{A(\omega )}}\right],`$ (33)
$`n_{}_d`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\left[f(\omega ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{A^{^{}}(\omega )}}\left(g_{22}^{r^1}(\omega )\mathrm{\Sigma }_{22}^r(\omega )\right)\right]_{\omega =\stackrel{~}{E}_i},`$ (34)
$`n_{}`$ $`=`$ $`n_{}_c+n_{}_d,`$ (35)
$`1n_{}_c`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^\mathrm{\Delta }}+{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{}}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{2\pi }}f(\omega )\left[2Im{\displaystyle \frac{g_{11}^{r^1}(\omega )\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}^r(\omega )}{A(\omega )}}\right],`$ (36)
$`1n_{}_d`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\left[f(\omega ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{A^{^{}}(\omega )}}\left(g_{11}^{r^1}(\omega )\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}^r(\omega )\right)\right]_{\omega =\stackrel{~}{E}_i}.`$ (37)
Since $`𝐠^r`$ contains unknown quantity $`n_\sigma `$ through $`E_\sigma ^{}`$, the above equations for $`n_\sigma `$ should be solved self-consistently.

### B numerical results and discussions

Next, we present the numerical results for the interacting QD system at zero temperature. Fig.5 shows $`I`$ vs $`E_0`$ and corresponding $`n_\sigma `$ vs $`E_0`$ curves for two typical cases, the QD without interaction ($`U=0`$ in Fig.5a) and with strong interaction ($`U\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in Fig.5b). The S-QD-S system behaves like one of the above two cases, Depending on the magnitudes of the interacting constant $`U`$ and the coupling strength $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, the S-QD-S system may behave differently. If $`U<\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, the occupation numbers $`n_{}`$ and $`n_{}`$ are almost equal, leading to the supercurrent always positive with a maximum at $`E_0=U/2`$, and the system behaves as same as the non-interacting one. On the contrast, if $`U>\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, a symmetry breaking solution of Eq.(19) and Eq.(20) is energy preferred, in which $`n_{}`$ and $`n_{}`$ are unequal, and QD becomes a magnetic dot. Consequently, the effective level $`(E_{}^{},E_{}^{})`$ occupy a series of configurations in the negative plain of Fig.1, so the Josephson current has a small but negative valley in $`I`$ vs $`E_0`$ curve. We determine the transition border of the above two cases by the parametric diagram of $`I`$ vs $`(E_0/\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Gamma }/U)`$ in Fig.6. By virtue of electron-hole symmetry, the diagram is symmetric to $`E_0/U=0.5`$. The black area in Fig.6b indicates the range of parameters where the S-QD-S system behaves as a $`\pi `$-junction. One can see from the diagram that the system is likely to transfer to $`\pi `$-junction around $`E_0=U/2`$.

The temperature dependence are studied in Fig.7, which shows $`I`$ vs $`E_0`$ curves with $`U=1`$ for different temperatures. Due to the electron-hole symmetry, only half of the plot is shown. The sharp structure at zero temperature is smoothed at finite temperatures, and the negative part of the supercurrent vanishes above a critical temperature. These features can be understood by taking account of the temperature effect on the supercurrent through QD with two spin levels in Fig.4 and the temperature effect on the averaged QD occupation numbers. We also study the diagram of $`I`$ vs $`(U,T)`$ where $`E_0`$ is set to $`U/2`$ (not shown here). The transition line from $`I<0`$ to $`I>0`$ can be fitted as $`U=0.17+7.5T`$, which is consistent with the result derived by non-crossing approximation in .

## IV QD IN NON-EQUILIBRIUM DISTRIBUTION

Now we turn to discuss $`\pi `$-junction transition caused by non-equilibrium distribution in QD. In a recent work by Sun $`\mathrm{𝑒𝑡}`$ $`\mathrm{𝑎𝑙}`$. , a mesoscopic four-terminal Josephson junction (S-QD-S with two normal leads connected to QD) was studied. By using non-equilibrium Green function method, they found that the supercurrent between the two superconducting electrodes can be suppressed and even reversed by changing the dc voltage applied across the two normal terminals. Here we only take the essential point of that work but omit its tedious calculation, by simply assuming that QD has a two-step distribution function as

$$F(\omega )=\frac{1}{2}\left[f(\omega V_c)+f(\omega +V_c)\right]\stackrel{T0}{}\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \omega <V_c\hfill \\ 0.5\hfill & V_c<\omega <V_c\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \omega >V_c\hfill \end{array},$$
(38)
corresponding to the limit of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=\mathrm{\Gamma }_40`$ in . Different from , here we allow the two spin levels of QD have a Zeeman splitting, i.e., $`E_{}=E_{}=h`$. The curves of the Josephson current $`I(\varphi =\frac{\pi }{2})`$ vs the control voltage $`V_c`$ for different Zeeman splitting $`h`$ are shown in Fig.8. These curves are step-like because $`F(\omega )`$ is step-like at $`T=0`$, and $`j(\omega )`$ has $`\delta `$-function type discrete spectrum in the range of $`\mathrm{\Delta }<\omega <\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Either finite temperature or small broadening of Andreev bound states will smooth the curves.

For $`h=0`$, $`I`$ reverses its sign around $`V_c=\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and the magnitude of positive current is much larger than that of negative one, which is agree qualitatively with the experiment  and previous work . For $`h0`$, curves of $`I`$ vs $`V_c`$ have a peak around $`V_c=h`$, with the width about $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, the height about half of that for $`h=0`$. On each side of the peak, there is a negative current valley, where the system behaves as $`\pi `$-junction. These results are also consistent with the calculations for non-equilibrium SFS junction . One can understand these curves by considering the two-step distribution $`F(\omega )`$ and CCDOS in Fig.4. For example, for the curve of $`h=0.2`$ (marked with “1” in Fig.8), both positive and negative Andreev bound states are above the Fermi surface \[see CCDOS of $`(E_{},E_{})=(0.2,0.2)`$ \], located near $`h\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`h+\mathrm{\Gamma },`$ respectively. When $`V_c=h`$, the positive bound state has a weight of 0.5, while the negative one has 0, reducing the peak height to one half of that for $`h=0`$. For both $`V_c<h\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ or $`V_c>h+\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, the two Andreev bound states have the same weights (either 0 or 0.5), and have little net contribution to the supercurrent. Therefore, the negative continuous spectrum of $`\omega <\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is dominant in the supercurrent, leading to the $`\pi `$-junction transition on both sides of the positive peak.

## V  CONCLUSIONS

In this work, we have investigated different mechanisms for the $`\pi `$-junction transition in S-QD-S system. From the current formula $`I=2\mathrm{sin}\varphi \frac{d\omega }{2\pi }F(\omega )j(\omega )`$, one can see that the $`\pi `$-junction transition may originate from the change of CCDOS $`j(\omega )`$, or the change of the distribution function $`F(\omega )`$, or from the changes of both. The two mechanisms discussed in sections II and III, the Zeeman splitting and intra-dot interaction, are involved the change of CCDOS $`j(\omega )`$ only. These two mechanisms are closely connected since the intra-dot interaction may induce magnetization in QD if the interaction is strong enough. The third mechanism studied in section IV involves the change of the distribution function in QD, and the interplay of the magnetization with the non-equilibrium distribution in QD. It is interesting that the change of CCDOS and the change of distribution have the similar effect on the $`\pi `$-junction transition, where the positive and negative Andreev bound states cancels each other, leaving the negative continuous spectrum dominant in the supercurrent. The interplay of the two mechanisms lead to the novel effect that the supercurrent suppressed by magnetization of the QD can be partially recovered by a proper non-equilibrium distribution of electrons in the QD.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This project was supported by NSFC under grant No.10074001. One of the authors (T.-H. Lin) would also like to thank the support from the Visiting Scholar Foundation of State Key Laboratory for Mesoscopic Physics in Peking University.

To whom correspondence should be addressed.

## VI APPENDIX

In this appendix, we discuss the equation of Andreev bound states, i.e. $`A(\omega )=0`$ with $`|\omega |<\mathrm{\Delta }`$ :

$$A(\omega )=\left(\omega E_{}+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\omega }{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }^2\omega ^2}}\right)\left(\omega +E_{}+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\omega }{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }^2\omega ^2}}\right)\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2\omega ^2}\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\varphi }{2}=0.$$
(39)
Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }`$ , $`E_{}=\epsilon _1\mathrm{\Delta }`$ , $`E_{}=\epsilon _2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ , $`\omega =\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}\theta `$ , $`\theta (\frac{\pi }{2},\frac{\pi }{2})`$, the equation becomes a dimensionless form,

$$b(\theta )(\mathrm{sin}\theta +\gamma \mathrm{tan}\theta \epsilon _1)(\mathrm{sin}\theta +\gamma \mathrm{tan}\theta \epsilon _2)\mathrm{cos}^2\theta =\gamma ^2\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\varphi }{2}.$$
(39)
Note that the function of $`y=\mathrm{sin}\theta +\gamma \mathrm{tan}\theta `$ projects $`\theta (\frac{\pi }{2},\frac{\pi }{2})`$ monotonously to $`y(\mathrm{},+\mathrm{})`$. One can find $`\mathrm{\Theta }_1`$and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_2`$ in $`(\frac{\pi }{2},\frac{\pi }{2})`$, satisfying $`\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }_1+\gamma \mathrm{tan}\mathrm{\Theta }_1=\epsilon _1`$, and $`\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }_2+\gamma \mathrm{tan}\mathrm{\Theta }_2=\epsilon _2`$. Suppose $`\mathrm{\Theta }_1<\mathrm{\Theta }_2`$, we have $`b(\theta )0`$ for $`\theta (\frac{\pi }{2},\mathrm{\Theta }_1][\mathrm{\Theta }_2,\frac{\pi }{2})`$, and $`b(\theta )<0`$ for $`\theta (\mathrm{\Theta }_1,\mathrm{\Theta }_2)`$. Because $`b\left(\pm \frac{\pi }{2}\right)=\gamma ^2`$, Eq.(A2) has at least two roots $`\theta _1`$$`(\frac{\pi }{2},\mathrm{\Theta }_1]`$and $`\theta _2[\mathrm{\Theta }_2,\frac{\pi }{2})`$ for $`\varphi 0`$. It is straightforward to find the two roots by dichotomy method.

Next, we prove $`b^{}(\theta )0`$ for $`0<b(\theta )<\gamma ^2`$ and $`\theta [\mathrm{\Theta }_2,\frac{\pi }{2})`$, while $`b^{}(\theta )0`$ for $`0<b(\theta )<\gamma ^2`$ and $`\theta (\frac{\pi }{2},\mathrm{\Theta }_1]`$, so that $`\theta _1`$and $`\theta _2`$ are the only two roots in $`(\frac{\pi }{2},\mathrm{\Theta }_1]`$ and $`[\mathrm{\Theta }_2,\frac{\pi }{2})`$. For $`\theta [\mathrm{\Theta }_2,\frac{\pi }{2})`$, $`\mathrm{sin}\theta +\gamma \mathrm{tan}\theta \epsilon _10`$, and $`\mathrm{sin}\theta +\gamma \mathrm{tan}\theta \epsilon _20`$. Define $`x\left[(\mathrm{sin}\theta +\gamma \mathrm{tan}\theta \epsilon _1)(\mathrm{sin}\theta +\gamma \mathrm{tan}\theta \epsilon _2)\right]^{1/2}`$, because $`0<b(\theta )<\gamma ^2,`$so one obviously has $`0<x<\gamma \mathrm{sec}\theta `$.

$`b^{}(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`2(\mathrm{sin}\theta +\gamma \mathrm{tan}\theta {\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _1+\epsilon _2}{2}})(\gamma +\mathrm{cos}^3\theta )`$ ()
$`2\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta (\mathrm{sin}\theta +\gamma \mathrm{tan}\theta \epsilon _1)(\mathrm{sin}\theta +\gamma \mathrm{tan}\theta \epsilon _2)`$
$``$ $`2x\gamma 2\mathrm{cos}\theta x^2=2\mathrm{cos}\theta x(x\gamma \mathrm{sec}\theta )0.`$ (41)
Therefore, Eq.(A2) has and only has two roots in the range of $`\theta (\frac{\pi }{2},\frac{\pi }{2})`$ for $`\varphi 0`$.

For $`\varphi =0`$, because $`b^{}\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\right)=2\gamma [2(\epsilon _1+\epsilon _2)]`$, $`b^{}\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\right)=2\gamma [2+(\epsilon _1+\epsilon _2)]`$, and considering the properties of $`b^{}(\theta )`$, one can clearly see that Eq.(A2) has two roots in $`(\frac{\pi }{2},\frac{\pi }{2})`$if $`|\epsilon _1+\epsilon _2|<2`$, but only has one root in $`(\frac{\pi }{2},\frac{\pi }{2})`$if $`|\epsilon _1+\epsilon _2|2`$. However, this case is irrelevant to the Josephson effect.

## Figure Captions

* Solution of the equation for Andreev bound states. Parameters are: $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1,\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.1,\varphi =\frac{\pi }{2}`$. (a) and (b) show the two roots $`\stackrel{~}{E}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{E}_2`$ ($`\stackrel{~}{E}_1>\stackrel{~}{E}_2`$) vs the configurations of QD levels $`(E_{},E_{})`$. (c) and (d) are the diagonal cuts of (a) and (b), showing $`\stackrel{~}{E}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{E}_2`$ vs $`E_0`$ with $`E_{}=E_{}E_0`$ and $`E_{}=E_{}E_0`$, respectively. $`\stackrel{~}{E}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{E}_2`$ can be viewed as two hybrid levels of the electron level of $`E=E_{}`$ and the hole level of $`E=E_{}`$. ($`\stackrel{~}{E}_1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{E}_2`$, $`E_{}`$ and $`E_{}`$ are marked as E1, E2, Eu and Ed in the plot, respectively.)
* Surface of the Josephson current $`I`$ vs the configuration of QD levels $`(E_{},E_{})`$. Parameters are: $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1,\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.1,\varphi =\frac{\pi }{2},T=0`$. (a) is the surface graph, while (b), (c) are the diagonal cuts. (b) and (c) show $`I`$ vs $`E_0`$ with $`E_{}=E_{}E_0`$ and $`E_{}=E_{}E_0`$, respectively.
* CCDOS $`j(\omega )`$ for different $`(E_{},E_{})`$ configurations. The row from up to down corresponds to $`E_{}=0.2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.2}`$, and the column from left to right corresponds to $`E_{}=0.2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.2}`$. Each of CCDOS contains two types of spectrum: the discrete spectrum in the range of $`|\omega |<1`$ and the continuous spectrum in the range of $`|\omega |>1`$. To illustrate discrete spectrum, we broaden $`\delta `$ functions by 0.01 in the plots.
* Surfaces of Josephson current $`I`$ vs $`(E_{},E_{})`$ configurations at different temperatures: $`T=10^4,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.25},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.50}`$ for (a), (b) and (c), respectively. Other parameters are the same as Fig.1.
* The Josephson current $`I`$ and the averaged QD occupation number $`n_\sigma `$ vs the bare QD level $`E_0`$, for (a) QD without interaction and (b) QD with strong interaction. Parameters are: $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1,\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.1,\varphi =\frac{\pi }{2},T=0`$, $`U=0`$ for (a) and $`U=1`$ for (b).
* Parametric diagram of the Josephson current $`I`$ vs parameters $`xE_0/U`$ and $`y\mathrm{\Gamma }/U`$. We set $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1,\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.1,\varphi =\frac{\pi }{2},T=0`$, and change $`E_0`$ and $`U`$ to obtain the surface graph in (a). The black area of (b) indicates the range of parameter where the S-QD-S system behaves as a $`\pi `$-junction.
* Temperature dependence of the $`I`$ vs $`E_0`$. Parameters are: $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1,\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.1,\varphi =\frac{\pi }{2},U=1`$; $`T=0.001,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.05},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.10},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.15}`$, and$`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.20}`$ for curves marked by 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively.
* The Josephson current $`I`$ vs the control voltage $`V_c`$ for different Zeeman splitting of $`E_{}=E_{}=h`$ in QD. Parameters are: $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1,\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.1,\varphi =\frac{\pi }{2},T=0`$; $`h=0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.4},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.6}`$, and $`0.8`$ for curves marked with 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively.


text:
# References

hep-th/0103262

On Non-Abelian Structure From Matrix Coordinates

Amir H. Fatollahi 111 On leave from: Institute for Advanced Studies in Basic Sciences (IASBS), Zanjan, Iran. , 222Postal address: INFN, Sezione di Roma, Dipartimento di Fisica, Universita di Roma “La Sapienza”, Piazzale Aldo Moro, 2, I-00185 Roma, Italy.

Dipartimento di Fisica, Universita di Roma “Tor Vergata”,
INFN-Sezione di Roma II, Via della Ricerca Scientifica, 1,
00133, Roma, Italy

fatho@roma2.infn.it

## Abstract

We consider the matrix quantum mechanics of $`N`$ D0-branes in the background of the 1-form RR field. It is observed that the transformations of matrix coordinates of D0-branes induce on the Abelian RR field symmetry transformations that are like those of non-Abelian gauge fields. The Lorentz-like equations of motion for matrix coordinates are derived. The field strengths appearing in the Lorentz-like equations transform in the adjoint representation of $`U(N)`$ under symmetry transformations. A possible relation between D0-brane dynamics in RR background, and the semi-classical dynamics of charged particles in Yang-Mills background is mentioned.

One of the most interesting aspects of D$`p`$-brane  dynamics is the appearance of “matrix coordinates” as the dynamical variables describing the position of coincident D$`p`$-branes. From String Theory point of view, this enhancement of degrees of freedom from numbers to matrices is due to the addition of dynamics of strings stretched between D$`p`$-branes to the usual degrees of freedom capturing the dynamics of each D$`p`$-brane individually. Consequently, it is understood that the correct degrees of freedom for a system of bound state of D$`p`$-branes (and strings) are matrices .

Though the appearance of matrix coordinates is interesting, a more interesting case arises when D$`p`$-branes are put in non-trivial backgrounds, namely non-trivial form fields. Accordingly, the situation with matrix coordinates will be serious while it is understood that the position dependences of background fields on transverse directions of D$`p`$-branes also should be given by matrix coordinates. Now a natural question can be about the consequences of the enhancement of degrees of freedom on the symmetry issues, and one of the important ones symmetry transformations. As we will see for the case of D0-branes, the symmetry transformations of matrix coordinates induce on the 1-form RR field symmetry transformations which are like those of non-Abelian gauge fields. In other words, the new transformations of the RR fields are the result of “active transformations on the matrix coordinates of space.”

We also investigate the covariance of the equations of motion under the symmetry transformation of the 1-form RR fields. It is observed that the field strengths appearing in the equations of motion transform under symmetry transformations as those of Yang-Mills theory, i.e., in adjoint representation. Finally, we comment on a possible relation between the dynamics of D0-branes and the semi-classical dynamics of charged particles in Yang-Mills backgrounds.

To be consistent with T-duality of String Theory, Myers  proposed an action containing the Born-Infeld and Chern-Simons parts for the dynamics of D$`p`$-brane bound states (see also ). The proposed bosonic action for the bound state of $`N`$ D$`p`$-branes (in units $`2\pi l_s^2=1`$) is the sum of:

$`S_{BI}=T_p{\displaystyle d^{p+1}\sigma ^a\mathrm{Tr}\left(\mathrm{e}^\varphi \sqrt{det(P\{E_{ab}+E_{ai}(Q^1\delta )^{ij}E_{jb}\}+F_{ab})det(Q_j^i)}\right)},`$ (1)
$`S_{CS}=\mu _p{\displaystyle \mathrm{Tr}\left(P\{\mathrm{e}^{i𝐢_\mathrm{\Phi }𝐢_\mathrm{\Phi }}(C^{(n)}\mathrm{e}^B)\}\mathrm{e}^F\right)},`$ (2)
with following definitions:

$`E_{\mu \nu }G_{\mu \nu }+B_{\mu \nu },Q_j^i\delta _j^i+i[\mathrm{\Phi }^i,\mathrm{\Phi }^j]E_{kj},`$
$`\mu ,\nu =0,\mathrm{},9,a,b=0,\mathrm{},p,i,j=p+1,\mathrm{},9.`$
In the above $`G_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ are the metric and the NS-NS 2-form, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^i`$ are world-volume scalars and $`N\times N`$ hermitian matrices, that describe the position of D$`p`$-branes in the $`9p`$ transverse directions. The $`C^{(n)}`$ is $`n`$-form RR field, while $`F`$ is the $`U(N)`$ field strength. In this action, $`P\{\mathrm{}\}`$ denotes the pull-back of the bulk fields to the world-volume of the D$`p`$-branes, and $`\mathrm{Tr}`$is trace on the gauge group. $`𝐢_𝐯`$ denotes the interior product with a vector $`𝐯`$; for example, $`𝐢_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ acts on a 2-form $`C^{(2)}=\frac{1}{2}C_{ij}^{(2)}dx^idx^j`$ as

$`𝐢_\mathrm{\Phi }C^{(2)}=\mathrm{\Phi }^iC_{ij}^{(2)}dx^j,𝐢_\mathrm{\Phi }𝐢_\mathrm{\Phi }C^{(2)}=\mathrm{\Phi }^i\mathrm{\Phi }^jC_{ij}^{(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\mathrm{\Phi }^i,\mathrm{\Phi }^j]C_{ij}^{(2)}.`$ (4)
Therefore $`(𝐢_\mathrm{\Phi })^2C^{(n)}`$=0 for the commutative case, i.e., for one D$`p`$-brane.

Some comments on the above action are in order:

i) All the derivatives in the longitudinal directions should be actually covariant derivatives, i.e., $`_aD_a=_a+i[A_a,]`$ . This point is true also for the pull-back quantities.

ii) The pull-back quantities depend on the transverse directions of the D$`p`$-branes only via their functional dependence on the world-volume scalars $`\mathrm{\Phi }^i`$ , ordered by “symmetrization prescription” . For example for the case of metric $`G_{\mu \nu }(x^\rho )`$, we can present the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ dependences by a non-Abelian Taylor expansion as

$`G_{\mu \nu }(\sigma ^a,x^i)|_{x\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ $``$ $`G_{\mu \nu }(\sigma ^a,\mathrm{\Phi }^i)=\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{\Phi }^i_{x^i}]G_{\mu \nu }(\sigma ^a,x^i)`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}\mathrm{\Phi }^{i_1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }^{i_n}(_{x^{i_1}}\mathrm{}_{x^{i_n}})G_{\mu \nu }(\sigma ^a,x^i)|_{x^i=0}.`$
iii) This action involves a single $`\mathrm{Tr}`$, and this $`\mathrm{Tr}`$should be calculated by symmetrization prescription for the non-commutative quantities $`F_{ab}`$, $`D_a\mathrm{\Phi }^i`$ and $`i[\mathrm{\Phi }^i,\mathrm{\Phi }^j]`$  333There is a stronger prescription, with symmetrization between all non-commutative objects $`F_{ab}`$, $`D_a\mathrm{\Phi }^i`$, $`i[\mathrm{\Phi }^i,\mathrm{\Phi }^j]`$, and the individual $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$’s appearing in the functional dependences of the pull-back fields . We do not use this one here, with no essential change in the conclusions..

Let us consider the special case of D0-branes, with $`G_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ and $`B_{\mu \nu }=0`$. The low energy action, with only non-vanishing the RR 1-form, is given by ($`\sigma ^0=t`$)

$`S={\displaystyle 𝑑t\mathrm{Tr}\left(\frac{1}{2}m_0D_t\mathrm{\Phi }^iD_t\mathrm{\Phi }_i\mu _0C_t^{(1)}(\mathrm{\Phi },t)\mu _0D_t\mathrm{\Phi }^iC_i^{(1)}(\mathrm{\Phi },t)V(\mathrm{\Phi })\right)},`$ (6)
$`V(\mathrm{\Phi })={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}m_0[\mathrm{\Phi }^i,\mathrm{\Phi }^j]^2,D_t=_t+i[A_0(t),],`$ (7)
in which $`C_t^{(1)}(\mathrm{\Phi },t)`$ and $`C_i^{(1)}(\mathrm{\Phi },t)`$ are the pull-backs of the RR 1-form $`C_\mu ^{(1)}(x^\nu )`$ to the world-line of the D0-brane bound state. Let us first check the effect of a $`U(1)`$ gauge transformation of the 1-form bulk field $`C_\mu ^{(1)}(x^\nu )`$, defined by

$`C_\mu ^{(1)}(x^\nu )C_\mu ^{(1)}(x^\nu )=C_\mu ^{(1)}(x^\nu )_\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }(x^\nu ),`$ (8)
with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x^\nu )`$ an arbitrary function in the bulk. Under this transformation, the variation of the action (6) is

$`\delta S\mu _0{\displaystyle 𝑑t\mathrm{Tr}\left(_t\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Phi },t)+D_t\mathrm{\Phi }^i_i\mathrm{\Lambda }(x,t)|_{x\mathrm{\Phi }}\right)},`$ (9)
in which the symmetrization prescription is understood after the replacements $`x\mathrm{\Phi }`$. One then obtains

$`\delta S\mu _0{\displaystyle 𝑑t\mathrm{Tr}\left(_t\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Phi },t)+_t\mathrm{\Phi }^i_i\mathrm{\Lambda }(x,t)|_{x\mathrm{\Phi }}+i[A_0,\mathrm{\Phi }^i]_i\mathrm{\Lambda }(x,t)|_{x\mathrm{\Phi }}\right)}.`$ (10)
The first two terms yield as the surface term $`d\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Phi },t)/dt`$, and therefore

$`\delta S`$ $``$ $`\mu _0{\displaystyle 𝑑t\mathrm{Tr}\left(i[A_0,\mathrm{\Phi }^i]_i\mathrm{\Lambda }(x,t)|_{x\mathrm{\Phi }}\right)}`$ (11)
$``$ $`\mu _0{\displaystyle 𝑑t\mathrm{Tr}\left(iA_0[\mathrm{\Phi }^i,_i\mathrm{\Lambda }(x,t)|_{x\mathrm{\Phi }}]\right)}.`$ (12)
At first look this term seems non-vanishing, but in fact due to symmetrization prescription, it also vanishes . Hence, thanks to the symmetrization, the action (6) is invariant under $`U(1)`$ gauge transformations in the bulk.

Actually the action (6) is also invariant under active transformations of coordinates, as

$`\mathrm{\Phi }^i`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^i=U^{}(\mathrm{\Phi },t)\mathrm{\Phi }^iU(\mathrm{\Phi },t)`$
$`A_0(t)`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{A}_0(\mathrm{\Phi },t)=U^{}(\mathrm{\Phi },t)A_0(t)U(\mathrm{\Phi },t)iU^{}(\mathrm{\Phi },t)_tU(\mathrm{\Phi },t),`$ (13)
with $`U(\mathrm{\Phi },t)`$ as an arbitrary $`N\times N`$ unitary matrix; in fact under these transformations one obtains

$`D_t\mathrm{\Phi }^i`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{D}_t\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^i=U^{}(\mathrm{\Phi },t)D_t\mathrm{\Phi }^iU(\mathrm{\Phi },t),`$
$`D_tD_t\mathrm{\Phi }^i`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{D}_t\stackrel{~}{D}_t\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^i=U^{}(\mathrm{\Phi },t)D_tD_t\mathrm{\Phi }^iU(\mathrm{\Phi },t).`$ (14)
Now, in the same spirit as for the previously introduced $`U(1)`$ symmetry of eq.(8), one finds the symmetry transformations:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }^i`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^i=U^{}(\mathrm{\Phi },t)\mathrm{\Phi }^iU(\mathrm{\Phi },t)`$
$`A_0(t)`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{A}_0(\mathrm{\Phi },t)=U^{}(\mathrm{\Phi },t)A_0(t)U(\mathrm{\Phi },t)iU^{}(\mathrm{\Phi },t)_tU(\mathrm{\Phi },t),`$
$`C_i^{(1)}(\mathrm{\Phi },t)`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{C}_i^{(1)}(\mathrm{\Phi },t)=U^{}(\mathrm{\Phi },t)C_i^{(1)}(\mathrm{\Phi },t)U(\mathrm{\Phi },t)iU^{}(\mathrm{\Phi },t)_iU(x,t)|_{x\mathrm{\Phi }},`$
$`C_t^{(1)}(\mathrm{\Phi },t)`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{C}_t^{(1)}(\mathrm{\Phi },t)=U^{}(\mathrm{\Phi },t)C_t^{(1)}(\mathrm{\Phi },t)U(\mathrm{\Phi },t)iU^{}(\mathrm{\Phi },t)_tU(\mathrm{\Phi },t),`$ (15)
in which we assume that $`U(\mathrm{\Phi },t)=\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is arbitrary up to this condition that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Phi },t)`$ is totally symmetrized in the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$’s. The above transformation on the 1-form RR field is similar to those of non-Abelian gauge theories, and we see that it is just the consequence of the existing matrix coordinates. In other words, a $`U(1)`$ theory on a matrix coordinate space has symmetry transformations like those of a non-Abelian theory.

The above observation on gauge theory associated to D0-brane matrix coordinates on its own is not a new one, and we already know another example of this kind in non-commutative gauge theories. In spaces whose coordinates satisfy the algebra

$`[x^\alpha ,x^\beta ]=i\theta ^{\alpha \beta },`$ (16)
with constant $`\theta ^{\alpha \beta }`$, the symmetry transformations of the $`U(1)`$ gauge theory are like those of non-Abelian gauge theory, and are known as non-commutative $`U(1)`$ transformations . Note that the above algebra is satisfied also for the transformed coordinates $`\stackrel{~}{x}^\alpha U^{}(x)x^\alpha U(x)`$.

In addition, the case we see here for D0-branes may be considered as another example of the relation between gauge symmetry transformations and transformations of matrix coordinates .

The last notable points are about the behaviour of $`A_0(t)`$ and $`C_t^{(1)}(\mathrm{\Phi },t)`$ under symmetry transformations (S0.Ex5). From the world-line theory point of view, $`A_0(t)`$ is a dynamical variable, but $`C_t^{(1)}(\mathrm{\Phi },t)`$ should be treated as a part of background, however they behave similarly under transformations. Also we see by (S0.Ex5) that the time, and only time dependence of $`A_0(t)`$, which is the consequence of dimensional reduction, should be understood up to a gauge transformation.

As expected, the action (6) looks like that of an electric charged particle in an electromagnetic background $`(C_t^{(1)}(x,t),C_i^{(1)}(x,t))`$. Thus in principle, one expects to obtain Lorentz-like equations of motion from this action. For the moment ignoring the potential term $`V(\mathrm{\Phi })`$, one can derive the equations of motion for $`\mathrm{\Phi }^i`$ and $`A_0`$ as

$`m_0D_tD_t\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _0\left(E_i(\mathrm{\Phi },t)+\underset{}{D_t\mathrm{\Phi }^jB_{ji}(\mathrm{\Phi },t)}\right)`$ (17)
$`m_0[\mathrm{\Phi }_i,D_t\mathrm{\Phi }^i]`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _0[C_i^{(1)}(\mathrm{\Phi },t),\mathrm{\Phi }^i],`$ (18)
with the definitions:

$`E_i(\mathrm{\Phi },t)`$ $``$ $`_iC_t^{(1)}(x,t)|_{x\mathrm{\Phi }}+_tC_i^{(1)}(\mathrm{\Phi },t),`$ (19)
$`B_{ji}(\mathrm{\Phi },t)`$ $``$ $`_jC_i^{(1)}(x,t)|_{x\mathrm{\Phi }}_iC_j^{(1)}(x,t)|_{x\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ (20)
where the symbol $`\underset{}{D_t\mathrm{\Phi }^jB_{ji}(\mathrm{\Phi },t)}`$ denotes the average over all of positions of $`D_t\mathrm{\Phi }^j`$ between the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$’s of $`B_{ji}(\mathrm{\Phi },t)`$. As mentioned, the above equations for the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$’s are like the Lorentz equation of motion, with the exceptions that two sides are $`N\times N`$ matrices, while the time derivatives $`_t`$ are replaced by their covariant counterpart $`D_t`$ 444$`D_t`$ is absent in the definition of $`E_i`$, because, the combination $`i[A_0,C_i]`$ has been absorbed to produce $`D_t\mathrm{\Phi }^j`$ for both parts of $`B_{ji}`$..

It is a good exercise to study the behaviour of eqs. (17) and (18) under gauge transformation (S0.Ex5). Since the action is invariant under (S0.Ex5), it is expected that the equations of motion change covariantly. The left-hand side of (17) changes to $`U^{}D_tD_t\mathrm{\Phi }U`$ by (S0.Ex4), and therefore we should find the same change for the right-hand side. This is in fact the case, since

$`f(\mathrm{\Phi },t)`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{f}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }},t)=U^{}(\mathrm{\Phi },t)f(\mathrm{\Phi },t)U(\mathrm{\Phi },t),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta f(\mathrm{\Phi },t)}{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^i}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\delta }\stackrel{~}{f}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }},t)}{\delta \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^i}}=U^{}(\mathrm{\Phi },t){\displaystyle \frac{\delta f(\mathrm{\Phi },t)}{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^i}}U(\mathrm{\Phi },t),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{f(\mathrm{\Phi },t)}{t}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{f}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }},t)}{t}}=U^{}(\mathrm{\Phi },t){\displaystyle \frac{f(\mathrm{\Phi },t)}{t}}U(\mathrm{\Phi },t),`$ (21)
in which $`_i`$ has been realized via its functional form, $`\delta /\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^i`$. In conclusion, the definitions (19) and (20), lead to

$`E_i(\mathrm{\Phi },t)`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{E_i}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }},t)=U^{}(\mathrm{\Phi },t)E_i(\mathrm{\Phi },t)U(\mathrm{\Phi },t),`$
$`B_{ji}(\mathrm{\Phi },t)`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{B}_{ji}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }},t)=U^{}(\mathrm{\Phi },t)B_{ji}(\mathrm{\Phi },t)U(\mathrm{\Phi },t),`$ (22)
a result consistent with the fact that $`E_i`$ and $`B_{ji}`$ are functionals of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. We thus see that, in spite of the absence of the usual commutator term $`i[A_\alpha ,A_\beta ]`$ of non-Abelian gauge theories, in our case the field strengths transform like non-Abelian ones. We recall that these are all consequences of the matrix coordinates of D0-branes. Finally by the similar reason of vanishing of (12), both sides of (18) transform identically.

An equation of motion similar to (17) is considered in  as a part of similarities between the dynamics of D0-branes and bound states of quarks–QCD strings . The point is that the center-of-mass dynamics of D0-branes is not affected by the non-Abelian sector of the background, i.e., the center-of-mass is “white” with respect to $`SU(N)`$ sector of $`U(N)`$. The center-of-mass coordinates and momenta are defined by:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{c.m.}^i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Phi }^i,P_{c.m.}^i\mathrm{Tr}P_\mathrm{\Phi }^i,`$ (23)
where we are using the convention $`\mathrm{Tr}\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}1}_N=N`$. To specify the net charge of a bound state, its dynamics should be studied in zero magnetic and uniform electric fields, i.e., $`B_{ji}=0`$ and $`E_i(\mathrm{\Phi },t)=E_{0i}`$ 555In a non-Abelian gauge theory an uniform electric field can be defined up to a gauge transformation, which is quite well for identification of white (singlet) states.; thus these fields are not involved by $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ matrices, and contain just the $`U(1)`$ part. In other words, under gauge transformations $`E_{0i}`$ and $`B_{ji}=0`$ transform to $`\stackrel{~}{E}_i(\mathrm{\Phi },t)=V^{}(\mathrm{\Phi },t)E_{0i}V(\mathrm{\Phi },t)=E_{0i}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{B}_{ji}=0`$. Thus the action (6) yields the following equation of motion:

$`(Nm_0)\ddot{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{c.m.}^i=\mu _0NE_{0(1)}^i,`$ (24)
in which the subscript (1) denotes the $`U(1)`$ electric field. So the center-of-mass only interacts with the $`U(1)`$ part of $`U(N)`$. From the String Theory point of view, this observation is based on the simple fact that the $`SU(N)`$ structure of D0-branes arises just from the internal degrees of freedom inside the bound state.

It will be interesting to mention the relation between the dynamics of D0-branes in RR background, and the semi-classical equations of motion for charged particles in Yang-Mills background. By semi-classical, as will be more clear later, we mean treating the space-time motion of charged particles classically, while describing the charge degrees of freedom, calling them “isotopic spin,” quantum mechanically. The classical mechanics of the charged particles is known by the original work of Wong , based on an appropriate limit of the equations of motion of operators; see  as a good review. The starting point is the standard action of $`U(N)`$ gauge theory, accompanied with fermionic matter in the fundamental representation (in units $`c=1,\mathrm{}=1`$)

$`S={\displaystyle d^dx\left(\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu (_\mu +iA_\mu )\psi m\overline{\psi }\psi \frac{1}{4g^2}\mathrm{Tr}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\right)},`$ (25)
$`\mu ,\nu =0,\mathrm{},d1,A^\mu =A_a^\mu T^a,F^{\mu \nu }=F_a^{\mu \nu }T^a.`$ (26)
In above $`T^a`$, $`a=1,\mathrm{},N^2`$, are $`N\times N`$ matrices as generators of the $`U(N)`$ group, with the commutation relation $`[T^a,T^b]=if_c^{ab}T^c`$; we assume sum over the lower and upper indices. Consequently, the classical equation of motion for the charged particle are proposed as

$`m{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\xi ^\mu (\tau )}{d\tau ^2}}=\left(F_a^{\mu \nu }(\xi )T_{\mathrm{cl}}^a(\tau )\right){\displaystyle \frac{d\xi _\nu (\tau )}{d\tau }},`$ (27)
where $`\xi ^\mu (\tau )`$ denote the world-line of the particle, parametrised with $`\tau `$. In above, $`T_{\mathrm{cl}}^a(\tau )`$ are numbers as the classical analogues of the matrices $`T^a`$, with the canonical relation $`\{T_{\mathrm{cl}}^a(\tau ),T_{\mathrm{cl}}^b(\tau )\}=f_c^{ab}T_{\mathrm{cl}}^c(\tau )`$, and the equation of motion as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dT_{\mathrm{cl}}^a(\tau )}{d\tau }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\xi _\mu }{d\tau }}f_c^{ab}A_b^\mu (\xi )T_{\mathrm{cl}}^c(\tau )=0.`$ (28)
Thus, the particle is described by an internal vector $`T_{\mathrm{cl}}^a(\tau )`$ as well as its space-time coordinates $`\xi ^\mu (\tau )`$. Also, by the equations for $`T_{\mathrm{cl}}^a(\tau )`$ one deduces that $`d/d\tau (T_{\mathrm{cl}}^aT_{\mathrm{cl}}^{}{}_{a}{}^{})=0`$. Hence the isotopic spin of the particle performs a precessional motion.

Now we try to sketch the relation. Let us first take the simple case of one charged particle. One may define the covariant derivative along the world-line by notion of world-line gauge field $`A_\tau \dot{\xi }_\mu A_{\mathrm{cl}}^\mu (\xi ,\tau )=\dot{\xi }_\mu A_a^\mu (\xi )T_{\mathrm{cl}}^a(\tau )`$, as follows

$`D_\tau _\tau \{A_\tau ,\}.`$ (29)
We notice that, from the world-line theory point of view, $`A_\tau `$ is a dynamical variable. Hence the equation of motion (28) reduces to $`D_\tau T_{\mathrm{cl}}^a(\tau )=0`$. Then we define the variables as $`X^{\mu a}(\tau )\xi ^\mu (\tau )T_{\mathrm{cl}}^a(\tau )`$; for these variables we have

$`D_\tau X^{\mu a}=\dot{\xi }^\mu (\tau )T_{\mathrm{cl}}^a(\tau ).`$ (30)
Also by using (27) we find that

$`mD_\tau D_\tau X^{\mu a}`$ $`=`$ $`m\ddot{\xi }^\mu (\tau )T_{\mathrm{cl}}^a(\tau )=F_{\mathrm{cl}}^{\mu \nu }(\xi ,\tau )\dot{\xi }_\nu T_{\mathrm{cl}}^a(\tau )`$
$`mD_\tau D_\tau X^{\mu a}`$ $`=`$ $`F_{\mathrm{cl}}^{\mu \nu }(\xi ,\tau )D_\tau X_\nu ^a,`$ (31)
in which we are using the notation $`F_{\mathrm{cl}}^{\mu \nu }(\xi ,\tau )=F_a^{\mu \nu }(\xi )T_{\mathrm{cl}}^a(\tau )`$. The last equation for $`X^a`$ are reminiscent of the D0-brane equation of motion in the RR 1-form background, with this exception that here the field strength $`F_{\mathrm{cl}}^{\mu \nu }(\xi ,\tau )`$ depends on variables $`\xi ^\mu `$. Here one can define a map from fields $`F_{\mathrm{cl}}^{\mu \nu }(\xi ,\tau )`$ to new fields $`\widehat{F}^{\mu \nu }(X^a,\tau )`$. The map defines the fields $`\widehat{F}^{\mu \nu }(X^a,\tau )`$ by the relation

$`F_{\mathrm{cl}}^{\mu \nu }(\xi ,\tau )=F_a^{\mu \nu }(\xi )T_{\mathrm{cl}}^a(\tau )\widehat{F}^{\mu \nu }(X^a,\tau ).`$ (32)
Thus we have the equations: $`mD_\tau D_\tau X^{\mu a}=\widehat{F}^{\mu \nu }(X^a,\tau )D_\tau X_\nu ^a`$. The map also may be defined at the level of gauge potentials $`A_{\mathrm{cl}}^\mu (\xi ,\tau )`$ and $`\widehat{A}^\mu (X^a,\tau )`$, in a Lagrangian or Hamiltonian formulation of the problem.

The last equation we obtained have already the extra index $`a`$ on the variables $`X^{\mu a}`$. One may consider $`N^2`$ copies of variables $`\xi _a^\mu (\tau )`$, with common charge variables $`T_{\mathrm{cl}}^a(\tau )`$. Since in this case there are $`N^2`$ copies of variables, and so world-lines, the definition of a unique world-line covariant derivative $`D_\tau `$ is not possible. The best one can think about, as the case for coincident D0-branes, is that the $`N^2`$ copies are nearly “identified” in space-time. Thus we assume $`\xi _a(\tau )=\xi (\tau )+\delta \xi _a(\tau )`$, with $`\delta \xi _a\xi `$. Actually the thing one needs is a unique combination of $`A_\tau =\dot{\xi }_{a\mu }A_{\mathrm{cl}}^\mu (\xi _a,\tau )`$ as a unique world-line gauge field. So to have a unique world-line gauge field, and consequently common charge variables $`T_{\mathrm{cl}}^a(\tau )`$, we have the condition $`\dot{\delta }\xi _{a\mu }A_a^\mu +\dot{\xi }_{a\mu }\delta \xi _a^\rho _\rho A_a^\mu =0`$, for each $`a`$. Therefore we can define

$`D_\tau _\tau \{A_\tau ,\},`$ (33)
with $`A_\tau \dot{\xi }_\mu A_{\mathrm{cl}}^\mu (\xi ,\tau )`$. Thus all of the charges can be taken equal, satisfying $`D_\tau T_{\mathrm{cl}}^a(\tau )=0`$. Then we define $`X^\mu (\tau )=\xi _a^\mu (\tau )T_{\mathrm{cl}}^a(\tau )`$, and accordingly we have

$`mD_\tau D_\tau X^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`m\ddot{\xi }_a^\mu T_{\mathrm{cl}}^a,`$
$`mD_\tau D_\tau X^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`F_{\mathrm{cl}}^{\mu \nu }(\xi _a,\tau )\dot{\xi }_{a\nu }T_{\mathrm{cl}}^a(\tau ),`$
$`mD_\tau D_\tau X^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\left(F_b^{\mu \nu }(\xi _a)T_{\mathrm{cl}}^b(\tau )\right)\dot{\xi }_{a\nu }T_{\mathrm{cl}}^a(\tau ),`$ (34)
where in the right-hand side the sums on $`a`$ and $`b`$ are recalled. The dependence of field strength on $`\xi _a`$ prevents us to do the sums on $`a`$ and $`b`$ independently, to get $`\dot{\xi }_{a\nu }T_{\mathrm{cl}}^a(\tau )=D_\tau X_\nu `$. Like the case for a single particle, we can define the map between fields $`F_{\mathrm{cl}}^{\mu \nu }(\xi _a,\tau )`$ and $`\widehat{F}^{\mu \nu }(X,\tau )`$ such that the expression in the right-hand side appears as following

$`\left(F_b^{\mu \nu }(\xi _a)T_{\mathrm{cl}}^b(\tau )\right)\dot{\xi }_{a\nu }T_{\mathrm{cl}}^a(\tau )\widehat{F}^{\mu \nu }(X,\tau )D_\tau X_\nu .`$ (35)
The map can also be presented in components with group indices. Finally one concludes with equations

$`mD_\tau D_\tau X^\mu =\widehat{F}^{\mu \nu }(X,\tau )D_\tau X_\nu .`$ (36)
All the relations we had in above, rather than matrices, were about numbers unfortunately! It is because that in Wong’s theory also the charge variables are treated with their classical analogues. It may be possible to find a semi-classical version of the problem, assuming space-time motion classically, while the isotopic spin $`T^a`$’s remain matrix variables, as they should be as group generators; similar to the situation we have for ordinary spin in Stern-Gerlach experiment. Then, a relation between the semi-classical dynamics of charged particles and D0-brane dynamics will appear very interesting. It remains for future progresses to know more about both D0-brane dynamics and charged particle dynamics in Yang-Mills background.

All the above can be considered in non-relativistic limit, though the case needs more study, may be defined by 666For the case concerning more than one massless particle, the more systematic way can be going to the light-cone gauge to recover non-relativistic dynamics in the transverse directions; see Appen. of .

$`D_\tau X^01,\dot{\xi }_a^i1.`$ (37)
In this limit we have $`A_\tau (t)=A_{0a}(t,\xi ^i)T_{\mathrm{cl}}^a(t)+O(\dot{\xi }^i)`$, which means that the world-line gauge field equals effectively to zero component of gauge field, which for very small velocities may be assumed to be function of $`t`$ only.

In the above we saw the important role of a map between the Yang-Mills fields, and fields which depend on $`X^\mu `$ variables. In  a map between field configurations of non-commutative and ordinary gauge theories is introduced, which preserves the gauge equivalence relation. It is emphasized that the map is not an isomorphism between the gauge groups. It will be interesting to study the properties of the map between non-Abelian gauge theory and gauge theory associated with matrix coordinates of D0-branes; on one side the quantum theory of matrix fields, and on the other side the quantum mechanics of matrix coordinates. Since in this case we have matrices on both sides, it may be possible to find an isomorphism between all objects involving in the two theories, i.e., dynamical variables and transformation parameters.

We have seen how the $`U(1)`$ symmetry of the 1-form RR field $`C_\mu ^{(1)}(x^\nu )`$ can show a $`U(N)`$ structure inside the bound states. The $`U(N)`$ structure in bound states is a consequence of the fact that the correct dynamical variables of the bound states are $`N\times N`$ hermitian matrices, rather than numbers. From the String Theory point of view, this is possible by taking into account degrees of freedom corresponding to $`N`$ copies of the $`U(1)`$ structure, together with $`N^2N`$ additional ones coming from the dynamics of strings stretched between charged particles. Here each D0-brane carry $`1/N`$ fraction of the bound state total charge. This is an example of a mechanism that how small (fractional) charges of an Abelian symmetry can form a bound state with an internal non-Abelian symmetry; a mechanism which may be called “non-Abelian from fractional Abelian charges.”

Acknowledgement: The comments on manuscript by S. Parvizi, M.M. Sheikh-Jabbari and specially A. Sagnotti are deeply acknowledged. Also the author is grateful to M. Khorrami and A. Shariati at IASBS Zanjan, for useful discussions on the dynamics of charged particles.


text:
# Untitled Document

Second virial coefficient for a d-dimensional Lennard-Jones (2n-n) system

M.L. Glasser

Department of Physics and Clarkson Center for Statistical Physics

Clarkson University

Potsdam, NY 13699-5820 (USA)

> This note examines the second virial coefficient for an imperfect gas subject to a 2n-n interparticle potential in any dimension $`d`$ between $`0`$ and $`n`$. A compact analytic expression is presented for this quantity which shows that, apart from a numerical factor, its temperature dependence is a universal function parameterized by $`d/n`$.
>
> PACS:05.70.Ce, 02.30.+g
>
> Keywords: Lennard-Jones potential, Virial coefficient.

The virial expansion has played an important role in studying imperfect gases and has recently been invoked for the examination of systems, such as alkanes absorbed at interfaces , in two dimensions. It is therefore of some interest to look at the dimensional dependence of the coefficients. In this note an analytic expression is presented for the second virial coefficient in the case of the Lennard-Jones 2n-n potential

$$V(r)=4ϵ[(\frac{\sigma }{r})^{2n}(\frac{\sigma }{r})^n]$$
$`(1)`$
for spatial dimension $`0<d<n`$, where it is defined.

The second virial coefficient is given by

$$B_d(T)=\frac{1}{2}d^dr[1exp(V(r)/kT)].$$
$`(2)`$
Since $`V(r)`$ is spherically symmentric, the angular integrals in hyperspherical coordinates can be carried out to give

$$B_d(T)=\frac{\pi ^{d/2}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(d/2)}_0^{\mathrm{}}r^{d1}[1e^{V(r)/kT}]𝑑r.$$
$`(3)`$
After scaling out $`\sigma `$, integration by parts, and an elementary change of integration variable, (3) reduces to

$$B_d(T)=C_d[2I_{1d/6}I_{d/6}]$$
$`(4)`$
where

$$a=4ϵ/kT$$

$$C_d=\frac{\pi ^{d/2}\sigma ^d}{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(d/2)}$$
$`(5)`$
$$I_\nu =a_0^{\mathrm{}}x^\nu e^{a(x^2x)}𝑑x.$$

The latter integral does not appear to have been tabulated, but is easly evaluated as follows: Replace $`exp(ax)`$ by its Taylor series and integrate term-by-term using Euler’s gamma function integral to get an infinite series summed with respect to $`n`$, say. Then break this up into even ($`n=2k`$) and odd ($`n=2k+1`$) terms. In these series replace $`n!`$ by $`4^kk!(1/2)_k`$ and $`4^kk!(3/2)_k`$, respectively. The resulting series are seen to be Kummer functions and we obtain

$$I_\nu =\frac{1}{2}a^{(\nu 1)/2}[\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{\nu +1}{2})M(\frac{\nu +1}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{a}{4})+$$

$$\sqrt{a}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{\nu }{2}+1)M(\frac{\nu }{2}+1,\frac{3}{2},\frac{a}{4})].$$
$`(6)`$
Therefore, for $`0<d<n`$, in terms of the dimensionless temperature $`\tau =4/a=kT/ϵ`$, and $`\rho =d/2n`$

$$B_{d,n}(\tau )=\frac{\sigma ^d\pi ^{d/2}2^{d/n}}{2n\mathrm{\Gamma }(d/2)}\tau ^\rho [\mathrm{\Gamma }(\rho )M(\rho ,\frac{1}{2},\tau ^1)+$$

$$2\tau ^{1/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2}\rho )M(\frac{1}{2}\rho ,\frac{3}{2},\tau ^1)]=$$
$`(7)`$
$$\frac{\sigma ^d\pi ^{d/2}2^{2\rho }}{n\mathrm{\Gamma }(d/2)}\tau ^\rho e^{1/\tau }[\mathrm{\Gamma }(\rho )M(\rho +\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},1/\tau )+$$

$$\frac{2}{\sqrt{\tau }}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2}\rho )M(\rho +1,\frac{3}{2},1/\tau )]=$$

$$\frac{\sigma ^d\pi ^{(d1)/2}2^\rho }{n\mathrm{\Gamma }(d/2)}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\rho )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2}\rho )D_{2\rho }(\sqrt{2/\tau }).$$

In deriving (7) the identities

$$M(1\frac{d}{2n},\frac{1}{2},z)2zM(1\frac{d}{2n},\frac{3}{2},z)=M(\frac{d}{2n},\frac{1}{2},z)$$

$$(1\frac{d}{n})M(\frac{3}{2}\frac{d}{2n},\frac{3}{2},z)M(\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{2n},\frac{1}{2},z)=\frac{d}{n}M(\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{2n},\frac{3}{2},z)$$
$`(8)`$
and Kummer’s first identity have been used. The last expression in (7) is particularly attractive, but as indicated below, the parabolic cylinder function can be problematic and the expressions using Kummer functions are probably better for numerical work. From Eq.(7) we have the interesting fact that, apart from a constant prefactor, the scaled temperature dependence of the second virial coefficient is a universal function of $`d/n`$. Thus, the Boyle temperature ( at which the second virial coefficient vanishes), is given by the zeros of the parabolic cylinder function. Listed below are the Boyle temperatures for the L-J 12-6 potential in various dimensions:

$$\begin{array}{cccc}d& \tau _B& d& \tau _B\\ 0.5& 0.45812& 3.5& 5.35369\\ 1& 0.72701& 4& 9.01642\\ 1.5& 1.07421& 4.5& 17.1531\\ 2& 1.56031& 5& 41.0597\\ 2.5& 2.28098& 5.5& 173.8854\\ 3& 3.41793& & \end{array}$$

The Boyle temperature is therefore also universal with respect to $`d/n`$, so this table lists the Boyle temperatures for $`d/n=1/12,\mathrm{}11/12`$.

Finally, we present the Joule-Thompson coefficient $`J_{d,n}(\tau )=\tau B_{d,n}(\tau )/\tau B_{d,n}(\tau )`$.

$$J_{d,n}(\tau )=\frac{\sigma ^d\pi ^{d/2}2^{d/2n}}{6n\mathrm{\Gamma }(d/2)}\tau ^{d/2n}\{3\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{d}{2n})[(1+\frac{d}{2n})M(\frac{d}{2n},\frac{1}{2},\tau ^1)$$

$$\frac{2}{\tau }\frac{d}{2n}M(1\frac{d}{2n},\frac{3}{2},\tau ^1)]+$$

$$2\tau ^{1/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{2n})[3(\frac{3}{2}+\frac{d}{2n})M(\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{2n}),\frac{3}{2},\tau ^1)+\frac{2}{\tau }(\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{2n})M(\frac{3}{2}\frac{d}{2n},\frac{5}{2},\tau ^1)]\}.$$
$`(12)`$
A similar calculation for the case $`d=3`$ was carried out a number of years ago by Garrett  who expressed his result in terms of a sum of parabolic cylinder functions $`D_\nu (z)`$. This function appears to be an orphan among special functions, in that there is very little information about it in standard references such as . What there is concerns the function $`D_\nu (z)`$. In spite of the similarity in notation, the two are independent solutions of the parabolic cylinder equation and their relationship is not a simple one. For example, for real z,

$$D_{1/2}(z)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }}(z/2)^{3/2}[K_{\frac{1}{4}}(z^2/4)+K_{\frac{3}{4}}(z^2/4)]$$
$`(13)`$
while

$$D_{1/2}(z)=\frac{\sqrt{\pi }}{4}z^{3/2}[I_{\frac{3}{4}}(z^2/4)+I_{\frac{3}{4}}(z^2/4)I_{\frac{1}{4}}(z^2/4)I_{\frac{1}{4}}(z^2/4)].$$
$`(14)`$
On the other hand, the Kummer function used in (7) (also denoted $`M(a,b,c)=_1F_1(a;b;c)`$) is standard in mathematical packages and does not suffer from this problem. For $`d=3`$ (7) is consistent with Garrett’s formula. Recently, Vargas et al. have treated $`B_{3,6}`$ by an improvement of Garrett’s approach and have expressed the virial coefficient in terms of modified Bessel functions of fractional order. By making use of (13) and (14), (7) can be transformed into their expression. Finally, the method used here for the $`2nn`$ potential: series expansion, decomposition of the sum into relatively prime summands and the use of the Gauss multiplication formula, can be applied to the general $`mn`$ potential and leads to a closed form expression as a sum of $`lcm(m,n)/n`$ hypergeometric functions. Thus, for the $`125`$ potential considered in , the second virial coefficient was expressed as a sum of 12 Kummer functions, which proved to be of little practical value.

References

. B.A. Pethica, M.L. Glasser and J. Mingins, J. Colloid and Interface Sci. 81, 41 (1981).

. A. Lou and B.A. Pethica, Langmuir 13, 4933 (1997).

. Handbook of Mathematical Functions,\[Eds. M. Abramowitz and I. Stegun, NBS Applied Math. Ser. 55, Washington (1964)\].

. A.J.M. Garrett, J.Phys. A:Math. Gen.,13, 379 (1980).

. P. Vargas, E. Muños and L. Rodriguez, Physica A290, 92 (2001).