text:
# Polarization observables in 𝑝-𝑑 scattering below 30 MeV

## I Introduction

In ref.  the authors recently presented an application of the Kohn Variational Principle (KVP) in its complex form to calculate the elastic observables in p-d scattering for energies above the deuteron breakup threshold (DBT). The KVP was implemented to describe continuum states of three outgoing particles including the distortion due to the Coulomb interaction in the asymptotic region. Only two energies were considered, $`E_{lab}=5`$ and $`10`$ MeV. The validity of the KVP for the elastic $`S`$-matrix describing the $`22`$ process in p-d scattering for energies above the DBT has been extensively discussed in ref. .

In the present paper the analysis of the elastic p-d reaction is extended up to $`E_{lab}=28`$ MeV, covering the region where Coulomb effects are expected to be important. The large amount of accurate experimental data allows for interesting comparisons. It should be noted that, at present, the analysis of the polarization data at energies above the DBT has been done mainly by comparing n-d calculations to p-d data . Differential cross section and vector analyzing power data exist for both n-d and p-d scattering, allowing for an estimate of the Coulomb effects. Conversely, no n-d data are available for the deuteron analyzing powers $`iT_{11}`$, $`T_{20}`$, $`T_{21}`$, $`T_{22}`$. These quantities are evaluated from experiments using a polarized deuteron beam on unpolarized proton targets. The inverse experiment of unpolarized proton or neutron beams on a polarized deuteron target seems to be extremely difficult at low energies and has not yet been done.

Experiments using charged particles are certainly easier to perform and show smaller error bars than those using a neutral beam. On the other hand, the theoretical description of collisions with more than one charged particle in the final state has represented a difficult problem for many years. In a recent work a complete solution of the reaction e- \+ H $``$ H+ \+ e- \+ e- has been obtained by Rescigno et al.  by transforming the Schrödinger equation using the so-called exterior complex scaling and making use of supercomputers to solve the associated equations numerically. This was the first complete solution of a three-body collision with all the charged particles moving away from each other in the final state. Regarding the p-d reaction, different techniques have been applied so far. The Faddeev equations in momentum space have been adapted to take into account the long-range Coulomb interaction using the screening and renormalization approach . Recently, a detailed comparison between the solutions of the Faddeev equations in configuration space and the KVP has been performed, though restricted to energies below the DBT . In the present work we turn our attention to describing p-d elastic observables above the DBT. In this case the application of the KVP is feasible and the calculation of the elastic $`S`$-matrix does not require large computational devices.

The study of the three-nucleon (3N) continuum provides important information about the capability of modern NN potentials to describe the three-nucleon dynamics. At present, a few realistic NN potentials are available that reproduce a large set of two-nucleon (2N) data with $`\chi ^21`$ (per datum). They are substantially equivalent in reproducing all the details of the NN scattering, but in the description of nuclear systems with $`A>2`$ differences appear. In addition, the three-nucleon system is the simplest one in which three-nucleon force (3NF) effects can be studied. The first signal for the necessity of a 3NF comes from the underbinding of the triton when only NN forces are used. Widely used 3NF models are based on the exchange of two pions with an intermediate $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ excitation. In general these models include a certain numbers of parameters which are not precisely determined by theory, so some of them can be taken as free parameters in order to reproduce, for example, the triton or 3He binding energy. As a consequence, other observables which scale with the three-nucleon binding energy improve as well. Examples are the bound state r.m.s radii and the zero energy total cross section in n-d and n-3H scattering. On the contrary, vector and tensor N-d analyzing powers do not present such a scaling.

Accurate measurements of p-d observables below the DBT, have been reported recently . A comparison of the theoretical predictions to these data shows an underprediction of the deuteron vector analyzing power $`iT_{11}`$ by $`30`$. A similar discrepancy had been observed earlier in the neutron analyzing power $`A_y`$, a problem which is usually known as the $`A_y`$ puzzle . As the energy increases the observed discrepancies in $`A_y`$ and $`iT_{11}`$ reduce and tend to disappear, though not completely, above $`30`$ MeV . Accordingly, the study of these observables over the energy region considered here is important for understanding such a behavior.

Accurate 3N and 4N scattering wave functions are necessary for calculating a number of nuclear reactions. The technique used in the present work is based on the expansion of the wave function in terms of Jastrow type Correlated Hyperspherical Harmonic (CHH) basis functions. When the correlation factor reduces to a pair correlation function the Pair Correlated Hyperspherical Harmonic (PHH) basis is obtained. The CHH and PHH bases have been used to calculate the bound states of the $`A=3,4`$ nuclei , N-d scattering , and p-3He and n-3H scattering  at energies below the three-body fragmentation. Moreover, wave functions obtained through those expansions have recently been used to study the radiative capture $`p+d{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}+\gamma `$ below the DBT  and the hep process, namely the weak capture $`p+{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}+e^++\nu _e`$ at the Gamow peak . These two reactions have considerable astrophysical relevance. The former is the second reaction in the $`pp`$ solar chain and has a prominent role in the evolution of protostars whereas the hep process plays an important role in the solar neutrino problem. The calculation of the p-d wave functions above the DBT will provide the input for further studies of radiative capture and photo and electrodisintegration of 3He.

In the present paper we present the results obtained for the differential and total breakup cross sections, nucleon analyzing powers $`A_y`$ and deuteron analyzing powers $`iT_{11}`$, $`T_{20}`$, $`T_{21}`$ and $`T_{22}`$ for N-d scattering at different energies. The calculations have been done using the two-nucleon AV18 potential  with and without the three-nucleon URIX force . The results are given at nine different energies in the range $`5`$ MeV $`E_{lab}28`$ MeV. It has to be noted that, disregarding small corrections, $`E_{c.m.}=\frac{2}{3}E_N`$ $`(\frac{1}{3}E_d`$), where $`E_N`$ ($`E_d`$) is the nucleon (deuteron) incident energy and in the following we define $`E_{lab}E_N`$. The highest energy considered here is $`E_d=56`$ MeV ($`E_{lab}=28`$ MeV) at which the deuteron analyzing powers are available . Just above the DBT, deuteron vector and tensor analyzing powers are available at $`E_{lab}=5`$ MeV . For $`E_{lab}18`$ MeV differential cross sections, proton and deuteron analyzing powers have been measured at several energies . In ref.  differential cross section as well as vector and tensor observables have been measured between $`8.5`$ MeV $`E_{lab}22.7`$ MeV, though data for $`T_{21}`$ are missing at some energies.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section II the Kohn variational principle is reviewed. In Section III the numerical solution of the related differential equations are compared to previous results. Cross sections and observables are compared to the data in Section IV, and the conclusions are given in the last section.

## II The Kohn Variational Principle above the deuteron breakup threshold

In the literature several investigations regarding the validity of the KVP above the DBT can be found, starting with the works of Nuttall  and Merkuriev , where the discussion, however, was limited to the n-d reaction. The first extensive demonstration of the applicability of the principle to the p-d collision has been given in ref. . The main result derived in  is that the effect of the Coulomb interaction can be taken into account in such a way that the form of the principle remains unchanged when the energy goes from below to above the DBT. Below the DBT the collision matrix is unitary and the problem can be formulated in terms of the real reactance matrix ($`K`$–matrix). Above the DBT the elastic part of the collision matrix is no longer unitary and the formulation in terms of the $`S`$-matrix, the complex form of the KVP, is convenient. Refering to ref.  for details, a brief description of the method is given below. The scattering wave function (w.f.) $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is written as sum of two terms:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }_C+\mathrm{\Psi }_A.$$
(1)
The first term, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_C`$, describes the system when the three–nucleons are close to each other. For large interparticle separations and energies below the DBT it goes to zero, whereas for higher energies it must reproduce a three outgoing particle state. It is written as a sum of three Faddeev–like amplitudes corresponding to the three cyclic permutations of the particle indices 1, 2 , 3. Each amplitude $`\mathrm{\Psi }_C(𝐱_i,𝐲_i)`$, where $`𝐱_i,𝐲_i`$ are the Jacobi coordinates corresponding to the $`i`$-th permutation, has total angular momentum $`JJ_z`$ and total isospin $`TT_z`$ and is decomposed into channels using $`LS`$ coupling, namely

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_C(𝐱_i,𝐲_i)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{N_c}{}}}\varphi _\alpha (x_i,y_i)𝒴_\alpha (jk,i)`$ (2)
$`𝒴_\alpha (jk,i)`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{\left[Y_\mathrm{}_\alpha (\widehat{x}_i)Y_{L_\alpha }(\widehat{y}_i)\right]_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha }\left[s_\alpha ^{jk}s_\alpha ^i\right]_{S_\alpha }\right\}_{JJ_z}\left[t_\alpha ^{jk}t_\alpha ^i\right]_{TT_z},`$ (3)
where $`x_i,y_i`$ are the moduli of the Jacobi coordinates and $`𝒴_\alpha `$ is the angular-spin-isospin function for each channel. The maximum number of channels considered in the expansion is $`N_c`$. The two-dimensional amplitude $`\varphi _\alpha `$ is expanded in terms of the PHH basis

$$\varphi _\alpha (x_i,y_i)=\rho ^{5/2}f_\alpha (x_i)\left[\underset{K}{}u_K^\alpha (\rho ){}_{}{}^{(2)}P_{K}^{\mathrm{}_\alpha ,L_\alpha }(\varphi _i)\right],$$
(4)
where the hyperspherical variables, the hyperradius $`\rho `$ and the hyperangle $`\varphi _i`$, are defined by the relations $`x_i=\rho \mathrm{cos}\varphi _i`$ and $`y_i=\rho \mathrm{sin}\varphi _i`$. The factor $`{}_{}{}^{(2)}P_{K}^{\mathrm{},L}(\varphi )`$ is a hyperspherical polynomial and $`f_\alpha (x_i)`$ is a pair correlation function introduced to accelerate the convergence of the expansion. For small values of the interparticle distance $`f_\alpha (x_i)`$ is regulated by the NN interaction whereas for large separations the correlation function is chosen to satisfy $`f_\alpha (x_i)1`$ .

The second term, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_A`$, in the variational wave function of eq.(1) describes the asymptotic motion of a deuteron relative to the third nucleon. It can also be written as a sum of three amplitudes with the generic one having the form

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{LSJ}^\lambda (𝐱_i,𝐲_i)=\underset{l_\alpha =0,2}{}w_{l_\alpha }(x_i)_L^\lambda (y_i)\left\{\left[[Y_{l_\alpha }(\widehat{x}_i)s_\alpha ^{jk}]_1s^i\right]_SY_L(\widehat{y}_i)\right\}_{JJ_z}[t_\alpha ^{jk}t^i]_{TT_z},$$
(5)
where $`w_{l_\alpha }(x_i)`$ is the deuteron w.f. component in the state $`l_\alpha =0,2`$. In addition, $`s_\alpha ^{jk}=1,t_\alpha ^{jk}=0`$ and $`L`$ is the relative angular momentum of the deuteron and the incident nucleon. The superscript $`\lambda `$ indicates the regular ($`\lambda R`$) or the irregular ($`\lambda I`$) solution. In the $`pd`$ ($`nd`$) case, the functions $`^\lambda `$ are related to the regular or irregular Coulomb (spherical Bessel) functions. The functions $`\mathrm{\Omega }^\lambda `$ can be combined to form a general asymptotic state

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{LSJ}^+(𝐱_i,𝐲_i)=\mathrm{\Omega }_{LSJ}^0(𝐱_i,𝐲_i)+\underset{L^{}S^{}}{}{}_{}{}^{J}_{LL^{}}^{SS^{}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{L^{}S^{}J}^1(𝐱_i,𝐲_i),$$
(6)
where

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{LSJ}^0(𝐱_i,𝐲_i)=`$ $`u_{00}\mathrm{\Omega }_{LSJ}^R(𝐱_i,𝐲_i)+u_{01}\mathrm{\Omega }_{LSJ}^I(𝐱_i,𝐲_i),`$ (7)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{LSJ}^1(𝐱_i,𝐲_i)=`$ $`u_{10}\mathrm{\Omega }_{LSJ}^R(𝐱_i,𝐲_i)+u_{11}\mathrm{\Omega }_{LSJ}^I(𝐱_i,𝐲_i).`$ (8)
The matrix elements $`u_{ij}`$ can be selected according to the four different choices of the matrix $`=`$ $`K`$-matrix, $`K^1`$-matrix, $`S`$-matrix or $`T`$-matrix. A general three-nucleon scattering w.f. for an incident state with relative angular momentum $`L`$, spin $`S`$ and total angular momentum $`J`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{LSJ}^+=\underset{i=1,3}{}\left[\mathrm{\Psi }_C(𝐱_i,𝐲_i)+\mathrm{\Omega }_{LSJ}^+(𝐱_i,𝐲_i)\right],$$
(9)
and its complex conjugate is $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{LSJ}^{}`$. A variational estimate of the trial parameters in the w.f. $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{LSJ}^+`$ can be obtained by requiring, in accordance with the generalized KVP, that the functional

$$[{}_{}{}^{J}_{LL^{}}^{SS^{}}]={}_{}{}^{J}_{LL^{}}^{SS^{}}\frac{2}{\mathrm{det}(u)}\mathrm{\Psi }_{LSJ}^{}|HE|\mathrm{\Psi }_{L^{}S^{}J}^+,$$
(10)
be stationary. Below the DBT due to the unitarity of the $`S`$-matrix, the four forms for the $``$-matrix are equivalent. However, it was shown that when the complex form of the principle is used, there is a considerable reduction of numerical instabilities . Applications of the complex KVP for N-d scattering (below the DBT) can be found in ref. . Above the DBT it is convenient to formulate the variational principle in terms of the $`S`$–matrix. Accordingly, we get the following functional:

$$[{}_{}{}^{J}S_{LL^{}}^{SS^{}}]={}_{}{}^{J}S_{LL^{}}^{SS^{}}+i\mathrm{\Psi }_{LSJ}^{}|HE|\mathrm{\Psi }_{L^{}S^{}J}^+.$$
(11)
The variation of the functional with respect to the hyperradial functions $`u_K^\alpha (\rho )`$ leads to the following set of coupled equations (hereafter named SE1):

$$\underset{\alpha ^{},k^{}}{}\left[A_{kk^{}}^{\alpha \alpha ^{}}(\rho )\frac{d^2}{d\rho ^2}+B_{kk^{}}^{\alpha \alpha ^{}}(\rho )\frac{d}{d\rho }+C_{kk^{}}^{\alpha \alpha ^{}}(\rho )+\frac{M_N}{\mathrm{}^2}EN_{kk^{}}^{\alpha \alpha ^{}}(\rho )\right]u_k^{}^\alpha ^{}(\rho )=D_{\alpha k}^\lambda (\rho ).$$
(12)
For each asymptotic state $`{}_{}{}^{(2S+1)}L_{J}^{}`$ two different inhomogeneous terms are constructed corresponding to the asymptotic $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{LSJ}^\lambda `$ functions with $`\lambda 0,1`$. Accordingly, two sets of solutions are obtained and combined to minimize the functional (11) with respect to the $`S`$-matrix elements. This is the first order solution, the second order estimate of the $`S`$-matrix is obtained after replacing the first order solution in eq.(11.

In order to solve the system SE1 appropriate boundary conditions must be specified for the hyperradial functions. For energies below the DBT they go to zero when $`\rho \mathrm{}`$, whereas above the DBT energy they asymptotically describe the breakup configuration. The boundary conditions to be applied in this case have been discussed in refs.  and are briefly illustrated below. To simplify the notation let us label the basis elements with the index $`\mu [\alpha ,K]`$, and introduce the following completely antisymmetric correlated spin-isospin-hyperspherical basis elements

$$𝒫_\mu (\rho ,\mathrm{\Omega })=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}f_\alpha (x_i){}_{}{}^{(2)}P_{K}^{\mathrm{}_\alpha ,L_\alpha }(\varphi _i)𝒴_\alpha (jk,i),$$
(13)
which depend on $`\rho `$ through the correlation factor and form a non–orthogonal basis. In terms of the $`𝒫_\mu (\rho ,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ the internal part is written as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_C=\rho ^{5/2}\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{N_m}{}}u_\mu (\rho )𝒫_\mu (\rho ,\mathrm{\Omega }),$$
(14)
with $`N_m`$ the total number of basis functions considered. The “uncorrelated” basis elements $`𝒫_\mu ^0(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ are obtained from eq. (13) by setting all the correlation functions $`f_\alpha (x_i)=1`$. It is important to note that the elements $`𝒫_\mu ^0(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ do not form an orthogonal basis, as has been discussed in ref.  where the standard hyperspherical harmonic basis (HH) has been used to calculate the three–nucleon bound state. Those basis elements having the same grand–angular quantum number $`G_\mu =\mathrm{}_\alpha +L_\alpha +2K`$, the same $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha `$ and $`S_\alpha `$, but belonging to different channels, are not orthogonal to each others. Moreover, some of them are linearly dependent. In Ref.  such states have been identified and removed from the expansion used to describe the triton bound state.

In the present case, the basis elements $`𝒫_\mu (\rho \mathrm{},\mathrm{\Omega })`$ reduce to the uncorrelated ones $`𝒫_\mu ^0(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ in the asymptotic region since $`f_\alpha (x)1`$ for large interparticle distances. Therefore, it appears useful to combine the correlated basis (13) in order to define a new basis with the property of being orthonormal when $`\rho \mathrm{}`$. This can be readily accomplished by noting that the matrix elements of the norm $`N`$ behave as

$$N_{\mu \mu ^{}}(\rho )=𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }𝒫_\mu (\rho ,\mathrm{\Omega })^{}𝒫_\mu ^{}(\rho ,\mathrm{\Omega })N_{\mu \mu ^{}}^{(0)}+\frac{N_{\mu \mu ^{}}^{(3)}}{\rho ^3}+𝒪(1/\rho ^5),\mathrm{for}\rho \mathrm{},$$
(15)
where, in particular,

$$N_{\mu \mu ^{}}^{(0)}=𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }𝒫_\mu ^0(\mathrm{\Omega })^{}𝒫_\mu ^{}^0(\mathrm{\Omega }).$$
(16)
Let us define a matrix $`U`$ such that the matrix $`U^tN^{(0)}U=𝒩`$ is diagonal with diagonal elements $`𝒩_\mu `$ either $`1`$ or $`0`$. The values $`𝒩_\mu =0`$ correspond to states $`𝒫_\mu ^0(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ that depend linearly on others. New uncorrelated and correlated bases are defined as:

$$𝒬_\mu ^0(\mathrm{\Omega })\underset{\mu ^{}=1}{\overset{N_m}{}}U_{\mu ^{}\mu }𝒫_\mu ^{}^0(\mathrm{\Omega }),𝒬_\mu (\rho ,\mathrm{\Omega })\underset{\mu ^{}=1}{\overset{N_m}{}}U_{\mu ^{}\mu }𝒫_\mu ^{}(\rho ,\mathrm{\Omega }),$$
(17)
The basis functions $`𝒬_\mu (\rho ,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ are still not orthogonal for any finite values of $`\rho `$. When $`\rho \mathrm{}`$, the elements $`𝒬_\mu (\rho ,\mathrm{\Omega })𝒬_\mu ^0(\mathrm{\Omega })`$. Due to the fact that some of the uncorrelated elements $`𝒫_\mu ^0(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ are linearly dependent, some elements $`𝒬_\mu ^0(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ are identically zero. Therefore, some correlated elements have the property: $`𝒬_\mu (\rho ,\mathrm{\Omega })0`$ as $`\rho \mathrm{}`$. In the following we arrange the new basis in such a way that for values of the index $`\mu \overline{N}_m`$ the eigenvalues of the norm are $`𝒩_\mu =1`$ and for $`\overline{N}_m+1\mu N_m`$ they are $`𝒩_\mu =0`$.

In terms of the new basis, the internal part $`\mathrm{\Psi }_C`$ is simply

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_C=\rho ^{5/2}\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{N_m}{}}\omega _\mu (\rho )𝒬_\mu (\rho ,\mathrm{\Omega }),$$
(18)
where the old set of hyperradial functions is related to the new set through the transformation $`u_\mu =_\mu ^{}U_{\mu \mu ^{}}\omega _\mu ^{}`$. The variation of the functional (10) with respect to the new hyperradial functions $`\omega _\mu (\rho )`$, which are now the unknown quantities entering into the description of the internal part of the w.f. $`\mathrm{\Psi }_C`$, leads to a set of inhomogeneous second order differential equations formally equal to SE1, and hereafter called SE2, in which each matrix $`XA,B,C,N`$ of eq.(12) is substituted by $`\overline{X}=U^tXU`$ and the inhomogeneous term $`D^\lambda `$ by $`\overline{D}^\lambda =U^tD^\lambda `$.

For $`\rho \mathrm{}`$, neglecting terms going to zero faster than $`\rho ^2`$, the asymptotic expression of SE2 reduces to the form

$$\underset{\mu ^{}}{}\left\{\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{M_N}\left(\frac{d^2}{d\rho ^2}\frac{𝒦_\mu (𝒦_\mu +1)}{\rho ^2}+Q^2\right)𝒩_\mu \delta _{\mu ,\mu ^{}}+\frac{2Q\chi _{\mu \mu ^{}}}{\rho }+𝒪(\frac{1}{\rho ^3})\right\}\omega _\mu ^{}(\rho )=0,$$
(19)
where $`E=\mathrm{}^2Q^2/M_N`$, $`𝒦_\mu =G_\mu +3/2`$ and the matrix $`\chi `$ is defined as

$$\chi _{\mu \mu ^{}}=𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }𝒬_\mu ^0(\mathrm{\Omega })^{}\widehat{\chi }𝒬_\mu ^{}^0(\mathrm{\Omega }).$$
(20)
The dimensionless operator $`\widehat{\chi }`$ originates from the Coulomb interaction as

$$\widehat{\chi }=\frac{M_N}{2\mathrm{}^2Q}\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\frac{e^2}{\mathrm{cos}\varphi _i}\frac{1+\tau _{j,z}}{2}\frac{1+\tau _{k,z}}{2}.$$
(21)
It should be noticed that $`\chi _{\mu \mu ^{}}=0`$ if $`\mu ,\mu ^{}>\overline{N}_m`$.

In practice, the functions $`\omega _\mu (\rho )`$ are chosen to be regular at the origin, i.e. $`\omega _\mu (0)=0`$ and, in accordance with the equations to be satisfied for $`\rho \mathrm{}`$, to have the following behavior ($`\mu \overline{N}_m`$)

$$\omega _\mu (\rho )\underset{\mu ^{}=1}{\overset{\overline{N}_m}{}}\left(e^{i\widehat{\chi }\mathrm{ln}2Q\rho }\right)_{\mu \mu ^{}}b_\mu ^{}e^{iQ\rho },$$
(22)
where $`b_\mu ^{}`$ are unknown coefficients. This form corresponds to the asymptotic behavior of three outgoing particles interacting through the Coulomb potential . In the case of $`nd`$ scattering ($`\chi 0`$) the outgoing solutions evolve as outgoing Hankel functions $`H^{(1)}(Q\rho )`$ ($`\omega _\mu (\rho )b_\mu e^{iQ\rho }`$).

For values of the index $`\mu >\overline{N}_m`$ the eigenvalues of the norm are $`𝒩_\mu =0`$ and the leading terms in eq.(19) vanish. So, the asymptotic behavior of these $`\omega _\mu `$ functions is governed by the next order terms. A lengthly analysis of the $`1/\rho ^3`$ and $`1/\rho ^4`$ terms for each matrix $`XA,B,C,N`$ shows that these functions behave as $`e^{i(Q_\mu ^{}\rho \mathrm{\Sigma }_\mu \mathrm{ln2}Q\rho )}`$ where the quantities $`Q_\mu ^{},\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mu `$ are related to the asymptotic expansion of the matrices $`A,B,C,N`$. This asymptotic behavior has been obtained neglecting all couplings between the $`\mu `$-th equation ($`\mu >\overline{N}_m`$) and all the others. If couplings up to $`1/\rho ^4`$ are taken into account the quantities $`Q^{},\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ become matrices and we have ($`\mu >\overline{N}_m`$)

$$\omega _\mu (\rho )\underset{\mu ^{}=1}{\overset{N_m}{}}\left[e^{(iQ^{}\rho \mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{ln}2Q\rho )}\right]_{\mu \mu ^{}}c_\mu ^{},$$
(23)
where the $`c_\mu ^{}`$ are unknown coefficients. Previously we have shown that, for $`\mu >\overline{N}_m`$, the elements $`𝒬_\mu 0`$ as $`\rho \mathrm{}`$. The specific form of the (complex) matrix $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is such that in all cases $`\omega _\mu 𝒬_\mu 0`$ as $`\rho \mathrm{}`$. Accordingly, the states with $`\mu >\overline{N}_m`$ do not contribute to the outgoing flux.

In ref.  the set of equations SE2 has been solved numerically by choosing a grid of values for the hyperradius from the origin up to a certain value $`\rho _0`$. The differential operators have been substituted by finite differences in such a way that SE2 reduces to a set of linear equations that can be solved by standard numerical methods. In order to completely determine the problem, boundary conditions must be imposed at $`\rho =\rho _0`$. To accomplish this, eq.(19) has been solved for $`\rho >\rho _0`$ taking into account coupling terms up to $`\rho ^4`$ by an expansion of the functions $`w_\mu `$ in powers of $`1/\rho `$ and verifying the outgoing boundary conditions of eqs.(22,23). Then, the continuity of the solutions and their first derivatives has been imposed at the matching radius $`\rho _0`$. The value of $`\rho _0`$ is not important provided that the asymptotic expression of SE2 is already reached. This condition is well verified for values of the matching radius $`\rho _080100`$ fm. However, the functions $`\omega _\mu (\rho )`$ show an oscillatory behavior outside the range of the potential, typically for hyperradial values $`\rho >30`$ fm. Therefore a large number of grid points were necessary to obtain stable solutions. Thus, in ref.  the calculation of N-d scattering states above the DBT was restricted to a simplified interparticle potential, namely an $`s`$-wave interaction. In such a case the number of coupled equations to be considered was sufficiently small. When realistic NN interactions are considered the number of coupled equations to take into account increases considerably. As a consequence, the dimension of the matrices after the reduction of derivatives to finite differences can be quite large. In order to keep the dimension of the matrices low, an alternative method of solution in the region $`\rho \rho _0`$ is to expand the hyperradial functions in terms of Laguerre polynomials  plus an auxiliary function

$$\omega _\mu (\rho )=\rho ^{5/2}\underset{m=0}{\overset{M}{}}A_\mu ^mL_m^{(5)}(z)\mathrm{exp}(\frac{z}{2})+A_\mu ^{M+1}\overline{\omega }_\mu (\rho ),$$
(24)
where $`z=\gamma \rho `$ and $`\gamma `$ is a nonlinear parameter. The linear parameters $`A_\mu ^m`$ $`(m=0,\mathrm{}.,M+1)`$ are determined by the variational procedure. The functions defined above are matched to the outgoing solutions of eq. (19) at $`\rho =\rho _0`$.

The inclusion of the auxiliary functions $`\overline{\omega }_\mu (\rho )`$ defined in eq.(24) is useful for reproducing the oscillatory behavior shown by the hyperradial functions for $`\rho 30`$ fm. Otherwise a rather large number $`M`$ of polynomials should be included in the expansion. A convenient choice is to take them as the solutions of a one dimensional differential equation corresponding to the $`\mu `$-th equation of SE2:

$$\left[\overline{A}_{\mu \mu }(\rho )\frac{d^2}{d\rho ^2}+\overline{B}_{\mu \mu }(\rho )\frac{d}{d\rho }+\overline{C}_{\mu \mu }(\rho )+Q^2\overline{N}_{\mu \mu }(\rho )\right]\overline{w}_\mu (\rho )=\overline{D}_\mu ^\lambda (\rho ).$$
(25)
The functions $`\overline{\omega }_\mu `$ are chosen to be regular at the origin and they are matched to the solutions of eq.(19) which have been obtained through an expansion in inverse powers of $`\rho `$ as has been previously discussed. For $`\mu >\overline{N}_m`$ the matching at $`\rho _0`$ has been done disregarding the couplings between the different equations in the region $`\rho >\rho _0`$, i.e. $`\overline{\omega }_\mu (\rho )e^{i(Q_\mu ^{}\rho \mathrm{\Sigma }_\mu \mathrm{ln2}Q\rho )}`$. As stated before, these states do not contribute to the outgoing flux and their importance in the construction of the scattering state diminishes very rapidly for large values of $`\rho `$. The approximation introduced for $`\rho >\rho _0`$ in the application of the boundary condition to the states with $`\mu >\overline{N}_m`$ has been checked by increasing the value of the matching radius. In the cases considered here the solutions obtained for the $`S`$-matrix show a complete stability for values of the matching radius $`\rho _0>100`$ fm.

Let us define $`|\mu ,m>`$ to be a correlated totally antisymmetric element of the expansion basis. Here $`\mu `$ indicates the correlated HH state $`𝒬_\mu (\rho ,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ and $`m=1,\mathrm{}.,M`$ indicates the Laguerre polynomial $`L_m^{(5)}(z)`$ or, for $`m=M+1`$, the auxiliary function $`\overline{\omega }_\mu `$. In terms of these basis elements the internal part of the wave function is

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_C=\underset{\mu ,m}{}A_\mu ^m|\mu ,m>.$$
(26)
The variation of the functional $`[{}_{}{}^{J}S_{LL}^{SS}]`$ with respect to the linear parameters leads to the following set of linear equations

$$\underset{\mu ^{},m^{}}{}A_\mu ^{}^m^{}<\mu ,m|HE|\mu ^{},m^{}>=D_{\mu ,m}^\lambda ,$$
(27)
where the inhomogeneous term is

$$D_{\mu ,m}^\lambda =\underset{j}{}<\mu ,m|HE|\mathrm{\Omega }_{LSJ}^\lambda (𝐱_i,𝐲_i)>.$$
(28)
The first order solution of the $`S`$-matrix is obtained solving the algebraic equations

$$\underset{L^{\prime \prime }S^{\prime \prime }}{\overset{J}{}}S_{LL^{}}^{SS^{}}X_{L^{}L^{\prime \prime }}^{S^{}S^{\prime \prime }}=Y_{LL^{}}^{SS^{}},$$
(29)
with the coefficients X and Y defined to be

$`X_{LL^{}}^{SS^{}}`$ $`=<\mathrm{\Omega }_{LSJ}^1+\mathrm{\Psi }_{LSJ}^1|HE|\mathrm{\Omega }_{LSJ}^1>`$ (30)
$`Y_{LL^{}}^{SS^{}}`$ $`=<\mathrm{\Omega }_{LSJ}^0+\mathrm{\Psi }_{LSJ}^0|HE|\mathrm{\Omega }_{LSJ}^0>,`$ (31)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{LSJ}^\lambda `$ is constructed using the solution of eq.(27) with the corresponding inhomogeneous term. The second order estimate $`[^JS_{LL^{}}^{SS^{}}]`$ is obtained replacing the first order solution in eq.(11).

Finally, due to flux conservation the following condition has to be satisfied between the matrix elements of the elastic $`S`$-matrix and the coefficients of the outgoing breakup waves:

$$\underset{S^{}L^{}}{}|{}_{}{}^{J}S_{LL^{}}^{SS^{}}|^2+\underset{\mu }{}|b_\mu |^2=1.$$
(32)
The coefficients $`b_\mu `$, which are defined in eq.(22), are the linear parameters $`A_\mu ^{M+1}`$ of eq.(24). The above relation allows the calculation of the total breakup cross section from the elastic $`S`$-matrix elements, as has been recently discussed in ref. .

## III Numerical Results

In order to study the solution of eq.(12) by means of the expansion given in eq.(24), we have first calculated the phase-shift and inelasticity parameters for n-d and p-d scattering using the spin-dependent s-wave potential of Malfliet and Tjon. The results are presented in Table I for two energy values, $`E_{lab}=14.1`$ and $`42.0`$ MeV. The calculations have been done using $`N_\alpha =8`$ hyperspherical polynomials per channel, as in the case already studied in ref.  where the set of equations SE1 was solved using the finite difference technique. Moreover, since the potential is central, the phase-shifts $`{}_{}{}^{2S+1}\delta _{L}^{}`$ and inelasticities $`{}_{}{}^{2S+1}\eta _{L}^{}`$ do not depend on the total angular momentum $`J`$. Only the case $`L=0`$ has been considered and the results are given in Table I for increasing values of the number of Laguerre polynomials $`M`$. For the sake of comparison the results of ref.  are reported as well as the benchmark results of ref. obtained by solving the Faddeev equations in configuration space (Los Alamos group) and momentum space (Bochum group). We observe a very fast convergence with $`M`$ and, in general, $`16`$ to $`20`$ polynomials are enough to obtain the phase-shift and mixing parameters with four digit accuracy. With the number of Laguerre polynomials that has been taken into account a very low dependence on the nonlinear parameter $`\gamma `$ has been observed. In fact the results reported here do not change for variations of the parameter in the range $`1.5`$ fm$`{}_{}{}^{1}\gamma 2.5`$ fm-1. Moreover, the dimension of the matrices involved in the solution is one order of magnitude smaller than that used in .

The case of realistic interactions has been considered in refs.  where the AV18 interaction has been used to calculate p-d scattering at $`E_{lab}=5`$ and $`10`$ MeV. In particular, in ref.  the convergence of the phase-shift and mixing parameters for the state $`J=1/2^+`$ has been studied by increasing the number of angular-spin-isospin channels. The convention discussed in ref.  has been adopted in the parametrization of the $`S`$–matrix in terms of phase-shift and mixing parameters. In order to illustrate the variation of these parameters with energy the doublet and quartet $`S`$, $`P`$ and $`D`$ phases, denoted as $`{}_{}{}^{2S+1}L_{J}^{}`$, are reported in Fig.1 as well as the mixing parameters $`\eta _{1/2+}`$, $`\eta _{3/2+}`$, $`ϵ_{1/2}`$ and $`ϵ_{3/2}`$. Both the real and imaginary parts are shown. It is interesting to notice that the splitting in the real part of the phases with equal spin $`S`$ and angular momentum $`L`$ but different $`J`$, increases with energy. Conversely, the imaginary parts of the phases, which are related to the inelasticity of a state with a given value of $`J`$, reveal a tiny splitting. After summing all the contributions, the total breakup cross section can be obtained, as is discussed in the next section.

## IV p-d cross sections

The calculation of scattering observables using the present variational technique is based on the estimate of the elastic $`S`$-matrix for all states with $`JJ_{Max}`$. Each observable is obtained from a trace operation after the evaluation of the transition matrix, following the formalism of Seyler . The value of $`J_{Max}`$ has been chosen by requiring that partial waves with $`J>J_{Max}`$ give negligible contributions to all the observables considered. In the present work results for cross sections, vector and tensor analyzing powers up to $`E_{lab}=28`$ MeV are presented, and correspondingly the value $`J_{Max}=19/2`$ has been found to be appropriate.

Let us start with the analysis of the p-d cross sections. For p-d scattering the total breakup cross section accounts for all possible configurations in which all three particles are moving away from each other. Its expression can be given in terms of the elastic $`S`$-matrix ,

$$\sigma _b(pd)=\frac{\pi }{k^2}\frac{1}{6}\underset{J}{}(2J+1)tr\{I_JS_JS_J^{}\},$$
(33)
where $`k^2=2\mu E_{cm}/\mathrm{}^2`$ ($`\mu `$ is the nucleon-deuteron reduced mass) and $`I_J`$ is the $`3\times 3`$ identity matrix, except for $`J=1/2`$ which is the $`2\times 2`$ identity matrix. The quantity $`S_J`$ is the elastic $`S`$-matrix for the state $`J`$. The sum runs over all possible values of $`J`$ and parity (the sum over the two parities is implied). In principle the sum runs from $`J=0`$ to infinity, but there is a rapid convergence since each $`S_J`$ matrix becomes closer to unitary as $`J`$ increases. In Fig.2 the theoretical prediction for $`\sigma _b(pd)`$ is given together with the two sets of data available in the literature. The first data set corresponds to energies just above the DBT  whereas the second starts at 20 MeV . The solid line is the AV18 prediction and is found to be in reasonable agreement with both sets of data. The inclusion of the URIX potential does not produce appreciable modifications and both results, with and without the inclusion of the 3NF, nearly coincide. The low sensitivity to the 3NF can be understood by noticing that the contribution to $`\sigma _b`$ comes from a balance between the spin factor $`2J+1`$ and the quantity $`tr\{I_JS_jS_J^{}\}`$ which can be considered as a measurement of the inelasticity of the state (divided by $`tr\{I_J\}`$). Above $`5`$ MeV the state $`J=3/2^{}`$ gives by far the main contribution to the observable . The state $`J=1/2^+`$, which is appreciably modified by the 3NF, has the largest inelasticity, but due to a small spin factor it gives a contribution of the same order as other states that are much less “inelastic” and modified slightly by the 3NF. The final result after summing up all these contributions is that the small (but sizeable) effect of the 3NF on $`J=1/2+`$ has no impact in $`\sigma _b`$.

Regarding the elastic p-d differential cross section, a huge amount of high quality data has been collected during the past years. Low energy measurements have been taken recently at TUNL at different energy values below $`E_{lab}=1`$ MeV . An analysis of the quality in the description of these data has been performed using the AV18 and the AV18+URIX interactions . It was shown that 3NF effects can be revealed through a $`\chi ^2`$ analysis of the data. Essentially these effects are related to a correct description of the 3He binding energy. In fact, using the AV18+URIX interaction it is possible to describe the p-d differential cross section at $`E_{lab}=1`$, $`2`$ and $`3`$ MeV with a $`\chi ^2`$ per datum ($`\chi _N^2`$) close to one. This value increases significantly when the AV18 potential is considered alone. The agreement between the theoretical and experimental differential cross section worsens, though not dramatically, as the energy increases. For example, at $`E_{lab}=135`$ MeV a value of $`\chi _N^2=16.9`$ $`(225.2)`$ was recently obtained with (without) the inclusion of a 3NF . Again the inclusion of a 3NF reduces the $`\chi ^2`$ per datum considerably.

The results obtained for the p-d differential cross section are given in Fig.3 for nine values of the energy, $`E_{lab}=5,7,9,10,12,14,16,18,22.7,28`$ MeV. For each energy three curves are shown corresponding to calculations using the AV18 potential (solid line), the AV18+URIX potential (dotted line), and calculations for n-d scattering using the AV18 potential (dashed line). The theoretical predictions are compared to the experimental data of refs. , with the exception of the calculations at $`16`$ MeV which are compared to data obtained at a slightly different energy ($`16.5`$ MeV). The analysis of the results at the different energies shows that 3NF effects are small in this energy range and the AV18 and AV18+URIX curves practically overlap each other. A more quantitative analysis at $`E_{lab}=18`$ MeV gives $`\chi _N^2=11`$ using the AV18 interaction and nearly the same value for AV18+URIX. Coulomb effects are mainly observed at forward and backward angles whilst they are strongly reduced at the minimum. Tiny Coulomb effects at the minimum are confirmed by comparing n-d to p-d data, as can be seen in ref. .

As far as the agreement between theory and experiment is concerned, the situation for the differential cross section above the DBT is different when compared to what has been observed below the DBT. As mentioned before, at very low energies the differential cross section can be described with $`\chi _N^21`$ using AV18+URIX, while when the AV18 is used alone a substantially worse result, $`\chi _N^2>10`$, is obtained. In fact, the AV18 curve remains above the data points all over the angular distribution. As the energy increases the tendency for the AV18 curve is to go below the data at the minimum. This problem is appreciable already at $`28`$ MeV, as can be seen in the last panel of Fig.3. Around 20 MeV the AV18+URIX curve starts to rise above the AV18 curve and closer to the data. This effect is clearly shown in ref.  where Faddeev calculations using several NN and 3NF interactions have been compared to the data at $`3`$, $`65`$, $`135`$ and $`190`$ MeV. In the energy range analyzed here we observe that there is one energy, around 18 MeV, where the AV18 and AV18+URIX curves mostly overlap. In order to analyze further this behavior, in Table II, the values at the minimum of the p-d cross section calculated with AV18 and AV18+URIX are compared to the data. The corresponding values of the AV18 n-d cross section are also given in order to have a quantitative idea of the size of the Coulomb effects.

## V Polarization observables

The vector and tensor analyzing powers are examples of polarization observables. There is a large amount of p-d and d-p data for the vector analyzing powers $`A_y`$ and $`iT_{11}`$ as well as for the tensor analyzing powers $`T_{20},T_{21},T_{22}`$. The study of these observables is important because they are sensible to the non-central terms of the nuclear interaction. These terms are responsible for small components in the wave function which in general are less known. Therefore, the accuracy shown by the modern interactions when reproducing the vector and tensor analyzing powers in the three-nucleon system gives important information about parts of the nuclear interaction not completely under control. As is well known, in the low energy region the vector analyzing powers are heavily underpredicted by all modern NN interactions and the origin of this discrepancy is not yet completely understood. Possible ways for solving this puzzle have recently been investigated, based on the inclusion of new terms in the three-nucleon potential  or on a new NN potential obtained from chiral perturbation theory . These studies represent only a first step in the understanding of the puzzle and further investigations and refinements of the models are needed. A similar underprediction of the proton analyzing power $`A_y`$ has been found in calculations on p-3He scattering, as was recently pointed out . Therefore, a solution to the puzzle should concern both the 3N and 4N systems.

In the present paper, we will discuss the quality of the description of the vector and tensor polarization observables achieved by the AV18 and the AV18+URIX interactions in p-d scattering up to $`28`$ MeV. In Fig.4 the results for $`A_y`$ are given for the same nine energy values given in Fig.3. The three curves correspond to the p-d $`A_y`$ calculated using AV18 (solid line) and AV18+URIX (dotted line), and the n-d $`A_y`$ calculated using AV18 (dashed line). The calculations are compared to data from ref.  at $`E_{lab}=5,7,9,10,12,16,18`$ MeV, and from ref.  at $`E_{lab}=22.7`$ MeV. As expected, Coulomb effects are appreciable in all the energy range. Below $`18`$ MeV the effects are appreciable at the maximum. Above $`18`$ MeV the shape of $`A_y`$ changes and a clear minimum appears, where Coulomb effects can be observed. The order of magnitude of these effects is $`15`$%. Instead, 3NF effects are not so important. This is a characteristic of the Urbana potential that modifies the quartet $`P`$-waves (which produces the main contribution to $`A_y`$ below $`30`$ MeV) in such a way that there is a cancellation among the different contributions, so the global effect on the observable is small. A similar analysis holds for $`iT_{11}`$, shown in Fig.5, since these two observables have rather similar structures. The calculations for $`iT_{11}`$ are compared to data from ref.  at $`E_{lab}=5,7,9`$ MeV, from ref.  at $`E_{lab}=10,12,16.5,22.7`$ MeV and from ref.  at $`E_{lab}=28`$ MeV, taking care again that at $`16`$ MeV the comparison is to data obtained at a slightly different energy ($`16.5`$ MeV). As a difference between the proton and deuteron analyzing powers, we observed that Coulomb and 3NF effects are of the same size at the minimum of $`iT_{11}`$ above $`16`$ MeV.

In Figs.6-8 the tensor observables $`T_{20},T_{21},T_{22}`$ are given, respectively. As before, the three curves correspond to the p-d $`T_{ij}`$ calculated using AV18 (solid line) and AV18+URIX (dotted line), and the n-d $`T_{ij}`$ calculated using AV18 (dashed line). The calculations are compared to data from ref.  at $`E_{lab}=5,7,9`$ MeV, from ref.  at $`E_{lab}=10,12,16.5,22.7`$ MeV and from ref.  at $`E_{lab}=28`$ MeV. As a general trend, the agreement with the data for the tensor observables is better than for the vector observables. Coulomb effects are appreciable in the three observables at low energies. As the energy increases the inclusion of the Coulomb interaction in the analysis of the tensor observables is less important, mostly for $`T_{20}`$ and $`T_{22}`$. The case of $`T_{21}`$ is of particular interest since Coulomb effects are still appreciable at $`28`$ MeV. This observation suggests that comparisons of d-p data to calculations where the Coulomb interaction has been neglected should be done with caution. The effect of the 3NF is somehow contradictory since in some cases its inclusion improves the description of the observables but in other cases it does not. For example, a net improvement is obtained in the description of the minimum of $`T_{22}`$ below 12 MeV. Also the maximum of $`T_{20}`$ and $`T_{21}`$ is better described with the AV18+UR potential. Conversely the description of the minimum of $`T_{20}`$ and $`T_{21}`$ is better described by the AV18 potential alone. The case of $`T_{21}`$ is again of interest since 3NF effects seem to be bigger in this tensor observable than in the others. Unfortunately experimental data for $`T_{21}`$ are not available at all the energies.

In order to give a quantitative estimation of the agreement between the theoretical calculations and the measurements, the $`\chi _N^2`$ for the polarization observables is presented in Table III. In the first row of the table, the $`\chi _N^2`$ is given with respect to a recent measurement performed at 1 MeV  and in the second row with respect to the measurements of ref.  at $`E_{lab}=3`$ MeV. These two energies are below the DBT and are useful for analyzing the trend of $`\chi ^2`$ starting at low energies. By inspection of the table, the manifestation of the $`A_y`$ puzzle is evident since the $`\chi _N^2`$ for the vector observables is a few hundreds at low energy. Above $`18`$ MeV $`A_y`$ and $`iT_{11}`$ change shape being closer to the shape of $`T_{21}`$ with a pronounced minimum followed by a maximum. After that energy the values of $`\chi _N^2`$ decrease in such a way that, at the last energy, vector and tensor observables have similar values which are of the order of one tenth. These final values are comparable to those ones obtained recently in ref.  at 135 MeV.

## VI Conclusions

In the present paper we have studied p-d elastic scattering above the DBT, up to $`E_{lab}=28`$ MeV. The differential cross section and the total breakup cross section as well as the vector and tensor analyzing powers have been calculated using one of the modern NN interactions, namely the AV18 potential. In order to evaluate 3NF effects the three-nucleon potential of Urbana has been taken into account. The effects of the Coulomb interaction has been considered in the framework of the complex Kohn Variational Principle.

The internal part of the p-d scattering wave function has been expanded in terms of the PHH basis. The KVP has been applied to obtain a set of differential equations for the hyperradial functions. The set has been solved imposing outgoing boundary conditions at a certain value of the hyperradius $`\rho =\rho _0`$ and expanding the hyperradial functions in the region $`[0,\rho _0]`$ in Laguerre polynomials plus an auxiliary oscillating function. The solution should not depend on the value of $`\rho _0`$ providing that for $`\rho >\rho _0`$ the asymptotic behavior has been reached. Such a technique has proved to be adequate since the results from ref.  has been reproduced as well as the benchmark of ref. .

The calculations have been extended to all states and parities with $`J19/2`$, corresponding to nine energies up to $`E_{lab}=28`$ MeV. The elastic $`S`$-matrix has then been used to calculate the observables of interest and compare them to the data. Moreover, the corresponding observables for n-d scattering, where the Coulomb interaction is absent, have been calculated too. From the analysis of the results some conclusions can be drawn about the capability of the AV18 and AV18+URIX interactions to reproduce the data. A quantitative measure of the agreement achieved by the theory in the description of the data has been given through a $`\chi ^2`$ analysis. No appreciable 3NF effects have been observed in the total breakup cross section and small effects appear in the differential cross section. However, results using the AV18+URIX model produce a lower $`\chi _N^2`$ value than those where the AV18 interaction has been used alone. At low energies this is a manifestation of the correct description of the 3He binding energy by the AV18+URIX interaction. But as the energy increases, there is a different sensitivity to the 3NF. In particular, at the highest energy considered, $`E_{lab}=28`$ MeV, the AV18+URIX differential cross section is above the AV18 differential cross section, reversing the order observed at lower energies. This situation becomes much more evident for example at $`E_{lab}=60`$ MeV . In order to further analyze this behavior in Table II the minimum of the AV18 and AV18+URIX cross sections are compared to the data. The minimum of the n-d differential cross section calculated with the AV18 potential is also given in order to estimate Coulomb effects. The results of the table are useful for analyzing what has been called the “Sagara discrepancy” .

In the case of vector and tensor analyzing powers the Urbana 3NF has little impact below $`30`$ MeV. The centrifugal barrier is still strong and there is not too much sensitivity to the short range part of the interaction. Conversely there are important Coulomb effects. In order to improve the description of the vector analyzing powers new terms could be considered in the three-nucleon potential. In such a case both the vector and the tensor analyzing powers should improve as well.

The present picture of the 3N scattering from the theoretical point of view is the following. At low energies there is a large underprediction of the vector analyzing powers whereas the differential cross section and tensor analyzing powers are well described. Up to $`30`$ MeV we see an improvement in $`A_y`$ and $`iT_{11}`$ indicating that the $`A_y`$ puzzle is a low energy problem. On the other hand, a progressive deterioration in the description of the cross section and tensor observables is revealed through a $`\chi ^2`$ analysis. For energies above $`30`$ MeV we can refer to the very recent work of ref.  and we see that this picture remains essentially the same up to very high energies (around $`135`$ MeV). Above this energy a number of new conflicts appears.

At present a few realistic local and non-local NN interactions have been determined by accurately fitting the two nucleon scattering observables. All of them give rise to the $`A_y`$ puzzle in the three-nucleon system. It seems difficult to derive a new NN interaction, which still accurately fits the two-nucleon scattering, and correctly describes the N-d $`A_y`$ at low energies . So, if this is the case, a possible solution to the puzzle should come from an improvement of the currently used 3NF models. Indeed, in accordance with chiral perturbation theory, these 3NF’s include those terms of larger magnitude. On the other hand, the $`A_y`$ puzzle can be solved by rather small changes in certain P-wave phase-shifts, which can be obtained by adding a small term to the three-nucleon potential . However, as the energy increases other discrepancies arise in the polarization observables that could have different origins. Hence, since the three-nucleon continuum can be calculated at present with great accuracy, it is reasonable to expect that the actual 3NF models can be adjusted to describe the 3N data. The necessary calculations will require large computing time, but is our opinion that this project will certainly help to understand the long unsolved problems in low energy nuclear physics.

###### Acknowledgements.

One of us (A.K.) would like to thank W. Tornow, E. Ludwig, H. Karwowski and C. Brune for useful discussions, and the Triangle Universities Nuclear Laboratory for hospitality and support where part of this work was performed. The authors wish to thank L. Lovitch for a critical reading of the manuscript.

Figure Captions

Fig.1. Phase–shift and mixing parameters (in degrees) as a function of energy. (a) $`{}_{}{}^{2}S_{1/2}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{4}S_{3/2}^{}`$, their real and imaginary parts are indicated by $`(,+)`$ and $`(\mathrm{},\times )`$, respectively. (b) $`{}_{}{}^{2}P_{1/2}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{2}P_{3/2}^{}`$, their real and imaginary parts are indicated by $`(,+)`$ and $`(\mathrm{},\times )`$, respectively. (c) $`{}_{}{}^{2}D_{3/2}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{2}D_{5/2}^{}`$, their real and imaginary parts are indicated by $`(,+)`$ and $`(\mathrm{},\times )`$, respectively. (d) $`{}_{}{}^{4}P_{1/2}^{}`$, $`{}_{}{}^{4}P_{3/2}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{4}P_{5/2}^{}`$, their real and imaginary parts are indicated by $`(,+)`$, $`(\mathrm{},\times )`$ and $`(\mathrm{},)`$, respectively. (e) $`{}_{}{}^{4}D_{1/2}^{}`$, $`{}_{}{}^{4}D_{3/2}^{}`$, $`{}_{}{}^{4}D_{5/2}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{4}D_{7/2}^{}`$, their real parts are indicated by $``$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$, respectively. Only the imaginary part of $`{}_{}{}^{4}D_{1/2}^{}`$ is given (+). (f) Mixing parameters $`\eta _{1/2+}`$, $`\eta _{3/2+}`$, $`ϵ_{1/2}`$ and $`ϵ_{3/2}`$, their real parts are indicated by $``$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`\mathrm{}`$ and $``$, respectively. The imaginary parts of $`ϵ_{1/2}`$ and $`ϵ_{3/2}`$ are indicated by + and $`\times `$, respectively. The imaginary parts of $`\eta _{1/2+}`$ and $`\eta _{3/2+}`$ are close to zero and are not shown.

Fig.2. The p-d total breakup cross section $`\sigma _b`$ below 30 MeV calculated using the AV18 interaction. The experimental results of Gibbons and Macklin  (open triangles) and Carlson et al.  (open circles) are given for the sake of comparison.

Fig.3. N-d differential cross section up to $`28`$ MeV. Calculations are shown for p-d scattering using the AV18 (solid line) and AV18+UR (dotted line) potentials and for n-d scattering using the AV18 potential (dashed line). Data are from ref.  at $`E_{lab}=5,7,9,10,12,16,18`$ MeV, from ref.  at $`E_{lab}=22.7`$ MeV and from ref.  at $`E_{lab}=28`$ MeV.

Fig.4. Nucleon vector analyzing power $`A_y`$ up to $`28`$ MeV. Calculations are shown for p-d scattering using the AV18 (solid line) and AV18+UR (dotted line) potentials and for n-d scattering using the AV18 potential (dashed line). Data are from ref.  at $`E_{lab}=5,7,9,10,12,16,18`$ MeV, and from ref.  at $`E_{lab}=22.7`$ MeV.

Fig.5. Deuteron vector analyzing power $`iT_{11}`$ up to $`28`$ MeV. Calculations are shown for p-d scattering using the AV18 (solid line) and AV18+UR (dotted line) potentials and for n-d scattering using the AV18 potential (dashed line). Data are from ref.  at $`E_{lab}=5,7,9`$ MeV, from ref.  at $`E_{lab}=10,12,16.5,22.7`$ MeV and from ref.  at $`E_{lab}=28`$ MeV.

Fig.6. Tensor analyzing power $`T_{20}`$ up to $`28`$ MeV. Calculations are shown for p-d scattering using the AV18 (solid line) and AV18+UR (dotted line) potentials and for n-d scattering using the AV18 potential (dashed line). Data are from ref.  at $`E_{lab}=5,7,9`$ MeV, from ref.  at $`E_{lab}=10,12,16.5,22.7`$ MeV and from ref.  at $`E_{lab}=28`$ MeV.

Fig.7. Tensor analyzing power $`T_{21}`$ up to $`28`$ MeV. Calculations are shown for p-d scattering using the AV18 (solid line) and AV18+UR (dotted line) potentials and for n-d scattering using the AV18 potential (dashed line). Data are from ref.  at $`E_{lab}=5,7,9`$ MeV, from ref.  at $`E_{lab}=10`$ MeV and from ref.  at $`E_{lab}=28`$ MeV.

Fig.8. Tensor analyzing power $`T_{22}`$ up to $`28`$ MeV. Calculations are shown for p-d scattering using the AV18 (solid line) and AV18+UR (dotted line) potentials and for n-d scattering using the AV18 potential (dashed line). Data are from ref.  at $`E_{lab}=5,7,9`$ MeV, from ref.  at $`E_{lab}=10,12,16.5,22.7`$ MeV and from ref.  at $`E_{lab}=28`$ MeV.


format: text

text:
# Threshold suppression of Λ spin-orbit splitting

## 1 Introduction

Guided by experiment, e.g. in $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{13}`$C  and $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{16}`$O  it is a long standing opinion that the spin-orbit splitting of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ single particle levels in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hypernuclei should be very small or almost zero. The most prominent theoretical explanation for this effect has been given through the quark-spin substructure of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ leading to an additional $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$$`\omega `$ tensor coupling that almost exactly cancels the more conventional scalar-vector spin-orbit force of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ single particle states in finite systems .

A reanalysis of older $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{13}`$C  and $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{16}`$O  proton emitter emulsion data by Dalitz et al., however, lead already to a remarkably bigger splitting, i.e. $``$0.8 MeV for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{13}`$C and 1.56$`\pm `$0.12 MeV for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{16}`$O though the statistics was not so good. New experiments at KEK, measuring high resolution $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ single-particle spectra for medium and heavy hypernuclei, show a spin-orbit splitting for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ levels in the range of 1–2 MeV . This is quite sizeable but still smaller by a factor of about 2 than the splitting to be expected from the general quenching of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–N interactions.

In this letter we will show that the reduced splitting in medium and heavy nuclei can be attributed to the strong delocalization of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ wave functions in the nucleus due to the shallow $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ potential (sect. 3). In light nuclei with weakly bound $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ states particle threshold effects are superimposed on the general delocalization. The very small splitting in light nuclei is due to these continuum threshold effects which lead to a squeezing of the single particle levels close to threshold and thereby almost completely dilutes generic spin-orbit potential effects in this mass region (sect. 4). According to our investigations, the extremely small splitting of the spin-orbit doublets in light $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hypernuclei as well as the reduced splitting of those in medium to heavy hypernuclei can be completely explained in the framework of the density dependent relativistic hadron (DDRH) field theory .

## 2 The DDRH field theory for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hypernuclei

The DDRH field theory  is an effective density dependent lagrangian field theory of nucleons and mesons based on microscopic nucleon–nucleon interactions. The extension of DDRH to the strangenes sector was described in , where we refer to for theoretical details. Medium effects are included by mapping the ladder sum of Dirac-Brückner (DB) self-energies onto the vertices which are in our case functionals of the baryonic field operators. As input for the vertices DB calculations for the Bonn A potential have been used. Besides the standard kinetic and mass terms for baryons and mesons the DDRH lagrangian incorporates the interaction part:

$`_{int}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_F\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\sigma (\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_F,\mathrm{\Psi }_F)\mathrm{\Psi }_F\sigma \overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_F\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\omega (\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_F,\mathrm{\Psi }_F)\gamma _\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_F\omega ^\mu `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_F\widehat{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}_\rho (\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_F,\mathrm{\Psi }_F)\gamma _\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_F\stackrel{}{\rho }^\mu e\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_F\widehat{Q}\gamma _\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_FA^\mu `$
Because of the functional dependence of the vertices on the field operators the baryonic equations of motion contain additional rearrangement self energies accounting for static polarization effects of the nuclear medium .

In figure 1 and table 1 we compare our theoretical results with the new experimantal data by H. Hotchi and T. Nagae . Our calculations have been performed with the numerical parameter set derived from Dirac-Brückner theory and free $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-N scattering in . The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ single particle spectra of $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{51}`$V and $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{89}`$Y are reproduced almost perfectly. This indicates that:

1. The dynamics of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is – in medium to heavy nuclei – almost completely governed by the nuclear mean field which is in line with the experiment  where shell structures even for deeply bound $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-states are clearly resolved.
2. In view of this not much room seems to be left for QCD related phenomena like dissolving of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the nuclear medium or partial deconfinement of the strange quark, as conjectured e.g. in .
3. A $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$$`\omega `$ tensor coupling as it arises e.g. from the quark meson coupling prescription and leads to an almost vanishing spin-orbit splitting (see e.g. ) is not supported by the analysis.

This underlines the sensibility of a hadronic description of in-medium hyperons and their interactions also around saturation density. It also stresses the importance of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hypernuclei in investigating the microscopic structure of baryonic interactions.

## 3 The spin-orbit potential and the delocalization of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ wave function

As was indicated in  the reduced spin-orbit splitting in medium and heavy $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hypernuclei can be attributed to the delocalization of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ wave-functions. Since the spin-orbit energy is determined by the overlap integral of the single particle wave function and the spin-orbit potential – where the latter is well localized at the nuclear surface – a strong delocalization of the wave function leads to a sizeable reduction of the spin-orbit interaction energy.

A suitable measure for the reduced overlap of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ wave function with the nuclear interior is to define a localization coefficient by

$$N_{\mathrm{\Lambda },n}(R)=N_o_0^R𝑑rr^2\left|F_{\mathrm{\Lambda },n}(r)\right|^2$$
(2)
describing the fraction of the probability density which is localized within the volume $`\frac{4}{3}\pi R^3`$. Here, $`F_{\mathrm{\Lambda },n}`$ is the upper component of the respective Dirac wave function and $`N_o`$ is chosen such that $`N_{\mathrm{\Lambda },n}(R)1`$ for $`R\mathrm{}`$. In table 2 values $`N_{\mathrm{\Lambda },n}(R)`$ for $`R=\sqrt{r^2}`$ for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and neutron orbitals in a number of nuclei are shown. The overlap of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ wave functions with the bulk of the nuclear mass distribution is seen to be strongly reduced compared to corresponding neutron states. The delocalization increases rapidly with decreasing binding energy with a particular strong enhancement for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ states. The results show clearly that a sizeable part of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ wave function lies “outside” the nucleus, a much larger fraction than in the neutron case. A comparison with experiment, see figure 1 and table 1, shows that this mechanism is able to explain the fine structure of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ single particle spectra.

## 4 Continuum threshold effects on the spin-orbit splitting

Experimentally observed single particle spectra in low mass $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hypernuclei show a much more drastic reduction of the spin-orbit splitting. This led to the conjecture that the spin-orbit splitting in hypernuclei should be in general very small and could be reasonably explained by assuming that the spin of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is carried solely by the strange quark.

The level spacing in light nuclei is, however, strongly affected by the continuum threshold which is in these small systems – especially for the rather weakly bound $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$s – quasi omnipresent. As is known from neutron rich nuclei, e.g. , the single particle level spacing becomes compressed for states approaching the threshold.

The threshold compression effect is visible already in the Ca region but is especially important around and below $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{16}`$O. The typical feature in these nuclei is that the centroid energy of a spin-orbit doublet is rather close to threshold, mainly because of the shallowness of the binding potential. Under such conditions the spectrum of valence levels becomes compressed inducing an apparent reduction of spin-orbit strength because the less bound j=$`\mathrm{}`$-1/2 member of a spin-orbit doublet tries to avoid the crossing in the unbound region. This “hindrance” is related to the general phenomenon of “avoided level crossing” in quantal systems because passing over into the continuum means that for example a $`p_{1/2}`$-level would have to cross the region of low energy s-wave continuum levels before re-appearing as a single particle resonance.

We illustrate these special effects for the 1p spin-orbit doublet in $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{16}`$O. Approaching the continuum threshold is enforced by modifying artificially the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ potential depth by variation of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$$`\omega `$ coupling constant. Figure 2 shows the dependence of the splitting strength of the 1p doublet on the centroid energy $`E_{\text{centroid}}=\frac{E_{p3/2}+E_{p1/2}}{2}`$. Even strongly bound states (E$`{}_{B}{}^{}<`$-6MeV) are still considerably affected by the threshold. The effect only saturates if a state of another parity from the continuum is lowered into the bound region, in this example a $`1d_{5/2}`$ orbit. The same behavior is also found in the 1p-shell doublet in $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{13}`$C, often referred to as the “standard hypernucleus”.

The continuum threshold effect reflects the peculiar dependence of matrix elements on wave function overlaps for weakly bound states. In such cases - as observed in recent studies of pure isospin dripline nuclei - generic properties of interactions are masked behind wave function effects. This has important consequences for extracting the desired information on the underlying interaction from data: The threshold effect leads to local variations in energy splittings not following the systematics derived from well bound systems. Obviously, this will strongly inhibit a model independent derivation of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ interaction strengths from measurements, especially in light nuclei. Around and beyond A$``$40, however, the threshold effect rapidly vanishes. Since the new KEK data  for $`{}_{}{}^{51}V`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{89}Y`$ were obtained in mass region well outside the threshold regime they can be expected to provide suitable information on the generic $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ spin-orbit strength, indicating a larger value than assumed before.

## 5 Conclusion

The larger than expected spin-orbit splitting observed in recent KEK experiments on medium mass nuclei are well reproduced by relativistic DDRH mean-field calculations. Universal parameter sets, derived previously from Dirac-Brueckner theory, were used. The results indicate that the medium dependence of hyperon-coupling constants is essential for the good description. The calculations explain consistently also the apparent suppression of spin-orbit strength for weakly bound $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ orbitals in light nuclei by the compression of spectra close to the continuum threshold due to avoided level crossing. It is worthwhile to emphasize strongly the importance of high-resolution data, like those of ref. , for hypernuclear structure theory and the understanding of hyperon interactions.

## 6 Acknowledgements

This work was supported by DFG grant Le439/4-3 and the European Graduate School “Complex Systems of Hadrons and Nuclei, Gießen–Copenhagen”.


text:
# Coulomb drag between a metal and a Wigner crystal.

## I Introduction

Coupled quantum wells are useful tools for studying electron-electron interaction in low-dimensional systems both experimentally and theoretically. By changing the distance between the layers, one can allow or prohibit interlayer tunneling and also control the interaction between electrons in different layers. Moreover, by changing parameters such as the density of electrons, the temperature and the magnetic field one can examine different electronic phases.

One effect, which has attracted much attention in recent years, is Coulomb drag , where current $`I_1`$ in one layer (”the active layer”) induces a voltage $`V_2`$ in the other (”passive”) layer, which is kept in a zero current state ($`I_2=0`$). The measured quantity is the drag resistivity, or trans-resistivity, which for a square sample is defined as $`\rho _D\frac{V_2}{I_1}.`$ Since electron-electron collisions have only indirect consequences for transport properties in a single quantum well, because they conserve momentum, the Coulomb drag is unique in directly measuring effects of electron-electron interaction through a transport measurement.

Coulomb drag has been studied extensively in the regime in which carriers in both layers form Fermi liquids. For low enough density the two-dimensional electron liquid should condense into a Wigner crystal . A clean Wigner crystal should have no electrical resistivity. However, it is well appreciated by now, from analogous behavior in charge density wave systems , that an arbitrarily small disorder potential should pin the crystal so that there are no charge carriers that can flow in response to an arbitrarily small electric field. The disorder also causes the crystal to deform, so that it has a finite correlation length, or domain size. As a result of pinning, the linear response conductivity vanishes.

In this work we study Coulomb drag in a double layer system in which carriers in the passive layer form a pinned Wigner crystal. The pinning of the crystal is due to its interaction with strong impurities, whose density is assumed to vanish in the thermodynamic limit. The common methods for calculating drag resistivity are not directly applicable to this case: the Boltzmann equation  can be used to calculate the flow of momentum from the active to the passive layer, but does not distinguish between momentum flow to the electrons in the Wigner crystal and momentum flow to the impurities that pin the crystal. This distinction is important for separating between two different measurable quantities: the contribution of the passive layer to the resistivity of the active layer and the trans-resistivity, proportional to the voltage developing on the passive layer. The Kubo formalism  is useful for calculating the transconductivity. However, the inversion of the conductivity matrix, needed to obtain the transresistivity, is delicate, due to the vanishing zero temperature conductivity of the passive layer. Thus, this problem necessitates a different method.

To that end, we introduce an harmonic potential of frequency $`\omega _0`$, that confines the passive layer and does not allow it to move. When momentum flows from the active to the passive layer, the passive layer is displaced from its equilibrium position. Its displacement, which we call $`𝐮_0`$, is determined by the balance between the momentum flux from the active layer and the restoring force exerted by the harmonic confining potential. We calculate $`𝐮_0`$, from which we deduce the restoring force and the transresistivity. The introduction of the harmonic potential into the problem allows us to calculate the transresistivity directly by using standard linear response formalism.

## II The model and the problem

The model is defined as follows. There are two conductors (wires in the quasi- 1D case and layers in the 2D case). Current flows in the active one, which is in a weakly disordered Fermi liquid state. No current flows in the passive conductor, which is in a Wigner crystal state pinned by impurities.

The Hamiltonian of the system is given by

$$H=H_1+H_2+H_{12}.$$
(1)
Here $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$ are the Hamiltonians of the active and passive conductors, and $`H_{12}`$ is the interaction between them.

Thus

$`H_1={\displaystyle \underset{𝐩}{}}ϵ_𝐩c_𝐩^{}c_𝐩+H_{disorder},`$

where $`H_{disorder}`$ is the standard interaction of electrons in a metal with dilute impurities; the Hamiltonian of the passive conductor, $`H_2`$, describes a crystal interacting with impurities:

$`H_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐱}{s_0}}({\displaystyle \frac{𝐩(𝐱)^2}{2m_2}}`$ (4)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_2v_s^2(_i𝐮_j(𝐱))(_i𝐮_j(𝐱))+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_2\omega _0^2𝐮(𝐱)^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{imp}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A_GG^2s_0𝐮(𝐱)^2\delta (𝐱𝐑_{imp})),`$
where $`𝐮`$ is the displacement field, $`𝐩`$ \- its conjugate momentum, $`s_0`$ is the size of a unit cell of the Wigner crystal, $`m_2`$ \- the mass of electrons constituting the Wigner crystal and $`v_s`$ \- the sound velocity of the crystal (for simplicity we assume it to be equal for the longitudinal and transverse modes). $`G`$ is a basis vector of the reciprocal Wigner lattice, $`A_G`$ \- a parameter, defining the strength of the impurities in the crystal. We expect the induced field (which enters into the definition of trans-resistivity) to be independent of $`\omega _0`$, and at the end of the calculation $`\omega _0`$ is taken to zero. In our analysis of the Hamiltonian (4) we assume that the impurities in the passive layer are dilute and strong, in a sense that is defined below.

The derivation of this Hamiltonian is similar to one given in . We start from a discrete harmonic lattice, interacting with impurities:

$`H_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐩(𝐱_i)^2}{2m_2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}𝐮(𝐱_i)𝐃(𝐱_i𝐱_j)𝐮(𝐱_j)`$ (6)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i,imp}{}}V(𝐱_i+𝐮(𝐱_i)𝐑_{imp}).`$
Here $`𝐃`$ is the dynamical matrix of the crystal, $`V`$ \- the impurity potential and the third sum extends over lattice and impurity sites. Now we write

$`𝐮=𝐮^0+𝐮^1,`$

where $`𝐮^0`$ gives the static deformation of the crystal due to the impurities, and $`𝐮^1`$ \- fluctuations around the new equilibrium. Expanding everything in small quantities $`𝐮^1`$ to second order, we get:

$`H_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐩(𝐱_i)^2}{2m_2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}𝐮^0(𝐱_i)𝐃(𝐱_i𝐱_j)𝐮^0(𝐱_j)+{\displaystyle \underset{i,imp}{}}V(𝐱_i+𝐮^0(𝐱_i)𝐑_{imp})`$ (8)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}𝐮^1(𝐱_i)𝐃(𝐱_i𝐱_j)𝐮^1(𝐱_j)+{\displaystyle \underset{i,imp}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(𝐮^1(𝐱_i))(𝐮^1(𝐱_i))V(𝐱_i+𝐮^0(𝐱_i)𝐑_{imp}),`$
where there is no linear in $`𝐮^1`$ term, because $`𝐮^0`$ minimizes the potential energy, including the impurities, and the crystal is harmonically pinned at each impurity site. We now assume that the impurity strength is much larger than elastic forces in the crystal, so that the lattice adjusts itself in order to minimize the interaction energy with impurities at each impurity site. This is a strong pinning condition . It is valid when impurities are strong and dilute. As derived in detail below, the impurities are strong when

$$G^2A_G>>2m_2v_s\omega _0/a_0$$
(9)
in quasi 1D, and

$$G^2A_G>>\frac{2\pi m_2v_s^2}{s_0\mathrm{ln}(\frac{v_s}{a_0\omega _0})}$$
(10)
in 2D. Here $`a_0`$ is the lattice spacing.

Assuming strong pinning, $`𝐮^0`$ can be found simply by minimizing $`_iV(𝐱_i+𝐮^0(𝐱_i)𝐑_{imp})`$ at each impurity site. Assuming now that the range of the impurities is much larger than the lattice spacing, but much smaller than the inter-impurity distance, we can write

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}V(𝐱_i+𝐮^0(𝐱_i)𝐑_{imp}){\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}V(𝐱_i+𝐮^0(𝐑_{imp})𝐑_{imp}),`$

which is periodic in $`𝐮^0(𝐑_{imp})`$ with lattice period. Expanding in a Fourier series and taking only the lowest Fourier components, we may approximate

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}V(𝐱_i+𝐮^0(𝐱_i)𝐑_{imp})`$ (11)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐆}{}}A_𝐆\mathrm{cos}(𝐆(𝐮^0(𝐑_{imp})𝐑_{imp})),`$ (12)
which for attractive impurities($`A_G<0`$) is minimized when $`\mathrm{cos}(𝐆(𝐮^0(𝐑_{imp})𝐑_{imp}))=1`$. Substituting this approximation in the Hamiltonian (8), we get:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i,imp}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(𝐮^1(𝐱_i))(𝐮^1(𝐱_i))V(𝐱_i+𝐮^0(𝐱_i)𝐑_{imp})`$ (13)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A_𝐆{\displaystyle \underset{i,imp}{}}(𝐮^1(𝐱_i)𝐆)(𝐮^1(𝐱_i)𝐆)\delta _{𝐱_i𝐑_{imp}}.`$ (14)
We now omit the non-dynamical parts of (8) (i.e., the parts that depend only on $`𝐮^0`$), add a term $`\frac{1}{2}m_2\omega _0^2(𝐮(𝐱))^2`$ to represent a harmonic confining potential for the passive layer, and go to the continuum limit. We obtain the Hamiltonian (4). Since this Hamiltonian does not depend on $`𝐮^0`$, we can simplify the notation by omitting the superscript from $`𝐮^1`$ and calling it $`𝐮`$ . It should be remembered, however, that from now on $`𝐮`$ is not the deviation of the electron position from a lattice site, but its deviation from the position it holds in equilibrium (which is shifted from the lattice site by the impurities).

The interaction between the conductors is given by

$`H_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`(\delta _{𝐪+𝐆}+ı\delta _{𝐤+𝐆𝐪}\mathrm{𝐪𝐮}_𝐤`$ (16)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta _{𝐤_\mathrm{𝟏}+𝐤_\mathrm{𝟐}+𝐆𝐪}(\mathrm{𝐪𝐮}_{𝐤_1})(\mathrm{𝐪𝐮}_{𝐤_2}))n_2U_𝐪c_{𝐩+𝐪}^{}c_𝐩,`$
where $`n_2`$ is the density of lattice sites in the Wigner crystal. This is just the inter-layer Coulomb interaction expanded to second order in terms of the crystal displacement field. We omitted here a term arising from the static deformation of the Wigner crystal due to impurities. $`U_𝐪`$ is the Fourier component of the screened interlayer Coulomb potential. We take it to be constant at wave length smaller than the interlayer spacing, while at larger wavelengths it decreases exponentially.

The problem is posed as follows: given a current density $`𝐣_1`$ in the active conductor and $`𝐣_2=0`$ in the passive conductor, what are the electric fields $`𝐄_1+\delta 𝐄_1`$ and $`𝐄_2`$ in the conductors? (Here $`𝐄_1`$ is the field which would be in the active conductor in the absence of the passive one). Using the resistivity matrix , we can write this as

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}𝐄_1+\delta 𝐄_1\\ 𝐄_2\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\rho +\delta \rho & \rho _D\\ \rho _D& \rho _W\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}𝐣_1\\ 0\end{array}\right),$$
(17)
where $`\rho `$ is the resistivity of the active layer in the absence of drag. What we need to find are $`\delta \rho `$ and $`\rho _D`$.

We find the field $`E_2`$ by calculating $`u_0,`$ since the two are related by

$$E_2=\frac{m_2\omega _0^2u_0}{e},$$
(18)
while $`\delta 𝐄_1`$ is found by calculating $`\delta 𝐣_1`$ the negative contribution to the current in the active conductor at a given field $`E_1`$ due to the drag. Then, for weak drag,

$$\delta 𝐣_1\delta 𝐄_1/\rho .$$
(19)
We consider both quasi 1D coupled conductors (by which we mean wires of several conduction channels, in which electrons form either a Fermi liquid or a Wigner crystal), and two dimensional conductors. We focus mostly on the latter.

## III Results

In quasi 1D conductors the transresistivity and the drag contribution to the resistivity are suppressed at low temperatures in the limit of vanishing $`\omega _0`$ and infinite $`L`$, since in that limit momentum and energy cannot be conserved simultaneously for electron- phonon scattering.

In the 2D case the transresistivity is found to be

$$\rho _D=Z\frac{m_1}{m_2}\frac{U_0^2T^4}{e^2\mathrm{}^5v_{fs}v_s^5n_1}\left(1\frac{N_{imp}}{2\pi \mathrm{ln}(L/a_0)}\right),$$
(20)
where $`U_0`$ is the zero wave vector component of the interlayer interaction, $`Z`$ \- a numerical factor given by

$`Z={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{z^4dz}{\mathrm{sinh}^2(z)}},`$

$`m_1`$ is the electron mass in the active (metallic) layer, $`m_2`$ is the electron mass in the Wigner crystal, $`v_s`$ is the sound velocity in the Wigner crystal, $`v_{fs}\sqrt{v_f^2v_s^2}`$, with $`v_f`$ being the Fermi velocity in the metallic layer (we assume $`v_f>v_s`$ and that $`v_f`$, $`v_s`$ and $`v_{fs}`$ are of the same order of magnitude) ; $`n_1`$ is the density of electrons, $`N_{imp}`$ is the number of impurities, and $`L/a_0`$ \- the ratio between the size of the system and that of a unit cell. The impurities are supposed to be dilute enough, so that a condition $`N_{imp}\mathrm{ln}(L/a_0)`$ is satisfied.

We see that impurities in the passive conductor decrease the transresistivity. Due to the force they exert on the crystal, part of the momentum flux from the active layer is transferred to the impurities. This part does not lead to drag. Stretching the approximation to its limit, we find that the influence of the impurities becomes significant once their number reaches the logarithm of the number of electrons in the Wigner crystal. The impurity strength does not appear in the final expression as long as it is much larger than elastic forces in the Wigner crystal. The temperature dependence is consistent with the 2D extension of the Bloch law for the resistance due to electron-phonon scattering.

The drag contribution to the resistivity in 2D is, in the limit of dilute impurities,

$`\delta \rho `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n_2}{n_1}}\rho _D\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{N_{imp}}{2\pi \mathrm{ln}(L/a_0)}}\right)^1`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`Z{\displaystyle \frac{n_2m_1}{n_1m_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{U_0^2T^4}{e^2\mathrm{}^5v_{fs}v_s^5n_1}}.`$ (22)
This contribution is not suppressed by the impurity induced factor $`\left(1\frac{N_{imp}}{2\pi \mathrm{ln}(L/a_0)}\right).`$ The momentum, that flows to the impurities, does increase the resistivity in the active layer, although it does not induce voltage on the electrons in the passive layer. In the absence of impurities, the ratio between the transresistivity and the drag contribution to the resistivity is $`n_1/n_2,`$ as required by the Galilean invariance. Due to this invariance the two electronic systems can flow at equal speeds without any friction resulting from their interaction. Thus when $`j_1/j_2=n_1/n_2`$ we must have

$$\delta E=j_1\delta \rho j_2\rho _D=0.$$
(23)
## IV Calculation

As explained in the introduction, the calculation is done using the linear response formalism. We first consider the trans-resistivity of the passive conductor and then the contribution of inter-layer interaction to to the resistance of the active conductor.

### A The transresistivity

From the Kubo formula we find the displacement of the Wigner crystal:

$$𝐮_0^\alpha =\underset{\omega 0}{lim}\frac{1}{\omega \mathrm{}}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t\mathrm{exp}^{i\omega t}[𝐮_0^\alpha (t),𝐣_0^\beta ]𝐄_\mathrm{𝟏}^\beta ,$$
(24)
where $`𝐣_0=e/m_𝐪𝐪c_𝐪^{}c_𝐪`$ is the current operator for the active layer and $`𝐄`$ \- the applied electric field (in the same layer). Proceeding as usual , we define the correlator $`\mathrm{\Pi }_u`$ by

$$𝐮_0(\omega )=\frac{i}{\omega }\mathrm{\Pi }_u(\omega )\frac{e}{m_1}𝐄,$$
(25)
where we have assumed isotropy. Then in imaginary time the correlator is given by

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_u(i\omega )=_0^\beta \tau e^{ı\omega \tau }T𝐮{}_{0}{}^{}(\tau )𝐩_0^E.$$
(26)
Here $`\beta `$ is the inverse temperature and $`𝐩_0^E`$ is the component of the total momentum of electrons in the active conductor in the direction of the applied field. This correlator is then calculated to lowest order of inter-layer interaction. The corresponding diagrams are shown in Fig. 1. Note that the last pair of diagrams vanishes, since the transferred momentum is zero.

Calculation of the topmost pair of diagrams yields an expression for $`\mathrm{\Pi }_u`$:

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_u(\omega 0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤_1𝐤_2𝐩}{}}2i\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2m_2}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{𝐪^2𝐪_x}{\sqrt{\omega _0\omega _{𝐤_1}\omega _{𝐤_2}\omega _𝐤}}}D_{𝐤_10}(0)\left({\displaystyle \frac{U_𝐪}{S}}\right)^2`$ (28)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dϵ_1}{2\pi i}\frac{dϵ_2}{2\pi i}\mathrm{}\omega 𝚪_{𝐩}^{}{}_{}{}^{x}|G_𝐩(ϵ_1)|^2\beta n_F(ϵ_1)n_F(ϵ_1ϵ_2)n_B(ϵ_2)\left(D_{𝐤_2𝐤}(ϵ_2)D_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}_2}^{}(ϵ_2)\right)\mathrm{}G_{𝐩+𝐪}(ϵ_1+ϵ_2)},`$
where in the neglect of Umklapp processes $`𝐪=𝐤=𝐤_1+𝐤_2`$ and $`𝐤_1`$, $`𝐤_2,𝐤`$ are in the Brillouin zone. The frequency $`\omega _𝐤=\sqrt{v_s^2𝐤^2+\omega _0^2}`$ is the phonon frequency for a clean crystal, $`S`$ is the area of the sample, $`𝚪`$ is an electron current vertex function in the active layer, $`G`$ is the conventional electron propagator in the active layer, and finally $`D`$ is the phonon propagator including impurities, which should be calculated. Substituting for $`G`$, which gives delta-functions, integrating over $`ϵ_1`$ and $`ϵ_2`$, and assuming no Umklapp (since the potential $`U_𝐪`$ is suppressed at large $`𝐪`$), so that $`𝐪=𝐤`$, we get

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_u(\omega 0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤_1𝐤_2𝐩}{}}D_{𝐤_10}(0)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2m_2}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{𝐤^2𝐤_xU_𝐤^2}{S^2\sqrt{\omega _0\omega _{𝐤_1}\omega _{𝐤_2}\omega _𝐤}}}\omega \beta n_F(ϵ_𝐩)n_F(ϵ_{𝐩+𝐤})`$ (30)
$`\times n_B(ϵ_{𝐩+𝐤}ϵ_𝐩)\tau _t\mathrm{}𝐩_x\left(D_{𝐤2𝐤}((ϵ_{𝐩+𝐤}ϵ_𝐩)/\mathrm{})D_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}2}^{}((ϵ_{𝐩+𝐤}ϵ_𝐩)/\mathrm{})\right),`$
where $`\tau _t`$ is the electron transport scattering time for the active conductor and $`ϵ_𝐩`$ \- electron energy for the active conductor. Now we sum over $`𝐩`$, assuming $`Tϵ_F`$ and $`1/dk_f`$ (where $`d`$ is the spacing between the conductors and $`k_f`$ the Fermi wave vector). Then

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_u(\omega 0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤_1𝐤_2}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}N(0)D_{𝐤_10}(0)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2m_2}}\right)^2\mathrm{}\omega \beta `$ (32)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{𝐤^2𝐤_x^2U_𝐤^2}{S^2\sqrt{\omega _0\omega _{𝐤_1}\omega _{𝐤_2}\omega _𝐤}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}v_Fk\mathrm{cos}\theta }{4\mathrm{sinh}^2(\beta \mathrm{}v_fk\mathrm{cos}\theta /2)}}\left(D_{𝐤2𝐤}(v_Fk\mathrm{cos}\theta )D_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}2}^{}(v_Fk\mathrm{cos}\theta )\right),`$
where $`N(0)`$ is the extensive density of states for the metallic conductor. To proceed further, we have to calculate the phonon propagator $`D`$ in the presence of impurities. Here we calculate the phonon propagator in different dimensions, assuming that strength of the impurities is much larger than typical elastic forces in the crystal, i.e., strong pinning. To formulate quantitatively this condition, we consider the static deformation of the Wigner lattice due to all impurities. In our derivation of $`H_2`$ above, we assumed that the fragment of the lattice, that interacts with each impurity, is positioned in a way, that minimizes this interaction. In doing so, we neglected elastic forces on the scale of inter-impurity distance and found out that, up to a lattice constant, the displacement of a fragment interacting with an impurity at $`𝐑_{imp}`$ satisfies $`𝐮^0=𝐑_{imp}`$. The elastic forces between fragments will modify this displacement. We now express this modification in terms of phonon propagator. In coordinate representation the propagator is

$$\stackrel{~}{D}(\omega ,𝐱_1,𝐱_2)\frac{dt}{\mathrm{}}e^{ı\omega t}\left(i\theta (t)[u_{𝐱_1}(t),u_{𝐱_2}(0)]\right),$$
(33)
and it can be written in momentum representation as:

$$\stackrel{~}{D}(\omega ,𝐱_1,𝐱_2)=\underset{𝐤_1,𝐤_2}{}\frac{\mathrm{}D_{𝐤_1,𝐤_2}(\omega )e^{ı𝐤_1𝐱_1ı𝐤_2𝐱_2}}{2N_2m_2\sqrt{\omega _{𝐤_1}\omega _{𝐤_2}}},$$
(34)
where $`N_2`$ is the number of sites in the Wigner lattice. The propagator $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ relates a point force $`f`$ applied at $`𝐱_2`$ to the displacement $`u_{𝐱_1}`$ it generates at $`𝐱_1`$

$$u_{𝐱_1}=\stackrel{~}{D}(\omega =0,𝐱_1,𝐱_2)f.$$
(35)
The force exerted on the lattice by an impurity at $`𝐑_i`$ is (assuming $`𝐆(𝐮^\mathrm{𝟎}(𝐑_i)𝐑_i)1`$)

$`G^2A_G(𝐑_i𝐮_{𝐱_i}^0).`$

Consequently, the displacement $`𝐮_{𝐱_k}^0`$ satisfies the equation

$$𝐮_{𝐱_k}^0=\underset{i}{}\stackrel{~}{D}^f(\omega =0,𝐱_k,𝐱_i)G^2A_G(𝐑_i𝐮_{𝐱_i}^0),$$
(36)
where $`\stackrel{~}{D}^f(\omega =0,𝐱_1,𝐱_2)`$ is the propagator of a clean crystal in the coordinate representation. When the impurities are dilute, $`\stackrel{~}{D}^f(\omega =0,𝐱_k,𝐱_k)>>\stackrel{~}{D}^f(\omega =0,𝐱_k,𝐱_i)`$ for $`ik`$. Under this condition we may retain only the term with $`i=k`$ in the sum, and the strong pinning condition, requiring that $`u^0>>r_{imp}u^0`$ becomes:

$$\stackrel{~}{D}^f(\omega =0,𝐱_k,𝐱_k)G^2A_G>>1.$$
(37)
Physically, the neglect of the $`ik`$ terms in the sum (36) implies that the local displacement $`u_{𝐱_k}^0`$ is determined by a balance between the potential exerted by the closest impurity and the confining harmonic potential characterized by $`\omega _0`$.

In 1D the condition (37) is

$$G^2A_G>>2m_2v_s\omega _0/a_0,$$
(38)
while in 2D:

$$G^2A_G>>\frac{2\pi m_2v_s^2}{s_0\mathrm{ln}(\frac{v_s}{a_0\omega _0})},$$
(39)
where $`s_0`$ is the area of the unit cell.

The calculation of the phonon propagator in the presence of the impurities goes as follows. We start from a differential equation satisfied by the propagator in the coordinate representation:

$`\left(\omega ^2+v_s^2^2\omega _0^2+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{s_0G^2A_G}{m_2}}\delta (𝐱𝐱_i)\right)\stackrel{~}{D}(\omega ,𝐱,𝐱^{})`$ (40)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{s_0\delta (𝐱𝐱^{})}{m_2}},`$ (41)
where the sum is over the impurities. This equation can be solved in terms of the free propagator

$`\stackrel{~}{D}(\omega ,𝐱,𝐱^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{D}^f(\omega ,𝐱𝐱^{})`$ (43)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}G^2A_G\stackrel{~}{D}^f(\omega ,𝐱𝐱_i)\stackrel{~}{D}(\omega ,𝐱_i,𝐱^{}),`$
which gives

$$\stackrel{~}{D}(\omega ,𝐱_k,𝐱^{})=\underset{j}{}(𝒜^1)_{kj}\stackrel{~}{D}^f(\omega ,𝐱_j𝐱^{}),$$
(44)
with matrix $`𝒜`$ defined by

$$𝒜_{ji}=\delta _{ji}+G^2A_G\stackrel{~}{D}^f(\omega ,𝐱_j𝐱_i).$$
(45)
Substituting this back into (43), we obtain

$`\stackrel{~}{D}(\omega ,𝐱,𝐱^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{D}^f(\omega ,𝐱,𝐱^{}){\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}G^2A_G\stackrel{~}{D}^f(\omega ,𝐱𝐱_i)(𝒜^1)_{ij}\stackrel{~}{D}^f(\omega ,𝐱_j𝐱^{}).`$ (46)
Using (34), we can obtain an expression for the propagator in the momentum representation:

$`D_{𝐤_1𝐤_2}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`D_{𝐤_1}^f(\omega )\delta _{𝐤_1𝐤_2}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2N_2m_2}}G^2A_G(𝒜^1)_{ij}D_{𝐤_1}^f(\omega )D_{𝐤_2}^f(\omega )e^{ı𝐤_1𝐱_i+ı𝐤_2𝐱_j}`$ (47)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\omega _{𝐤_1}\delta _{𝐤_1𝐤_2}}{\mathrm{}((\omega +ı\delta )^2\omega _{k_1}^2)}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{\omega _{𝐤_1}\omega _{𝐤_2}}G^2A_G(𝒜^1)_{ij}}{\mathrm{}m_2N_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{ı𝐤_1𝐱_i}e^{ı𝐤_2𝐱_j}}{((\omega +ı\delta )^2\omega _{𝐤_1}^2)((\omega +ı\delta )^2\omega _{𝐤_2}^2)}},`$ (48)
where the free propagator in the momentum representation was used:

$$D_{𝐤_1𝐤_2}^f(\omega )=\delta _{𝐤_1𝐤_2}D_{𝐤_1}^f(\omega )=\frac{2\omega _{𝐤_1}}{\mathrm{}((\omega +ı\delta )^2\omega _{𝐤_1}^2)}.$$
(49)
In the limit of strong pinning, the propagator satisfies an important relationship:

$$\underset{𝐤}{}\frac{e^{ı𝐤_1𝐱_l}D_{𝐤_10}(\omega =0)}{\sqrt{\omega _0\omega _{𝐤_1}}}𝒪\left(\frac{1}{G^2A_G\stackrel{~}{D}^f(\omega =0,𝐱=0)}\right)0,$$
(50)
where $`𝐱_l`$ is an impurity site. This relationship means that a force, when applied at an impurity site, causes a much smaller deformation, than when applied anywhere else, since it is opposed by the impurity. The proof of this relationship follows from the equation satisfied by the propagator $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$, namely $`\stackrel{~}{D}=𝒜^1\stackrel{~}{D}^f`$. In the strong pinning limit $`𝒜_{ij}G^2A_G\stackrel{~}{D}^f(\omega ,𝐱_j𝐱_i)`$ and hence (50).

From the above relationship it follows that for all $`\mathrm{\Omega }\omega _0`$,

$$\underset{𝐤_1}{}\frac{D_{𝐤_10}(0)(D_{𝐤_2𝐤}^i(\mathrm{\Omega })(D_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}_2}^i(\mathrm{\Omega }))^{})}{\sqrt{\omega _0\omega _{𝐤_1}}}0,$$
(51)
where $`D^iDD_f`$ is a part of the propagator due to the impurities. To see this, we note using Eq. (34) that $`D_{𝐤_10}(0)/\sqrt{\omega _{𝐤_1}}`$ is a sharply peaked function of $`𝐤_1`$ around $`𝐤_1=0`$: its free part is proportional to $`\delta _{𝐤_1,0}`$, and the part due to impurities is peaked around zero with width $`\omega _0/v_s`$, because of the denominator $`1/\omega _{𝐤_1}^{3/2}`$. In contrast, $`D_{𝐤_2𝐤}^i(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ varies slowly in that region, except for the exponential factor $`e^{ı𝐤_2𝐱_i}=e^{ı\mathrm{𝐤𝐱}_i}e^{ı𝐤_1𝐱_i}`$. Hence the summation is actually of the form (50).

Using the last relationship in (32), and taking into account that the typical energy transfer in an inter-layer scattering event, $`v_Fk\mathrm{cos}\theta `$, is of the order of the temperature, and thus much larger than $`\omega _0`$, we see that the effect of impurities enters Eq. (32) only in the first phonon propagator, where the frequency is zero, while for the second phonon propagator, that carries a non-zero frequency, only the free part of $`D`$ contributes. Thus,     $`\mathrm{\Pi }_u`$ $`=`$ $`N(0){\displaystyle \underset{𝐤_1𝐤}{}}D_{𝐤_10}^R(0)({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2m_2}})^2{\displaystyle \frac{k^2U_𝐤^2}{S^2\sqrt{\omega _0\omega _{𝐤_1}\omega _{𝐤_2}\omega _𝐤}}}`$  (54)     $`\times \mathrm{}\omega \beta \tau _t𝐤_x^2{\displaystyle \frac{v_f\mathrm{}k\mathrm{cos}\theta }{4\mathrm{sinh}^2(\beta v_f\mathrm{}k\mathrm{cos}\theta /2)}}`$      $`\times ({\displaystyle \underset{}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{𝐤_2𝐤}}{\mathrm{}}}\delta (v_fk\mathrm{cos}\theta \omega _k)).`$

To proceed further with the calculation, we should consider different dimensions. In 1D (where electrons in the active wire are in the Fermi liquid regime) $`\mathrm{cos}\theta =\pm 1`$, so that the momentum conservation condition is never satisfied (in the limit of vanishing $`\omega _0`$ and vanishing temperature). This prevents the crystal from getting any momentum from the conductor and thus the trans-resistivity is zero in the low temperature limit.

The situation is different in two dimensions. In order to calculate $`\mathrm{\Pi }_u`$ in 2D we have first to find $`D_{00}(0)`$. For this we write approximately eq.(45) for $`\omega =0`$:

$$𝒜_{ji}(\omega =0)=G^2A_G\stackrel{~}{D}^f(\omega =0,𝐱_j𝐱_i).$$
(55)
Now we assume that the number of impurities is so low that the distance between them is of the order of the system size (hereby neglecting fluctuations in which impurities could be close together). Then the matrix $`𝒜`$ satisfies

$$𝒜_{ij}(\omega =0)<<𝒜_{ii}(\omega =0)$$
(56)
for $`ij`$. The matrix $`A`$ then can be inverted approximately:

$`𝒜_{ij}^1(\omega =0)`$ $``$ $`S(i,j){\displaystyle \frac{1}{G^2A_G(\stackrel{~}{D}^f(\omega =0,𝐱=0))^2}}`$ (58)
$`\times \stackrel{~}{D}^f(\omega =0,𝐱_j𝐱_i),`$
where $`S(i,j)=1`$ for $`i=j`$ and $`1`$ for $`ij`$. Substituting this into (43), we find $`D_{00}(0)`$ in 2D:

$$D_{00}(0)=\frac{2}{\mathrm{}\omega _0}+\frac{4\pi v_s^2N_{imp}}{\mathrm{}L^2\omega _0^3\mathrm{ln}(\frac{v_s}{a_0\omega _0})},$$
(59)
where $`N_{imp}`$ is the number of impurities. The $`\mathrm{ln}(\frac{v_s}{a_0\omega _0})`$ originates from the expression for $`\stackrel{~}{D}_f(\omega =0,𝐱_1=0,𝐱_2=0)`$ in 2D.

Substituting expression (59) for the propagator into Eq.(54) and choosing

$`\omega _0{\displaystyle \frac{v_s}{L}},`$

we obtain the transresistivity Eq. (20).

As evident in Eq. (20), the impurities decrease the trans-resistivity as they absorb part of the momentum transferred from the active layer. That part of the transferred momentum does not generate a drag voltage, and therefore does not lead to trans-resistivity. Under the strong pinning approximation, the influence of the impurities becomes significant when their number is comparable to $`\mathrm{ln}(L/a_0)`$, even though their density is still zero in the thermodynamic limit.

### B Drag contribution to resistivity

We now turn to the way electron-electron scattering between different layers affects the resistivity of the active layer. We again apply the Kubo formula to find, to second order in screened inter-layer interaction, the current density in the active layer as a response to an electric field in that same layer (we expect it to be negative as the drag should decrease the current):

$$𝐣^\alpha =Re\frac{1}{\mathrm{}\omega S}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑te^{ı\omega t}[𝐣_0^\alpha (t),𝐣_0^\beta ]𝐄^\beta .$$
(60)
Introducing the correlator from

$$𝐣^\alpha =\frac{ı}{\omega }\underset{\omega 0}{lim}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Pi }_j^{\alpha \beta }(\omega )𝐄^\beta ,$$
(61)
we have in imaginary time:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(i\omega )=\frac{1}{S}_0^\beta 𝑑\tau e^{ı\omega \tau }T𝐣_0^x(\tau )𝐣_0^x(0),$$
(62)
where we again assumed isotropy. The corresponding diagrams are shown in Fig. 2.

Calculating them, we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{e}{m_1}})^2{\displaystyle \underset{𝐩,𝐤}{}}k^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{U_k}{S}}\right)^2n_2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2m_2\omega _k}}\omega \beta {\displaystyle \frac{n_F(ϵ_𝐩)n_F(ϵ_{𝐩+𝐤})}{4\mathrm{sinh}^2(\beta (ϵ_{𝐩+k}ϵ_𝐩)/2)}}\mathrm{}D_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}}^R(ϵ_{𝐩+k}ϵ_𝐩)\mathrm{}\tau _t^2𝐤_𝐱^\mathrm{𝟐}.`$ (63)
In one dimension, when the passive layer is clean, the constraints of energy and momentum conservation together with the Pauli principle suppress the resistivity at low temperature. In the presence of impurities in the Wigner crystal momentum conservation is relaxed, and we obtain a contribution, which is inversely proportional to the length of the system. This contribution can be neglected, since in the macroscopic limit we assume the length to go to infinity, while the density of impurities is kept zero.

In two dimensions, in the absence of impurities momentum and energy can be conserved simultaneously, and inter-layer interaction yields the following contribution to the current

$$\delta 𝐣_1=\frac{e^2n_2U_0^2T^4\tau _t^2}{\mathrm{}^5m_1m_2v_{fs}v_s^5}Z𝐄_1\delta \sigma 𝐄_1,$$
(64)
from which the drag contribution to the resistivity is easily found:

$$\delta \rho =\rho ^2\delta \sigma =\frac{n_2U_0^2T^4m_1}{e^2\mathrm{}^5m_2v_{fs}v_s^5n_1^2}Z.$$
(65)
In the presence of impurities the phonon propagator is composed of a free part and an impurity-induced part. The contribution of the former remains Eq. (65), while the contribution of the latter is again inversely proportional to the system size. Hence in the macroscopic limit the impurities do not affect Eq. (65).

When the passive layer is clean, the ratio between the trans-resistivity and the drag contribution to resistivity of the active layer is $`n_1/n_2`$. This is consistent with the Galilean invariance requirement.

## V Summary

We considered a bi-layer system in which the passive layer is a Wigner crystal pinned by impurities and the active layer is a conductor, and calculated the transresistivity between two layers and the drag contribution to the resistivity of the active layer. We focused on the case of a small number of strong impurities, whose density vanishes in the thermodynamic limit. We found that in quasi 1D case both quantities are exponentially small at low temperature due to constraints of energy and momentum conservation.

In two dimensions we found a $`T^4`$–dependence of both quantities, consistent with the Bloch law for the electron-phonon interaction contribution to resistivity. Impurities in the Wigner crystal decrease the transresistivity significantly when their number reaches the logarithm of the number of sites in the crystal. In the limit of strong pinning the transresistivity and the active layer resistivity are independent of the impurity strength.

While a minute density of impurities is sufficient to affect the transresistivity, we find that it does not significantly affect the contribution of the Wigner crystal to the resistivity of the active layer.

###### Acknowledgements.

V.B. wants to thank Y. Levinson for useful discussions. We acknowledge support of the Israel Science foundation, the DIP-BMBF foundation, the Victor Ehrlich chair and the Albert Einstein Minerva center for theoretical physics at the Weizmann institute.