text:
# Implications of the Narrow Period Distribution of Anomalous X-ray Pulsars and Soft Gamma-Ray Repeaters

## 1. INTRODUCTION

In the last few years, evidence for the existence of neutron stars with ultrastrong magnetic fields, or magnetars, has become very compelling. The discovery of rapid spin down in the pulsations observed from soft gamma-ray repeaters (SGRs; e.g., Kouveliotou et al. 1998, 1999) gave support to the suggestion by Thompson & Duncan (1995) that the very energetic bursts observed from these sources require the presence of $`10^{15}`$ G magnetic fields. Furthermore, the lack of detectable companions to the Anomalous X-ray pulsars (AXPs; e.g., Mereghetti, Israel, & Stella 1998; Hulleman, van Kerkwijk, & Kulkarni 2000), combined with their rapid spin-down rates and spectral properties (see, e.g., Özel 2001), favor the magnetar interpretation.

A striking feature of all magnetar candidates (SGRs and AXPs) is that their periods lie in a relatively narrow range, between 6 s and 12 s. This property has been discussed since the original study of Mereghetti & Stella (1995) and was addressed by Colpi, Geppert, & Page (2000) in the context of models with magnetic field decay (see also Chatterjee & Hernquist 2000 for a discussion of the period clustering expected in a variant of accretion models for AXPs). However, a quantitative, statistical analysis of the constraints imposed on magnetar models by this period clustering is still lacking.

Here we quantify the tightness of the observed period distribution, using a point likelihood technique. In § 2 we review the detections of each of the 10 magnetar candidate sources and focus in particular on selection effects that could restrict the range of periods that can be discovered. In § 3 we perform a likelihood analysis to determine the allowed range of periods using a mathematical model for the period evolution of AXPs that has broad applicability and of which a dipole spin-down law is a special case. In § 4 we discuss the implications of these results and explore the potential for improving these constraints using future observations of AXPs and SGRs with current X-ray telescopes.

## 2. OBSERVATIONS AND SELECTION EFFECTS

In this section we describe briefly the observations that led to the discovery of the ten AXPs and SGRs with measured spin periods, in order to assess the observational selection effects that could have affected their period distribution. Even though no systematic searches for AXPs and SGRs have been performed to date, we argue that these discovery observations were not confined to periods of order $`612`$ s and hence no observational selection effects can account for the observed period clustering.

### 2.1. Anomalous X-ray Pulsars

Two of the AXPs were known persistent X-ray sources before pulsations were detected in their X-ray emission. 4U 0142$`+`$61 ($`P=8.69`$ s) was discovered as a persistent source in an early all-sky survey. Subsequent power-spectral analysis of pointed observations of this source with EXOSAT revealed the pulsations (Israel, Mereghetti, & Stella 1994). The search was performed using EXOSAT ME data that had a timing resolution of 1 s, yielding a lower limit on the search period of only 2 s. The duration of the observation was 12 h and the upper limit on the search period was of order $`10^4`$ s.

1E 1048.1$``$5937 ($`P=6.44`$ s) was serendipitously discovered as an X-ray source with Einstein. The pulsations were discovered by Seward, Charles, & Smale (1986), who searched in both Einstein and EXOSAT data but did not report the period range of their searches.

The remaining three AXPs were discovered in searches for pulsed X-ray sources, and hence the strategy followed in their observations could have introduced significant selection effects. 1E 2259$`+`$586 ($`P=6.98`$ s) was discovered using Einstein data, following a systematic search for a pulsar in the supernova remnant G 109.1$``$1.0 (Fahlman & Gregory 1981). The range of periods searched was 0.1$``$200 s.

1E 1841$``$045 ($`P=11.77`$ s) was discovered with ASCA, following a systematic search for pulsations from all point sources within the supernova remnant Kes 73 (Vasisht & Gotthelf 1997). The search was performed with three timing resolutions: 488 $`\mu `$s, 32 ms, and 0.5 s and power spectra were produced for each timing resolution. As a result, the minimum period at which pulsations could be detected was $`1`$ s. Moreover, the search was performed over timescales of 96 min, 10 min, and 1 min and thus was sensitive to pulsations with periods $`100`$ s.

1RXS J170849.0$``$400910 ($`P=10.99`$ s) was discovered by ASCA in a survey of the galactic plane and was later identified with a ROSAT source (Sugizaki et al. 1997). The observation was performed with a timing resolution of 62.5 ms in the high-bit-rate mode and 0.5 s in the medium-bit-rate mode. As a result, searches for pulsations were sensitive to periods $`1`$ s. The highest period searched was quoted as $`600`$ s.

AX J1845$``$0258 ($`P=6.97`$ s) was discovered with ASCA in the distant Milky Way (Gotthelf & Vasisht 1998) in the supernova remnant Kes 75. For computational efficiency, the search was performed only for long periods, i.e., for 1 s$`<`$P$`<`$100 s.

### 2.2. Soft Gamma-Ray Repeaters

SGRs are identified through their recurrent $`\gamma `$-ray bursts and not because of their pulsations. However, pulsations have been detected in all four, securely identified SGRs. In SGR 1900$`+`$14, pulsations have been observed both in the quiescent emission and during bursts at a period of $`P=5.16`$ s (Hurley et al. 1999). In SGR 1806$``$20 ($`P=7.47`$ s) and SGR 1627$``$41 ($`P=6.4`$ s) pulsations have been detected only during the quiescent emission (Kouveliotou et al. 1998; Woods et al. 1999) whereas in SGR 0525$``$66 ($`P=8`$ s) pulsations have been observed only during bursts (Barat et al. 1979). All these searches were performed with data obtained using ASCA or RXTE and, therefore, were not limited to periods only comparable to those observed.

## 3. ANALYSIS OF PERIOD CLUSTERING

The period clustering of AXPs and SGRs has often been attributed to a general prediction of a large class of spin-evolution models in which the spin period derivative decreases with increasing period. In these models, the objects evolve quickly through the small periods, making their detection improbable at these periods and their steady-state period distribution insensitive to the birth values. However, because the objects spend increasingly more time at long periods, the observed cutoff towards high periods can be used for placing a very strong constraint on the maximum period at which they are detectable. In this section we quantify the above statement using a point likelihood technique.

### 3.1. Analytical Setup

In order to model the period distribution of magnetar candidates, we assume a general braking law of the form

$$\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}=\kappa \mathrm{\Omega }^n,$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the spin frequency of the stars and $`n`$ is the braking index. For $`n=3`$ and $`\kappa B^2`$, equation (1) corresponds to the standard spin-down law for an inclined magnetic dipole of strength $`B`$. In order to avoid introducing unnecessary complications to our model, we assume that all systems are born with the same initial period $`P_{\mathrm{in}}`$ and become undetectable when they reach period $`P_\mathrm{f}`$.

The evolution of the period distribution function $`f(P)`$ between $`P_{\mathrm{in}}`$ and $`P_\mathrm{f}`$ is described by the conservation law

$$\frac{f(P)}{t}+\frac{}{P}\left[\dot{P}f(P)\right]=0,$$
(2)
where we have assumed that there is no evolution of the factor $`\kappa `$. In steady state, the distribution of systems over spin period is then $`f(P)\dot{P}^1`$, or

$$f(P)=CP^{n2},$$
(3)
where the constant $`C`$ is calculated from the requirement that $`f(P)`$ is normalized, or

$$C=\{\begin{array}{cc}(n1)(P_\mathrm{f}^{n1}P_{\mathrm{in}}^{n1})^1\hfill & ,n1\hfill \\ \mathrm{ln}\left(P_\mathrm{f}/P_{\mathrm{in}}\right)\hfill & ,n=1\hfill \end{array}.$$
(4)
We now use this period distribution to estimate the best values for the initial and final period, using a likelihood analysis and given the fact that $`m`$ systems have been detected with measured periods $`P_j`$; $`j=1,\mathrm{},m`$. (We assume that all periods are measured to arbitrary precision.) To this end, we subdivide the available parameter space into infinitesimally small bins of width $`\mathrm{\Delta }P`$, such that each bin has either zero or one data point in it. The likelihood of the data given the model is then simply

$$(P_\mathrm{j}|P_{\mathrm{in}},P_\mathrm{f})=\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}f(P_j)\mathrm{\Delta }P=C^m(\mathrm{\Delta }P)^m\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}P_j^{n2}.$$
(5)
If we assume two prior probability distributions $`𝒢(P_{\mathrm{in}})`$ and $`𝒢(P_\mathrm{f})`$ for the parameters, then the posterior probability distribution is proportional to the above likelihood. Following the standard Bayesian approach, we then obtain the posterior probability distribution for an individual parameter (e.g., $`P_{\mathrm{in}}`$) by integrating the full multidimensional posterior distribution over all parameters but the one of interest, i.e., “marginalizing” over the remaining parameters. In practice, the posterior distribution of, e.g., $`P_{\mathrm{in}}`$ is

$$𝒫(P_{\mathrm{in}}|P_\mathrm{j})=\frac{(P_\mathrm{j}|P_{\mathrm{in}},P_\mathrm{f})𝒢(P_{\mathrm{in}})𝒢(P_\mathrm{f})𝑑P_\mathrm{f}}{(P_\mathrm{j}|P_{\mathrm{in}},P_\mathrm{f})𝒢(P_{\mathrm{in}})𝒢(P_\mathrm{f})𝑑P_\mathrm{f}𝑑P_{\mathrm{in}}}.$$
(6)
For the prior probability distribution over $`P_{\mathrm{in}}`$ we assume a flat distribution in $`\mathrm{log}P_{\mathrm{in}}`$ between $`10^3`$ s and the minimum observed period of $`P_{\mathrm{min}}=6.44`$ s, which does not imply any particular period scale. We chose $`10^3`$ s as our lowest acceptable initial spin period, because this is comparable to the fastest neutron-star spins allowed by

general relativity and modern equations of state (Cook, Shapiro & Teukolsky 1994). Similarly, for the prior probability distribution over $`P_\mathrm{f}`$, we assume a flat distribution in $`\mathrm{log}P_\mathrm{f}`$ between the maximum observed period $`P_{\mathrm{max}}=11.77`$ s and $`100`$ s. The upper acceptable final spin period is arbitrary and affects very weakly the results for positive values of the braking index.

Using equations (3) and (4), we derive the posterior probability distribution of, e.g., the initial period $`P_{\mathrm{in}}`$, to be

$$𝒫(P_{\mathrm{in}})=\frac{P_{\mathrm{in}}^1_{P_\mathrm{f}}P_\mathrm{f}^1(P_\mathrm{f}^{n1}P_{\mathrm{in}}^{n1})^m𝑑P_\mathrm{f}}{_{\mathrm{P}_{\mathrm{in}}}P_{\mathrm{in}}^1_{P_\mathrm{f}}P_\mathrm{f}^1(P_\mathrm{f}^{n1}P_{\mathrm{in}}^{n1})^m𝑑P_\mathrm{f}𝑑P_{\mathrm{in}}},$$
(7)
where we have shown for simplicity only the expression for $`n1`$. Note that, because we are not testing the hypothesis that the period distribution of sources follows a power law but we are simply estimating parameters, the posterior distributions depend only on the range of observed periods and not on their specific values.

### 3.2. Numerical Results

Figure 1 shows the posterior probability distributions over $`\mathrm{log}P_{\mathrm{in}}`$ and $`\mathrm{log}P_\mathrm{f}`$ for a dipole spin-down law (i.e., for $`n=3`$) and for the 10 magnetar candidates discussed in §2. Clearly, for both parameters, the most likely values are the extremes of the observed period range. However, the shapes of the probability distributions are very different for the two parameters.

For the dipole spin-down law assumed, the systems spend increasingly more time at increasingly longer periods. Therefore, the absence of any observed systems with periods larger than 12 s requires a rather rapid turn off at periods comparable to the highest observed period. As a result, the probability distribution over $`\mathrm{log}P_\mathrm{f}`$ is very sharply peaked. On the other hand, for this spin-down law, the initial period $`P_{\mathrm{in}}`$ is nearly unconstrained. Systems that appear now at periods $`612`$ s have spent very little time slowing down from $`10^3`$ s to $`1`$ s and, therefore, there is little information about their initial

periods imprinted on their current period distribution.

As it is apparent from the above discussion, the constraints on the initial and final periods of AXPs and SGRs depend strongly on the braking index. This is shown in Figure 2, where the 68%, 90%, and 95% confidence levels of $`P_{\mathrm{in}}`$ and $`P_\mathrm{f}`$ are plotted against the assumed braking index $`n`$. For $`n>2`$ the final period is strongly constrained to lie very close to the maximum observed period while the initial period can lie in a large range of values. On the other hand, the situation is reversed for $`n<0`$. In both cases, the flattening of the confidence limits at the extreme values of allowed periods is caused by the assumed prior distributions that are bounded. This is a physical bound for the case of the initial period, as discussed above, but it is artificial for the case of the final period.

## 4. DISCUSSION

The narrow range of observed periods of magnetar candidates can be used to constrain their birth periods, the periods at which they cease to be active, or both, depending on the value of their braking index. For positive values of the braking index, we showed in §3 that the final periods must lie very close to the maximum observed period of $`12`$ s. At the same time, if the braking index is $`n2`$ then the birth periods must be $`5`$ s, i.e., very slow. On the other hand, if $`n2`$, then the birth periods are largely unconstrained from the analysis of the observed clustering.

It is interesting to note that braking indices of young radio pulsars have been measured to be from as low as 1.81$`\pm `$0.07 (PSR B0540$``$69; Zhang et al. 2001) to as high as 2.837$`\pm `$0.001 (PSR B1509$``$58; Kaspi et al. 1994), bracketing the value of $`n=2`$ that separates a strong constraint on $`P_{\mathrm{in}}`$ from a very weak constraint. However, slow radio pulsars have second period derivatives (and hence braking indices) that are variable and larger by factors of $`10^210^4`$ than what is predicted by simple magnetic braking (see, e.g., Cordes & Helfand 1980). Such anomalously large braking indices are thought to be the result of glitches and of timing noise, both of which are known to occur at least in AXPs, which can have

instantaneous braking indices of order $`10^3`$ (Kaspi, Lackey, & Chakrabarty 2000; Kaspi et al. 2001).

Our analysis, however, and in particular the constraint on the birth periods, depends on the value of the average braking index, to the extent that the spin evolution of the magnetar candidates is described approximately by a law of the form (1), and not on any instantaneous index. For the case of twenty moderate-aged radio pulsars, Johnston & Galloway (1999) computed braking indices integrated over $`520`$ yr and found values in the wide range $`220n35`$. This result is not surprising, given that the braking indices of such pulsars computed over shorter timescales vary rapidly and often change sign. It shows, however, that unfortunately little progress can be expected in constraining the braking indices of magnetar candidates and hence their birth periods.

On the other hand, the strong constraint derived here on the maximum period may provide some insight into the physical mechanism that might be causing it. For example, comparing the inferred equatorial dipole magnetic fields and spin periods of magnetar candidates with those of radio pulsars (see Fig. 3) indicates that the empirically drawn death line of radio pulsars, when extrapolated towards higher magnetic fields, appears to be unrelated to the maximum period of magnetar candidates.

An exponentially decaying magnetic field, as discussed by Colpi et al. (2000), provides a plausible explanation for both the period clustering and the young ages of magnetar candidates. It is worth noting, however, that neither the inferred luminosities of AXPs nor their pulsed fraction

appear to be correlated with their periods, spin-down ages, or inferred field strengths, even though the values of the latter two span more than an order of magnitude (see, e.g., Özel, Psaltis, & Kaspi 2001).

Finally, we address the dependence of our results on the number of magnetar candidates that we considered. In our analysis, we chose to assume that both AXPs and SGRs are formed and evolve in the same way. We show in Figure 4, however, where we use the dipole spin-down law as an example, that the resulting constraints depend rather weakly on the number of systems that are known within the same period range. Indeed, even considering simply the six known AXPs would be enough to reach similar conclusions.

Figure 4 also shows that increasing the sample of magnetar candidates with similar periods even by a factor of two will only affect our results mildly: the constraint on the birth period will become as high as $`2`$ s, but only at the 68% level. However, the detection of even a single magnetar candidate with period larger than $`12`$ s will change the constraint on $`P_\mathrm{f}`$. Such a detection does not require detectors with fast timing capabilities and is, therefore, possible, if such systems exist, with current X-ray observatories such as Chandra and XMM/Newton.

We thank Feryal Özel for many useful discussions and comments on the manuscript. D. P. thanks the Astronomy Department of the University of Maryland for its hospitality. M. C. M. acknowledges the support of NASA grant 5-9756 and NSF grant AST 0098436.


format: text

text:
# Kondo Effect in Carbon Nanotube Single-Electron Transistors

## Abstract

Recently, Coulomb blockade physics was observed at room temperature in a carbon nanotube single-electron transistor (H. W. Ch. Postma, et. al., Science 293, 76 (2001)). In this work, we suggest that these devices may be promising for studying the Kondo effect. In particular, they could allow for a detailed investigation of the 2-channel Kondo fixed point. Moreover, fabricating a similar device in a short nanotube could be promising for studying the effect of a magnetic impurity in an ultrasmall metallic grain. Experimental signatures of the Kondo effect in these systems is discussed.

Recently, carbon nanotubes have been the source of an enormous amount of activity. The remarkable control with which these materials can be fabricated and manipulated makes carbon nanotubes an ideal system for studying the electronic properties of one-dimensional conductors. Moreover, these materials are extremely durable, and relatively inexpensive to make. Therefore, besides fundamental science, these systems are promising for commercial applications.

In recent work, a single-electron transistor (SET) was fabricated by introducing two buckles in series in a long single-wall carbon nanotube. The two buckles define a small island (i.e. a “quantum dot”) within the nanotube. (See Fig. 1 of Ref. REFERENCES). Using this device, the authors of Ref. REFERENCES observed Coulomb blockade physics at room temperature. Moreover, they found that the conductance had a power-law temperature dependence, consistent with a Luttinger liquid model for the leads. In this work, we suggest that this device could be promising for studying the Kondo effect.

The Kondo effect in Coulomb blockade systems has received a considerable amount of attention over the last few years. However, in most of these studies, the leads were described by non-interacting electron gases. The case where the leads themselves are interacting liquids has only recently received attention, and has been shown to exhibit rich behavior driven by these interactions. Carbon nanotube SETs could provide a controlled environment for studying the Kondo effect in systems with interacting leads. It should be noted that carbon nanotubes have also been shown to display interesting mesoscopic effects, characteristic of nanoscale conductors. Recently, it has been shown that interesting physics would arise if a magnetic impurity were placed in an ultrasmall metallic grain, due to the finite level spacing of the grain. (In Ref. REFERENCES, this system was dubbed the Kondo box.) A device similar to the one used in Ref. REFERENCES could provide a controllable realization of the Kondo box.

We begin our discussion by recalling the band structure of carbon nanotubes. These materials consist of a sheet of graphite rolled into a cylinder. A single sheet of graphite consists of carbon atoms arranged on the sites of a honeycomb lattice. The band structure is well described by a tight-binding model with one orbital per lattice site. To form a nanotube, the sheet of graphite is rolled into a cylinder. Doing this quantizes the crystal momentum, $`q_y`$, transverse to the axis of the cylinder. Interestingly, two (one-dimensional) bands of gapless excitations exist at $`q_y=0`$. The low energy physics is determined by the two bands of gapless excitations (labeled as band-$`c`$ and band-$`d`$), which disperse with the same velocity.

With regards to interactions, interbranch (i.e. backscattering) interactions are weak. These interactions are determined by the short range part of the Coulomb interaction. However, the probability of two electrons being near each other is suppressed in the two low energy bands, since these bands have $`q_y=0`$ and hence are extended around the circumference of the tube. For isolated single-wall nanotubes, however, the Coulomb interaction is unscreened. Therefore, to describe the system in Ref. REFERENCES, one must take into account the long range nature of the Coulomb interaction.

A considerable amount is known about the two-band model of interacting electrons. In the undoped case interactions drive the system to a Mott-insulating state, with a gap to both spin and charge excitations. When doped with holes, the spin gap remains and the holes form pairs. In nanotubes, the (backscattering) interactions which drive these instabilities are weak. Hence, these effects will only be observable at very low temperatures/energies. Above the spin gap and pairing energy scale, the system behaves as a Luttinger liquid.

The spin gap introduces complications for the Kondo effect. However, since the spin gap in carbon nanotubes is small, it can be overcome by a modest magnetic field. The main effect of a magnetic field is to shift the bands of the “spin-up” and “spin-down” electrons. Because of this, the processes which cause the spin gap suffer a momentum mismatch and become irrelevant. The only processes which survive are triplet pairing interactions. The results of Ref. REFERENCES suggest that the triplet pairing interactions are marginally relevant, but the energy scale at which their effects are visible is unattainably low. Therefore, we will ignore them. Although the competition of the spin gap and the Kondo effect is an interesting issue, in this work we will focus on the case where there are always low energy spin excitations present.

In Ref. REFERENCES, an SET was fabricated by creating a small island within a long single-wall carbon nanotube. Being interested in the low energy properties of the system, we focus on the uppermost level of the island and model it as an Anderson impurity. The Hamiltonian, including the coupling to the leads, is

$`H_{\mathrm{island}}=\epsilon _0{\displaystyle \underset{s}{}}n_s^f+U_0n_{}^fn_{}^f{\displaystyle \frac{h_0}{2}}\left(n_{}^fn_{}^f\right)`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{\lambda =c,d}{s=,}}{}}\left(t_{1\lambda }^{}\psi _{1,\lambda ,s}^{}(0)+t_{2\lambda }^{}\psi _{2,\lambda ,s}^{}(0)\right)f_s^{}+h.c.,`$ (2)
where $`\psi _{i,\lambda ,s}`$ destroys an electron with spin-$`s`$ in lead-$`i`$ ($`i=1,2`$) and band-$`\lambda `$ ($`\lambda =c,d`$); $`f_s^{}`$ destroys an electron with spin-s on the island; $`n_s^f=f_s^{}f_s^{}`$; $`\epsilon _0`$ is the energy level of the island, which can be controlled by a gate voltage; $`U_0`$ is the charging energy; $`h_0`$ is the magnetic field; $`t_{i\lambda }`$ is the matrix element for an electron to tunnel to the island from band-$`\lambda `$ in lead-$`i`$. It is useful to introduce bonding and antibonding combinations

$`\psi _{i,b,s}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(t_{ic}\psi _{i,c,s}+t_{id}\psi _{i,d,s}\right)/\sqrt{N_i},`$ (3)
$`\psi _{i,a,s}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(t_{id}\psi _{i,c,s}t_{ic}\psi _{i,d,s}\right)/\sqrt{N_i},`$ (4)
with $`N_i^{}=t_{ic}^2+t_{id}^2`$. In terms of these operators, we see that only the bonding combinations couple to the island. Being interested in the Kondo regime, we integrate out charge fluctuations on the island. Working to second order in perturbation theory, we arrive at the effective Hamiltonian

$`H_{\mathrm{int}}`$ $`=\tau {\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{s,s^{}}}{2}}\left(J_1^{}\psi _{1,b,s}^{}(0)\psi _{1,b,s^{}}^{}(0)+12\right)`$ (5)
$`+`$ $`J_{12}^{}\tau {\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{s,s^{}}}{2}}(\psi _{1,b,s}^{}(0)\psi _{2,b,s^{}}^{}(0)+h.c.)h_0\tau _z,`$ (6)
where $`\tau `$ is the spin operator for the electron on the island, and the values of the couplings ($`J_i`$ and $`J_{12}`$) can be found in e.g. Ref. REFERENCES. It is important to note, however, that $`J_i>0`$ and $`J_{12}>0`$. It should also be noted that in Eq. 6 we have not displayed the potential scattering terms which were generated. For the system considered in this work, these terms have a very small effect and can be ignored.

The dynamics of the leads is described by the Hamiltonian $`H_{\mathrm{leads}}=H_{\mathrm{lead}1}+H_{\mathrm{lead}2}`$, where $`H_{\mathrm{lead}i}=H_i^0+H_i^1`$ is the Hamiltonian for lead-$`i`$ with

$`H_i^0`$ $`=`$ $`iv_F{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda ,s}{}}{\displaystyle _l^0}𝑑x\left(\psi _{R,i,\lambda ,s}^{}_x\psi _{R,i,\lambda ,s}^{}RL\right)`$ (7)
$`H_i^1`$ $`=`$ $`U{\displaystyle _l^0}𝑑x\left({\displaystyle \underset{\lambda ,s}{}}\psi _{R,i,\lambda ,s}^{}\psi _{R,i,\lambda ,s}^{}+\psi _{L,i,\lambda ,s}^{}\psi _{L,i,\lambda ,s}^{}\right)^2.`$ (8)
In the above equation, $`\psi _{R,i,\lambda ,s}`$ ($`\psi _{L,i,\lambda ,s}`$) is the right (left) moving component of $`\psi _{i,\lambda ,s}`$. Furthermore, we have followed Ref. REFERENCES and taken the Coulomb interaction to be screened beyond some long distance; $`U`$ is the effective strength of this interaction. In the previous paragraph, we saw that only the bonding combination of the fermion fields (Eq. 4) couples to the impurity. Fortunately, we can express the Hamiltonian of the leads in terms of the bonding and antibonding operators as well. In terms of these operators, the Hamiltonian has the same form as Eq. 7, except the labels $`c`$ and $`d`$ are replaced everywhere by $`b`$ and $`a`$.

In what follows, we will make extensive use of the boson representation. To do so, the electron operator is written as $`\psi _{R/L,i,\lambda ,s}e^{\pm i\sqrt{4\pi }\varphi _{R/L,i,\lambda ,s}}`$ where the chiral fields, $`\varphi _{R,i,\lambda ,s}`$ and $`\varphi _{L,i,\lambda ,s}`$, are related to the usual Bose field $`\varphi _{i,\lambda ,s}`$ and its dual field $`\theta _{i,\lambda ,s}`$ by $`\varphi _{i,\lambda ,s}=\varphi _{R,i,\lambda ,s}+\varphi _{L,i,\lambda ,s}`$ and $`\theta _{i,\lambda ,s}=\varphi _{R,i,\lambda ,s}\varphi _{L,i,\lambda ,s}`$. It will also prove useful to form charge and spin fields $`\varphi _{i,\lambda ,\rho /\sigma }=\left(\varphi _{i,\lambda ,}\pm \varphi _{i,\lambda ,}\right)/\sqrt{2}`$, and then form the combinations $`\varphi _{i,\rho ^\pm }=\left(\varphi _{i,b,\rho }\pm \varphi _{i,a,\rho }\right)/\sqrt{2}`$ describing total and relative charge fluctuations in lead-$`i`$. In terms of these variables, the Hamiltonian for lead-$`i`$ is

$`H_{\mathrm{lead}i}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{v_{\rho ^+}}{2}}{\displaystyle _l^0}𝑑xK_{\rho ^+}\left(_x\theta _{i,\rho ^+}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{K_{\rho ^+}}}\left(_x\varphi _{i,\rho ^+}\right)^2`$ (9)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{v_F}{2}}{\displaystyle _l^0}𝑑x\left(_x\theta _{i,\rho ^{}}\right)^2+\left(_x\varphi _{i,\rho ^{}}\right)^2`$ (10)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{v_F}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda =b,a}{}}{\displaystyle _l^0}𝑑x\left(_x\theta _{i,\lambda ,\sigma }\right)^2+\left(_x\varphi _{i,\lambda ,\sigma }\right)^2,`$ (11)
where $`K_{\rho ^+}=1/\sqrt{1+8U/(\pi v_F)}`$ and $`v_{\rho ^+}=v_F/K_{\rho ^+}`$. Experimentally, it has been found that $`0.19K_{\rho ^+}0.26`$ for single-wall carbon nanotubes. Finally, to analyze the physics it will prove useful to unfold the system, and work solely in terms of right moving fields.

We begin our discussion of the Kondo effect by considering the case of semi-infinite leads: $`l\mathrm{}`$. Near the ultraviolet fixed point, we can compute the conductance using the golden rule. We find $`GT^\alpha `$, where $`\alpha =(1/2)(1/K_{\rho ^+}1)`$, in agreement with what was reported in Ref. REFERENCES. The behavior of the system at lower energies can be deduced by a renormalization group (RG) analysis. To second order in the couplings, the RG equations for the parameters are

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda _+}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _+^2+\lambda _{}^2+g^2,{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda _{}}{dl}}=2\lambda _+\lambda _{},`$ (12)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dg}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{K_{\rho ^+}}})g+2g\lambda _+,{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda _h}{dl}}=\lambda _h,`$ (13)
where $`\lambda _+(J_1+J_2)`$, $`\lambda _{}(J_1J_2)`$, $`gJ_{12}`$, and $`\lambda _hh_0`$. A few words are in order about the RG equations. Let us first consider $`J_1=J_2`$, so that $`\lambda _{}=0`$. At the ultraviolet fixed point, the $`J_1`$ and $`J_2`$ terms are marginally relevant. On the other hand, the $`J_{12}`$ term is irrelevant for repulsive interactions ($`K_{\rho ^+}<1`$). Hence, $`g`$ will initially decrease under the RG. For the values of $`K_{\rho ^+}`$ relevant to this system, $`\lambda _+`$ will have grown to $`𝒪(1)`$ while $`g1`$. If $`g=0`$, we would have a 2-channel Kondo model, which is known to have a nontrivial $`𝒪(1)`$ fixed point. Therefore, for $`J_1=J_2`$ the low energy physics will be governed by the 2-channel Kondo fixed point with $`g`$ (and $`\lambda _h`$) as perturbations. Now let us consider $`J_1J_2`$. From Eq. 13, $`\lambda _{}`$ will grow under the RG. If $`J_1`$ and $`J_2`$ are considerably different (for concreteness, consider $`J_1>J_2`$), the system will flow to the 1-channel Kondo fixed point, where the electron on the island forms a singlet with the electrons in lead-$`1`$. However, for $`J_1J_2`$, $`\lambda _{}`$ will grow slowly, so that the system flows close to the 2-channel Kondo fixed point. In this case, it is appropriate to consider the behavior near the 2-channel Kondo fixed point with $`g`$ and $`\lambda _{}`$ (and $`\lambda _h`$) as perturbations. Since the device we are considering is made by introducing buckles in a carbon nanotube, it will probably be difficult to achieve $`J_1=J_2`$. However, as we feel the possibility of observing 2-channel Kondo physics is one of the most interesting features of this system, in what follows we will focus on the case $`J_1J_2`$. Finally, it should be noted that the magnetic field is a relevant perturbation. Therefore, we must consider very small fields, so as not to completely wipe out the Kondo physics described above.

To analyze the physics near the 2-channel Kondo fixed point, we follow Ref. REFERENCES and form combinations of the fields in the two leads: $`\varphi _{R,c}`$, $`\varphi _{R,sp}`$, $`\varphi _{R,f}`$, and $`\varphi _{R,sf}`$. Then, we perform the unitary transformation, $`U=\mathrm{exp}\left(i\sqrt{4\pi }\tau ^z\varphi _{R,sp}(0)\right)`$, which ties a spin-1/2 from the leads to the island. Finally, we introduce new fermion fields, $`dS^{}`$ and $`Xe^{i\sqrt{4\pi }\varphi _{R,sf}}`$. Upon performing these transformations, $`H_{\mathrm{int}}`$ becomes

$`H_{\mathrm{int}}`$ $`=`$ $`v_F\lambda _+^{}\left(d^{}d\right)\left(X^{}(0)+X(0)\right)`$ (16)
$`+v_F\lambda _{}^{}\left(d^{}+d\right)\left(X^{}(0)X(0)\right)v_F\lambda _h^{}\left(d^{}d^{}1/2\right)`$
$`+v_Fg^{}\left(d^{}+d\right)\left(e^{i\sqrt{4\pi }\varphi _{R,f}(0)}e^{i\sqrt{4\pi }\varphi _{R,f}(0)}\right),`$
where $`\lambda _+^{}`$, $`\lambda _{}^{}`$, $`g^{}`$, and $`\lambda _h^{}`$ are the renormalized values of the couplings. Note that in Eq. 16, we have displayed only the most relevant operators. A few words are in order about Eq. 16. To begin with, the $`\lambda _+^{}`$ term sets the 2-channel Kondo energy scale; the $`g^{}`$, $`\lambda _{}^{}`$, and $`\lambda _h^{}`$ terms are perturbations about the 2-channel Kondo fixed point. The $`g^{}`$ term has dimension $`(1+1/K_{\rho ^+})/4`$, and is relevant for $`K_{\rho ^+}>1/3`$. Hence, this term is irrelevant for the system we are considering. Both the $`\lambda _{}^{}`$ and $`\lambda _h^{}`$ terms have dimension 1/2 and are relevant. If these terms are absent, the zero temperature fixed point would be the 2-channel Kondo fixed point. However, nonzero $`\lambda _{}^{}`$ and/or $`\lambda _h^{}`$ drives the system away from the two-channel Kondo fixed point. $`\lambda _{}^{}`$ drives the system to the 1-channel Kondo fixed point, where the electron on the island forms a singlet with the electrons in the lead with the larger exchange coupling. The $`\lambda _h^{}`$ term drives the system to a fixed point where the electron on the island is spin polarized; spin-flip processes are energetically costly, and the electron on the island behaves as a potential scatterer. The energy scale at which 2-channel Kondo behavior will no longer be observable is determined by the values of $`\lambda _{}^{}`$ and $`\lambda _h^{}`$.

Signatures of the 2-channel Kondo fixed point can be observed in conductance measurements. Using the golden rule, we find

$`G/G_0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\beta )}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{T}{T_K}}\right)^{\beta 2}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{2\pi }\mathrm{sech}\left(\frac{xT_K}{2T}\right)}`$ (17)
$`\times `$ $`\left|\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2}}+i{\displaystyle \frac{xT_K}{2\pi T}}\right)\right|^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(1+x^2)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_h}{(x^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_h\mathrm{\Gamma }_{})^2+x^2(1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{})^2}}.`$ (18)
In Eq. 17, $`T_K=E_0\mathrm{exp}(1/\lambda _+)`$, where $`E_0`$ is a high-energy cut-off; $`\beta =(1/2)(1+1/K_{\rho ^+})`$; $`G_0=(2e^2/h)(g^{})^2/(2\pi )`$; $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(\lambda _{}^{})^2`$; $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h(\lambda _h^{})^2`$. $`G/G_0`$ vs. $`T/T_K`$ is plotted in Fig. 1 for several values of $`K_{\rho ^+}`$. To begin with, notice that the conductance decreases as the temperature is decreased. This should be contrasted with the case of non-interacting leads, where the Kondo effect leads to perfect conductance at low temperatures. This behavior is due to the interactions in the leads. From Eq. 17, it follows that $`GT^{\beta 2}`$ for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h,\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}TT_K`$. This temperature dependence is a property of the 2-channel Kondo fixed point. However, for $`T<\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$ and/or $`T<\mathrm{\Gamma }_h`$, the system is far from the 2-channel Kondo fixed point, and the temperature dependence is modified from its 2-channel Kondo behavior.

Besides the (charge) conductance, 2-channel Kondo physics can also be observed in thermal conductance measurements. An interesting property of the 2-channel Kondo fixed point is that it has perfect spin conductance. Though the spin conductance is difficult to measure, this will manifest itself in the thermal conductance — as charge transport is suppressed, the thermal conductance will be dominated by spin. Computing the thermal conductance due to spin, we find

$`\kappa /\kappa _0`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{4\pi ^2}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{T_K}{T}}\right)^3{\displaystyle 𝑑x\mathrm{sech}^2\left(\frac{xT_K}{2T}\right)}`$ (20)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{x^4(1\mathrm{\Gamma }_{})^2}{(x^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_h\mathrm{\Gamma }_{})^2+x^2(1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{})^2}},`$
where $`\kappa _0=(\pi ^2/3)T/h`$ is the value for perfect thermal conductance. $`\kappa /\kappa _0`$ vs. $`T/T_K`$ is shown in the inset of Fig. 1. From Eq. 20, $`\kappa \kappa _0`$ for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h,\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}0`$ (for $`TT_K`$). This is due to the perfect spin conductance of the 2-channel Kondo fixed point. However, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}0`$ and/or $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h0`$ drives the system away from the 2-channel Kondo fixed point and destroys the perfect spin conductance.

Another way to probe the Kondo physics is by measuring the differential capacitance as a function of gate voltage. At $`T=0`$, $`C=^2E_G/V_G^2`$, where $`E_G`$ is the ground-state energy and $`V_G`$ is the gate voltage coupled to the island. Furthermore, we expect $`\epsilon _0=\eta V_G+\mathrm{const}`$, where $`\eta `$ is a constant. For $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{},\mathrm{\Gamma }_hT_K`$, the contribution to the ground state energy due to the Kondo effect is $`\delta E_G(\mathrm{ln}(c_0)/2\pi )T_K`$, where $`c_0`$ is a constant of order unity. Differentiating, we find

$$C\epsilon _0^2\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\pi \epsilon _0(\epsilon _0+U_0)}{U_0\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}\right),$$
(21)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=2(t_{1c}^2+t_{1d}^2+t_{2c}^2+t_{2d}^2)/v_F`$. This strongly varying function of gate voltage is due to the Kondo effect. The differential capacitance vs. gate voltage is plotted in Fig. 2.

Now we consider the Kondo effect in a short nanotube — a Kondo box. More specifically, we consider a short carbon nanotube with a buckle introduced near one of the ends. This buckle defines a small island, which is connected to a larger nanotube “nanoparticle” of length $`l`$. (See Fig. 3.) For this configuration, $`t_{2c}=t_{2d}=0`$ in Eq. 1. Also, to simplify things let us consider $`h_0=0`$. Then, only $`J_10`$ while $`J_2=0`$ and $`J_{12}=0`$ in Eq. 6. The Kondo effect in this system can be probed by measuring the differential capacitance as a function of gate voltage. Here, we find that the results strongly depend on the total number of particles in the system, $`N`$. ($`N`$ = number of electrons in the nanoparticle $`+`$ electron on the island.) Calculating the shift in the ground state energy, we find

$`\delta E_G`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{T_K}\right)}}\mathrm{N}=\mathrm{even},`$ (22)
$`\delta E_G`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2.7}{160}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{ln}^2\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{T_K}\right)}}\mathrm{N}=\mathrm{odd},`$ (23)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }=v_F\pi /l`$ is the level spacing, and we are assuming $`T_K\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Notice that $`\delta E_G`$ is significantly greater for $`N`$=even as compared with $`N`$=odd. This occurs because for $`N`$=even, the ground state of the nanoparticle has spin=1/2; the free spin in the nanoparticle can form a singlet with the electron on the island. However, for $`N`$=odd the nanoparticle has a singlet ground state; the coupling between the nanoparticle and the island is through virtual fluctuations. The differential capacitance vs. gate voltage is plotted in Fig. 2

In conclusion, carbon nanotube SETs may be promising for studying the Kondo effect. With semi-infinite leads, this system allows for a detailed investigation of the 2-channel Kondo fixed point. We also considered the Kondo effect in a finite-sized nanotube — a Kondo box. Here, we saw that the results depend on whether the total number of particles is even or odd. Finally, it is worth noting that generalizations of this device could allow for the study of other related phenomena. For example, introducing two islands in the nanotube could allow one to study two-impurity Kondo physics, or more generally, the properties of coupled quantum dots.

EHK is grateful to H. Paik for bringing Ref. REFERENCES to his attention. This work was supported by the NSERC of Canada (EHK and CK), and the Spanish grant PB98-0685 (GS).


text:
# Enhanced cohesion of matter on a cylindrical surface

## Abstract

We evaluate the cohesive energies Eb of four systems in which particles move on a cylindrical surface, at fixed distance R from the axis. We find quite nonuniversal dependences of Eb on R. For the Coulomb binding problem, Eb is a monotonically decreasing function of R. For three problems involving Lennard-Jones interactions, the behavior is nonmonotonic; Eb is larger at R = $`\mathrm{}`$ than at R=0; the maximum binding corresponds to R $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.7}\sigma `$ (the hard core parameter). Consequences of the enhanced binding are discussed.

M.K. Kostov, M.W. Cole and G.D. Mahan
Department of Physics, The Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, PA 16802

C. Carraro
Department of Chemical Engineering,
University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720

M.L. Glasser
Department of Physics and Center for Quantum Device Technology,
Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY 13699

The discovery of carbon nanotubes has stimulated a rapid evolution of ideas, experiments and understanding concerning states of matter confined to the proximity of a cylindrical surface. Examples of such systems include electrons present within a nanotube and atoms or molecules moving just outside or within such tubes. This paper reports unexpected behavior we have found in studies of four such systems: a $`+/`$ pair of charges bound by the Coulomb interaction, a pair of atoms interacting with a Lennard-Jones (LJ) interaction, an ensemble of 4He atoms, which condenses, and a low density fluid consisting of classical atoms. We assume that all particles move on a cylindrical surface, of radius R and infinite length. The assumption of surface confinement simplifies the calculations without sacrificing the basic physics.

For each of these four systems, considerable attention has been directed previously to the investigation of two extreme limits of the present problem. The limit R = $`\mathrm{}`$, here called ”flatland”, is that of particles moving on a plane, i.e., a two-dimensional ($`2`$d) problem. This has been extensively pursued in connection with both the $`2`$d electron gas and monolayer films . The opposite limit, R approaching zero, is here called ”lineland”, a $`1`$d limit. Matter in lineland has been explored for many years as an abstract problem  and has recently received particular attention in connection with the possible realization of $`1`$d phases within interstitial channels or external surface grooves on nanotube bundles . A logical question addressed in this paper is whether the properties of matter in ”cylinderland” evolves smoothly (or even monotonically) between these limits as the value of R is varied. We find that the answer is “yes” in just one of the four cases and that intriguing behavior arises in all four cases.

The first problem we address is the ground state binding energy Eb(R) of the Coulomb interaction problem. Consider a charge $`+`$ e fixed in position (at z=$`\varphi `$=$`0`$ on the cylindrical surface) and a negative charge $``$ e, mass m, which is free to move on the cylinder in the presence of an interaction $`e^2/r`$, where r is the charges’ separation; the electron’s position is at cylindrical coordinates (z, $`\varphi `$) and $`r=\sqrt{z^2+[2R\mathrm{sin}(\varphi /2)]^2}`$. The Schr$`\ddot{o}`$dinger equation for the hydrogen atom is exactly solvable in $`2`$d, resulting in a ground state wave function $`\mathrm{exp}(2r/a_0)`$, with binding energy $`E_b(\mathrm{})=4`$ Rydbergs and mean separation $`a_0/2`$ between the interacting charges. Here, a0 is the Bohr radius. In the opposite limit of lineland, we encounter a well-known logarithmic divergence of Eb as R approaches zero; the particle ”falls to the center of the attractive force” in $`1`$d. We expected the behavior of the cylindrical problem to shift between these limits when R becomes of order a0. Figure $`1`$ depicts the result of a three-parameter variational solution of the problem; details of the trial wave function will be provided in a future publication (as will those of the other calculations described here). One observes in Fig. $`1`$ that Eb increases monotonically as the reduced curvature $`C=a_0/R`$ is increased; the known $`1`$d and $`2`$d limits are accurately reproduced by this calculation. Eb is not significantly affected by the nonzero curvature for $`C<1`$; its value is only $`1\%`$ higher at $`C=1`$ than at $`C=0`$. This weak dependence becomes comprehensible when it is compared with the result from a perturbation theory, described elsewhere, where the curvature $`C`$ is the perturbation. The resulting (lowest order) dependence on $`C`$ is of the form $`E_b(C)E_b(0)(1/128)C^2`$. As seen in the inset to Fig. $`1`$, this function is consistent with the variational result, up to $`C=1`$, explaining the initially weak dependence on $`C`$.

The second problem we consider is the ground state cohesive energy (per atom) of a fluid consisting of 4He atoms whose nuclei are confined to the cylindrical surface. The analogous problem has been extensively investigated in $`2`$d , for which it is relevant to superfluid films, and $`1`$d, where it has been studied for potential application to an interacting interstitial fluid. The cylinderland problem of 4He has received some attention in connection with endohedral adsorption within nanotubes. In $`3`$d, the cohesive energy of 4He is E$`{}_{b}{}^{}=7.2`$ K. In $`2`$d, it is $`0.85`$ K and in $`1`$d it is $`3`$ mK. What R dependence is expected for Eb on a cylinder?

We have studied this problem variationally, using a Jastrow trial wave function, i.e. a symmetrized product of two-particle functions that prevent hard-core overlap of the atoms. The interatomic potential assumed in the calculation is the modern ”Aziz” potential . The results of this liquid state calculation appear in Figure $`2`$. The dependence of Eb on curvature is $`\mathrm{𝑛𝑜𝑡}`$ monotonic. Indeed, the binding energy is a factor $`3.7`$ higher near R=$`1.8`$ Å than in flatland. The nonmonotonic dependence on $`C`$ and lowest value at $`C=\mathrm{}`$ stand in stark contrast to the monotonically $`\mathrm{𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔}`$ variation with $`C`$ found for the Coulomb problem.

The origin of the maximum binding energy near R=$`2`$ Å is the minimum in the He-He interaction near r$`{}_{min}{}^{}=2.9`$ Å . The He fluid has a strong binding if the geometry encourages the particles to have such a spacing. This is the case for the cylindrical geometry, as indicated by the following argument. We introduce a function called the specific area function $`a(r)`$, defined as the area on the cylinder’s surface at distance r from a specified point on the surface, per unit distance from this point. Letting this point be the origin, we have $`a(r)=d^2r^{}\delta \left(\left|r^{}r\right|\right)`$. In the flatland limit, $`a(r)=2\pi r`$, while in the lineland limit (R$`0`$), $`a=2\pi `$R. In the cylindrical case, $`a(r)`$ is proportional to an elliptic integral, which exhibits a logarithmic divergence at r = 2R. The origin of this divergence is that a particle on one side of the cylinder has a divergent specific area at distance 2R; the sphere of this radius is tangent to the cylinder. As a consequence, the system’s energy is lowered when this distance is such that the interaction is strongly attractive. The optimal binding does not occur precisely when the minimum in the He-He potential coincides with the diameter of the cylinder, but instead at $`20\%`$ higher value of R. The difference arises from the zero-point energy of the system, which expands the nearest neighbor distance beyond rmin. The same behavior occurs in $`2`$d and $`3`$d 4He; the “nearest-neighbor” peak in the radial distribution function occurs at distance about $`20\%`$ greater than rmin .

What consequences accompany the enhanced binding at this value of R? Typically (but not always), strongly cohesive systems exhibit a relatively large speed of sound. Here, the sound propagation speed $`s`$ is derived from the relation appropriate to longitudinal density fluctuations propagating parallel to the axis of the cylinder: $`Ms^2=\rho ^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2(E/N)}{d\rho ^2}}`$ . Here, M is the atomic mass and $`\rho `$ is the $`1`$d density; the derivative is evaluated at the ground state density. According to our calculations, $`s=230`$ m/s at the equilibrium density $`\rho =0.3`$ Å-1 for the optimally binding radius, R = $`1.8`$ Å . This value may be compared to the values $`s=240,90`$ and $`8.0(3.0)`$ m/s in $`3`$d, $`2`$d and $`1`$d, respectively. We observe that the speed in cylinderland is $`\mathrm{𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑙𝑦}`$ enhanced relative to both the $`1`$d and $`2`$d values.

Since the cylindrical fluid is a $`1`$d system, from the perspective of statistical mechanics, it undergoes no phase transitions at finite T. There is, however, a T=$`0`$ transition as the system evolves from a liquid-vapor coexisting ground state to a disordered fluid at nonzero T, with a singular heat capacity (proportional to $`\delta `$(T)). The integrated specific heat is a monotonic function of the binding energy. This might be observable, due to inhomogeneity in the system, as a smeared out maximum in the low T specific heat. The fluid’s compressibility diverges as $`\mathrm{exp}[E_b/(k_BT)]`$ at low T, which should be observable in an adsorption isotherm. However, we have thus far no definite calculations to compare with experiments.

The third problem we address is the curvature-dependent binding energy Eb(R) of an atomic dimer on a cylinder of radius R. This is the two-body version of the liquid helium problem just discussed, except that here we treat the general case of atoms interacting with an arbitrary Lennard-Jones (LJ) interaction. By scaling distances relative to the hard-core diameter $`\sigma `$ and the energy relative to the well depth $`ϵ\left(\stackrel{~}{z}={\displaystyle \frac{z}{\sigma }};\stackrel{~}{R}={\displaystyle \frac{R}{\sigma }};\stackrel{~}{r}={\displaystyle \frac{r}{\sigma }};_b={\displaystyle \frac{E_b}{ϵ}}\right)`$, the Schr$`\ddot{o}`$dinger equation becomes:

$$\eta \left(\frac{^2}{\stackrel{~}{z}^2}+\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{R}^2}\frac{^2}{\varphi ^2}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_0+\left[4(\stackrel{~}{r}^{12}\stackrel{~}{r}^6)_b\right]\mathrm{\Psi }_0=0.$$
(1)
Note that the ground state solution to this equation is determined by the boundary conditions and the value of the dimensionless $`\mathrm{𝑑𝑒}\mathrm{𝐵𝑜𝑒𝑟}\mathrm{𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑢𝑚}\mathrm{𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟}`$ $`\eta ={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{Mϵ\sigma ^2}}`$ . A very large value of $`\eta `$ implies a large zero-point energy and absence of any bound state. Here, we focus on a specific question: what is the threshold value ($`\eta =\eta _t`$) separating those problems for which the dimer exists ($`\eta <\eta _t`$) from those for which it does not exist? The corresponding threshold value of $`\eta _t`$ is known for the limiting cases of $`1`$d ($`\eta _t=0.1788`$) and $`2`$d ($`\eta _t=0.269`$). We have answered this question for cylinderland by computing the ground state energy variationally, identifying $`\eta _t`$ from the point when the attractive potential energy becomes too weak for the dimer to be bound. Because the calculation is variational, the computed threshold $`\eta _t`$ is a lower limit to the exact value. Our $`\eta _t`$ results agree well with the known $`1`$d and $`2`$d limits cited above. For the general cylindrical case, the threshold value is shown in Fig. $`3`$. Qualitatively, it exhibits the same phenomenon as was seen in the 4He liquid binding problem. That is, the binding is particularly large when the diameter of the cylinder is such that the interatomic interaction across the cylinder is strongly attractive. There is a small difference between the “optimal” radius, Ropt, values for the two problems: R$`{}_{opt}{}^{}/\sigma `$ has the value $`0.7`$ for the dimer problem and $`0.77`$ for the 4He binding problem.

Having in mind the interesting behavior of the threshold $`\eta _t`$ in the cylinderland, we next address the problem of the binding energy(Eb) of 4He and 3He dimers on a cylinder. Employing the same variational approach as for $`\eta _t`$, we compute the ground state energy for these systems as a function of $`\sigma /R`$ ( Fig. $`4`$). Not surprisingly, we find significantly enhanced binding energy for the 4He and 3He dimers at a particular range of values of R($`0.65\sigma `$). The enhanced binding in the cylindrical geometry is particularly dramatic for the 3He dimer, yielding an increase in Eb of $`7`$ orders in magnitude compared to the $`2`$d limit for Eb.

Having established that the 3He dimer is so strongly bound for radius R $`0.65\sigma `$, we now discuss the ground state of the system of many 3He atoms. No condensed liquid exists in either $`2`$d or $`1`$d, but perhaps one exists in cylinderland. The existence of the stable dimer does not ensure the existence of a stable N-mer for any N$`>2`$ (as was shown explicitly in the $`2`$d case). One scenario is that the ground state of the system is a gas of such dimers (analogous to H2 at room temperature). A second possibility is that the dimers coalesce to form a liquid, analogous to liquid H2 between its triple point and its critical point. A third scenario is that the dimers dissolve into a many-body liquid ground state, analogous to liquid 3He in $`3`$d. None of the first two of these possibilities has been considered previously; the question of which phase, among the three candidates, is the actual ground state remains open.

Finally, we address a fourth problem concerned with matter in cylinderland $``$ the second virial coefficient of a classical gas. By analogy with well known problems in other dimensions, we write a low density (high T) expansion of the $`1`$d pressure $`P=\rho ^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{f}{\rho }}\right)`$ , where $`f`$ is the free energy per particle, as $`P/(\rho k_BT)1+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho B(T)}{2\pi R}}+\mathrm{}`$ , with

$$B(T)=\frac{1}{2}d^2𝐫\left[1\mathrm{exp}[\beta V(r)]\right].$$
(2)
Here, $`\beta =1/(k_BT)`$ and the integration is over the cylinder’s surface. We assume the usual LJ form of interaction. The results(to be reported in detail elsewhere) exhibit similar qualitative behavior to that found for the preceding two problems, both of which involve an interaction with a well. As in the familiar $`2`$d and $`3`$d contexts, $`B`$ is positive at high T due to the repulsive interactions and $`B<0`$ at low T, where attractive effects dominate. The Boyle temperature TB is that for which $`B`$ vanishes, meaning that (within this expansion) P for the interacting system is the same as that of a noninteracting gas at the same $`\rho `$ and T. The results in Fig. $`5`$ indicate that the Boyle temperature is the highest for a cylinder of radius $`R=0.7\sigma `$. In the van der Waals theory of condensation, the critical temperature is $`8`$TB/$`27`$. In that mean field theory, therefore, the critical temperature is highest for a cylinder of this “optimal” radius. While this transition does not occur in the exact theory, one expects the virial expansion to apply at low density and here the data of Fig. $`5`$ imply an onset of the effects of attraction at higher T for the cylinder than for either $`1`$d or $`2`$d limiting cases. Calculations using classical simulations for such gases should exhibit such an enhanced attraction effect and extend the prediction to higher densities. We anticipate that crystallization of the classical gas will occur, with an oscillatory dependence of the energy on R (due to the size-dependent commensuration energy). Such calculations are in progress in our group.

In summary, we have explored both classical and quantum particles confined to a cylindrical surface. In the case of a Coulomb interaction, which lacks a preferred distance, the energetics of binding exhibits a monotonic trend as a function of curvature; there is an insensitivity of the cohesion to the value of the curvature, as long as it is small. In three problems involving interactions with a favored distance, quite distinct behavior was found. There is a particular range of values of R such that the binding is enhanced and this is explicable in terms of a phase space argument relevant to interactions which have well-defined potential energy minima. We believe that this distinction is generic and should be applicable to other geometries. For example, matter confined to a spherical surface (small particles or pores) should have enhanced cohesion when the diameter is$`\sigma `$. Other related problems merit investigation. One is the possibility of condensation of 3He to a liquid. The factor of $`3`$ enhancement of the liquid binding energy shown for cylindrical 4He (relative to binding in flatland) suggests that there is a range of radius over which the lighter isotopic liquid should also bind. A suggestive argument in support of that possibility is the fact that the 3He dimer exists over an extended range of radii: $`R>\sigma /21.3`$ Å , according to Fig. $`3`$ ($`\eta =0.24`$ for 3He). For bose systems in $`1`$d and $`2`$d, the dimer threshold coincides with the binding threshold for the many-body bound state liquid. While we do not know the corresponding criterion for self-binding in cylinderland; it is possible that the cylindrical liquid 3He also exists. 111 Note that out-of-plane motion will enhance the likelihood of self-binding, as was found by Whitlock $`etal.`$ and Gordillo $`etal.`$ for 4He in $`2`$d and $`1`$d and by Brami $`etal.`$ for 3He in $`2`$d. The rms displacements are $`0.25`$ to $`0.4`$ Å in these cases. This would be a remarkable system to investigate since it exemplifies a novel Luttinger liquid. A primary application of these results is to carbon nanotubes, whose radius can be as small as $`3`$ Å . Indeed, the so-called cylindrical shell phase of He and H2 corresponds to adsorption at radial distance $`\delta r3`$ Å inward from the carbon atoms . Thus, the pronounced effects found here for these gases at R $`2`$ Å ( Figs. $`2`$, $`4`$ ) correspond to cylindrical phases within nanotubes of radius $`5`$ Å . Experimental and other theoretical study of this size tube is worth pursuing.

We are grateful to Susana Hernandez, Claire Lhuillier, Jordi Boronat and L. W. Bruch for helpful comments. This research has been supported by Army Research Office, the Petroleum Research Fund of the American Chemical Society and the National Science Foundation (DMR0121146). Milen Kostov is grateful to Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.(APCI) for its support through APCI/PSU graduate fellowship.

Figure captions

Fig. $`1`$ : Ground state energy of a ( $`+`$ ) Coulomb pair of charges, constrained on a cylinder as a function of a curvature parameter $`a_0/R`$. The solid line is the variational result. The inset compares the variational and perturbation theory(PT) results. The energy is in Hartree units.

Fig. $`2`$ : Ground state cohesive energy (per atom) of a 4He fluid on a cylinder.

Fig. $`3`$ : Threshold value of the de Boer parameter for existence of a dimer.

Fig. $`4`$ : Ground state energy of 4He(circles) and 3He(stars) dimers on a cylinder.

Fig. $`5`$ : Reduced Boyle temperature T$`{}_{}{}^{}=k_B`$T/$`ϵ`$ .


text:
# Jet Tomography of Hot and Cold Nuclear Matter

## Abstract

Medium modification of parton fragmentation functions induced by multiple scattering and gluon bremsstrahlung is shown to describe the recent HERMES data in deeply inelastic scattering (DIS) very well, providing the first evidence of $`A^{2/3}`$-dependence of the modification. The energy loss is found to be $`dE/dL0.5`$ GeV/fm for a 10-GeV quark in a $`Au`$ nucleus. Including the effect of expansion, analysis of the $`\pi ^0`$ spectra in central $`Au+Au`$ collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=130`$ GeV yields an averaged energy loss equivalent to $`dE/dL7.3`$ GeV/fm in a static medium. Predictions for central $`Au+Au`$ collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=200`$ GeV are also given.

PACS numbers: 12.38.Mh, 24.85.+p; 13.60.-r, 25.75.-q

LBNL-49561

Energetic partons produced via hard processes provide an excellent tool that enables tomographic studies of both hot dense and cold nuclear matter. By measuring the attenuation  of these partons as they propagate through the medium, one would be able to study the properties such as the geometry  and the gluon density of the medium. The attenuation will suppress the final leading hadron distribution giving rise to modified parton fragmentation functions . Such a modified fragmentation function inside a nucleus has been derived recently  in a pQCD approach with a systematic expansion of higher-twist corrections to the fragmentation processes. In this letter, we will compare the predicted nuclear modification to the recent HERMES experimental data  and extract the effective parton energy loss. We will further extend the study to the case of a hot QCD medium including the dynamics of expansion. We will then analyze within this framework the $`\pi ^0`$ spectra as measured by the PHENIX experiment  in central $`Au+Au`$ collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=130`$ GeV, which have shown significant suppression at large transverse momentum. The extracted effective parton energy loss will be compared with that in a cold nucleus, and discussions will be given about the implications of the PHENIX data on the gluon density in the early stage of central $`Au+Au`$ collisions at the RHIC energy. We will also provide predictions for $`\pi ^0`$ spectra in central $`Au+Au`$ collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=200`$ GeV.

In deeply inelastic scatterings (DIS), quark fragmentation functions are factorizable in leading twist from the parton distribution functions and photon-quark ($`\gamma ^{}q`$) scattering cross section. In a nucleus target, the quark struck by the virtual photon suffers multiple scattering and induced bremsstrahlung before hadronization. Extending the generalized factorization  to the semi-inclusive process, $`e(L_1)+A(p)e(L_2)+h(\mathrm{}_h)+X`$, one can define a modified fragmentation function as ,

$`E_{L_2}{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _{\mathrm{DIS}}^h}{d^3L_2dz_h}}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{\mathrm{EM}}^2}{2\pi s}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Q^4}}L_{\mu \nu }`$ (1)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑xf_q^A(x,Q^2)H_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}(x,p,q)\stackrel{~}{D}_{qh}(z_h,Q^2)},`$ (2)
where $`f_q^A(x,Q^2)`$ is the quark distribution function in the nucleus, $`s=(p+L_1)^2`$ and $`p=[p^+,0,\stackrel{}{0}_{}]`$ is the momentum per nucleon inside the nucleus. The momentum of the virtual photon $`\gamma ^{}`$ is $`q=[Q^2/2q^{},q^{},\stackrel{}{0}_{}]`$ and the momentum fraction carried by the hadron is $`z_h=\mathrm{}_h^{}/q^{}`$. The hard part of the $`\gamma ^{}q`$ scattering $`H_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}`$ is the same as in $`ep`$ scattering  and $`L_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}(\mathit{}_1\gamma _\mu \mathit{}_2\gamma _\nu )`$.

Including the leading twist-4 contributions from double scattering processes, the modified effective quark fragmentation function can be obtained as

$$\stackrel{~}{D}_{qh}(z_h,Q^2)D_{qh}(z_h,Q^2)+\mathrm{\Delta }D_{qh}(z_h,Q^2);$$
(3)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }D_{qh}(z_h,Q^2)=_0^{Q^2}\frac{d\mathrm{}_T^2}{\mathrm{}_T^2}\frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }_{z_h}^1\frac{dz}{z}\left[\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _{qqg}(z,x,x_L,\mathrm{}_T^2)D_{qh}(z_h/z)+\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _{qgq}(z,x,x_L,\mathrm{}_T^2)D_{gh}(z_h/z)\right],$$
(4)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _{qqg}(z,x,x_L,\mathrm{}_T^2)=\left[\frac{1+z^2}{(1z)_+}T_{qg}^A(x,x_L)+\delta (1z)\mathrm{\Delta }T_{qg}^A(x,\mathrm{}_T^2)\right]\frac{C_A2\pi \alpha _s}{(\mathrm{}_T^2+k_T^2)N_cf_q^A(x,\mu _I^2)},$$
(5)
where, $`C_A=3`$, $`N_c=3`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _{qgq}(z,x,x_L,\mathrm{}_T^2)=\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _{qqg}(1z,x,x_L,\mathrm{}_T^2)`$ are the modified splitting functions, $`x_L=\mathrm{}_T^2/2p^+q^{}z(1z)`$, and $`D_{ah}(z_h,Q^2)`$ are the normal twist-2 parton fragmentation functions in vacuum. The $`\delta `$-function part in the modified splitting function is from the virtual corrections, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_{qg}^A(x,\mathrm{}_T^2)`$ defined as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }T_{qg}^A(x,\mathrm{}_T^2)_0^1𝑑z\frac{1}{1z}\left[2T_{qg}^A(x,x_L)|_{z=1}(1+z^2)T_{qg}^A(x,x_L)\right].$$
(6)
Such virtual or absorptive corrections are important to ensure the infrared safety of the modified fragmentation function and the unitarity of the gluon radiation processes. The quark-gluon correlation function

$`T_{qg}^A(x,x_L)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dy^{}}{2\pi }𝑑y_1^{}𝑑y_2^{}e^{i(x+x_L)p^+y^{}+ix_Tp^+(y_1^{}y_2^{})}(1e^{ix_Lp^+y_2^{}})(1e^{ix_Lp^+(y^{}y_1^{})})}`$ (7)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}`$ $`A|\overline{\psi }_q(0)\gamma ^+F_\sigma ^+(y_2^{})F^{+\sigma }(y_1^{})\psi _q(y^{})|A\theta (y_2^{})\theta (y^{}y_1^{})`$ (8)
contains essentially four independent twist-4 parton matrix elements in a nucleus \[$`x_T=k_T^2/2p^+q^{}z(1z)`$\]. The dipole-like form-factor $`(1e^{ix_Lp^+y_2^{}})(1e^{ix_Lp^+(y^{}y_1^{})})`$ arises from the interference between the final state radiation of the $`\gamma ^{}q`$ scattering and the gluon bremsstrahlung induced by the secondary quark-gluon scattering. By generalizing the factorization assumption  to these twist-four parton matrices, we have

$$T_{qg}^A(x,x_L)\stackrel{~}{C}(Q^2)m_NR_Af_q^A(x)(1e^{x_L^2/x_A^2}),$$
(9)
with a Gaussian nuclear distribution $`\rho (r)\mathrm{exp}(r^2/2R_A^2)`$, $`R_A=1.12A^{1/3}`$ fm. Here, $`x_A=1/m_NR_A`$, and $`m_N`$ is the nucleon mass. We should emphasize that the parameter $`\stackrel{~}{C}(Q^2)`$ should in principle depend on the renormalization scale $`Q^2`$ among other kinetic variables as shown recently in a detailed analysis of the twist-four nuclear matrix elements . Therefore, it can take different values in different processes.

Since the two interference terms in the dipole-like form-factor involve transferring momentum $`x_Lp^+`$ between different nucleons inside a nucleus, they should be suppressed for large nuclear size or large momentum fraction $`x_L`$. Notice that $`\tau _f=1/x_Lp^+`$ is the gluon’s formation time. Thus, $`x_L/x_A=L_A/\tau _f`$, with $`L_A=R_Am_N/p^+`$ being the nuclear size in the infinite momentum frame. The effective parton correlation and the induced gluon emission vanishes when the formation time is much larger than the nuclear size, $`x_L/x_A1`$, because of the Landau-Pomeranchuck-Migdal (LPM) interference effect. Therefore, the LPM interference restricts the radiated gluon to have a minimum transverse momentum $`\mathrm{}_T^2Q^2/m_NR_AQ^2/A^{1/3}`$. The nuclear corrections to the fragmentation function due to double parton scattering will then be in the order of $`\alpha _sA^{1/3}/\mathrm{}_T^2\alpha _sA^{2/3}/Q^2`$, which depends quadratically on the nuclear size. For large values of $`A`$ and $`Q^2`$, these corrections are leading; yet the requirement $`\mathrm{}_T^2Q^2`$ for the logarithmic approximation in deriving the modified fragmentation function is still valid.

With the assumption of the factorized form of the twist-4 nuclear parton matrices, there is only one free parameter $`\stackrel{~}{C}(Q^2)`$ which represents quark-gluon correlation strength inside nuclei. Once it is fixed, one can predict the $`z`$, energy and nuclear dependence of the medium modification of the fragmentation function. Shown in Figs. 1 and 2 are the calculated nuclear modification factor of the fragmentation functions for $`{}_{}{}^{14}N`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{84}Kr`$ targets as compared to the recent HERMES data . There are strong correlations among values of $`Q^2`$, $`\nu `$ and $`z`$ in the HERMES data which are also taken in account in our calculation. The predicted shape of the $`z`$\- and $`\nu `$-dependence agrees well with the experimental data. A remarkable feature of the prediction is the quadratic $`A^{2/3}`$ nuclear size dependence, which is verified for the first time by an experiment. This quadratic dependence comes from the combination of the QCD radiation spectrum and the modification of the available phase space in $`\mathrm{}_T`$ or $`x_L`$ due to the LPM interferences.

The observed attenuation of the leading hadrons could also be attributed phenomenologically to hadron absorption inside the nucleus. This is, however, achieved only via some ad hoc assumption of the hadron formation time . Considering the hadronization process as regeneration of gluon field within a spatial region of a hadon size $`r_h`$, the hadron formation time for a light quark will be $`t_f^h\nu r_h^2`$ . Taking $`r_h1`$ fm, $`t_f^h`$ is about 40 fm for $`\nu =8`$ GeV, the lower limit of the HEREMS experiment. This is much larger than the size of the heaviest nuclei available. We therefore assume that the nuclear attenuation in this energy region is mainly caused by induced gluon radiation and multiple parton scattering.

By fitting the overall suppression for one nuclear target, we obtain the only parameter in our calculation, $`\stackrel{~}{C}(Q^2)=0.0060`$ GeV2 with $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}(Q^2)=0.33`$ at $`Q^23`$ GeV2. This parameter is also related to nuclear broadening of the transverse momentum of the Drell-Yan dilepton in $`pA`$ collisions , $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_{}^2\stackrel{~}{C}\pi \alpha _\mathrm{s}/N_cx_A`$. With an experimental value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_{}^2=0.016A^{1/3}`$ GeV2  and $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}(M_{l\overline{l}}^2)=0.21`$ ($`<M_{l\overline{l}}^2>40`$ GeV2), one finds $`\stackrel{~}{C}(M_{l\overline{l}}^2)=0.013`$ GeV2, which is about a factor 2 larger than the value obtained in our fit to the HERMES data. The value of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ determined from nuclear broadening in photo-production of di-jet is even larger  at $`Q^2=4p_T^264`$ GeV2. Such a strong scale dependence of $`\stackrel{~}{C}(Q^2)`$ is in line with one’s expectation since it is related to gluon distribution $`xg(x,Q^2)`$ at small $`x`$ in nuclei .

If one defines theoretically the quark energy loss as that carried by the radiated gluons, then the averaged total fractional energy loss is \[cf. Eq. (4)\],

$`\mathrm{\Delta }z_g={\displaystyle _0^{\mu ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{}_T^2}{\mathrm{}_T^2}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑z{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }}z\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _{qgq}(z,x_B,x_L,\mathrm{}_T^2)`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{Q^2}}𝑑\mathrm{}_T^2{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑z{\displaystyle \frac{1+(1z)^2}{\mathrm{}_T^2(\mathrm{}_T^2+k_T^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{C_A\alpha _s^2T_{qg}^A(x_B,x_L)}{N_cf_q^A(x_B)}}`$ (11)
$``$ $`\stackrel{~}{C}(Q^2)\alpha _\mathrm{s}^2(Q^2){\displaystyle \frac{C_A}{N_c}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_B}{Q^2x_A^2}}6\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2x_B}}\right).`$ (12)
In the rest frame of the nucleus, $`p^+=m_N`$, $`q^{}=\nu `$, and $`x_BQ^2/2p^+q^{}=Q^2/2m_N\nu `$. One can get the averaged total energy loss as $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=\nu \mathrm{\Delta }z_g\stackrel{~}{C}(Q^2)\alpha _\mathrm{s}^2(Q^2)m_NR_A^2(C_A/N_c)3\mathrm{ln}(1/2x_B)`$. With the determined value of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$, $`x_B0.124`$ in the HERMES experiment  and the average distance $`L_A=R_A\sqrt{2/\pi }`$ for the assumed Gaussian nuclear distribution, one gets the quark energy loss $`dE/dL0.5`$ GeV/fm inside a $`Au`$ nucleus.

To extend our study of modified fragmentation functions to jets in heavy-ion collisions, we assume $`k_T^2\mu ^2`$ (the Debye screening mass) and a gluon density profile $`\rho (y)=(\tau _0/\tau )\theta (R_Ay)\rho _0`$ for a 1-dimensional expanding system. Since the initial jet production rate is independent of the final gluon density which can be related to the parton-gluon scattering cross section  \[ $`\alpha _sx_TG(x_T)\mu ^2\sigma _g`$\], one has then

$$\frac{\alpha _sT_{qg}^A(x_B,x_L)}{f_q^A(x_B)}\mu ^2𝑑y\sigma _g\rho (y)[1\mathrm{cos}(y/\tau _f)],$$
(13)
where $`\tau _f=2Ez(1z)/\mathrm{}_T^2`$ is the gluon formation time. One can recover the form of energy loss in a thin plasma obtained in the opacity expansion approach ,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }z_g`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_A\alpha _s}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑z{\displaystyle _0^{\frac{Q^2}{\mu ^2}}}𝑑u{\displaystyle \frac{1+(1z)^2}{u(1+u)}}`$ (14)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle _{\tau _0}^{R_A}}𝑑\tau \sigma _g\rho (\tau )\left[1\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(\tau \tau _0)u\mu ^2}{2Ez(1z)}}\right)\right].`$ (15)
Keeping only the dominant contribution and assuming $`\sigma _gC_a2\pi \alpha _s^2/\mu ^2`$ ($`C_a`$=1 for $`qg`$ and 9/4 for $`gg`$ scattering), one obtains the averaged energy loss,

$$\frac{dE}{dL}\frac{\pi C_aC_A\alpha _s^3}{R_A}_{\tau _0}^{R_A}𝑑\tau \rho (\tau )(\tau \tau _0)\mathrm{ln}\frac{2E}{\tau \mu ^2}.$$
(16)
Neglecting the logarithmic dependence on $`\tau `$, the averaged energy loss in a 1-dimensional expanding system can be expressed as

$$\frac{dE}{dL}_{1d}\frac{dE_0}{dL}\frac{2\tau _0}{R_A},$$
(17)
where $`dE_0/dL\rho _0R_A`$ is the energy loss in a static medium with the same gluon density $`\rho _0`$ as in a 1-d expanding system at time $`\tau _0`$. Because of the expansion, the averaged energy loss $`dE/dL_{1d}`$ is suppressed as compared to the static case and does not depend linearly on the system size. This could be one of the reasons why the effect of parton energy loss is found to be negligible in $`AA`$ collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=17.3`$ GeV .

An effective model of modified fragmentation functions was proposed in Ref. :

$$\stackrel{~}{D}_{ah}(z)\frac{1}{1\mathrm{\Delta }z}D_{ah}\left(\frac{z}{1\mathrm{\Delta }z}\right),$$
(18)
with $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ to account for the fractional parton energy loss. This effective model is found to reproduce the pQCD result from Eq. (4) very well, but only when $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ is set to be $`\mathrm{\Delta }z0.6z_g`$. Therefore the actual averaged parton energy loss should be $`\mathrm{\Delta }E/E=1.6\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ extracted from the effective model. The factor 1.6 is mainly caused by unitarity correction effect in the pQCD calculation. A similar effect is also found in the opacity expansion approach .

The PHENIX experiment has reported  a strong suppression of high $`p_T`$ hadrons in central $`Au+Au`$ collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=130`$ GeV. To extract the parton energy loss, we compare the data with the calculated hadron $`p_T`$ spectra in heavy-ion collisions using the above effective model for medium modified jet fragmentation functions . Shown in Fig. 3 are the nuclear modification factor $`R_{AA}(p_T)`$ as the ratio of hadron spectra in $`AA`$ ($`pA`$) and $`pp`$ collisions normalized by the number of binary collisions. Parton shadowing and nuclear broadening of the intrinsic $`k_T`$ are also taken into account in the calculation which decrsibes $`pA`$ data for energies up to $`\sqrt{s}=40`$ GeV . The nuclear $`k_T`$-broadening gives the so-called Cronin enhancement at large $`p_T`$ in $`pA`$ collisions, where there is no parton energy loss induced by a hot medium. Fitting the PHENIX data yields $`dE/dL_{1d}0.34\mathrm{ln}E/\mathrm{ln}5`$ GeV/fm, including the factor of 1.6 from the unitarity correction effect. We consider only $`\pi ^0`$ data here, since at large $`p_T`$ the charged hadrons are dominated by baryons, which could be influenced mainly by non-perturbative dynamics .

Taking into account the expansion, the averaged parton energy loss extracted from the PHENIX data would be equivalent to $`(dE/dL)_0=0.34(R_A/2\tau _0)\mathrm{ln}E/\mathrm{ln}5`$ in a static system with the same gluon density as the initial value of the expanding system at $`\tau _0`$. With $`R_A6`$ fm and $`\tau _00.2`$ fm, this would give $`(dE/dL)_07.3`$ GeV/fm for a 10-GeV parton, which is about 15 times of that in a cold $`Au`$ nucleus as extracted from the HERMES data. Since the parton energy loss is directly proportional to gluon density of the medium, we can predict the $`\pi ^0`$ spectra at $`\sqrt{s}=200`$ GeV as given by the dashed lines in Fig. 3, assuming that the initial parton density in central $`Au+Au`$ collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=200`$ GeV is about 10% higher than at 130 GeV.

In summary, the nuclear modification of parton fragmentation function predicted in a pQCD study describes well the HERMES experimental data. The extracted energy loss is $`dE/dL0.5`$ GeV/fm for a quark with $`E=10`$ GeV in a $`Au`$ nucleus. Analysis of the PHENIX data of $`\pi ^0`$ spectra suppression in central $`Au+Au`$ collisions yields an averaged parton energy loss in an expanding system that would be equivalent to $`(dE/dL)_07.3`$ GeV/fm in a static medium.

This work was supported by DOE under contract No. DE-AC03-76SF00098 and by NSFC under project No. 19928511 and No. 10135030. We thank N. Bianchi and P. DiNezza for discussions about the HERMES data.


text:
# Vacuum induced Spin-1/2 Berry phase

## Abstract

We calculate the Berry phase of a spin-1/2 particle in a magnetic field considering the quantum nature of the field. The phase reduces to the standard Berry phase in the semiclassical limit and eigenstate of the particle acquires a phase in the vacuum. We also show how to generate a vacuum induced Berry phase considering two quantized modes of the field which has a interesting physical interpretation.

Geometric phases in quantum theory attracted great interest since Berry berry  showed that the state of a quantum system acquires a purely geometric feature (called the Berry phase) in addition to the usual dynamical phase when it is varied slowly and eventually brought back to its initial form. The Berry phase has been extensively studied wil ; oth , generalized in various directions aa , and has very interesting applications, such as implementation of quantum computation by geometrical means jvec ; ekert00 ; fal . In a strict sense, however, the Berry phase has only been studied in a *semiclassical* context till date. This means that the geometric evolution of a quantum system is studied under the effect of a time varying classical field. However, this field itself has never been quantized ken . Thus, the effects of the vacuum field on the geometric evolution are unknown. Many effects in quantum optics such as quantum jumps, collapses and revivals of the Rabi oscillations collapse , can only be explained by considering a quantum field, showing the importance of field quantization in the complete description of physical systems. Moreover, in quantum mechanics several interesting effects are observed due to the interaction of quantum systems with the vacuum (spontaneous emission, lamb shift)cat .

The canonical experiment that demonstrates the existence of the Berry phase involves a spin-1/2 particle interacting with an external magnetic field whose direction is slowly changed in a cyclic fashion jvec ; nmr . In this letter we analyze such experiment in a fully quantized context and give an expression for the geometric phase of a joint state of the particle and field that, as expected, reduces to the standard Berry phase in the high amplitude limit of a coherent state of the field. The relevant differences between this phase and the semiclassical version of the Berry phase become evident when states with low photon number are considered. We show that in the fully quantized scheme it is possible to produce non-trivial geometric phases that have no correspondence to phases that can be generated in the semiclassical scenario. The main difference arises from the interaction of the spin-1/2 system and the vacuum field. In fact, we show that even if the field is in the vacuum state, an adiabatic evolution of the field can be engineered to induce a non-trivial geometric phase in the system.

We calculate the deviations from the semiclassical model when a spin-1/2 particle interacts with a single mode quantum field. In addition we design a scheme to generate a vacuum induced phase considering the interaction of the particle with two modes of the field in the vacuum state which are mixed adiabatically to generate the phase. This phase has a very interesting physical interpretation which we discuss in this letter. Using a scheme designed to detect the Berry phase of the joint state of a harmonic oscillator and a two level system using an ion trap us , it is possible to measure this vacuum induced phase.

In the semiclassical scenario we consider a spin 1/2 particle, or more generally, a two level system, coupled to a external classical oscillating field with frequency $`\nu `$ not far from the Bohr frequency $`\omega `$ of the two level system. In this case, it is convenient to work in a frame of reference rotating with frequency $`\nu `$. The two level system is described in terms of Pauli operators $`\sigma _z`$, $`\sigma _\pm =(\sigma _x\pm i\sigma _y)/2`$ and its dynamics is characterized by the following Hamiltonian:

$$H=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}\sigma _z+\lambda (\sigma _+\alpha e^{i\varphi }+\sigma _{}\alpha e^{i\varphi })$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\omega \nu `$ is the detuning, $`\lambda `$ is the coupling constant between the system and the field, and $`\alpha `$ represents the amplitude of the oscillating field. This Hamiltonian can be expressed in terms of an effective vector field $`𝐁=(\lambda \alpha \mathrm{cos}\varphi ,\lambda \alpha \mathrm{sin}\varphi ,\mathrm{\Delta }/2)`$ as $`H=𝐁\sigma `$ where $`\sigma =(\sigma _x,\sigma _y,\sigma _z)`$. When the state of the two level system is initially prepared in an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian and the direction of the effective field $`𝐁`$ is changed adiabatically, the state of the system will follow the field and after a complete cycle it will acquire a geometric phase equal to $`\gamma =\pm \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The $`\pm `$ sign depends on whether the state was initially aligned or against the direction of the field and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the solid angle subtended by the path followed by $`𝐁`$ in parameter space.

In the simplest case, where the detuning and strength of the coupling are fixed and the phase $`\varphi `$ varies from $`0`$ to $`2\pi `$, the eigenstates of the particle describe a loop $`C`$ in the bloch sphere and Berry’s adiabatic geometric phase is (up to a $`\pm `$ sign)

$$\gamma =\pi (1\mathrm{cos}\theta ).$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{cos}\theta =\mathrm{\Delta }/\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }^2+4(\alpha \lambda )^2}`$.

We will now calculate the phase taking into account that a more rigorous description of the oscillating field that drives the spin-1/2 particle involves a quantum field. This means that the field can not be considered anymore an external variable, it is part of the system itself, and its state can be manipulated by varying the parameters of the Hamiltonian. In the initial situation we consider the Hamiltonian of a spin-1/2 particle interacting with a single quantized mode of the field in the rotating wave approximation jcm

$$H_o^q=\nu a^{}a+\frac{\omega }{2}\sigma _z+\lambda (\sigma _+a+\sigma _{}a^{}),$$
(3)
where $`\nu `$ is the frequency of the field described in terms of the creation and annihilation operators $`a`$ and $`a^{}`$, $`\omega `$ is the transition frequency between the eigenstates of the particle and $`\lambda `$ the coupling constant. It can be seen by replacing the operators $`a`$ and $`a^{}`$ by the classical amplitude $`\alpha `$ that this Hamiltonian corresponds to the semiclassical Hamiltonian (1) before the rotation involving $`\varphi `$ has been applied. In the standard semiclassical experiment previously introduced, the variation of the state was induced by an adiabatic change of the phase of classical field. In the fully quantized context we need a procedure capable to generate an analogous phase change in the state of the field. To this end we introduce the phase shift operator $`U(\varphi )=\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi a^{}a)`$ that, applied adiabatically to the Hamiltonian of the system, is capable to change the state of the field. Changing $`\varphi `$ slowly from $`0`$ to $`2\pi `$ the Berry phase generated is calculated as follows

$$\gamma _\pm ^q=i_c𝑑\varphi \mathrm{\Phi }_n^\pm |U(\varphi )^{}\frac{d}{d\varphi }U(\varphi )|\mathrm{\Phi }_n^\pm .$$
(4)
where $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_n^\pm `$ are the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian (3). Substituting the expression of $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_n^\pm `$ leads to

$`\gamma _+^q`$ $`=`$ $`\pi (1\mathrm{cos}\theta _n)+2\pi n,`$ (5)
$`\gamma _{}^q`$ $`=`$ $`\pi (1\mathrm{cos}\theta _n)+2\pi (n+1).`$ (6)
with $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _n=\mathrm{\Delta }/\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }^2+4\lambda ^2(n+1)}`$. It is important to note that for $`n=0`$ the phase is different from zero, which means that the vacuum field introduces a correction in Berry’s phase. Moreover, if we consider a coherent state with large amplitude we recover the semiclassical result ($`\mathrm{cos}\theta _n\mathrm{cos}\theta `$). We now have a general expression for the Berry phase considering the quantum nature of light. This expression is relevant when systems are driven by fields with few photons and Berry’s result is recovered when the photon number grows.

In order to study the physical meaning of the second term we need a non-trivial contribution that is different from an integer multiple of $`2\pi `$. Therefore, we now describe a scheme were the particle interacts with two modes of the field. Consider the initial Hamiltonian

$$H_o^{2q}=\nu a^{}a+\nu b^{}b+\frac{\nu }{2}\sigma _z+\lambda (\sigma _+a+\sigma _{}a^{}),$$
(7)
describing a spin-1/2 particle interacting with one mode of the field with creation and annihilation operators $`a`$ and $`a^{}`$ through a Jaynes-Cummings resonant interaction with coupling constant $`\lambda `$ and a second mode of the field with creation and annihilation operators $`b`$ and $`b^{}`$ and frequency $`\nu `$ which initially does not interact with the particle nor the first mode of the field. The eigenstates of this Hamiltonian are

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_{n,n^{}}^\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|e,n\pm |g,n+1)|n^{}.$$
(8)
The state vector is a product state of the states $`|n^{}`$ of the field with modes $`b`$ and $`b^{}`$ and the Jaynes-Cummings eigenstates of joint state of the field with modes $`a`$ and $`a^{}`$ and the particle. Now we are allowed to exploit the second mode to perform a more general class of transformations, using the mode $`b`$ as an ”ancilla”. Instead of changing phase of the field and detuning between the two level system and the field, we consider the possibility of linearly mixing the two modes in a cyclic way, without any direct action on the degrees of freedom of the two level system. Before considering this transformation let’s introduce some notation. The operation of linear mixing of two modes can be represented in a suitable way employing the Schwinger angular momentum ($`SU(2)`$) operators

$`J_z={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(a^{}ab^{}b)`$
$`J_x={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(a^{}b+ab^{}),J_y={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2i}}(a^{}bab^{}).`$
The physical meaning of this operator can be easily understood if we look at the two modes as two different polarization of the same spatial mode. The Schwinger operators can then be interpreted as the generators of the polarization transformations, or in more abstract terms they determine rotations in the Poincare’s sphere $`𝒮^2SU(2)/U(1)`$. In order to generate a Berry phase we perform a cyclic loop in the Poincare’s sphere, changing adiabatically the Hamiltonian by means of the unitary transformation:

$$U(\theta ,\varphi )=\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi J_z)\mathrm{exp}(i\theta J_y),$$
(9)
where $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$ are slowly varying parameters. The transformed Hamiltonian is

$`H^{2q}=UH_oU^{}=\nu (\sigma _z/2+a^{}a+b^{}b)+`$
$`+\lambda (\mathrm{cos}\theta /2\sigma _+ae^{i\varphi /2}+\mathrm{sin}\theta /2\sigma _+be^{i\varphi /2}+h.c.).`$
This Hamiltonian describes spin-1/2 particle interacting simultaneously with two modes of the field through a Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian where the mode phases and the coupling between spin-1/2 particle and each modes are adiabatically varied through the parameters $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$. Both eigenstates (8) acquire the phase

$$\gamma _{n,n^{}}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }(nn^{}+1/2),$$
(11)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the solid angle subtended by the cyclic loop in the Poincare’s sphere. The phase dependence on the photon number is not trivial and can be measured by using an interference procedure between any of the eigenstate $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{n,n^{}}^\pm `$ and the ground state $`|g,0,0`$, which is the only state that acquires no geometric phase. The most remarkable case is obtained with the initial state $`|e,0,0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|\mathrm{\Psi }_{0,0}^++|\mathrm{\Psi }_{0,0}^{})`$. Indeed, even though the field is in a vacuum state the geometric operations performed on the degrees of freedom of the field determine a Berry’s phase

$$\gamma _{zero}=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{4}.$$
(12)
Clearly, this result has no semiclassical correspondence, on account of the absence of a classical interpretation of a vacuum state. However, it is worth investigating the physical meaning of the equation (11). An interpretation of the first part of equation (11), namely $`\mathrm{\Omega }(nn^{})/2`$, can be provided in terms of a polarized field not-interacting with the two level system, subjected to a rotation of its polarization wil ; pac . Indeed, this term has a classical origin that can be understood as follows. Suppose a beam of classical polarized light traverses an anisotropic dielectric such that its polarization slowly rotates and performs a closed loop in the Poincare’s sphere due to the variation of dielectric properties along the direction of propagation. According to Maxwell’s equations, if the variation in the medium is slow enough, the beam of light acquires a geometric phase. Therefore, if $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are the complex amplitudes of the two eigenmodes of the dielectric, under the cyclic rotation in the Poincare’s sphere they becomes $`\alpha e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }/2}`$ and $`\beta e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }/2}`$, respectively. If the same experiment is analyzed in a context where the electromagnetic field is quantized, we expect to see the same effect. If we quantize the two modes by substituting the complex amplitude $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ with the corresponding annihilation operators $`a`$ and $`b`$, the effect of the geometric evolution on the Fock states of the field is:

$$|n,n^{}e^{i(nn^{})\mathrm{\Omega }/2}|n,n^{}$$
(13)
Clearly, if we consider coherent states of the field the classical result is recovered: $`|\alpha |\beta |\alpha e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }}|\beta e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }}`$. Therefore, if we look at the two modes $`a`$ and $`b`$ in equation (7) as two different polarizations of the same spatial mode, $`\mathrm{\Omega }(nn^{})/2`$ is the geometric phase corresponding to the polarization rotation of an electromagnetic field not interacting with the two level system. Then the question is: what is the physical origin of the term (12)? Clearly the interaction with the two level system is responsible for the appearance of this term. To have a picture of how this term come into play, we can consider the semiclassical limit of the two level system interacting with the field. Suppose that modes $`a`$ and $`b`$ of the field initially are in a coherent state $`|\alpha `$ and $`|\beta `$, respectively, and the particle is in the linear combination $`(|e\pm |g)`$. Now, the state is adiabatically transformed by means of the operator (9) whose parameter are slowly varied along a close loop in the parameter space $`\theta ,\varphi `$. In the limit of large amplitude coherent state $`|\alpha `$ ($`|\alpha |>>1`$) the state is transformed as

$`(|e\pm |g)|\alpha ,\beta `$
$`(e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }/4}|e\pm e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }/4}|g)|e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }/2}\alpha ,e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }/2}\beta .`$
After the adiabatic evolution, the amplitudes $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ of the coherent states acquire a phase $`\mathrm{\Omega }/2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }/2`$, respectively. According to the result (13) obtained in the case of a field non-interacting with the two level system, this phase is associated with the polarization rotation, and originates from the term $`\mathrm{\Omega }(nn^{})/2`$ of the equation (11). Since in the large amplitude coherent state the two level system is approximately not entangled with the field, the term (12) appears in the last equation as a phase associable to the state of the two level system only. Under this condition exist a possible explanation of the phase (12) in terms of a semiclassical model. Consider the semiclassical Hamiltonian (1) in the resonant case ($`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$). Suppose to rotate the polarization direction of the classical field. Coherently with the previous notation we describe this polarization with the two dimensional complex unit vector

$$ϵ(\theta ,\varphi )=\left(\begin{array}{c}e^{i\varphi /2}\mathrm{cos}\theta /2\\ e^{i\varphi /2}\mathrm{sin}\theta /2\end{array}\right)=A\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \\ \beta \end{array}\right),$$
(15)
where $`A=1/\sqrt{|\alpha |^2+|\beta |^2}`$. During the rotation the field acquires a geometric phase $`\gamma (s)`$ that depends on the path $`s`$ followed by the the vector $`ϵ`$ on the Poincare’s sphere. Since this phase is not integrable, the state of the field cannot be specified completely in terms of the parameters $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$ only, but it needs to be expressed also as a function of the path $`s`$. Then, in a more complete description, the state of polarization has to be expressed as $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}(\theta ,\varphi )=e^{i\gamma (s)}ϵ(\theta ,\varphi ).`$ Since the field is a parameter of the semiclassical Hamiltonian, in the expression (1) the field must be considered together with its phase factor $`e^{i\gamma (s)}`$. Therefore, the Hamiltonian is no longer a function of $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$ only, but depends, through the field, also on its previous ”history”. Taking into account this further phase in the expression (1) leads to

$$H=\lambda A\sigma _+e^{i\varphi /2}\mathrm{cos}\theta /2e^{i\gamma (s)}+h.c..$$
(16)
This means that the eigenstates of (16) are functions also of the geometric phase $`\gamma (s)`$. The presence of the geometric phase in the Hamiltonian becomes non trivial when the field performs a closed loop in its parameter phase. At the end of this loop the state have experienced a global transformation due to the geometric phase accumulated by the field in its evolution. For example, starting from parameters $`\theta =0`$ and $`\varphi =0`$ after a closed loop the Hamiltonian transforms into $`H=\lambda A(\sigma _+e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }/2}+h.c.)`$ and accordingly, its eigenstates transform as $`|e\pm |ge^{i\mathrm{\Omega }/4}|e\pm e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }/4}|g,`$ which is the result expected from the quantum description (see (Vacuum induced Spin-1/2 Berry phase)).

On the other hand the classical picture fails to explain the phase $`\mathrm{\Omega }/4`$ when the system involve a field with low number of photons. The entanglement in the eigenstates (8) cannot be neglected in this case, and the expression (12) cannot be interpreted as a phase of the two level system only. A remarkable explanation of the origin of the phase $`\mathrm{\Omega }/4`$ can be provided in terms of the vacuum fluctuation of the field. Due to the entanglement of the eigenstates (8) the field is not in a pure states, and must be considered as an incoherent combination of $`|n,n^{}`$ and $`|n+1,n^{}`$. It is still possible to provide an operationally well defined generalization of geometric phase when a system is in a mixed state. According to the definition introduced by Sjöqvist et al. sjoq , the geometrical phase for a mixed states $`\rho =_kw_k|kk|`$ evolving under a closed, adiabatic transformation $`U`$ can be expressed in terms of an average connection form:

$$e^{i\gamma }=\underset{k}{}w_ke^{i\gamma _k}$$
(17)
where $`\gamma _k`$ is Berry’s phase related to the eigenstate $`|k`$. Applying this concept to the state of the field $`\rho =1/2(|nn|+|n+1n+1|)|n^{}n^{}|`$, evolving under the transformation (9) leads to the geometric phase given by the expression (11). In case of $`n=n^{}=0`$ the phase $`\mathrm{\Omega }/4`$ is obtained. This phase is therefore determined by the vacuum photon fluctuation due to the interaction with the two level system. The average number of photons in the the state of the field determines the non integer number ”$`nn^{}+1/2`$” multiplying the classic geometric phase $`\mathrm{\Omega }/2`$ in the expression (11).

The Berry phase is usually described as the phase acquired by the state of a system when an adiabatic and cyclic change in the state is generated by means of variations on external classical fields acting on a quantum system. However, in physics there are many striking effects of field quantization. We have investigated the canonical example of the Berry phase giving a rigourous description of the field. We considered the quantum nature of the field in the geometric evolution for a spin-1/2 particle rotating in a cyclic fashion by means of a slowly varying magnetic field and found a general expression for the phase which reduces to the standard result in the semiclassical limit and presents vacuum induced effects. In addition, we have shown how to generate a vacuum induced phase in the state of a spin-1/2 particle using the most general rotation in the space of the system, which corresponds to a two mode displacement operator that mixes the modes of the field. This result opens up a new arena to study the consequences of field quantization in the geometric evolution of states. We are investigating possible applications of this effect and its connections to other quantum effects in different systems.

We thank J. Anandan and D. Markham for valuable comments and discussions. This research has been partly supported by the European Union, EPSRC, Hewlett-Packard and EU under Grant Nos. TMR ERB FMR XCT 96-0087 and IST 1999-11053-EQUIP. I. F.-G. would like to thank Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia (Mexico) Grant no. 115569/135963 for financial support.