text:
# Classical Behaviour After a Phase Transition: II. The Formation of Classical Defects

## I Introduction

Because phase transitions take place in a finite time causality guarantees that, even for continuous transitions, correlation lengths remain finite. Order parameter fields become frustrated, and topological defects arise so as to reconcile field phases between different correlated regions .

A huge variety of defects is possible, according to the complexity of the initial symmetry and its breaking . Monopoles can easily overwhelm the energy density of the universe, while cosmic strings (vortices) may be the source of high energy cosmic rays and lensing, as well as contributing to structure formation (although they are not now thought to be its determining factor). More complex strings can exacerbate baryogenesis.

As solutions to the classical field equations, these defects have non-perturbatively large energies, commensurate with the temperature scale at which the transition takes place. Thus, for example, cosmic strings produced in the early universe will be expected to have an energy/unit length (tension) $`\sigma (10^{16}GeV)^2`$, where $`10^{16}GeV`$ is the estimated GUT scale. For this reason alone, defects are manifestly classical entities after the transition, whose evolution can be handled successfully through the solution of the classical equations that they satisfy (e.g. the Nambu-Goto action for cosmic strings). Nonetheless, their origin in the beginnings of the phase transition that spawned them is quantum mechanical. There are further complications according as the symmetries are global or gauged , but the simplest of all are topological global vortices (or strings) and it is these that we shall consider here.

Having set up the model, the subsequent sections of this work concern the transition from quantum field theory to classical field theory. We know the mechanism for this, the decohering effects of the quantum environment with which the long-wavelength modes of the order parameter fields interact . Field or phase ordering and classical defect formation are controlled by long-wavelength modes. We consider these modes to constitute the open ’system’ which undergoes quantum decoherence due to an ’environment’ which consists of everything else (short-wavelength modes and all other fields interacting with the order parameter fields). This permits the calculation of a decoherence time $`t_D`$ after the onset of the transition, after which the long-wavelength modes behave classically, subject to generalised Langevin equations. At the same time, the Wigner functional can now be interpreted as a Fokker-Planck probability density and we can calculate correlation functions . Given that the correlation functions are now defined in terms of classical probabilities, classical defects can be identified.

The major characteristic of defects is their topological charge. We conclude by showing how localised topological charge precedes the appearance of defects, and gives an estimate of defect densities when they do appear.

For an instantaneous quench the onset of classical behaviour has already been discussed by us in an earlier paper in these proceedings, henceforth known as I (see ), and elsewhere, and we shall not repeat all the details here. What we shall do is elucidate those properties of the classicalisation due to the environment that are relevant to defect formation.

We conclude by briefly comparing our approach to others for the production of defects. This work has yet to be completed, and will be continued elsewhere.

## II The model: Coupling order-parameter fields to the environment

The most immediate difference between the model here and that of paper I  lies in the replacement of the single real scalar order parameter field there by a complex field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. This is the simplest field permitting acceptable defects, in the form of global vortices. \[The defects of a single scalar field with broken $`Z_2`$ symmetry, domain walls, would dominate the energy density of the universe if they were present.\] As in I we take the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ field to interact with a collection of real scalar environmental fields $`\chi _\mathrm{n}`$ (n=1,…,N). It is no loss of generality to take all couplings to $`\chi `$-fields identical, and all $`\chi _\mathrm{n}`$ masses identical, to give a model with $`U(1)\times O(N)`$ or $`O(2)\times O(N)`$ symmetry broken to $`O(N)`$. However, the $`O(N)`$ symmetry of the model, while tactically useful, is accidental and purely for calculational convenience. We adopt a Cartesian field basis $`\mathrm{\Phi }=(\varphi _1+i\varphi _2)/\sqrt{2}`$ because, in the linear regime at the early times that are most relevant to us, $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ behave independently. The action is

$$S[\mathrm{\Phi },\chi ]=S_{\mathrm{syst}}[\mathrm{\Phi }]+S_{\mathrm{env}}[\chi ]+S_{\mathrm{int}}[\mathrm{\Phi },\chi ],$$
(1)
where we have made a provisional separation into system field and environment with which it interacts, where

$`S_{\mathrm{syst}}[\mathrm{\Phi }]={\displaystyle d^4x\left\{\frac{1}{2}_\mu \varphi _\mathrm{a}^\mu \varphi _\mathrm{a}+\frac{1}{2}\mu ^2\varphi _\mathrm{a}^2\frac{\lambda }{4}(\varphi _\mathrm{a}^2)^2\right\}}`$

is the action for the $`\varphi _\mathrm{a}`$ fields ($`\mathrm{a}=1,2`$) (we assume summation over repeated index $`\mathrm{a}`$), with $`\mu ^2>0`$, and

$`S_{\mathrm{env}}[\chi ]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{n}=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle d^4x\left\{\frac{1}{2}_\mu \chi _\mathrm{n}^\mu \chi _\mathrm{n}\frac{1}{2}m^2\chi _\mathrm{n}^2\right\}},`$ (2)
$`S_{\mathrm{int}}[\mathrm{\Phi },\chi ]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{n}=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{g}{8\sqrt{N}}}{\displaystyle d^4x\varphi _\mathrm{a}^2(x)\chi _\mathrm{n}^2(x)},`$ (3)
describe the environmental fields $`\chi _\mathrm{n}`$ and its interaction with them. These are taken to be weakly coupled, with $`11/\sqrt{N}g\lambda `$. Meanwhile, for simplicity the $`\chi _\mathrm{n}`$ masses are fixed at $`m\mu `$.

The model has a continuous transition for the breaking of the $`O(2)`$ symmetry at the critical temperature $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ where, in units in which $`k_B=1`$, $`T_\mathrm{c}^2=𝒪(\mu ^2/\sqrt{N}\lambda )\mu ^2`$. We shall assume that the initial states of the system and environment are both thermal, at temperatures $`T=O(T_\mathrm{c})>T_\mathrm{c}`$. In this way the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-field is peaked strongly in field space about the unstable maximum. On incorporating the hard thermal loop ’tadpole’ diagrams of the $`\chi `$ (and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$) fields in the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ mass term leads to the effective action for $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ quasiparticles,

$`S_{\mathrm{syst}}^{\mathrm{eff}}[\mathrm{\Phi }]={\displaystyle d^4x\left\{\frac{1}{2}_\mu \varphi _\mathrm{a}^\mu \varphi _\mathrm{a}\frac{1}{2}m_\varphi ^2(T_0)\varphi _\mathrm{a}^2\frac{\lambda }{4}(\varphi _\mathrm{a}^2)^2\right\}}`$

where $`m_\varphi ^2(T_0)=\mu ^2(1T_0^2/T_\mathrm{c}^2)=M^2>0`$. As in I, we can take an initial factorised density matrix at temperature $`T_0`$ of the form $`\widehat{\rho }[T_0]=\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{\Phi }[T_0]\widehat{\rho }_\chi [T_0]`$, where $`\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{\Phi }[T_0]`$ is determined by the quadratic part of $`S_{\mathrm{syst}}^{\mathrm{eff}}[\mathrm{\Phi }]`$ and $`\widehat{\rho }_\chi [T_0]`$ by $`S_{\mathrm{env}}[\chi ]`$. That is, the many $`\chi _\mathrm{n}`$ fields have a large effect on $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, but the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-field has negligible effect on the $`\chi _\mathrm{n}`$. This is crucial for the validity of our approximation. More details are given in I.

In fact, with defects in mind, we need to perform a further factorisation to isolate the long-wavelength modes of the system field. As we stressed, the decohering agents are not only the environment fields $`\chi _\mathrm{n}`$ that have been introduced already but also the short-wavelength modes of the self-interacting $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-field.

As in I, we split the fields initially as $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_<+\mathrm{\Phi }_>`$ (and $`\varphi _\mathrm{a}=\varphi _{<\mathrm{a}}+\varphi _{>\mathrm{a}}`$) where the system-field $`\mathrm{\Phi }_<`$ contains the modes with wavelengths longer than the critical value $`\mu ^1`$, and the bath or environment-field $`\mathrm{\Phi }_>`$ contains wavelengths shorter than $`\mu ^1`$. This is a natural division, since modes with wavelengths shorter than $`\mu ^1`$ are stable, modes with longer wavelengths unstable. Further, the short-wavelengths explore the interior of classical vortices, irrelevant for counting them. However, once the power in the fluctuations has moved to long-wavelength modes, with wavenumber $`k_0<\mu `$, the exact delineation is unimportant, and shorter wavelength modes can be included in the ’system’. With this in mind a more realistic decomposition into ’system’ and ’environment’ is not (1), but

$`S[\mathrm{\Phi },\chi ]=S_{\mathrm{syst}}[\mathrm{\Phi }_<]+S_{\mathrm{env}}[\chi ,\mathrm{\Phi }_>]+S_{\mathrm{int}}[\mathrm{\Phi }_<,\chi ,\mathrm{\Phi }_>],`$

with $`\mu `$ the demarcating momentum, where

$`S_{\mathrm{syst}}[\mathrm{\Phi }_<]={\displaystyle d^4x\left\{\frac{1}{2}_\mu \varphi _{<\mathrm{a}}^\mu \varphi _{<\mathrm{a}}+\frac{1}{2}\mu ^2\varphi _{<\mathrm{a}}^2\frac{\lambda }{4}(\varphi _{<\mathrm{a}}^2)^2\right\}},`$

and

$`S_{\mathrm{env}}[\mathrm{\Phi }_>,\chi ]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4x\left\{\frac{1}{2}_\mu \varphi _{>\mathrm{a}}^\mu \varphi _{>\mathrm{a}}\frac{1}{2}\mu ^2\varphi _{>\mathrm{a}}^2\frac{\lambda }{4}(\varphi _{>\mathrm{a}}^2)^2\right\}}`$ (4)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{n}=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle d^4x\left\{\frac{1}{2}_\mu \chi _\mathrm{n}^\mu \chi _\mathrm{n}\frac{1}{2}m^2\chi _\mathrm{n}^2\right\}},`$ (5)
$`S_{\mathrm{int}}[\mathrm{\Phi }_<,\mathrm{\Phi }_>,\chi ]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{n}=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{g}{8\sqrt{N}}}{\displaystyle d^4x\varphi _{<\mathrm{a}}^2(x)\chi _\mathrm{n}^2(x)}`$ (6)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}{\displaystyle d^4x[\varphi _{<\mathrm{a}}^2(x)\varphi _{>\mathrm{b}}^2(x)+2\varphi _{<\mathrm{a}}(x)\varphi _{<\mathrm{b}}(x)\varphi _{>\mathrm{a}}(x)\varphi _{>\mathrm{b}}(x)]}.`$ (7)
All terms omitted in the expansion are not relevant for the one-loop calculations for the long-wavelength modes that we shall now consider.

## III The simplest transition: Instantaneous quench

For simplicity we repeat our assumptions in I, in adopting an instantaneous temperature quench from $`T_0`$ to $`T_\mathrm{f}=0`$ at time $`t=0`$, in which $`m_\varphi ^2(T)`$ changes sign and magnitude instantly, concluding with the value $`m_\varphi ^2=\mu ^2`$, $`t>0`$ (and beginning with the value $`m_\varphi ^2(T_0)=m^2=O(\mu ^2)`$, $`t<0`$). We stress that $`m_\varphi `$ is the renormalised mass, containing the temperature dependent interactions with all fields.

### A The influence of the environment

As we observed, the most visible signal that the transition has occurred will be the presence of topological defects, solutions to the classical equations of motion $`\delta S[\mathrm{\Phi },\chi ]=0`$, with $`\chi _\mathrm{n}=0`$. These are global vortices in the field, around which the field phase $`\theta `$ ($`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐱)=\text{h}(𝐱)e^{i\theta (𝐱)}`$) changes by $`2\pi `$. Considered as tubes of ’false’ vacuum, with cold thickness $`O(\mu ^1)`$, they have energy per unit length $`\sigma =O(\mu ^2/\lambda )`$ (up to multiplicative logarithmic terms $`\mathrm{ln}(\mu \xi _{\mathrm{def}})`$, where $`\xi _{\mathrm{def}}`$ is vortex separation). In particular, the field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ vanishes along the vortex core. We can therefore use line zeroes to track classical defects . Since classical defects are specific field profiles we need to be able to distinguish between different classical system-field configurations evolving after the transition. As a result, we are only interested in the field-configuration basis for the density matrix.

Since the effects of (bosonic) environments are cumulative each contribution to the environment increases the diffusion term and thereby speeds up the onset of classical behaviour. Thus any part of the environment sets an upper bound on $`t_D`$. For large (but not infinite) $`N`$ a one-loop approximation is sufficient for calculating $`t_D`$ due to $`\chi `$-fields alone. It is convenient not to have complex arguments and we use $`\varphi `$ to denote the real Cartesian doublet $`(\varphi _1,\varphi _2)`$ and $`\chi `$ to denote $`(\chi _1,\chi _2,..,\chi _\mathrm{n})`$, etc. At time $`t>0`$ the reduced density matrix $`\rho _\mathrm{r}[\varphi _<^+,\varphi _<^{},t]=\varphi _<^+|\widehat{\rho }_r(t)|\varphi _<^{}`$ is now

$$\rho _\mathrm{r}[\varphi _<^+,\varphi _<^{},t]=𝒟\chi 𝒟\varphi _>\rho [\varphi _<^+,\varphi _>,\chi ,;\varphi _<^{},\varphi _>,\chi ;t],$$
(8)
where $`\rho [\varphi _<^+,\varphi _>,\chi ;\varphi _<^{},\varphi _>,\chi ;t]`$ is the full density matrix, $`𝒟\varphi _>=𝒟\varphi _{>1}𝒟\varphi _{>2}`$ and $`𝒟\chi =_1^N𝒟\chi _\mathrm{n}`$.

The environment will have had the effect of making the system effectively classical once $`\rho _\mathrm{r}(t)`$ is essentially diagonal. This is very different from the late-time dephasing effects found in Refs. , which rely on time-averaged diagonalisation. More details are given in paper I and . Quantum interference can then be ignored and we obtain a classical probability distribution from the diagonal part of $`\rho _\mathrm{r}(t)`$, or equivalently, by means of the reduced Wigner functional. For weak coupling (see I and ) there will be no ’recoherence’ at later times in which the sense of classical probability will be lost.

The temporal evolution of $`\rho _\mathrm{r}[\varphi _<^+,\varphi _<^{},t]`$ is

$$\rho _\mathrm{r}[\varphi _<^+,\varphi _<^{},t]=𝒟\varphi _{\mathrm{i}<}^+𝒟\varphi _{\mathrm{i}<}^{}J_\mathrm{r}[\varphi _{\mathrm{f}<}^+,\varphi _{\mathrm{f}<}^{},t|\varphi _{\mathrm{i}<}^+,\varphi _{\mathrm{i}<}^{},t_0]\rho _\mathrm{r}[\varphi _{\mathrm{i}<}^+,\varphi _{\mathrm{i}<}^{},t_0],$$

where $`𝒟\varphi _<^+=𝒟\varphi _{<1}^+𝒟\varphi _{<2}^+`$, etc. and $`J_\mathrm{r}`$ is the reduced evolution operator.

In order to estimate the functional integration which defines the reduced propagator, we perform a saddle point approximation

$`J_\mathrm{r}[\varphi _{\mathrm{f}<}^+,\varphi _{\mathrm{f}<}^{},t|\varphi _{\mathrm{i}<}^+,\varphi _{\mathrm{i}<}^{},t_0]\mathrm{exp}iA[\varphi _<^{+\mathrm{cl}},\varphi _<^{\mathrm{cl}}],`$

where $`\varphi _<^{\pm \mathrm{cl}}`$ is the solution of the equation of motion $`\frac{\delta ReA}{\delta \varphi ^+}_<|_{\varphi _<^+=\varphi _<^{}}=0`$ with boundary conditions $`\varphi _<^{\pm \mathrm{cl}}(t_0)=\varphi _{\mathrm{i}<}^\pm `$ and $`\varphi _<^{\pm \mathrm{cl}}(t)=\varphi _{\mathrm{f}<}^\pm `$. It is very difficult to solve this equation analytically. In order to make it tractable we assume that the system-field contains only one Fourier mode with $`\stackrel{}{k}=\stackrel{}{k}_0`$ for the reason indicated earlier, that the long-wavelength modes, for which $`|k_0|^2<\mu ^2`$, increasingly bunch about a wave-number $`k_0<\mu `$ which diminishes with time. However, unlike in I, we are interested in more than the $`k_0=0`$ mode.

For such small $`k_0`$ the classical solution is of the form

$`\varphi _{<\mathrm{a}}^{\mathrm{cl}}(\stackrel{}{x},s)=f_\mathrm{a}(s,t)\mathrm{cos}(\stackrel{}{k}_0.\stackrel{}{x}),`$

where $`f_\mathrm{a}(s,t)`$ satisfies the boundary conditions $`f_\mathrm{a}(0,t)=\varphi _{\mathrm{i}<\mathrm{a},}`$ and $`f_\mathrm{a}(t,t)=\varphi _{\mathrm{f}<\mathrm{a}}`$. Qualitatively, $`f_\mathrm{a}(s,t)`$ grows exponentially with $`s`$ for $`tt_{\mathrm{sp}}`$, and oscillates for $`t_{\mathrm{sp}}<s<t`$ when $`t>t_{\mathrm{sp}}`$. For $`tt_{\mathrm{sp}}`$ we approximate it by

$$f_\mathrm{a}(s,t)=\varphi _{\mathrm{i}<\mathrm{a}}\frac{\mathrm{sinh}[\omega _0(ts)]}{\mathrm{sinh}(\omega _0t)}+\varphi _{\mathrm{f}<\mathrm{a}}\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\omega _0s)}{\mathrm{sinh}(\omega _0t)}$$
(9)
where $`\omega _0^2=\mu ^2k_0^2`$.

We saw in I (see also ) that the linear approximation is reasonable until almost $`t_{\mathrm{sp}}`$, where the spinodal time $`t_{\mathrm{sp}}`$ is defined as the time for which $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_<|^2_t\eta ^2`$. That is, $`t_{sp}`$ is the time it takes for the field to populate the ground states of the model. As a result, $`t_{sp}`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{exp}[2\mu t_{\mathrm{sp}}]𝒪(\frac{\eta ^2}{\mu T_\mathrm{c}}).$$
(10)
The exponential factor in Eq.(10), as always, arises from the growth of the unstable long-wavelength modes. The factor $`T_\mathrm{c}^1`$ comes from the $`\mathrm{coth}(\beta \omega /2)`$ factor that encodes the initial Boltzmann distribution at temperature $`T_0T_\mathrm{c}`$. Thus,

$$\mu t_{\mathrm{sp}}\mathrm{ln}(\frac{\eta }{\sqrt{\mu T_\mathrm{c}}}).$$
(11)
As in paper I, it is sufficient to calculate the correction to the usual unitary evolution coming from the noise kernel. For clarity we drop the suffix $`\mathrm{f}`$ on the final state fields. If $`\mathrm{\Delta }=(|\mathrm{\Phi }^+|^2|\mathrm{\Phi }^{}|^2)/2`$ for the final field configurations, then the master equation for $`\rho _\mathrm{r}(\varphi _<^+,\varphi _<^{},t)`$ is

$$i\dot{\rho }_\mathrm{r}=\varphi _<^+|[H,\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{r}]|\varphi _<^{}iV\mathrm{\Delta }^2D(k_0,t)\rho _\mathrm{r}+\mathrm{}$$
(12)
The time dependent diffusion coefficient $`D_\chi (k_0,t)`$ that determines the effect of the $`\chi `$-fields on the onset of classical behaviour acquires a contribution $`D_\mathrm{n}(k_0,t)`$ from each field $`\chi _\mathrm{n}`$,

$$D_\mathrm{n}(k_0,t)=\frac{g^2}{16N}_0^t𝑑su(s,t)\left[\mathrm{Re}G_{++}^2(2k_0;ts)+2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}G_{++}^2(0;ts)\right].$$
(13)
where, for the case in hand of an instantaneous quench, $`u(s,t)=\mathrm{cosh}^2\omega _0(ts)`$ when $`tt_{\mathrm{sp}}`$, and is an oscillatory function of time when $`t>t_{\mathrm{sp}}`$. The $`G_{++}`$ are the long-wavelength correlation functions of the $`\chi `$-fields for the appropriate contours in the closed time-path.

The contribution from the explicitly environmental $`\chi `$-fields, $`D_\chi (k_0,t)=_\mathrm{n}D_\mathrm{n}(k_0,t)`$, takes the form

$$D_\chi (k_0,t)\frac{g^2T_0^2}{\mu ^3}\omega _0\mathrm{exp}[2\omega _0t],$$
(14)
largely from the end-point behaviour at $`s=0`$ of the integral (13). For $`t>t_{\mathrm{sp}}`$ the diffusion coefficient stops growing, and oscillates around $`D(k_0,t=t_{\mathrm{sp}})`$.

The environment is also constituted by the short-wavelength modes $`\mathrm{\Phi }_>`$ of the self-interacting field. This gives an additional one-loop contribution to $`D(k_0,t)`$ with the same $`u(s)`$ but a $`G_{++}`$ constructed from the short-wavelength modes of the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-field as it evolves from the top of the potential hill. Omitting this mode in its calculation just means that any decoherence time $`t_D`$ obtained from the $`\chi _\mathrm{n}`$ alone will be an upper bound on the true decoherence time. An estimate of the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-field contribution, based on the inclusion of tadpole diagrams alone, suggests that, with no $`1/N`$ damping, the $`\mathrm{\Phi }_>`$ modes have the same effect on the dissipation, qualitatively, as all the environmental fields $`\chi _\mathrm{n}`$ put together. At an order of magnitude level we can ignore the $`\mathrm{\Phi }_>`$ modes in the calculation of $`t_D`$, for which the $`\chi `$-fields alone give a strong bound. We cannot ignore them in the calculation of the defect density, since it is the coarse-graining of the order-parameter field that renders the line-zero density finite.

We estimate $`t_D`$ by solving (in the one-loop approximation) for the off-diagonal elements of the reduced density matrix

$$\rho _\mathrm{r}[\varphi _<^+,\varphi _<^{};t]\rho _\mathrm{r}^\mathrm{u}[\varphi _<^+,\varphi _<^{};t]\mathrm{exp}\left[V\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^t𝑑sD_\chi (k_0,s)\right],$$
(15)
where $`\rho _\mathrm{r}^\mathrm{u}`$ is the solution of the unitary part of the master equation (i.e. without environment). In (15) $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=O(\mu ^4(\overline{\varphi }\delta )^2)`$, $`\overline{\varphi }=(|\mathrm{\Phi }_<^+|+|\mathrm{\Phi }_<^{}|)/2\mu `$ and $`\delta =(|\mathrm{\Phi }_<^+||\mathrm{\Phi }_<^{}|)/2\mu `$. $`V`$ is understood as the minimal volume inside which there is no possibility for coherent superpositions of macroscopically distinguishable states for the field. We take this as $`𝒪(\mu ^3)`$ since $`\mu ^1`$ is the thickness of an individual vortex. Inside this volume we do not discriminate between field amplitudes which differ by $`𝒪(\mu )`$, and therefore, as in I, take $`\delta ^2𝒪(1)`$. Similarly, we set $`\overline{\varphi }^2𝒪(\alpha /\lambda )`$, where $`\lambda \alpha 1`$ is to be determined self-consistently.

The decoherence of the long-wavelength $`k_0`$-mode by the environment occurs when the non-diagonal elements of the reduced density matrix are much smaller than the diagonal ones. In (15) this corresponds to when

$$1V\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^{t_D}𝑑sD_\chi (k_0,s),$$
(16)
since $`\rho _\mathrm{r}^\mathrm{u}[\varphi _<^+,\varphi _<^{};t]`$ is increasingly independent of $`\delta `$. See I for more details. Because the diagonalisation of $`\rho _r(t)`$ occurs in time as an exponential of an exponential, decoherence occurs extremely quickly, at time

$$\omega _0t_D\mathrm{ln}(\frac{\eta }{T_\mathrm{c}\sqrt{\alpha }}).$$
(17)
For $`\omega \mu `$, the value of $`\alpha `$ is determined as $`\alpha \sqrt{\mu /T_\mathrm{c}}`$ from the condition that, at time $`t_D`$, $`|\varphi |^2_t\alpha \eta ^2`$. Since $`\alpha 1`$, in principle, the field has not diffused far from the top of the hill before it is behaving classically.

It follows from Eq.(17) that the upper bound on $`t_D`$ and, we assume, $`t_D`$ itself, increases as $`k_0\mu `$, although we need a better approximation to see how, in detail. However, we stress that, as far as counting vortices is concerned, all that matters is how the power in the field fluctuations is distributed. The distance between defects is the relevant wavelength, and not defect size. With $`\omega _0\mu `$ for the relevant $`k_0^2=O(\mu /t_D)`$ it follows that $`1<\mu t_D\mu t_{\mathrm{sp}}`$, with

$$\mu t_{\mathrm{sp}}\mu t_D\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{ln}(\frac{T_\mathrm{c}}{\mu }).$$
(18)
Whereas the environment is very effective at decohering adjacent field configurations, it has much less impact on the diagonal matrix elements

$`P_t[\varphi _<]=\varphi _<|\rho _r(t)|\varphi _<,`$

which give the relative probability that the field takes the value $`\varphi _<`$ at time $`t`$, once the theory is classical. This is all that is needed to calculate equal-time correlation functions of $`\varphi _<`$, and thereby to calculate the density of classical defects by itemising their zero-field cores.

We know that, for very early times, the Gaussian approximation for $`\rho _r[\varphi _<,\varphi _<,t]`$ is valid, although we should not interpret it as a probability then. We shall now argue that can we use the approximation $`P_t[\varphi _<]\rho _r^\mathrm{u}[\varphi _<,\varphi _<,t]`$, compatible with (15) at least until time $`t_D`$. That is, although the environment is crucial in making $`\rho _t`$ off-diagonal, it has much less effect on the diagonal matrix elements, which are the ones we use for calculation.

## IV Classical Equations

Our analysis of the onset of decoherence shows that it makes little sense to talk about line zeroes of the field before $`t_D`$ of Eq.(17), since they would be expected to suffer from quantum interference, as well as having a density that is strongly dependent on the scale separating $`\varphi _<`$ from $`\varphi _>`$.

By the time $`t_{\mathrm{sp}}`$ the Gaussian approximation has broken down, and the Goldstone field phase $`\theta `$ will have decoupled from the heavy h-mode. From here onwards it is the massless Goldstone modes whose causal propagation controls field ordering. This is the last ingredient in turning a line-zero into a classical vortex.

This requires both classical probabilities and classical equations. Let us consider probabilities first. The reduced Wigner functional is defined as

$$W_t[\varphi _<,\pi _<]=𝒟\eta _<e^{i\pi _<\eta _<}\varphi _<\eta _<|\rho _\mathrm{r}(t)|\varphi _<+\eta _<$$
(19)
whereby

$$P[\varphi _<]_t=𝒟\pi _<W_t[\varphi _<,\pi _<]=\varphi _<|\rho _\mathrm{r}(t)|\varphi _<$$
(20)
is the probability density for field configurations.

For $`tt_D`$ of (17), $`W_t[\varphi _<,\pi _<]`$ is positive, at least for long-wavelengths, and can be identified with the Fokker-Planck probability distribution function $`P_t^{\mathrm{FP}}[\varphi _<,\pi _<]`$, from which $`P[\varphi _<]_t`$ can be equally identified as the Fokker-Planck probability

$$P^{\mathrm{FP}}[\varphi _<]_t=𝒟\pi _<P_t^{\mathrm{FP}}[\varphi _<,\pi _<].$$
(21)
Suppose we can calculate $`P[\varphi _<]_t`$ for times $`tt_D`$. This permits us to calculate the equal time n-point correlation functions

$$G_{<ab..c}^{(\mathrm{n})}(𝐱_\mathrm{𝟏},..,𝐱_\mathrm{n},𝐭)=𝒟\varphi _<P_t^{\mathrm{FP}}[\varphi _<]\varphi _{<\mathrm{a}}(𝐱_\mathrm{𝟏})\mathrm{}\varphi _{<\mathrm{c}}(𝐱_\mathrm{n}).$$
(22)
As we know, equal-time correlators are all we need to calculate densities of zeroes (line-zeroes, etc.). Moreover, the dominance of $`P[\varphi _<]_t`$ by long-wavelength modes permits the adoption of a single decoherence time $`t_D`$ from Eq.(18). However, if all we are going to use is $`P[\varphi _<]_t`$, the diagonal matrix element of $`\rho _t`$, there is no real need to construct the Wigner functional. We can just do a calculation of $`P[\varphi _<]_t`$ from the start, along the lines of Ref..

To see the appearance of individual defects is more difficult, and requires classical stochastic (Langevin) equations. We have yet to complete the analysis. However, as a starting point let us pretend that the only environment is the $`\chi `$ fields. In the usual fashion, one can regard the imaginary part of $`\delta A`$ as coming from a single noise source $`\xi (x)`$, with a Gaussian functional probability distribution given by

$$𝒫[\xi ]=N_\xi \mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{2}d^4xd^4y\xi \left[g^2N\right]^1\xi \right\},$$
(23)
where $`N_\xi `$ is a normalization factor, and $`N(xy)ReG_{++}^2(xy)`$ for the single $`\chi `$-loop. Indeed, we can write the imaginary part of the influence action as a functional integral over the Gaussian field $`\xi (x)`$,

$`{\displaystyle 𝒟\xi 𝒫[\xi ]\mathrm{exp}\left[d^4xi\left\{\mathrm{\Delta }(x)\xi (x)\right\}\right]}`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left\{i{\displaystyle d^4xd^4y\left[\mathrm{\Delta }(x)g^2N(x,y)\mathrm{\Delta }(y)\right]}\right\}.`$ (25)
Therefore, the coarse-grained effective action (see I for definitions) can be rewritten as

$$A[\varphi ^+,\varphi ^{}]=\frac{1}{i}\mathrm{ln}𝒟\xi P[\xi ]\mathrm{exp}\left\{iS_{\mathrm{eff}}[\varphi ^+,\varphi ^{},\xi ]\right\},$$
(26)
where

$$S_{\mathrm{eff}}[\varphi ^+,\varphi ^{},\xi ]=\mathrm{Re}A[\varphi ^+,\varphi ^{}]d^4x\left[\mathrm{\Delta }(x)\xi (x)\right].$$
(27)
Taking the functional variation

$$\frac{\delta S_{\mathrm{eff}}[\varphi ^+,\varphi ^{},\xi ]}{\delta \varphi _\mathrm{a}^+}|_{\varphi _\mathrm{a}^+=\varphi _\mathrm{a}^{}}=0,$$
(28)
gives the “semiclassical Langevin equation” for the system-field  (up to factors $`O(1)`$)

$$\mathrm{}\varphi _\mathrm{a}(x)\stackrel{~}{\mu }^2\varphi _\mathrm{a}+\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\varphi _\mathrm{a}(x)\varphi _\mathrm{b}^2(x)+g^2\varphi _\mathrm{a}(x)d^4yK(x,y)\varphi _\mathrm{b}^2(y)=\varphi _\mathrm{a}(x)\xi (x),$$
(29)
where we have assumed only quadratic interactions, and $`K`$ is the (assumed) common mass retarded loop, arising from the real part of $`\delta A`$. $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$ are the ’renormalised’ constants by virtue of the coupling with the environment.

To estimate the size of $`g^2\varphi _\mathrm{a}(x)d^4yK(x,y)\varphi _\mathrm{b}^2(y)`$ in comparison with the $`\mu ^2\varphi _\mathrm{a}`$ term, we note first that

$$KT^2\mu ^2T_\mathrm{c}^2\mu ^2\mu ^4/\sqrt{N}\lambda $$
(30)
for high $`T`$. Further, with relevant distance scales no larger than $`\mu ^1`$ then, crudely, at time $`t_{\mathrm{sp}}`$,

$`|g^2{\displaystyle d^4yK(x,y)\varphi _\mathrm{b}^2(y)}|`$ (31)
$`g^2{\displaystyle d^4y|K(x,y)|\varphi _\mathrm{b}^2(t_{\mathrm{sp}})}`$ (32)
$`\lambda ^2{\displaystyle \frac{T_\mathrm{c}^2}{\mu }}t_{\mathrm{sp}}\varphi _\mathrm{b}^2(t_{\mathrm{sp}})\mu ^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mu t_{\mathrm{sp}}}{N^{1/2}}}\mu ^2,`$ (33)
for large enough $`N`$. Since the bound is even smaller at earlier times this suggests that the dissipative term is negligible, in comparison to the mass term, until time $`t_{\mathrm{sp}}`$. Equivalently, for weak coupling the damping due to the thermal environment has a negligible effect on the quasi-particle mass at these early times.

Even though $`\varphi _\mathrm{a}(x)\xi (x)0`$,

$`\varphi _\mathrm{a}(x)\xi (x)`$ $``$ $`\sqrt{\varphi _\mathrm{a}(x)\varphi _\mathrm{a}(x)\xi (x)\xi (x)}`$ (34)
$``$ $`\eta \sqrt{\xi (x)\xi (x)}`$ (35)
(with no summation over $`\mathrm{a}`$) which, from the behaviour of the noise kernel N, can be bounded as

$`\varphi _\mathrm{a}(x)\xi (x)_\xi \mu ^2\varphi _\mathrm{a}(x).`$

It follows that $`\varphi _\mathrm{a}`$ satisfies the classical equation

$$\mathrm{}\varphi _\mathrm{a}(x)\stackrel{~}{\mu }^2\varphi _\mathrm{a}(x)+\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\varphi _\mathrm{a}(x)\varphi _\mathrm{b}^2(x)=0,$$
(36)
to a good approximation for times $`tt_{\mathrm{sp}}`$. For such early times the non-linear term in (36) can be neglected. For times later than $`t_{\mathrm{sp}}`$ neither perturbation theory nor more general non-Gaussian methods are valid. For example, in quantum mechanical models (without environment) seventh order calculations in a self-consistent $`\delta `$-expansion (that effectively plays the role of a $`1/N`$ expansion in large-N calculations ) ceases to work once the symmetry has been fully broken. For such times we need to solve for classical vortices, rather as we would solve for the evolution of vortex tangles in superfluid $`{}_{}{}^{4}He`$.

In terms of the radial and angular fields Eq.(36) becomes

$`\mathrm{}\text{h}+[\stackrel{~}{\mu }^2+\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\text{h}^2(_\mu \theta ^\mu \theta )]\text{h}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (37)
$`_\mu (\text{h}^2^\mu \theta )`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (38)
At early times we have seen that $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ are independent, and there are no Goldstone modes. However, by the time $`tt_{\mathrm{sp}}`$, when $`h^2\eta ^2`$ and is slowly varying, it follows from the second of the equations that the Goldstone modes have appeared. More generally, it is through the coupling of the Goldstone and Higgs ($`h`$) modes that classical defects appear as solutions to (36), in a way that was denied at early times.

We stress that, in deriving Eq.(36), we have not had to restrict ourselves to any particular modes in k-space. However, although Eq.(36) looks to be valid at all times, it is only a sensible equation once field configurations have well-defined probabilities associated to them i.e. after decoherence. Here lies a difficulty in that we have seen that $`t_D`$ depends on wavelength, with shorter wavelengths taking longer to become classical. Although the long-wavelengths with most power in their fluctuations, that determine the separation of vortices, have become classical by time $`t_{\mathrm{sp}}`$, this is an ensemble statement that cannot be applied easily to individual vortex solutions to (38). Further, Eq.(36) couples $`\varphi _<`$ to $`\varphi _>`$. The effect of including the short-wavelength modes $`\varphi _>`$ in the environment is, most likely, only a qualitative change at a consistent one-loop level, by augmenting $`K`$ in (29) with a comparable term $`K_\varphi `$. There will be a further comparable non-diagonal term $`\lambda ^2\varphi _\mathrm{b}K_\varphi \varphi _\mathrm{a}\varphi _\mathrm{b}`$. We anticipate that the Langevin equations for the stochastic $`\varphi _<`$ will be just as one would guess from a mode decomposition of (38) with short-wavelength modes discarded, and terms with $`K`$ and $`N`$ equally ignorable. This will be pursued elsewhere.

## V Classical defects

### A Line densities and the Gaussian approximation

As we observed, the most visible signal that the transition has occurred will be the presence of classical topological vortices (strings), radial solutions to the equations of motion $`\delta S[\varphi ,\chi ]=0`$, with $`\chi _\mathrm{n}=0`$. These are line defects in the field, around which the field phase $`\theta `$ ($`\varphi =\text{h}e^{i\theta }`$) changes by $`2\pi `$. We can therefore use line zeroes to track classical vortices. \[If we had broken an $`O(3)`$ symmetry ($`a=1,2,3`$) the corresponding defects would be global monopoles, giving qualitatively similar conclusions.\]

The total line-zero density $`\overline{z}(𝐱)`$ for the long-wavelength mode fields is

$$\overline{z_i}(𝐱)=\delta ^2[\varphi _<(𝐱)]|ϵ_{ijk}_j\varphi _{<1}(𝐱)_k\varphi _{<2}(𝐱)|.$$
(39)
With line zeroes as the intersections of planes of zeroes of $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ separately, we have a phase change of $`\pm 2\pi `$ around the lines of intersection, but for exceptional circumstances.

¿From Eqs. (20) to (22) the evolution of the two-field correlator ($`G_<^{(2)}(𝐱,0,t)=G_<(r,t)`$) can be written in terms of the unitary (reduced) density matrix $`\rho _\mathrm{r}^\mathrm{u}`$. Thus,

$`G_<(r,t)=\varphi _<(𝐱)\varphi _<^{}(\mathrm{𝟎})_t={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta _{ab}\varphi _{<\mathrm{a}}(𝐱)\varphi _{<\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{𝟎})_t`$

is well understood. The unstable long-wavelength modes grow exponentially fast. If the power spectrum of the field fluctuations is defined by

$$G_<(r,t)=_{k<\mu }\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}P(k,t)e^{i𝐤.𝐱}$$
(40)
then $`k^2P(k,t)`$ rapidly develops a ’Bragg’ peak at $`k^2=k_0^2=𝒪(\mu /t)`$.

While the Gaussian approximation is satisfied, the line-zero ensemble density $`n_{\mathrm{zero}}(t)`$ is determined completely by the short-distance behaviour of $`G_<(r,t)`$ as

$$n_{\mathrm{zero}}(t)=\overline{z_i}(𝐱)_t=\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{G_<^{\prime \prime }(0,t)}{G_<(0,t)}.$$
(41)
Since $`G_<(r,t)`$ has short-wavelength modes removed, $`G_<(0,t)`$ is finite.

Further, for this period when the self-consistent approximation is valid, the field energy $`E_t`$ of the system field $`\varphi _<`$ in a box of volume $`𝒱`$ becomes

$`E_t`$ $`=`$ $`𝒱[|\varphi _<|^2_t+\lambda (\eta ^2|\varphi _<|^2_t)^2]`$ (42)
$`=`$ $`𝒱[2\pi n_{\mathrm{zero}}(t)G_<(0,t)+\lambda (\eta ^2G_<(0,t))^2]`$ (43)
$`=`$ $`2\pi L_{\mathrm{zero}}(t)G_<(0,t)+𝒱[\lambda (\eta ^2G_<(0,t))^2].`$ (44)
As before, $`\chi `$-field fluctuations are absorbed in the definition of $`\mu ^2`$. Eq.(44) is obtained by using (41), and $`L_{\mathrm{zero}}(t)=𝒱n_{\mathrm{zero}}`$ is the total length of line zeroes, on a scale $`\mu ^1`$, in the box of volume $`𝒱`$.

We understand Eq.(44) as follows. Suppose it were valid from time $`t=0`$, when $`G_<(0,0)=O(\mu ^2)`$, until time $`t=t_{\mathrm{sp}}`$. At early times most of the system field energy (proportional to $`𝒱`$) is in fluctuations not associated with line zeroes, arising from the field potential. As time passes their energy density decreases as the system field approaches its post-transition value, becoming approximately zero. In part, this is compensated by the term, arising from the field gradients, proportional to the length $`L_{\mathrm{zero}}`$ of line zeroes, whose energy per unit length increases from $`O(\mu ^2)`$ to $`O(\eta ^2)`$. At time $`t_{\mathrm{sp}}`$, when the fluctuation energy can be ignored, we find

$$E_tL_{\mathrm{zero}}\sigma ,$$
(45)
essentially the energy required to produce a vortex tangle of length $`L_{\mathrm{zero}}`$ (up to $`O(1)`$ factors from the logarithmic tails). Although these line zeroes have the topological charge and energy of vortices, they are not yet fully-fledged defects. Initially, $`G_<(r,t)`$ is very dependent on the value of the cut-off. As a result, line-zeroes are extremely fractal, with a separation proportional to the scale at which they are viewed, and are certainly not candidates for defects. Once the ’Bragg peak’ at $`k=k_0`$ is firmly in the interval $`k<\mu `$, $`n_{\mathrm{zero}}(t)`$ becomes insensitive to a cut-off $`O(\mu ^1)`$. This means that line-zeroes are straight at this scale, although they can be approximately random walks at much larger scales. For sufficiently weak couplings their density this has happened by time $`t_{\mathrm{sp}}`$. The final coupling of radial to angular modes that turns these proto-vortices into vortices incurs no significant energy change, and $`n_{\mathrm{zero}}`$ of (41) is a reliable guide for the initial vortex density.

## VI Final comments

The mechanism for vortex production that we have proposed here has two parts. Firstly, the environment renders the order-parameter field classical at early times $`t_Dt_{\mathrm{sp}}`$, by or before the transition is complete. Secondly, classical defects evolve from line-zeroes whose resultant density can already be inferred in the linear regime, but whose specific attributes are a consequence of the non-linear Langevin equations at the spinodal time $`t_{\mathrm{sp}}`$.

This is very different from traditional explanations, and we conclude with a brief summary of them.

An early explanation, originally due to Kibble, and still of common currency, is that thermal fluctuations in the Ginzburg regime might lead to the production of vortices, again at early times. The reason is the following: once we are below $`T_\mathrm{c}`$, the Ginzburg temperature $`T_\mathrm{G}<T_\mathrm{c}`$ signals the temperature above which there is a significant probability for thermal fluctuations between one degenerate groundstate and another on the scale of the correlation length at that temperature. That is, the thermal energy in such a fluctuation matches the energy required to pass over the hump of the unstable minimum. This picture presupposes a slow quench, and cannot be accommodated in the instantaneous quench approximation that we have used here. However, our suggestion that defects only appear at, or about, the spinodal time $`t_{\mathrm{sp}}`$ at a density given by the density of line zeroes is totally at variance with this picture, and thermal activation is not the relevant mechanism.

In fact, this was recognised early by Kibble himself, with his later emphasis on strong causal bounds. It had been noted earlier that the field must behave independently in initially space-like separated regions. When these domains with different vacua become causally connected we expect defects to link them. This gives late-time predictions that we cannot address with our early-time analysis. A more powerful variant on this theme identifies the time at which defects first appear as the time the adiabatic (long-distance) correlation decreases at the speed of light. This time, and the resultant density, depends on the quench time $`\tau _\mathrm{Q}`$. There are also difficulties with this in that we have seen that the separation of line-zeroes are obtained from the short-distance behaviour of $`G_<(r,t)`$. The argument was not posed for instantaneous quenches of the type discussed above, which correspond to $`\tau _\mathrm{Q}=O(\mu ^1)`$ for which, if taken literally, it would give defect formation from time $`O(\mu ^1)`$, again incorrect. We are in the process of extending the analysis above to slower quenches to make the comparison with the predictions of  more useful.

Subsequently, two approaches have been adopted. In the first, motivated by condensed matter physics, for which similar causal arguments apply, phenomenological classical stochastic Langevin equations have been proposed (e.g. see ) for the evolution of the fields from early times. These are the counterpart of the phenomenological time-dependent Ginzburg-Landau equations of condensed matter and assume classical probabilities from the beginning. However, unlike the intermediate-time Langevin equations derived previously, these equations do not have multiplicative dissipation and multiplicative noise. The second approach is intrinsically quantum mechanical, treating the quantum field as a closed system. Although classical correlations are present in the localisation of the Wigner functional, even for such closed systems, it is difficult to identify defects easily, given that there are no classical probabilities at early times. At best, there is late-time dephasing. The mechanism proposed in this paper is totally different.

###### Acknowledgements.

F.C.L. and F.D.M. were supported by Universidad de Buenos Aires, CONICET (Argentina), Fundación Antorchas and ANPCyT. R.J.R. was supported in part by the COSLAB programme of the European Science Foundation. We also thank the organisers of the Peyresq meeting.


format: text

text:
# Toroidal configuration of the orbit of the electron of the hydrogen atom under strong external magnetic fields

## 1 Introduction

Weak external static uniform magnetic field $`B`$ causes anomalous Zeeman splitting of the energy levels of the hydrogen atom, with ignorably small effect on the charge distribution of the electron. In the case of a more intense magnetic field which is strong enough to cause decoupling of a spin-orbital interaction (in atoms), $`e\mathrm{}B/2mc>\mathrm{\Delta }E_{jj^{}}10^3`$ eV, i.e. $`B10^5`$ Gauss, a normal Zeeman effect is observed, again with ignorably small deformation of the electron orbits.

In the case of weak external magnetic field $`B`$, one can ignore the quadratic term in the field $`B`$ because its contribution is small in comparison with that of the other terms in Schrödinger equation so that the linear approximation in the field $`B`$ can be used. In such a linear approximation, the wave function of electron remains unperturbed, with the only effect being the well known Zeeman splitting of the energy levels of the hydrogen atom. In both Zeeman effects, the energy of interaction of electron with the magnetic field is assumed to be much smaller than the binding energy of the hydrogen atom, $`e\mathrm{}B/2mcme^4/2\mathrm{}^2=13.6`$ eV, i.e. the intensity of the magnetic field is much smaller than some characteristic value, $`BB_0=2.410^9`$ Gauss = 240000 Tesla (1 Tesla = $`10^4`$ Gauss). Thus, the action of a weak magnetic field can be treated as a small perturbation of the hydrogen atom.

In the case of very strong magnetic field, $`BB_0`$, the quadratic term in the field $`B`$ makes a great contribution and can not be ignored. Calculations show that a considerable deformation of the electron charge distribution in the hydrogen atom occurs. Namely, under the influence of a very strong external magnetic field a magnetic confinement takes place, i.e. in the plane perpendicular to the direction of magnetic field the electron dynamics is determined mainly by the action of the magnetic field, while the Coulomb interaction of the electron with the nucleus can be viewed as a small perturbation. This adiabatic approximation allows one to separate variables in Schrödinger equation . At the same time, in the direction along the direction of the magnetic field the motion of electron is governed both by the magnetic field effects and the Coulomb interaction of the electron with the nucleus.

In this paper we briefly review some results on the hydrogen atom in very strong external static uniform magnetic fields, focusing on the basic physical picture derived from the Schrödinger equation. Our consideration of the problem of atoms and molecules exposed to strong external magnetic field is related to MagneGas technology and PlasmaArcFlow hadronic molecular reactors recently developed by Santilli .

The highest intensities maintained macroscopically at large distances in modern magnet laboratories are of the order of $`10^5\mathrm{}10^6`$ Gauss ($``$ 50 Tesla), i.e. much below $`B_0=2.410^9`$ Gauss ($`10^5`$ Tesla). An extremely intense external magnetic field, $`BB_S=B_0/\alpha ^2=4.410^{13}`$ Gauss, corresponds to the interaction energy of the order of mass of electron, $`mc^2=0.5`$ MeV; $`\alpha =e^2/\mathrm{}c`$ is the fine structure constant. In this case, despite the fact that the extremely strong magnetic field does not make vacuum unstable in respect to creation of electron-positron pairs, one should account for relativistic and quantum electrodynamics (QED) effects, and invoke Dirac or Bethe-Salpeter equation. Such intensities are not currently available in laboratories. However, these are of interest in astrophysics, for example in studying an atmosphere of neutron stars and white dwarfs which is characterized by $`B10^9\mathrm{}10^{13}`$ Gauss.

In this paper, we shall not consider intensities as high as Schwinger value $`B_S`$, and restrict our review by the intensities $`2.410^{10}B2.410^{11}`$ Gauss ($`10B_0\mathrm{}100B_0`$), at which (nonrelativistic) Schrödinger equation can be used to a very good accuracy, and the adiabatic approximation can be made.

Relativistic and QED effects (loop contributions), as well as the effects such as those related to the finite mass, size, and magnetic moment of the nucleus, and the finite electromagnetic radius of electron, reveal themselves even at low magnetic field intensities, and can be accounted for as very small perturbations. These are beyond the scope of the present paper, while being of much importance in the high precision studies, such as those on stringent tests of the Lamb shift.

It should be noted that a locally high-intensity magnetic field may arise in the plasma as the result of nonlinear effects, which can lead to creation of stable self-confined structures having a nontrivial topology with knots . Particularly, Faddeev and Niemi  recently argued that the static equilibrium configurations within the plasma are topologically stable solitons, that describe knotted and linked fluxtubes of helical magnetic fields. In the region close to such fluxtubes, we suppose the magnetic field intensity may be as high as $`B_0`$. In view of this, study of the action of strong magnetic field and the fluxtubes of magnetic fields on atoms and molecules becomes of much interest in theoretical and applicational plasmachemistry.

Possible applications are in MagneGas technology, theoretical foundations and exciting implications of which are developed by Santilli . We refer the reader to Ref.  for the recent studies, description, and applications of MagneGas technology and PlasmaArcFlow reactors. Remarkable experimental results, including Gas-Chromatographic Mass-Spectroscopic and InfraRed spectrum data of Santilli’s magnegas, clearly indicates the presence of unconventional chemical species of magnecules, which have not been identified as conventional molecules, and are supposed to be due to the specific bonding of a magnetic origin. The basic physical picture of the magnecules proposed by Santilli  is related to the toroidal orbitals of the electrons of atoms exposed to a very strong magnetic field. The results of the present paper demonstrate this physical picture on the basis of the Schrödinger equation.

As the result of the action of very strong magnetic field, atoms attain great binding energy as compared to the case of zero magnetic field. Even at intermediate $`BB_0`$, the binding energy of atoms greatly deviates from that of zero-field case, and even lower field intensities may essentially affect chemical properties of molecules of heavy atoms. This enables creation of various other bound states in molecules, clusters and bulk matter .

The paper by Lai , who focused on very strong magnetic fields, $`BB_0`$, motivated by the astrophysical applications, gives a good survey of the early and recent studies in this field, including those on the intermediate range, $`BB_0`$, multi-electron atoms, and H2 molecule. Much number of papers using variational/numerical and/or analytical approaches to the problem of light and heavy atoms, ions, and H2 molecule in strong magnetic field, have been published within the last six years (see, e.g., references in ). However, highly magnetized molecules of heavy atoms have not been systematically investigated. One of the surprising implications is that for some diatomic molecules of heavy atoms, the molecular binding energy is predicted to be several times bigger than the ground state energy of individual atoms.

## 2 Landau levels of a single electron

To estimate intensity of the magnetic field which causes a considerable deformation of the ground state electron orbit of the hydrogen atom, one can formally compare the Bohr radius of the hydrogen atom in the ground state, in zero external magnetic field, $`a_0=\mathrm{}^2/me^20.5310^8`$ cm = 1 a.u., with the radius of orbit of a single electron moving in the external static uniform magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{B}`$. Below, we give a brief summary of the latter issue.

The mean radius of the orbital of a single electron moving in a static uniform magnetic field can be calculated exactly using Schrödinger equation, and is given by

$$R_n=\sqrt{\frac{n+1/2}{\gamma }},$$
(2.1)
where we have denoted

$$\gamma =\frac{eH}{2\mathrm{}c},$$
(2.2)
$`B`$ is the intensity of the magnetic field pointed along the $`z`$ axis, $`\stackrel{}{B}=(0,0,B)`$, $`\stackrel{}{r}=(r,\phi ,z)`$ in cylindrical coordinates, and $`n=0,1,\mathrm{}`$ is the principal quantum number. Thus, the radius of the orbit takes discrete set of values (2.1), and is referred to as Landau radius. This is in contrast to the well known classical motion of electron in the external magnetic field (a helical curve is shown in Fig. 1), with the radius of the orbit being of a continuous set of values. The classical approach evidently can not be applied to study dynamics of the electron at atomic distances.

Corresponding energy levels $`E_n`$ of a single electron moving in the external magnetic field are referred to as Landau energy levels,

$$E_n=E_n^{}+E_{k_z}^{}=\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }(n+\frac{1}{2})+\frac{\mathrm{}^2k_z^2}{2m},$$
(2.3)
where

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{eH}{mc}$$
(2.4)
is so called cyclotron frequency, and $`\mathrm{}k_z`$ is a projection of the electron’s momentum $`\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{k}`$ on the direction of the magnetic field, $`\mathrm{}<k_z<\mathrm{}`$, $`m`$ is the mass of electron, and $`e`$ is the charge of electron.

Landau energy levels $`E_n^{}`$ correspond to a discrete set of round orbits of electron which are projected to the transverse plane. The energy $`E_{k_z}^{}`$ corresponds to the free motion of electron in parallel to the magnetic field (continuous spectrum), with a conserved momentum $`\mathrm{}k_z`$ along the magnetic field.

Regarding the above presented review of Landau’s results, we remind that in the general case of uniform external magnetic field the coordinate and spin components of the total wave function of the electron can always be separated.

The corresponding coordinate component of the total wave function of the electron, obtained as an exact solution of Schrödinger equation for a single electron moving in the external magnetic field with vector-potential chosen as $`A_r=A_z=0`$, $`A_\phi =rH/2`$),

$$\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\left(_r^2+\frac{1}{r}_r+\frac{1}{r^2}_\phi ^2+_z^2\gamma ^2r^2+2i\gamma _\phi \right)\psi =E\psi ,$$
(2.5)
is of the following form :

$$\psi _{n,s,k_z}(r,\phi ,z)=\sqrt{2\gamma }I_{ns}(\gamma r^2)\frac{e^{il\phi }}{\sqrt{2\pi }}\frac{e^{ik_zz}}{\sqrt{L}},$$
(2.6)
where $`I_{ns}(\rho )`$ is Laguerre function,

$$I_{ns}(\rho )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n!s!}}e^{\rho /2}\rho ^{(ns)/2}Q_s^{ns}(\rho );$$
(2.7)
$`Q_s^{ns}`$ is Laguerre polynomial, $`L`$ is normalization constant, $`l=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}`$ is azimuthal quantum number, $`s=nl`$ is the radial quantum number, and we have denoted, for brevity,

$$\rho =\gamma r^2.$$
(2.8)
The wave function (2.6) depends on the angle $`\phi `$ as $`\mathrm{exp}[il\phi ]`$, and the energy (2.3) does not depend on the azimuthal quantum number $`l`$, so the system reveals a rotational symmetry in respect to the angle $`\phi `$ and all the Landau orbits are round.

Also, the energy (2.3) does not depend on the radial quantum number $`s`$. This means a degeneracy of the system in respect to the position of the center of the orbit, and corresponds to an ”unfixed” position of the center. At $`ns>0`$, the origin of the coordinate system is inside the orbit while at $`ns<0`$ it is outside the orbit. The mean distance $`d`$ between the origin of coordinate system and the center of orbit takes a discrete set of values, and is related to the quantum number $`s`$ as follows:

$$d=\sqrt{\frac{s+1/2}{\gamma }}.$$
(2.9)
Clearly, the energy (2.3) does not depend on this distance because of the homogeneity of the magnetic field, so it does not depend on $`s`$. However, it should be noted that the whole Landau orbit can not move on the ($`r,\phi `$) plane continuously along the variation of the coordinate $`r`$. Instead, it can only ”jump” to a certain distance, which depends on the intensity of the magnetic field, in accord to Eq. (2.9).

The spin components of the total wave function are trivially

$$\psi (\frac{1}{2})=\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\end{array}\right),\psi (\frac{1}{2})=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\end{array}\right),$$
(2.10)
with the corresponding energies

$$E_{spin}=\pm \mu _0B,$$
(2.11)
to be added to the energy (2.3). Here,

$$\mu _0=\frac{e\mathrm{}}{2mc}9.310^{21}\text{ erg}\text{Gauss}^1=5.810^9\text{ eV}\text{Gauss}^1$$
(2.12)
is Bohr magneton. Below, we do not consider the energy (2.11) related to the interaction of the spin of electron with the external magnetic field because it decouples from the orbital motion and can be accounted for separately. As to the numerical estimation, at $`B=B_0=2.410^9`$ Gauss, the energy $`E_{spin}\pm 13.6`$ eV.

For the ground level, i.e. at $`n=0`$ and $`s=0`$, and zero momentum of the electron in the $`z`$-direction, i.e. $`\mathrm{}k_z=0`$, we have from (2.3)

$$E_0^{}=\frac{e\mathrm{}B}{2mc},$$
(2.13)
and due to Eq. (2.6) the corresponding normalized ground state wave function is

$$\psi _{000}(r,\phi ,z)=\psi _{000}(r)=\sqrt{\frac{\gamma }{\pi }}e^{\gamma r^2/2},$$
(2.14)
$`_0^{\mathrm{}}_0^{2\pi }r𝑑r𝑑\phi |\psi _{000}|^2=1`$.

The corresponding (smallest) Landau radius of the orbit of electron is

$$R_0=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{}c}{eB}}\sqrt{\frac{1}{2\gamma }},$$
(2.15)
in terms of which $`\psi _{000}`$ reads

$$\psi _{000}=\sqrt{\frac{1}{2\pi R_0^2}}e^{\frac{r^2}{4R_0^2}}.$$
(2.16)
Figure 2 depicts ground state wave function of a single electron, $`\psi _{000}`$, in strong external magnetic field $`B=B_0=2.410^9`$ Gauss ($`R_0=1`$ a.u.), and (for a comparison) of the hydrogen ground state wave function, at zero external magnetic field, $`(1/\sqrt{\pi })e^{r/a_0}`$. Figures 3 and 4 display the associated probability density of electron as a function of the distance $`r`$ from the center of the orbit, the radius of which is about 1 a.u.

The condition that the Landau radius $`R_0`$ is smaller than the Bohr radius, $`R_0<a_0`$, which is adopted here as the condition of a considerable ”deformation” of the electron orbit of the hydrogen atom, then implies

$$B>B_0=\frac{m^2ce^3}{\mathrm{}^3}=2.35110^9\text{ Gauss},$$
(2.17)
where $`m`$ is mass of electron. Equivalently, this deformation condition corresponds to the case when the binding energy of the hydrogen atom, $`|E_0^{Bohr}|=|me^4/2\mathrm{}^2|=0.5`$ a.u. = 13.6 eV, is smaller than the ground Landau energy $`E_0^{}`$.

The above critical value of the magnetic field, $`B_0`$, is naturally taken as an atomic unit for the strength of the magnetic field, and corresponds to the case when the pure Coulomb interaction energy of electron with nucleus is equal to the interaction energy of a single electron with the external magnetic field, $`|E_0^{Bohr}|=E_0^{}=13.6`$ eV, or equivalently, when the Bohr radius is equal to the Landau radius, $`a_0=R_0=0.5310^8`$ cm.

It should be stressed here that we take the characteristic parameters, Bohr energy $`|E_0^{Bohr}|`$ and Bohr radius $`a_0`$, of the hydrogen atom with a single purpose to establish criterium for the critical strength of the external magnetic field, for the hydrogen atom under consideration. For other atoms the critical value of the magnetic field may be evidently different.

## 3 Hydrogen atom in magnetic fields

After we have considered quantum dynamics of a single electron in the external magnetic field, we turn to consideration of the hydrogen atom in the external static uniform magnetic field.

We choose cylindrical coordinate system $`(r,\phi ,z)`$, in which the external magnetic field is $`\stackrel{}{B}=(0,0,B)`$, i.e., the magnetic field is directed along the $`z`$-axis. General Schrödinger equation for the electron moving around a fixed proton (Born-Oppenheimer approximation) in the presence of the external magnetic field is

$$\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\left(_r^2+\frac{1}{r}_r+\frac{1}{r^2}_\phi ^2+_z^2+\frac{2me^2}{\mathrm{}^2\sqrt{r^2+z^2}}\gamma ^2r^2+2i\gamma _\phi \right)\psi =E\psi ,$$
(3.1)
where $`\gamma =eH/2\mathrm{}c`$. Note the presence of the term $`2i\gamma _\phi `$, which is linear in $`B`$, and of the term $`\gamma ^2r^2`$, which is quadratic in $`B`$. The other terms do not depend on the magnetic field $`B`$.

The main problem in the nonrelativistic study of the hydrogen atom in the external magnetic field is to solve the above Schrödinger equation and find the energy spectrum.

In this equation, we can not directly separate all the variables, $`r`$, $`\phi `$, and $`z`$, because of the presence of the Coulomb potential, $`e^2/\sqrt{r^2+z^2}`$, which does not allow us to make a direct separation in variables $`r`$ and $`z`$.

Also, for the general case of an arbitrary intensity of the magnetic field, we can not ignore the term $`\gamma ^2r^2`$ in Eq. (3.1), which is quadratic in $`B`$, since this term is not small at high intensities of the magnetic field.

For example, at small intensities, $`B2.410^4`$ Gauss $`=2.4`$ Tesla, the parameter $`\gamma =eH/2\mathrm{}c1.710^{11}`$ cm-2 so that for $`r0.510^8`$ cm we get the estimation $`\gamma ^2r^210^6`$ cm-2 and Landau energy $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }/2`$ is of the order of $`10^4`$ eV, while at high intensities, $`BB_0=2.410^9`$ Gauss $`=2.410^5`$ Tesla, the parameter $`\gamma =\gamma _01.710^{16}`$ cm-2 so that the estimations are: $`\gamma ^2r^210^{16}`$ cm-2 (greater by ten orders) and the ground Landau energy is about 13.6 eV (greater by five orders).

Below, we turn to approximate ground state solution of Eq. (3.1) for the case of very strong magnetic field.

### 3.1 Very strong magnetic field

Let us consider the approximation of a very strong magnetic field,

$$BB_0=2.410^9\text{ Gauss}.$$
(3.2)
Under the above condition, in the transverse plane the Coulomb interaction of the electron with the nucleus is not important in comparison with the interaction of the electron with the external magnetic field. So, in accord to the exact solution (2.6) for a single electron, one can seek for an approximate ground state solution of Eq. (3.1) in the form (see, e.g. ) of factorized transverse and longitudinal parts,

$$\psi =e^{\gamma r^2/2}\chi (z),$$
(3.3)
where we have used Landau wave function (2.14), $`s=0`$, $`l=0`$, and $`\chi (z)`$ denotes the longitudinal wave function to be found. This is so called adiabatic approximation. The charge distribution of the electron in the $`(r,\phi )`$ plane is thus characterized by the Landau wave function $`e^{\gamma r^2/2}`$, i.e. by the azimuthal symmetry.

In general, the adiabatic approximation corresponds to the case when the transverse motion of electron is totally determined by the intense magnetic field, which makes it ”dance” at its cyclotron frequency. Specifically, the radius of the orbit is then much smaller than the Bohr radius, $`R_0a_0`$, or, equivalently, the Landau energy of electron is much bigger than the Bohr energy $`E_0^{}|E_0^{Bohr}|=13.6`$ eV. In other words, this approximation means that the interaction of electron with the nucleus in the transverse plane is ignorably small (it is estimated to make about 2% correction at $`B10^{12}`$ Gauss), and the energy spectrum in this plane is defined solely by the Landau levels. The remaining problem is thus to find the longitudinal energy spectrum, in the $`z`$ direction.

Inserting wave function (3.3) into the Schrödinger equation (3.1), multiplying it by $`\psi ^{}`$, and integrating over variables $`r`$ and $`\phi `$ in cylindrical coordinate system, we get the following equation characterizing the $`z`$ dependence of the wave function:

$$\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\frac{d^2}{dz^2}+\frac{\mathrm{}^2\gamma }{m}+C(z)\right)\chi (z)=E\chi (z),$$
(3.4)
where

$$C(z)=\sqrt{\gamma }e^2_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{e^\rho }{\sqrt{\rho +\gamma z^2}}𝑑\rho =e^2\sqrt{\pi \gamma }e^{\gamma z^2}\mathrm{erfc}(\sqrt{\gamma }|z|),$$
(3.5)
erfc$`(x)=1`$erf$`(x)`$, and

$$\mathrm{erf}(x)=\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi }}\underset{0}{\overset{x}{}}e^{t^2}𝑑t$$
(3.6)
is error function.

In Fig. 5, the exact potential $`C(z)`$ is plotted, at $`B=2.410^{11}`$ Gauss $`=100B_0`$, for which case the lowest point of the potential is about $`C(0)337`$ eV. In this case, in the $`(r,\phi )`$ plane, the hydrogen atom is characterized by the Landau energy $`E_0^{}=1360`$ eV $`13.6`$ eV, Landau radius $`R_0=0.510^9`$ cm $`0.510^8`$ cm, and the cyclotron frequency is $`\mathrm{\Omega }=410^{18}`$ sec-1. For a comparison, the Coulomb potential $`e^2/|z|`$ is also shown. One can see that the Coulomb potential does not reproduce the effective potential $`C(z)`$ to a good accuracy at small $`z`$.

The arising effective potential $`C(z)`$ is of a nontrivial form, which does not allow us to solve Eq. (3.4) analytically. Below we approximate it by simple potentials, to make estimation on the ground state energy and wave function of the hydrogen atom.

#### 3.1.1 The Coulomb potential approximation

At high intensity of the magnetic field, $`\gamma 1`$ so that under the condition $`\gamma z^21`$ we can ignore $`\rho `$ in the square root in the integrand in Eq. (3.5). Then, one can perform the simplified integral and obtain the result

$$C(z)V(z)=\frac{e^2}{|z|},\text{ at }\gamma z^21,$$
(3.7)
which appears to be a pure Coulomb interaction of electron with the nucleus, in the $`z`$ direction. Therefore, Eq. (3.4) reduces to one-dimensional Schrödinger equation for Coulomb potential,

$$\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\frac{d^2}{dz^2}+\frac{e^2}{|z|}+\frac{\mathrm{}^2\gamma }{m}+E\right)\chi (z)=0.$$
(3.8)
In atomic units ($`e=\mathrm{}=m=1`$), using the notation

$$E^{}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2\gamma }{m}+E,n^2=\frac{1}{2E^{}},$$
(3.9)
and introducing new variable

$$x=\frac{2z}{n},$$
(3.10)
we rewrite the above equation in the following form:

$$\left[\frac{d}{dx^2}+\left(\frac{1}{4}+\frac{n}{x}\right)\right]\chi (x)=0,$$
(3.11)
where we assume, to simplify representation, $`x>0`$. Introducing new function $`v(x)`$,

$$\chi (x)=xe^{x/2}v(x),$$
(3.12)
we get the final form of the equation,

$$xv^{\prime \prime }+(2x)v^{}(1n)v=0.$$
(3.13)
Note that this equation is identical to that obtained for the radial part of the three-dimensional Schrödinger equation for the hydrogen atom, at orbital quantum number zero. We note that it is a particular case of Cummer’s equation,

$$xv^{\prime \prime }+(bx)v^{}av=0,$$
(3.14)
the general solution of which is given by

$$v(x)=C_1{}_{1}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b,x)+C_2U(a,b,x)$$
(3.15)
where

$${}_{1}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b,x)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(b)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(ba)\mathrm{\Gamma }(a)}_0^1e^{xt}t^{a1}(1t)^{ba1}𝑑t$$
(3.16)
and

$$U(a,b,x)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(a)}_0^{\mathrm{}}e^{xt}t^{a1}(1+t)^{ba1}𝑑t$$
(3.17)
are the confluent hypergeometric functions, and $`C_{1,2}`$ are constants. In our case, $`a=1n`$ and $`b=2`$.

For the wave function $`\chi (x)`$, we then have

$$\chi (x)=|x|e^{|x|/2}\left[C_1^\pm {}_{1}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(1n,2,|x|)+C_2^\pm U(1n,2,|x|)\right],$$
(3.18)
where $`x`$ given by Eq. (3.10) is now allowed to have any real value, and the ”$`\pm `$” sign in $`C_{1,2}^\pm `$ corresponds to the positive and negative values of $`x`$, respectively (the modulus sign is used for brevity).

Now we turn to the normalization issue.

The first hypergeometric function $`{}_{1}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(1n,2,x)`$ is finite at $`x=0`$ for any $`n`$. At big $`x`$, it diverges exponentially, unless $`n`$ is an integer number, $`n=1,2,\mathrm{},`$ at which case it diverges polynomially.

The second hypergeometric function $`U(1n,2,x)`$ behaves differently, somewhat as a mirror image of the first one. In the limit $`x0`$, it is finite for integer $`n=1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$, and diverges as $`1/x`$ for noninteger $`n>1`$ and for $`0n<1`$. In the limit $`x\mathrm{}`$, it diverges polynomially for integer $`n`$, tends to zero for noninteger $`n>1`$ and for $`n=0`$, and diverges for noninteger $`0<n<1`$. In Figs. 18 and 19 of Appendix, the hypergeometric functions $`{}_{1}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(1n,2,x)`$ and $`U(1n,2,x)`$ for $`n=0,1/4,1/2,1,3/2,2,5/2,3`$ are depicted ($`n`$ may be taken, for example, $`n=0.133`$ as well).

In general, because of the prefactor $`xe^{x/2}`$ in the solution (3.18) which cancels some of the divergencies arising from the hypergeometric functions, we should take into account both of the two linearly independent solutions, to get the most general form of normalizable wave functions.

As a consequence, the eigenvalues may differ from those corresponding to $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ (which is an analogue of the principal quantum number in the ordinary hydrogen atom) so that $`n`$ is allowed to take some non-integer values from 0 to $`\mathrm{}`$, provided that the wave function is normalizable.

We are interested in the ground state solution, which is an even state. For even states, in accord to the symmetry of the wave function under the inversion $`zz`$, we have

$$C_1^+=C_1^{},C_2^+=C_2^{},\chi ^{}(0)=0.$$
(3.19)
Also, since $`n=1`$ gives $`E^{}=1/(2n^2)=1/2`$ a.u., we should seek a normalizable wave function for $`n`$ in the interval $`0<n<1`$, in order to achieve the energy value, which is lower than $`1/2`$ a.u. If it is successful, the value $`n=1`$ indeed does not characterize the ground state. Instead, it may correspond to some excited state.

One can see that the problem is in a remarkable difference from the ordinary three-dimensional problem of the hydrogen atom, for which the principal quantum number $`n`$ must be integer to get normalizable wave functions, and the value $`n=1`$ corresponds to the lowest energy. The distinction is due to the fact that the additional factor $`x`$ in the solution (3.18) does not cancel in the total wave function111In the three-dimensional Coulomb problem it does cancel in the total wave function..

We restrict consideration by the even state so we can focus on the $`x0`$ domain, and drop the modulus sign,

$$\chi (x)=xe^{x/2}\left[C_1^\pm {}_{1}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(1n,2,x)+C_2^\pm U(1n,2,x)\right].$$
(3.20)
In summary, the problem is to identify a minimal value of $`n`$ in the interval $`0<n1`$, at which the wave function $`\chi (x)`$ represented by a combination of the two linearly independent solutions is normalizable and obeys the conditions (3.19).

The condition $`\chi ^{}(0)=0`$ implies

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{2}e^{x/2}[C_1((2x){}_{1}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(1n,2,x)+(1n)x{}_{1}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(2n,3,x))+\\ +C_2((2x)U(1n,2,x)2(1n)xU(2n,3,x))]_{|x=0}=0.\end{array}$$
(3.21)
The function $`{}_{1}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(1n,2,x)`$ is well-defined at $`x=0`$ for any $`n`$. The function $`U(1n,2,x)`$ for small $`x`$ behaves as $`x^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^1(1n)`$ so for $`x=0`$ it appears to be infinite, unless $`n=1`$. The function $`U(2n,3,x)`$ for small $`x`$ behaves as $`x^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^1(2n)`$ so for $`x=0`$ it diverges ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }(a)`$ is Euler gamma function). Therefore, there is no way to satisfy the above condition unless we put $`C_2=0`$, i.e. eliminate the second hypergeometric function, $`U(1n,2,x)`$, as an unphysical solution. As the result, only the first hypergeometric function determines the wave function, at which case it is well-defined only for integer $`n`$.

For the first hypergeometric function as the remaining solution, the situation is well known,

$${}_{1}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b,|x|)_{|x=0}=1,\frac{d}{dx}{}_{1}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b,x)_{|x=0}=\frac{a}{b}.$$
(3.22)
We take $`n=1`$ as this value implies the lowest energy $`E^{}`$ in this case. The energy for $`n=1`$ is $`E^{}=1/2`$ a.u., i.e.

$$E=\frac{me^4}{2\mathrm{}^2}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega },$$
(3.23)
where we have used $`\mathrm{}^2\gamma /m=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ due to Eqs. (2.2) and (2.4).

Thus, the particular state $`n=1`$ of the hydrogen atom is characterized by usual Bohr distance $`a_0`$ in the $`z`$ direction, with the longitudinal wave function

$$\chi (z)|z|e^{|z|/a_0}.$$
(3.24)
In addition, it is easy to check directly, without using the general hypergeometric function technique, that $`\chi (z)=ze^z`$ satisfies the equation $`(\frac{1}{2}d^2/dz^2+1/z+ϵ)\chi (z)=0`$, for $`ϵ=1/2`$.

In the $`(r,\phi )`$ plane ($`n=0,s=0`$) the orbit is characterized by the Landau radius $`R_0a_0`$, with the Landau wave function $`e^{r^2/4R_0^2}`$, and the Landau energy $`E_0^{}`$ given by the second term in Eq. (3.23). Thus, the $`n=1`$ wave function in the Coulomb approximation is written as

$$\psi (r,\phi ,z)\sqrt{\frac{\gamma }{\pi }}ze^{\gamma r^2/2|z|/a_0}=\sqrt{\frac{1}{2\pi R_0^2}}ze^{\frac{r^2}{4R_0^2}\frac{|z|}{a_0}}.$$
(3.25)
Also, spin of the electron for the ground state is aligned antiparallel to the magnetic field.

The associated probability density is evidently of a cylindrical (axial) symmetry and can be described as two Landau orbits of radius $`R_0`$ in different $`(r,\phi )`$ planes, one at the level $`z=a_0`$, and the other at the level $`z=+a_0`$, with the nucleus at $`z=0`$, as schematically depicted in Fig. 6. Presence of two Landau orbits occurs in accord to the wave function (3.25), which equals zero at $`z=0`$ and is symmetrical with respect to the inversion, $`zz`$. The electron moves simultaneously on these two orbits.

The above electron charge distribution supports the study made by Santilli  who proposed the polarized toroidal electron orbit in the hydrogen atom under the action of strong magnetic field, but the Coulomb approximation suggests the electron charge distribution in the form of two identical coaxial round orbits separated by relatively big vertical distance; see Fig. 6.

Note that the size of the hydrogen atom in the $`z`$ direction is predicted to be about 10 times bigger than that in the transverse plane, i.e. $`R_0=0.5310^9`$ cm $`0.1a_0`$; the hydrogen atom is thus highly elongated in the $`z`$ direction (this ratio is not kept in Fig. 6). The cyclotron frequency (2.4) is of about $`410^{18}`$ sec-1. Classically, the linear velocity of the electron on such an orbit is $`v=2\pi R_0\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and is estimated to be $`v=1.310^{10}`$ cm/sec $`0.4c`$.

We should to note here that Landau radius $`R_0`$, at $`B=2.410^{11}`$ Gauss $`=100B_0`$, is about ten times bigger than Compton wavelength of electron, $`\lambda _e/2\pi 0.410^{10}`$ cm, hence we can ignore quantum electrodynamics effects.

Finally, it should be noted that the above used Coulomb approximation is rather a crude one (see Fig. 5). Indeed, the energy in the $`z`$-direction does not depend on the magnetic field intensity while it is obvious that it should depend on it. In the next Section, we approximate the effective potential $`C(z)`$ with a better accuracy.

#### 3.1.2 The modified Coulomb potential approximation

We note that due to the exact result (3.5), the effective potential $`C(z)`$ tends to zero as $`z\mathrm{}`$ (not a surprise). However, a remarkable implication of the exact result is that $`C(z)`$ is finite at $`z=0`$, namely,

$$C(0)=\sqrt{\pi \gamma }e^2,$$
(3.26)
so that the effective potential $`C(z)`$ indeed can not be well approximated by the Coulomb potential, $`e^2/|z|`$, at small $`z`$ ($`|z|<10^8`$ cm) despite the fact that at big values of $`\gamma `$ ($`\gamma \gamma _01.710^{16}`$ cm-2) the Coulomb potential reproduces $`C(z)`$ to a good accuracy at long and medium distances. Thus, the approximation considered in Sect. 3.1.1 appears to be not valid at (important) short distances.

Consequently, Eq. (3.4) with the exactly calculated $`C(z)`$ will yield the ground state of electron in the $`z`$ direction which is drastically different from that with the Coulomb potential considered in Sect. 3.1.1. Thus, very intense magnetic field essentially affects dynamics of electron not only in the $`(r,\phi )`$ plane but also in the $`z`$ direction. We expect that for the case of exact potential (3.5) the ground state is characterized by much lower energy in the $`z`$ direction as compared to that of the one-dimensional Bohr state (3.23).

The exact potential $`C(z)`$ can be well approximated by the modified Coulomb potential,

$$C(z)V(z)=\frac{e^2}{|z|+z_0},$$
(3.27)
where $`z_0`$ is a parameter, $`z_00`$, which depends on the field intensity $`B`$ due to

$$z_0=\frac{e^2}{C(0)}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi \gamma }}=\sqrt{\frac{2\mathrm{}c}{\pi eB}}.$$
(3.28)
The analytic advantage of this approximation is that $`V(z)`$ is finite at $`z=0`$, being of Coulomb-type form.

Calculations for this approximate potential can be made in an essentially the same way as in the preceding Section, with $`|x|`$ being replaced by $`|x|+x_0`$, where $`x_0>0`$ (we remind that $`x=2z/n`$),

$$\chi (x)=(|x|+x_0)e^{(|x|+x_0)/2}\left[C_1^\pm {}_{1}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(1n,2,|x|+x_0)+C_2^\pm U(1n,2,|x|+x_0)\right].$$
(3.29)
An essential difference from the pure Coulomb potential case is that the potential (3.27) has no singularities. The $`x0`$ asymptotic of the associated second hypergeometric function, $`U(1n,2,|x|+x_0)`$ becomes well-defined for noninteger $`n`$. Thus, the condition $`\chi ^{}(x)_{|x=0}=0`$ does not lead to divergencies in the second solution for noninteger $`n<1`$. It remains only to provide well-defined behavior of the wave function at $`x\mathrm{}`$.

Analysis shows that normalizable wave functions, as a combination of two linearly independent solutions, for the modified Coulomb potential does exist for various non-integer222This is the case when one obtains a kind of ”fractional” quantum number $`n`$ which does make sense. $`n`$. We are interested in the ground state solution, so we consider the values of $`n`$ from 0 to 1. Remind that $`E^{}=1/(2n)^2`$ so that for $`n<1`$ we obtain the energy lower than $`0.5`$ a.u.

For $`n<1`$, the first hypergeometric function is not suppressed by the prefactor $`xe^{x/2}`$ in the solution (3.29) at large $`x`$ so we are led to discard it as an unphysical solution by putting $`C_1=0`$. A normalizable ground state wave function for $`n<1`$ is thus may be given by the second term in the solution (3.29). The condition $`\chi ^{}(x)_{|x=0}=0`$ implies

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{2}e^{(x+x_0)/2}C_2[(2xx_0)U(1n,2,x+x_0)\\ 2(1n)(x+x_0)U(2n,3,x+x_0))]_{|x=0}=0.\end{array}$$
(3.30)
The l.h.s of this equation depends on $`n`$ and $`x_0`$, so we can select some field intensity $`B`$, calculate associated value of the parameter $`x_0=x_0(B)`$ and find the value of $`n`$, from which we obtain the ground state energy $`E^{}`$.

On the other hand, for the ground state this condition can be viewed, vice versa, as an equation to find $`x_0`$ for some given value of $`n`$ . Hereby we reverse the order of the derivation, to simplify numerical calculations.

For example, taking the noninteger value

$$n=1/\sqrt{15.58}0.253<1$$
(3.31)
we find from Eq. (3.30) numerically

$$x_0=0.140841.$$
(3.32)
This value is in confirmation with the result $`x_0=0.141`$ obtained by Heyl and Hernquist  (see Discussion). On the other hand, $`x_0`$ is related in accord to Eq. (3.28) to the intensity of the magnetic field,

$$x_0=\frac{2z_0}{n}=\sqrt{\frac{8\mathrm{}c}{\pi n^2eB}},$$
(3.33)
from which we obtain $`B4.710^{12}`$ Gauss. Hence, at this field intensity the ground state energy of the hydrogen atom is given by $`E^{}=1/(2n^2)=15.58`$ Rydberg.

The longitudinal ground state wave function is given by

$$\chi (x)(|x|+x_0)e^{(|x|+x_0)/n}U(1n,2,|x|+x_0),$$
(3.34)
and is plotted in Fig. 7). The total wave function is

$$\chi (x)\sqrt{\frac{1}{2\pi R_0^2}}e^{\frac{r^2}{4R_0^2}}(|x|+x_0)e^{(|x|+x_0)/n}U(1n,2,|x|+x_0),$$
(3.35)
and the associated three-dimensional probability density is schematically depicted in Fig. 8.

In contrast to the double Landau-type orbit implied by the Coulomb potential approximation, the modified Coulomb potential approach provides qualitatively correct behavior and much better accuracy, and suggests a single Landau-type orbit shown in Fig. 8 for the ground state charge distribution of the hydrogen atom. This is in full agreement with Santilli’s study  of the hydrogen atom in strong magnetic field.

Only excited states are characterized by the double Landau-type orbits depicted in Fig. 6. We shall not present calculations for the excited states in the present paper, and refer the reader to Discussion for some details on the results of the study made by Heyl and Hernquist .

#### 3.1.3 Variational and numerical solutions

Review of approximate, variational, and numerical solutions can be found in the paper by Lai . Accuracy of numerical solutions is about 3%, for the external magnetic field in the range from $`10^{11}`$ to $`10^{15}`$ Gauss. Figure 9 reproduces Fig. 1 of Ref. . It represents the computed ionization energy $`Q_1`$ of the hydrogen atom and dissociation energy of H2 molecule as functions of the intensity of the magnetic field; $`B_{12}=B10^{12}`$ Gauss, i.e. $`B_{12}=1`$ means $`B=10^{12}`$ Gauss.

Due to the variational results , the $`z`$-size of the hydrogen atom in the ground state is well approximated by the formula (Fig. 10)

$$L_z\frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}(B/B_0)}\text{ a.u.};$$
(3.36)
the transverse (Landau) size is (Fig. 11)

$$L_{}\frac{1}{\sqrt{B/B_0}}\text{ a.u.};$$
(3.37)
and the ground state energy is (Fig. 12)

$$E0.16[\mathrm{ln}(B/B_0)]^2\text{ a.u.},$$
(3.38)
with the accuracy of few percents, for $`bB/B_0`$ in the range from $`10^2`$ to $`10^6`$.

One can see for $`B=100B_0`$, that the variational study predicts the ground state energy $`E=3.4`$ a.u. = $`92.5`$ eV (much lower than the value, $`0.5`$ a.u., predicted by the $`n=1`$ Coulomb approximation in Sect. 3.1.1), the transverse size $`L_{}`$ of about 0.1 a.u. (the same as in the Coulomb approximation) and the $`z`$-size $`L_z`$ of about 0.22 a.u. (much smaller than the value, 1 a.u., predicted by the Coulomb approximation). This confirms the result of the approximate analytic approach, in which $`n<1`$ implies ground state energy much lower than $`0.5`$ a.u.

## 4 Discussion

In a physical context, the used adiabatic approximation implies that the position of the nucleus is not ”fixed” in the $`(r,\phi )`$ plane. Indeed, there is no reason for the nucleus to stay ”exactly” at the center of the orbit when the Coulomb force in the transverse plane is totally ignored.

In contrast, in the $`z`$ direction, we have more complicated situation, namely, the magnetic field leads to the effective interaction potential $`C(z)`$, which is finite at $`z=0`$ and is Coulomb-like in the long-range asymptotic. Hence, the position of the nucleus remains to be fixed in the $`z`$ direction relative to the orbit of the electron (bound state).

Due to the (crude) Coulomb approximation of Sect. 3.1.1, the electron probability density of the hydrogen atom under very intense magnetic field, at $`n=1`$, appears to be of rather nontrivial form schematically depicted in Fig. 6.

More accurate approach may yield some different electron charge distributions but we expect that the symmetry requirements (namely, the axial symmetry and the (anti)symmetry under inversion $`zz`$) would lead again to a toroidal orbit, which is splitted into two identical coaxial orbits (the torii are separated) similar to that shown in Fig. 6, or to an unsplitted one (the two torii are superimposed) as shown in Fig. 8.

Accurate analytic calculation of the ground and excited hydrogen wave functions made by Heyl and Hernquist  in the adiabatic approximation leads to the longitudinal parts of the wave functions (the vertical $`z`$ dependence) shown in Fig. 13, which reproduces the original Fig. 3 of their work; $`\zeta =2\pi \alpha z/\lambda _e`$; $`B=4.710^{12}`$ Gauss. They used the modified Coulomb potential of the type (3.27), and the additional set of linearly independent solutions of the one-dimensional modified Coulomb problem in the form

$$(|x|+x_m)e^{(|x|+x_m)/2}{}_{1}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(1n,2,|x|+x_m)^{|x|+x_m}\frac{e^t}{(t{}_{1}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(1n,2,t))^2}𝑑t,$$
(4.1)
where $`m=0`$ corresponds to the ground state. For the ground state with $`n=1/\sqrt{15.58}`$, i.e. the binding energy is 15.58 Rydberg, they found $`x_0=0.141`$, which corresponds to $`B=4.710^{12}`$ Gauss. This result is in agreement with the study made in Sect. 3.1.2.

One can see from Fig. 13 that the peak of the ground state wave function $`|000`$ is at the point $`z=0`$ (see also Fig. 14 for a close view) while the largest peaks of the excited wave functions are away from the point $`z=0`$ (as it was expected to be). Consequently, the associated longitudinal probability distributions (square modules of the wave functions multiplied by the volume factor of the chosen coordinate system) are symmetric with respect to $`zz`$, and their maxima are placed in the center $`z=0`$ for the ground state, and away from the center for the excited states.

In contrast to the double toroidal orbit (Fig. 6) implied by the Coulomb approximation of Sect. 3.1.1, the modified Coulomb potential approach suggests a single toroidal orbit (Fig. 8) for the ground state charge distribution of the hydrogen atom. This confirms Santilli’s study  of the hydrogen atom in strong magnetic field. The excited states $`|00\nu `$ are characterized by a double toroidal orbit schematically depicted in Fig. 6.

The computed ground state $`|000`$ binding energy of the hydrogen atom for different field intensities are :

| Magnetic field $`B`$ | Binding energy, $`|000`$ state |
| --- | --- |
| (Gauss) | (Rydberg) |
| $`4.7\times 10^{12}`$ | 15.58 |
| $`9.4\times 10^{12}`$ | 18.80 |
| $`23.5\times 10^{12}`$ | 23.81 |
| $`4.7\times 10^{13}`$ | 28.22 |
| $`9.4\times 10^{13}`$ | 33.21 |
| $`23.5\times 10^{13}`$ | 40.75 |
| $`4.7\times 10^{14}`$ | 47.20 |

They calculated first-order perturbative corrections to the above energies and obtained the values, which are in a good agreement with the results by Lai  (see Fig. 9) and Ruder et al. .

It is remarkable to note that in very strong magnetic field, the energy differences between the excited states and the ground state of the hydrogen atom are small in comparison to the absolute value of the ground state energy. The excited states are represented by the double torii configurations since the peaks of the associated wave functions spread far away from the center $`z=0`$ in both $`+z`$ and $`z`$ directions.

The above ground state electron charge distributions strongly support the study made by Santilli  who proposed the polarized toroidal electron orbit in the hydrogen atom under the action of strong magnetic field as a physical picture at the foundation of the new chemical species of magnecules. The only addition to this picture is that the the excited states are characterized by the double torii configuration.

Since zero field ground state case is characterized by perfect spherically symmetric electron charge distribution of the hydrogen atom, intermediate intensities of the magnetic field are naturally expected to imply a distorted spherical distribution. However, deeper analysis is required for the intermediate magnetic field intensities because the adiabatic approximation is not longer valid in this case. Namely, an interesting problem is to solve the Schrödinger equation (3.1) for the case when intensity of the magnetic field is not very strong, $`BB_0`$, with the corresponding characteristic Landau ground state energy of about the Bohr energy. In this case, both the Coulomb and magnetic interactions should be taken at the same footing that leads to complications in its analytic study.

As to the multi-electron atoms, an interesting problem is to study action of a very strong external magnetic field on He atom (see. e.g., Heyl and Hernquist  and Lai ; Fig. 15) and on the multi-electron heavy atoms, with outer electrons characterized by a nonspherical charge distribution, such as the $`p`$-electrons in Carbon atom, orbitals of which penetrate the orbitals of inner electrons. Very intense magnetic field would force such outer electrons to follow small round Landau orbits. In addition to the effect of a direct action of the magnetic field on the inner electrons, a series of essential rearrangements of the whole electron structure of the atom seems to be occur with a variation of the external magnetic field strength. Indeed, the magnetic field competes with both the Coulomb energy, which is different for different states of electrons, and the electron-electron interactions, including spin pairings. However, it is evident that at sufficiently strong fields, all the electron spins are aligned antiparallel to the magnetic field — fully spin polarized configuration — while at lower field intensities various partial spin polarized configurations are possible.

In accord to the numerical calculations based on the density matrix theory approach by Johnsen and Yngvason , which is in quite good agreement with the result of Hartree-Fock approach at very strong magnetic field intensities, the inner domain in the iron atom (26 electrons) is characterized by slightly distorted spherically symmetric distribution even at the intensities as high as $`B=100B_0\mathrm{}1000B_0`$. The outer domain appears to be of specific, highly elongated distribution along the direction of the magnetic field as shown in Fig. 16. The possible interpretation that the inner electrons remain to have spherical distribution while outer electrons undergo the squeeze seems to be not correct unless the spin state of the iron atom is verified to be partially polarized. So, we can conclude that all the electrons are in highly magnetically polarized state (Landau state mixed a little by Coulomb interaction), and the electron structure is a kind of Landau multi-electron cylindrical shell, with spins of all the electrons being aligned antiparallel to the magnetic field (fully spin polarized configuration).

Another remark regarding Fig. 16 is that the contours indicating nearly spherical distribution will always appear since the Coulomb center (nucleus) is not totally eliminated from the consideration (non-adiabatic approximation), and it forces a spherical distribution to some degree, which evidently depends on the distance from the center (closer to the center, more sphericity). We note that Fig. 16 is in qualitative agreement with Fig. 6 in the sense that the predicted charge distribution reveals symmetry under the inversion $`zz`$, with the characteristic $`z`$-elongated toroidal orbits.

An exciting problem is to study H2 molecule under the action of strong external static uniform magnetic field using Schrödinger equation. Since the binding energy of H2 molecule is of about 4.75 eV (much less than 13.6 eV of individual hydrogen atoms) and two interacting electrons of spin 1/2 participate dynamics we expect interesting physical predictions. For example, it is interesting to analyze the problem of bonding, in the presence of a strong magnetic field.

However, before studying H2 molecule it would be very useful to investigate much simpler two-center system, $`H_2^+`$ ion, as it can give valuable information on the features of a two-center system under the action of a strong magnetic field. We refer the interested reader to Refs.  for details of studies on H$`{}_{}{}^{+}{}_{2}{}^{}`$ ion and H2 molecule in strong magnetic field. Figure 17 displays ground and first excited state wave functions of $`H_2^+`$ ion calculated by Heyl and Hernquist .

Finally, it should be noted that studies on the atomic and molecular systems in strong magnetic fields and related issues are becoming extensive last years. We refer the reader to a recent review by Lai  for an extensive list of references, and below present summary of some selected recent papers.

The work by Kravchenko et al.  uses an orthogonal approach and achieves very high precision by solving the general problem of the hydrogen atom in an arbitrarily strong magnetic field. This analytical work is of much importance as it provides solid ground to analyze few-electron and multi-electron atoms, and simple diatomic molecules.

A series of papers by Schmelcher et al.  is devoted to a systematic study of various simple atomic, ionic and molecular systems in strong magnetic fields via Hartree-Fock method. One of the papers by Schmelcher et al. considers the carbon atom.

Analytical approximations have been constructed by Potekhin  for binding energies, quantum mechanical sizes and oscillator strengths of main radiative transitions of hydrogen atoms arbitrarily moving in magnetic fields $`10^{12}\mathrm{}10^{13}`$ Gauss. This approach is of much importance in investigating an interaction of highly magnetized hydrogen atoms in a gaseous phase.

Computational finite element method for time-dependent Schrödinger equation has been developed by Watanabe and Tsukada  to study dynamics of electrons in a magnetic field that can be used effectively for mesoscopic systems, such as small clusters.

## Acknowledgements

The author is much grateful to R.M. Santilli for discussions and support. Additional thanks are due to M.I. Mazhitov, Karaganda State University, for stimulating discussions.

## Appendix