text:
# Meeting the Cool Neighbours, II: Photometry of southern NLTT stars

## 1 Introduction

This is the second in a series of papers which present the results of our search for previously unrecognised stars within the immediate Solar Neighbourhood. As discussed in Paper I (Reid & Cruz, 2002), the availability of large-scale sky surveys at near-infrared wavelengths, notably the 2-Microns All Sky Survey (2MASS: Skrutskie et al., 1997), in combination with published catalogues and Schmidt-based photographic observationss at optical wavelengths, has greatly enhanced our capabilities for detecting the low-luminosity main-sequence stars and brown dwarfs. The primary goal of our project, undertaken under the auspices of the NASA/NSF NStars initiative, is the identification of all late type dwarfs (concentrating on spectral types M and L) within 20 parsecs of the Sun.

As a first step towards identifying the Sun’s nearest neighbours, we have used 2MASS data to enhance an old technique, cross-referencing the infrared catalogue against proper motion stars in the New Luyten Two-Tenths Catalogue (Luyteon, 1980 - NLTT). Once correlated, we can use the ($`m_rK_S`$) colour as a crude photometric parallax estimator, with the long baseline compensating to some extent for the uncertainties in the red magnitudes. Paper I describes the definition of an initial sample of nearby-star candidates, drawn from NLTT sources which have potential 2MASS counterparts within a 10-arcsecond search radius. By applying a series of cuts in colour-magnitude and colour-colour planes, we reduced the list of 23795 optical/IR matches to 1245 sources with photometric properties consistent with their being late-type dwarfs within 20 parsecs of the Sun. These stars constitute NLTT Sample 1. Paper I compiles photometric data from the literature for 469 stars, and uses colour-magnitude relations at (MV, (V-K), (MV, (V-I)) and (MI, (I-J)) to estimate distances to those stars. Three hundred of those stars, and a further 39 ultracool (spectral type $`>`$M6) dwarfs, have formal distances of less than 20 parsecs, including 76 stars not previously included in nearby star catalogues.

The current paper continues analysis of the NLTT Sample 1, presenting optical photometry of a sample of 180 relatively-bright southern stars. The following section outlines the sample and presents the observations. Section 3 describes our procedures for estimating distances to these stars, and Section 4 discusses some of the more interesting stars in the sample. Our results are summarised in the final section.

## 2 Observations

### 2.1 The sample

As described in Paper I, the 1245 stars in NLTT Sample 1 were selected on the basis of their having locations in the ($`m_r`$, ($`m_r`$-KS)) and ((J-H)/(H-K)) planes consistent with mid- or late-type M dwarfs within 20 parsecs of the Sun. Regions within $`\pm 10^o`$ of the Galactic Plane were excluded a priori, since the NLTT catalogue has a significantly brighter limiting magnitude at those latitudes. The selected stars have magnitudes in the range $`8<m_r<20`$, with over 70% lying between 11th and 16th magnitude. They span the full range of Right Ascension, although the majority lie at northern Declination, reflecting both the areal coverage of the second incremental release of 2MASS data and incompleteness in the NLTT south of $`\delta =30^o`$. Several hundred stars, however, lie south of the equator.

Southern hemisphere proper-motion stars have generally received less attention than their northern counterparts, and, as a result, even relatively bright objects in the current sample have no previous detailed measurements. Figure 1 shows the distribution on the celestial sphere and in the ($`m_r`$, ($`m_r`$-KS)) colour-magnitude plane of the 180 NLTT dwarfs targeted here.

### 2.2 Photometry

All of the data were obtained (by DK) between February and July 2001, using the St. Andrews photometer with a Hamamatsu R943-02 GaAs photomultiplier on the 1.0-metre telescope at the Sutherland station of the South African Astronomical Observatory. Most observations were made through a 21-arcsecond diameter, though a 31-arcsecond diameter aperture was employed for poorer seeing. As discussed further below, the relatively large apertures sometimes lead to our photometry including a contribution from other stars at small angular separation.

The observations were made using a Johnson-Cousins BVRI filter set and reduced using standard techniques (Kilkenny et al., 1998). Only VRI measurements were made for most of the fainter stars. In addition to E-region standard stars (Cousins, 1973; Menzies et al., 1989), we also made substantial numbers of calibrating observations of red standards from the list of Kilkenny et al. (1998), which extends the Cousins BVRI system into the (approximate) range $`2<`$ (V-I) $`<3`$. Beyond (V-I)=3, we (and others) are extrapolating colour equations, but observations of Proxima Centauri compared to Bessell (1990) indicate we are close to his system. In any case, few stars amongst the present targets have (V-I)$`>3.`$

The results from our photometry are listed in Table 1, where we also give the positions and near-infrared data from the 2MASS catalogue. We were able to obtain two or more observations of approximately half the sample. Those repeated measurements indicate that the standard deviations for a single measurement are typically $`\sigma _V=0.015`$ mag., $`\sigma _{BV}=0.011`$, $`\sigma _{VR}=0.008`$ and $`\sigma _{VI}=0.013`$. Figure 2 compares the VRI and JHK two-colour diagrams for our dataset against observations of known nearby stars from Bessell (1990) and Leggett (1992), where we have supplemented the optical observations from the former reference with 2MASS data. We also show the dwarf and giant (H-K)/(J-H) sequences from Bessell & Brett (1988), transforming the latter to the 2MASS system following Carpenter (2001). As discussed in Paper I, Leggett’s CIT near-infrared data closely match the 2MASS system. There is excellent agreement between our observations and the standard sequences, showing that the optical and near-infrared photometry are internally consistent.

Figure 3 compares optical/near-infrared colour-colour diagrams for our sample against data for nearby stars. The majority of the NLTT stars are in excellent agreement with the standard sequences, but there are a few outliers in both (B-V) and (V-I). As noted above, our optical data are derived from aperture photometry, and in some cases, identified in Table 1, the aperture included additional stars besides the program object. While in many cases the optical photometry is not significantly affected, most of the outliers in the BVK and VIK planes are amongst those stars. B-band observations are particularly susceptible, since our program stars are faintest at those wavelengths, and we have excluded several measurements where the (B-V) colour was clearly incompatible with the VRI data. Finally, G 163-4 (LHS 2297) lies only 16 arcseconds from its brighter common proper motion companion, LHS 2296. Comparison between our data and photometry by Weis (1996) suggests that the latter star has contaminated our measurements, and we adopt the magnitudes listed by Weis for this star.

Four of the five outliers in the VIK plane are known binaries where the components have similar magnitudes. All four are resolved by 2MASS, so the (V-KS) colour is therefore (V(AB)-KS(A)). The fifth outlier in VIK is LP 779-34, which is also an outlier in BVK. LP 779-33 is listed as a common proper motion companion in the NLTT, but is several arcminutes distant (and bluer than our (mr-KS) limit). The location of LP 779-34 on the two-colour diagram probably reflects the contribution of a nearby, similar-magnitude field star to the SAAO photometry. The measured VRI colours suggest that the field star is also an M dwarf. We have taken the composite nature of the optical photometry for all of these stars into account in computing the photometric parallaxes given in Section 3.

### 2.3 Comparison with previous observations

A number of stars observed in the course of our present program are well-known nearby stars, and have published broadband photometry. In particular, 26 stars were observed by Bessell (1990) in his survey of late-type dwarfs in the second Catalogue of Nearby Stars (Gliese, 1969; Gliese & Jahreiß, 1979), while 10 are included in Leggett’s (1992) compilation of optical and near-infrared photometry and three were observed by the RECONS group (Patterson et al., 1998). A further 31 are amongst the proper motion stars observed by Weis (1991, 1993, 1996), and, finally, 15 stars have photometry by Eggen (1987). The latter two sets of observations are on the Kron RI system, but we have used the transformations given by Bessell & Weis (1987) to transform to Kron-Cousins magnitudes. As noted above, we adopt Weis’ data for G 163-4.

Table 2 and Figure 4 show the statistical results from a comparison of our observations and data from the literature. We have excluded one observation from this comparison: Bessell lists V=10.51 for Gl 386, while Weis lists V=10.97. Our photometry agrees with the latter measurement, so we omit the former. The main discrepancies lie with Eggen’s photometry, partly because his V-band measurements are given to the nearest 0.1 magnitude, and may in some cases be estimates based on the (R-I) colours. Overall, the agreement is consistent with our internal estimate of the photometric uncertainties, and there is no evidence for any significant residual colour terms.

## 3 Distance estimates

Our goal in this project is the identification of stars likely to lie within 20 parsecs of the Sun. The NLTT sample discussed in this paper includes seventy-one stars already identified as such in the preliminary version of the third Catalogue of nearby Stars (Jahreiß & Gliese, 1991: pCNS3). However, while all 180 stars are relatively bright, only 56 stars have trigonometric parallax measurements. As a result, we must rely on photometric parallax as our primary method of estimating distances. We have followed an identical approach to that outlined in paper I, computing photometric parallaxes from the observed (V-I), (I-J) and (V-KS) colour indices using the polynomial calibrations outlined in that paper; combining those estimates to give an averaged photometric distance estimate; and deriving our final distance estimate through a weighted average with the trigonometric measurement, should such exist. Following the discussion outlined in Paper 1, we set a lower limit of $`\pm 0.3`$ mag. to the weight assigned to the photometric distance modulus, and we note that the trigonometric parallax offers the best estimate of the distance to an individual star. The results are listed in Table 3, where we give the uncertainty associated with the individual measurements. As discussed above and in the notes to the Table, we make due allowance for known binaries with joint optical photometry. Table 3 includes several wide common proper motion pairs, notably LP 890-44/45, -25:10333A/B and CD -44:836/LP 993-116. In each case, the photometric parallaxes of both components agree within the formal uncertainties.

Figure 5 plots, as a function of (V-I) colour, the residuals between the individual distance modulus estimates and the final averaged value. The larger residuals, and systematic trend in $`\delta `$(av-(I-J)), near (V-I)=2.9 reflect the sharp steepening of the main-sequence, and consequent larger uncertainties, at that colour (see Paper I). Comparing the trigonometrically-based distance modulus estimates against the averaged photometric parallax results give

$$(mM)_\pi (mM)_{ph}=0.01\pm 0.81mag.$$

Restricting the comparison to the 42 stars with $`\pi _{trig}`$ measured to an accuracy of 10% or better gives

$$(mM)_\pi (mM)_{ph}=0.06\pm 0.48mag.$$

As Figure 5 shows, there is no evidence for significant systematic bias, and the residuals are broadly consistent with the expected uncertainties in the photometric parallax calibrations (Paper I). Table 3 gives our distance estimates for each star and identifies those likely to fall within the 20-parsec distance limit. Figure 6 plots the distance distribution as a function of (V-I) colour.

## 4 Discussion

Table 1 lists photometry for 180 NLTT systems, including at least four binary systems. Based on our distance estimates, 86 of those systems, including three binaries (Ross 948, LP 675-76/77 and LP 726-11/12) have distances of less than 20 parsecs, while a further 28 lie within 1$`\sigma `$ of the 20-parsec boundary. Sixty-one of the 114 systems are included in the pCNS3, but the remaining 48 are additions to nearby star catalogues (although some are listed at the pre-CNS4 website, http://www.ari.uni-heidelberg.de/aricns/). The additional stars are identified in the final column of Table 3. Moving the distance limit to 25 parsecs, the value adopted in the pCNS3, embraces 132 systems, 65 of which are not included in that catalogue. Given the relatively bright magnitudes of the stars in our sample, this emphasises the incompleteness of nearby star surveys in the southern hemisphere.

Considering the immediate Solar Neighbourhood, our distance estimates place 14 of the 180 stars within 10 parsecs of the Sun. Those systems include Gl 84, 190, 357, 382, 628, GJ 1065 and LHS 1731, all of which have trigonometric parallaxes which exceed 0.1 arcseconds. Four other stars are listed in the pCNS3: Gl 540.2 and LHS 2520, 1723 and 2836. The three new identifications are LP 993-116 (M$`{}_{V}{}^{}=13.45`$), LHS 6167 (M$`{}_{V}{}^{}=14.63`$) and G 161-71 (M$`{}_{V}{}^{}=14.76`$). All three systems have formal distance estimates between 6 and 7 parsecs. As noted above, LP 993-116 is identified in the NLTT as a common proper motion companion, separation 44 arcseconds, of CD -44:836, an M5 dwarf. The latter star is in our sample, and we derive an estimated distance of 10.5 parsecs. Given the individual uncertainties, the agreement is reasonable.

There are currently approximately 250 systems known with 10 parsecs of the Sun. Thus, the 5 new identifications listed in this paper and Paper I represent an increase of only $`2\%`$ in the inferred local stellar space density. However, these additions are drawn from a relatively well-studied subset of our NLTT candidates. Combined with the literature data discussed in Paper I, we have optical photometry, and photometric parallaxes, for 649 of the 1245 stars in NLTT Sample 1, while a further 39 ultracool dwarfs have distance estimates based on either optical spectroscopy or (J-KS) colours. Four hundred and fifty-six of those stars are identified as potentially within 20 parsecs of the Sun. Subsequent papers in this series will provide distance estimates for the remaining 596 stars in NLTT Sample 1, as well as extending coverage to include NLTT dwarfs which lack 2MASS counterparts within 10 arcseconds of the nominal position.

The authors thank the anonymous referee for a number of extremely helpful comments. This NStars research was supported partially by a grant awarded as part of the NASA Space Interferometry Mission Science Program, administered by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena. This publication makes use of data products from the Two Micron All Sky Survey, which is a joint project of the University of Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center/California Institute of Technology, funded by the National Aerospeace and Space Administration and the National Science Foundation. We acknowledge use of the NASA/IPAC Infrared Source Archive (IRSA), which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aerospeace and Space Administration. We also acknowledge making extensive use of the SIMBAD database, maintained by Strasbourg Observatory, and of the ADS bibliographic service. We would like to thank the Time Assignment Committee of the South African Astronomical Observatory for the allocation of observing time for this project.


format: text

text:
# A Relativistic Separable Potential to Describe Pairing in Nuclear Matter

## I Introduction

We have recently studied nuclear pairing in meson-exchange models of the nuclear interaction using a Dirac-Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov (DHFB) approximation to nuclear matter. An important conclusion of this study is that the short-range 1S0 pairing correlations in nuclear matter are essentially identical to the short-range correlations of the two-nucleon virtual state, due to the dominance of the virtual state in the 1S0 channel. In non-relativistic calculations, Khodel, Khodel and Clark also noted a close similarity between the pairing gap function and the short-range vertex function of the virtual state, which prompted them to suggest that the virtual state be used as the starting point in calculating the gap function. In our relativistic calculations, however, the similarity of the Dirac pairing fields and the vertex functions is so striking that we can claim that the two are essentially identical. We make use of this quasi-identity to develop a separable approximation to the relativistic pairing potential that correctly takes into account the high momentum contributions of the short-range two-nucleon correlations.

Another indication that a separable potential can describe nuclear pairing correlations comes from the usual assumption of a constant pairing gap in finite nucleus calculations. The analysis of the HFB equations in the zero-range limit of the two-nucleon interaction shows that the separable potential approximation becomes an exact formulation of the pairing problem in the zero-range limit as the pairing potential then becomes independent of the baryon momentum. The pairing field also become independent of the baryon momentum and vary only with respect to the baryon density of the nuclear matter, which is equivalent to a constant pairing gap assumption. Thus, the separable potential approximation for the pairing field can be seen as the simplest extension, to finite-range two-nucleon interactions and all baryon densities, of the zero-range limit of the HFB-equations. It gives the simplest improvement to the usual assumption of a constant pairing gap.

The aim of this paper is to present a rank-one, separable interaction that accurately describes the DHFB pairing field at all densities. In section II, we clarify the close relationship between the pairing field and the two-nucleon 1S0 virtual state vertex function and use this relationship to define the separable interaction. In Section III, we demonstrate the goodness of the separable interaction through comparisons with exact DHFB calculations of nuclear matter.

## II The formalism

The bound-state correlations in a two-particle system can be roughly classified as asymptotic ones and short-range ones. The asymptotic correlations are determined principally by the binding energy, while the short-range ones depend on the high-momentum components of the wave function. This can be seen by examining the manner in which a bound pair appears in the two-body T-matrix, $`T(E)`$. The T-matrix satisfies the integral equation

$$T(E)=V+VG_0(E)T(E),$$
(1)
where $`V`$ is the two-body interaction and $`G_0(E)`$ the free two-body propagator. A bound state corresponds to a pole in the T-matrix at a negative value of the energy, $`ϵ_b`$. We can decompose the T-matrix, in this case, as

$$T(E)=\mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{1}{ϵ_bE}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}+T_c(E),$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the bound-state vertex function and $`T_c(E)`$ is the continuum component of the T-matrix (and, possibly, the contributions of other bound state poles). Substituting the decomposition in the integral equation, Eq. (1), we verify that the vertex function satisfies the equation

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=VG_0(ϵ_b)\mathrm{\Gamma }.$$
(3)
The vertex function of the two-nucleon bound state is closely related to its wave function, $`\psi =G_0(ϵ_b)\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, which satisfies the differential equation

$$(ϵ_bH_0)\psi =(ϵ_bH_0)G_0(ϵ_b)\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }=VG_0(ϵ_b)\mathrm{\Gamma }=V\psi ,$$
(4)
where $`H_0`$ is the Hamiltonian of the free two-nucleon system.

Here we see the rough division of the two-nucleon correlations in the vacuum. The asymptotic correlations are determined by the singularity of the Green’s function $`G_0(ϵ_b)`$ while the short-range ones are contained in the high momentum components of the vertex function, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. This analysis can also be extended to the nucleon pairing correlations in nuclear matter. One can directly associate the bound-state vertex function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the T-matrix with the pairing field of the HFB approximation, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and the adjoint vertex function, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$, with the time-reverse conjugate pairing field, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$. To demonstrate this, we develop the relation between $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in a formal way, by comparing the equations that define the two. (In a similar manner, the pair wave function $`\psi `$ can be associated with the residue of the anomalous propagator $`F`$ in the complex energy plane. However, we will not develop this association here.)

In the Dirac-Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov (DHFB) approximation to pairing in nuclear matter, the self-consistency equation for the pairing field can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(k)=i\underset{j}{}\frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{j\alpha }D_j^{\alpha \beta }(kq)F(q)B\mathrm{\Lambda }_{j\beta }^TB^{},$$
(5)
where, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{j\alpha }`$ represents the meson-baryon vertex of meson $`j`$ (for the $`\sigma `$ meson, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\sigma \alpha }=ig_s𝟙`$, for the $`\omega `$ meson, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\omega \alpha }=ig_v\gamma _\alpha `$, etc.), $`D_j^{\alpha \beta }`$ represents the propagator of meson $`j`$ and the Greek letters represent any necessary Lorentz and/or isospin indices. The matrix $`B`$ relates transposed quantities to the complex conjugates of time-reversed ones. It is given by $`B=\tau _2\gamma _5C`$, where the Pauli matrix $`\tau _2`$ acts in the isospin space and $`C`$ is the charge conjugation matrix.

The anomalous propagator $`F(q)`$ in the self-consistency equation, Eq. (5), is one of the number-non-conserving components of the baryon propagator $`S_F(q)`$, which, in the Gorkov formalism, takes the form

$$S_F(q)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}G(q)\hfill & F(q)\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{F}(q)\hfill & \stackrel{~}{G}(q)\hfill \end{array}\right),$$
(6)
in which $`G(q)`$ is the usual number-conserving propagator and $`\stackrel{~}{F}(q)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{G}(q)`$ are the corresponding time-reversed propagators. The baryon propagator $`S_F(q)`$ can be written in terms of the self-energy and pairing fields, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(q)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(q)`$, respectively, as

$$S_F(q)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathit{}M\mathrm{\Sigma }(q)+\mu \gamma _0& \mathrm{\Delta }(q)\\ \overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}(q)& \mathit{}+M+\mathrm{\Sigma }(q)\mu \gamma _0\end{array}\right)^1,$$
(7)
where $`\mu `$ is a Lagrange multiplier used to fix the average baryon density.

The form of the 1S0 pairing field can be determined from the hermiticity and antisymmetry properties of the Lagrangian density, as well as the translational, rotational and isospin symmetries of symmetric nuclear matter, as is shown in Ref. . The general form obtained for the field is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(k)=(\mathrm{\Delta }_S(k)\gamma _0\mathrm{\Delta }_0(k)\gamma _0\stackrel{}{\gamma }\widehat{k}\mathrm{\Delta }_T(k))\stackrel{}{\tau }\widehat{n}.$$
(8)
where $`k=(k_0,\stackrel{}{k})`$ is the baryon 4-momentum, $`\widehat{k}=\stackrel{}{k}/|\stackrel{}{k}|`$ and the isospin orientation $`\widehat{n}`$ is arbitrary. We note that $`\stackrel{}{\tau }\widehat{n}=\tau _2`$ corresponds to the standard case of proton-proton and neutron-neutron pairing.

We can decompose the self-consistency equation for the pairing field, Eq. (5), into equations for the components of Eq. (8). After integrating over energy and angle and neglecting retardation effects, the component equations take the form,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_S(k,k_F)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^\mathrm{\Lambda }}q^2𝑑qV_S(k,q)F_S(q,k_F),`$ (9)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_0(k,k_F)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^\mathrm{\Lambda }}q^2𝑑qV_0(k,q)F_0(q,k_F),`$ (10)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_T(k,k_F)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^\mathrm{\Lambda }}q^2𝑑qV_T(k,q)F_T(q,k_F),`$ (11)
where $`k=|\stackrel{}{k}|`$ and $`q=|\stackrel{}{q}|`$. The pairing potentials, $`V_S`$, $`V_0`$ and $`V_T`$ (given in the Appendix), are functions of the coupling constants and meson masses, while $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a cutoff in the baryon momentum. The Fermi momentum $`k_F`$ is defined through its conventional relation to the baryon density, that is, $`\rho _B=\gamma k_F^3/3\pi ^2`$, where $`\gamma `$ is 2 for nuclear matter and 1 for neutron matter. The components of the anomalous propagator are defined as

$`F_S(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\text{Tr}[\stackrel{}{\tau }\widehat{n}F(k)],`$ (12)
$`F_0(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\text{Tr}[\gamma _0\stackrel{}{\tau }\widehat{n}F(k)],`$ (13)
$`F_T(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\text{Tr}[\gamma _0\stackrel{}{\gamma }\widehat{k}\stackrel{}{\tau }\widehat{n}F(k)].`$ (14)
These are evaluated in the Appendix in the case in which their negative-energy Dirac sea contributions are neglected.

The components of the anomalous propagator, $`F_S`$, $`F_0`$ and $`F_T`$ carry the information of the density-dependent nucleon self-energy and pairing mean-fields. The pairing potentials $`V_S`$, $`V_0`$ and $`V_T`$ also possess a density dependence associated with the retardation terms, which account for the finite meson propagation velocity. In Eqs.(10), these retardation terms are neglected since their effects on the pairing fields have been found to be small. The density dependence remaining in the self-consistent pairing equations, Eqs.(10), is thus entirely contained in the components of the anomalous propagator.

When the baryon density $`\rho _B`$ tends to zero, both the self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(q)`$ and the pairing field $`\mathrm{\Delta }(q)`$ also tend to zero. The anomalous propagator $`F(q)`$ can then be well approximated by

$$F(q)\frac{1}{\mathit{}M+\mu \gamma _0+i\eta }\mathrm{\Delta }(q)\frac{1}{\mathit{}+M\mu \gamma _0i\eta },\rho _B0,$$
(15)
an approximation that becomes exact at zero density. The vacuum limit of the pairing field thus satisfies the homogeneous equation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(k)=i\underset{j}{}\frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{j\alpha }D_j^{\alpha \beta }(kq)\frac{1}{\mu \gamma _0+\mathit{}M+i\eta }\mathrm{\Delta }(q)\frac{1}{\mu \gamma _0\mathit{}M+i\eta }B\mathrm{\Lambda }_{j\beta }^TB^{},\rho _B0.$$
(16)
Turning now to the Bethe-Salpeter equation, we write the bound-state vertex function as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(k,P)`$, where $`P`$ is the center-of-mass four momentum of the baryon pair and $`k`$ is their relative four momentum. The Bethe-Salpeter equation for the vertex function, in the ladder approximation, is often written as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(k,P)=i\underset{j}{}\frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1j\alpha }\mathrm{\Lambda }_{2j\beta }D_j^{\alpha \beta }(kq)G_{01}(P/2+q)G_{02}(P/2q)\mathrm{\Gamma }(q,P),$$
(17)
where the free baryon propagator $`G_0(q)`$ is given by

$$G_0(q)=\frac{1}{\mathit{}M+i\eta }.$$
(18)
We can rewrite this in a matrix form, making use of the matrix B, as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(k,P)B^{}=i\underset{j}{}\frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{j\alpha }D_j^{\alpha \beta }(kq)G_0(P/2+q)\mathrm{\Gamma }(q,P)B^{}G_0(P/2q)B\mathrm{\Lambda }_{j\beta }^TB^{}.$$
(19)
Comparing this expression with the self-consistency equation for the vacuum pairing field, Eq. (16), we find the two are identical if we

* evaluate the vertex function in the center-of-mass frame, taking

$$P_\alpha =2\mu \delta _{\alpha 0},$$
(20)
where $`\mu `$ is the Lagrange multiplier of the Gorkov propagator $`S_F(q)`$ of Eq. (7), and
* associate the pairing field and the vertex function as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(k)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(k)B^{},$$
(21)
where we now suppress the center-of-mass dependence of the vertex function.

We thus conclude that the self-consistency equation for the vacuum pairing field is identical to the ladder approximation to the Bethe-Salpeter equation in the center-of-mass frame.

An analysis of the symmetry and antisymmetry properties that we expect of the center-of-mass Bethe-Salpeter vertex function, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(k)`$, leads us to the following form,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(k)B^{}=\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_s(k)\gamma _0\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(k)\gamma _0\stackrel{}{\gamma }\widehat{k}\mathrm{\Gamma }_T(k)\right)\stackrel{}{\tau }\widehat{n},$$
(22)
which is identical to that of the pairing field $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k)`$ given in Eq. (8). We substitute this vertex function in the Bethe-Salpeter equation, Eq. (19), integrate over energy and angle, and neglect retardation effects and the contribution of the negative energy states, just as we have done in the self-consistency equation of the pairing field. We find,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_S(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^\mathrm{\Lambda }}V_S(k,q){\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_q\mathrm{\Gamma }_SM\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}{E_q(M_B2E_q)}}𝑑q,`$ (23)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^\mathrm{\Lambda }}V_0(k,q){\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(2q^2M_BE_q\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }_0+MM_B\mathrm{\Gamma }_S}{M_BE_q(M_B2E_q)}}𝑑q,`$ (24)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_T(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^\mathrm{\Lambda }}V_T(k,q){\displaystyle \frac{q^2k}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{q(M_B\mathrm{\Gamma }_S2M\mathrm{\Gamma }_0)}{M_BE_q(M_B2E_q)}}𝑑q,`$ (25)
where $`k=|\stackrel{}{k}|`$ , $`q=|\stackrel{}{q}|`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a cutoff in the baryon momentum, and $`E_q=\sqrt{q^2+M^2}`$. The potentials $`V_S`$, $`V_0`$, and $`V_T`$ are, of course, the same as those of the self-consistency equations for the pairing field, Eqs. (10), and are given in the Appendix. The center-of-mass energy of the bound two-nucleon pair, that is, the bound two-nucleon mass, $`M_B`$, is given by

$`M_B=2\mu =2Mϵ_B.`$

In the Appendix, the equivalence between the vacuum pairing equation and the ladder approximation to the Bethe-Salpeter equation is once again demonstrated, by reducing the explicit form of the components of the pairing equation, Eqs. (10), to the components of the Bethe-Salpeter equation, Eqs. (24), in the vacuum limit.

The above expressions are valid for a bound two-body system in the vacuum. If the pole of the T-matrix corresponds to a virtual state (anti-bound state), as in the case of the physical 1S0 two-nucleon channel, one must redefine the integrands through an analytic continuation into the second sheet of the complex energy plane. The analytical continuation introduces an additional term, which takes into account the discontinuity of the propagator across the cut in the energy plane. In the components of the Bethe-Salpeter equation, Eqs. (24), in which the negative-energy states have been neglected, the analytically continued equations can be obtained through the substitution,

$$\frac{1}{M_B2E_q}\frac{1}{M_v2E_q}2\pi i\delta (M_v2E_q),$$
(26)
where $`M_v`$ is the mass of the two-nucleon virtual state,

$`M_v=2Mϵ_v=\sqrt{M^2|q_v|^2},`$

with $`q_v=i|q_v|`$.

The equations for the components of the vertex-function then become

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_S(k)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_S(k)_v{\displaystyle \frac{|q_v|}{\pi }}\left\{V_s(k,q)\left(E_q\mathrm{\Gamma }_S+M\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\right)\right\}_{q=q_v},`$ (27)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(k)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(k)_v+{\displaystyle \frac{|q_v|}{\pi }}\left\{V_0(k,q){\displaystyle \frac{\left(2q^2M_vE_q\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }_0MM_v\mathrm{\Gamma }_s}{M_v}}\right\}_{q=q_v},`$ (28)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_T(k)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_T(k)_v+{\displaystyle \frac{|q_v|}{\pi }}\left\{kV_T(k,q){\displaystyle \frac{q(M_v\mathrm{\Gamma }_S+2M\mathrm{\Gamma }_0)}{M_v}}\right\}_{q=q_v}.`$ (29)
The functions $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_s(k)_v,\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(k)_v`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_T(k)_v`$ are given by Eqs.(24) with the mass of the bound state $`M_B`$ substituted by that of the virtual state $`M_v`$.

As stated in the introduction, we have found that the momentum dependence of the components of the pairing field $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, calculated with various sets of interaction parameters, shows a very small variation over a wide range of values of the baryon density and a wide range of cut-offs ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ between 2.5 fm-1 and 15.0 fm-1). As an example, in Fig. 1 we show the momentum dependence of the principal components of the pairing field, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S(k)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0(k)`$, for several values of the Fermi momentum, which were obtained using the $`\sigma \omega `$ parameters of Ref. with a momentum cutoff of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=`$ 10 fm-1. Note that the curves denoted by Fermi momentum zero correspond to the components of the vertex function of the 1S0 virtual state in the vacuum. The small variation in the components as a function of the Fermi momentum suggests the use of the momentum dependence at one value of the density. Use of the vacuum momentum dependence is particularly convenient, since in this case a direct correspondence exists between the self-consistent pairing field and the Bethe-Salpeter vertex function. A direct comparison between the numerical solutions for the vertex function, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(k)`$, and for the pairing field, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k)`$, gives us the following very good approximate relations between the components of the two fields,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_S(k,k_F)`$ $``$ $`d(k_F)\mathrm{\Gamma }_S(k),`$ (30)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_0(k,k_F)`$ $``$ $`d(k_F)\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(k),`$ (31)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_T(k,k_F)`$ $``$ $`d(k_F)\mathrm{\Gamma }_T(k),`$ (32)
where $`d(k_F)`$ is a density-dependent factor determining the overall magnitude of the pairing fields.

We emphasize that, in the nonrelativistic approach of Khodel, Khodel and Clark, the virtual state vertex function serves only as a good starting point for calculating the pairing field, while in our relativistic approach, the two are essentially identical in form. We can explain the difference between the two approaches by analyzing the effective gap function for the positive energy DHFB states, which takes the form

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_g(k)=\mathrm{\Delta }_0\frac{M^{}}{E_k^{}}\mathrm{\Delta }_S+\mathrm{\Delta }_T\frac{k^{}}{E_k^{}},$$
(33)
where $`E^{}=\sqrt{k^2+M^2}`$ and the effective momentum and mass of the quasi-nucleons, $`k^{}`$ and $`M^{}`$, are defined in the Appendix. The gap function $`\mathrm{\Delta }_g(k)`$ is the quantity whose role is closest to that of the non-relativistic pairing field. Like the non-relativistic self-energy, the gap function is the difference between two larger relativistic quantities, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S`$. ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_T`$ is two to three orders of magnitude smaller than the other components.) The effective mass $`M^{}`$ that appears in the gap function varies strongly with the nuclear matter density. Although the form of the components of the Dirac pairing field remain almost constant with density, the gap function changes, due to its dependence on $`M^{}`$. The density independence of the form of the relativistic pairing field thus does not carry over to the nonrelativistic field.

The invariant momentum dependence of the components of the pairing fields suggests a separable form for an effective potential, in which each of the components of the interaction, $`V_S`$, $`V_0`$ and $`V_T`$, is proportional to the corresponding component of the vertex function, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_S`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_T`$. Such potentials are well known from the nonrelativistic treatment of the two-nucleon problem. It is such a separable form of the non-relativistic pairing potential that Khodel, Khodel and Clark suggest as a starting point for calculating the nonrelativistic gap function. Here, we use a form appropriate for the components of the relativistic pairing field that also preserves the symmetry in the two momenta, $`k`$ and $`q`$, of the potential, taking

$`V_S(k,q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _S}{4}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_S(k)\mathrm{\Gamma }_S(q),`$ (34)
$`V_0(k,q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _0}{4}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(k)\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(q),`$ (35)
$`kV_T(k,q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _T}{4}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_T(k)\mathrm{\Gamma }_T(q),`$ (36)
where the potential strengths, $`\lambda _S`$, $`\lambda _0`$, and $`\lambda _T`$, are obtained through the simultaneous solution of Eqs.(24) and (35), in the case of a bound state, or Eqs.(28) and (35), in the case of a virtual state. We note that, although we have included the equation for the tensor component $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_T`$ in Eqs. (31) and (35), we have neglected this component in our numerical calculations. The inclusion of the tensor term offers little further calculational difficulty but, being extremely small, has little effect on the rest of the calculation.

For any given meson-exchange potential, we have shown in Ref. that the size of the pairing gap, for low baryon densities, is correlated with the energy of the virtual state of the T-matrix, $`ϵ_v`$. The value of $`ϵ_v`$, in turn is related to the baryon momentum cut-off, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, in the integrals of the self-consistency equations. Consequently, fixing $`ϵ_v`$ at its physical value in the Bethe-Salpeter equation for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ determines a (usually unique) value for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

The separable potential introduces two additional parameters, $`\lambda _S`$ and $`\lambda _0`$, when the tensor term is neglected. These parameters, together with the momentum cutoff, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, are fixed by requiring that the energy of the two nucleon state and the ratio of the vertex functions be equal to the respective ones obtained by solving the Bethe-Salpeter equation with a meson-exchange potential. Together, the parameters $`\lambda _S`$, $`\lambda _0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ introduce an ambiguity in the determination of the separable potential. Our calculations have shown that, within a wide range of values of the cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, we can find values of $`\lambda _S(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ and $`\lambda _0(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ that fix the virtual state energy and the vertex functions at their physical values. We regard this as a positive feature of the separable potential, as it permits us to fix one of the parameters, usually $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, at an arbitrary, and possibly convenient, value, and then solve for the others.

The only task remaining to complete the definition of the separable pairing potential is to extend the potential, which we have defined in the vacuum, to finite values of the baryon density. This is done by observing that, as the retardation terms in the pairing potentials have been neglected, the dependence of the pairing field on the baryon density is completely determined by the density dependence of the components of the anomalous density, $`F_S`$, $`F_0`$ and $`F_T`$, in Eq.(10). Consequently, the separable pairing potential for finite baryon densities must be the same as the potential in the vacuum. The self-consistency equations for the components of the pairing field are thus given by Eqs. (10) and (35), with the parameters $`\lambda _S`$, $`\lambda _0`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (and, eventually, $`\lambda _T`$ as well) fixed by the vacuum solution.

## III Results and conclusion

We have compared calculations of the pairing fields obtained using a separable interaction with the usual DHFB results for various sets of $`\sigma \omega `$ interaction parameters. The relativistic separable potential describes well both the gap parameter, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_g`$ , and the two large components, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$, at all baryon densities. It also reproduces the behavior of the pairing field $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for increasing values of the momentum cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the self-consistency equations.

In Fig. 2 we show the particular results for the $`\sigma \omega `$ interaction of Bouyssy et.al., for a cut-off of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=`$ 3.8 fm-1, obtained by adjusting the virtual state energy to its physical value. This potential has been chosen because its vacuum gap function, which is the nonrelativistic two-nucleon vertex function, is in good agreement with the nonrelativistic two-nucleon vertex function calculated with the Bonn-B potential. We note a difference of at most a few percent between the components of the relativistic fields obtained in exact and separable calculations. The differences in the two gap functions are even smaller. Similar results are obtained for other sets of $`\sigma \omega `$ interaction parameters.

As discusses above, it is possible to adjust the strengths $`\lambda _S`$ and $`\lambda _0`$ of the separable interaction to fit the experimental value of the two-nucleon virtual state energy as a function of the cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. For each value of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the resulting values of the strengths $`\lambda _S`$ and $`\lambda _0`$ yield a separable potential which carries the physical information necessary for the correct evaluation of the gap parameter at all values of the density. Since the properties of the virtual state dominate the physics of 1S0 pairing, we would expect the pairing fields that result to be independent of the cutoff used. We can verify the extent to which this is true by comparing the results obtained for $`d(k_F)`$ of Eq. (31), the common factor determining the overall magnitude of the pairing fields, at different values of the momentum cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. We do this in Fig. 3, where we display the factor $`d(k_F)`$ as a function of the Fermi momentum for several values of the cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. We find the form of the factor $`d(k_f)`$ to be fairly constant but its magnitude to decrease between 5 and 10 % as the momentum cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ increases from 3.3 fm-1 to 10 fm-1.

In Ref. , a strong correlation between the magnitude of the pairing gap and the energy of the two-nucleon virtual state was observed in all the meson potentials studied there. The correlation is reproduced, for all values of the cut-off, when using the corresponding separable potential. In Fig. 4, we compare the correlation for the gap parameter, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_g`$, obtained with the separable interaction with the exact result, using the $`\sigma \omega `$ parameters of Ref.. The agreement between the two is excellent, confirming once again the goodness of the separable approximation to the pairing interaction.

We thus conclude that a separable interaction obtained by exploiting the close relationship between the Dirac pairing field and the virtual state vertex function furnishes an excellent description of the Dirac pairing fields at all values of the baryon density. We next plan to implement a configuration-space version of the separable interaction in a DHFB code for finite nuclei calculations. We expect that such a potential will describe the short-range pairing correlations with greater accuracy than those obtained with the usual constant gap assumption.

## Acknowledgments

B.V. Carlson and T. Frederico acknowledge the partial support of the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo - FAPESP and of the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico - CNPq, Brazil. B. Funke Haas acknowledges the support of the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo - FAPESP, Brazil.

## The Anomalous Propagator and the Pairing Potential

The functions $`F_S,F_0`$ and $`F_T`$ in Eq.(6) are given by,

$`F_S(k)=\{\mathrm{\Delta }_s[\alpha +\beta +E_F^2+M^2+k^2]+\mathrm{\Delta }_S^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }_S^2\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_T^2k^2)`$ (37)
$`2M^{}E_F^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_02k^{}E_F^{}k\mathrm{\Delta }_T\}/(4\beta \omega _{}),`$ (38)
$`F_0(k)=\{\mathrm{\Delta }_0(\alpha \beta E_F^2M^2+k^2)+\mathrm{\Delta }_0^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }_S^2\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_T^2k^2)`$ (39)
$`+2M^{}E_F^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_s2k^{}M^{}k\mathrm{\Delta }_T\}/(4\beta \omega _{}),`$ (40)
and

$`F_T(k)=\{k\mathrm{\Delta }_T(\alpha +\beta +E_F^2M^2+k^2)k\mathrm{\Delta }_T^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }_S^2\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_T^2k^2)`$ (41)
$`+2k^{}E_F^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_S2M^{}k^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_0\}/(4\beta \omega _{}),`$ (42)
where the asterisk indicates complex conjugation and $`k=|\stackrel{}{k}|`$. The quantity $`\omega _{}`$ is

$$\omega _{}=\sqrt{\alpha \beta }$$
(43)
where

$`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`E_F^2+k^2+M^2+|\mathrm{\Delta }_S|^2+|\mathrm{\Delta }_0|^2+|\mathrm{\Delta }_T|^2,`$ (44)
$`\beta `$ $`=`$ $`2\sqrt{\beta _1^2+\beta _2^2+\beta _3^2+\beta _4^2},`$ (45)
$`\beta _1`$ $`=`$ $`\text{Im}(\mathrm{\Delta }_T\mathrm{\Delta }_0^{}),`$ (46)
$`\beta _2`$ $`=`$ $`E_F^{}M^{}+\text{Re}(\mathrm{\Delta }_S\mathrm{\Delta }_0^{}),`$ (47)
$`\beta _3`$ $`=`$ $`E_F^{}k^{}+\text{Re}(\mathrm{\Delta }_S\mathrm{\Delta }_T^{}),`$ (48)
$`\beta _4`$ $`=`$ $`|M^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_T+k^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_0|.`$ (49)
The effective momentum and mass of the baryons, $`k^{}`$ and $`M^{}`$, are given in terms of the components of the nucleon self-energy,

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(\stackrel{}{k})=\mathrm{\Sigma }_S(k)\gamma _0\mathrm{\Sigma }_0(k)\stackrel{}{\gamma }\stackrel{}{k}\mathrm{\Sigma }_V(k),$$
(50)
as,

$$k^{}=(1+\mathrm{\Sigma }_V(k))k\text{and}M^{}=M+\mathrm{\Sigma }_s(k).$$
(51)
The Fermi energy is

$`E_F^{}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_0(k)+\mu ,`$

where $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential.

The pairing potentials that take into account the exchange of the mesons $`\sigma `$ and $`\omega `$ are given by

$`V_S(k,q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{kq}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}g_\sigma ^2\theta _\sigma +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_\omega ^2\theta _\omega \right],`$ (52)
$`V_0(k,q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{kq}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}g_\sigma ^2\theta _\sigma +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_\omega ^2\theta _\omega \right],`$ (53)
$`V_T(k,q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2k^2q}}g_\sigma ^2\varphi _\sigma `$ (54)
where the functions $`\theta _a`$ and $`\varphi _a`$ are

$$\theta _a=\text{ln}\left(\frac{H_a+2kq}{H_a2kq}\right),$$
(55)
with

$$H_a=(\omega _{}(k)\omega _{}(q))^2k^2q^2m_a^2,$$
(56)
and

$$\varphi _a=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\frac{H_a}{4kq}\theta _a.$$
(57)
Here $`a`$ indicates the mesons of the model, with $`a=\sigma `$, $`\omega `$.

In the limit of zero baryon density, we have

$`k^{}k\text{,}M^{}M\text{, and }\mu E_F^{}M_B/2,`$

so that

$`\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{M_B^2}{4}}+E_k^2,\beta M_BE_k,\text{ and }\omega _{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left|M_B2E_k\right|,`$

where $`E_k=\sqrt{k^2+M^2}`$. The components of the pairing field tend to zero. The zero baryon density limit of the pairing self-consistency equations are then

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_S(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^\mathrm{\Lambda }}V_S(k,q){\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_q\mathrm{\Delta }_SM\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{E_q(M_B2E_q)}}𝑑q,`$ (58)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_0(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^\mathrm{\Lambda }}V_0(k,q){\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(2q^2M_BE_q\right)\mathrm{\Delta }_0+MM_B\mathrm{\Delta }_S}{M_BE_q(M_B2E_q)}}𝑑q,`$ (59)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_T(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^\mathrm{\Lambda }}V_T(k,q){\displaystyle \frac{q^2k}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{q(M_B\mathrm{\Delta }_S2M\mathrm{\Delta }_0)}{M_BE_q(M_B2E_q)}}𝑑q,`$ (60)
which have exactly the same form as the equations for the components of the vertex function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ given in Eqs.(24).


text:
# Acoustic Phonon Anomaly in MgB2

Permanent address: \]Department of Physics and Measurement Technology, Linköping University, Sweden. Also at \]Institute of Semiconductor Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia.

## Abstract

Recent first principles calculations of the phonon dispersion curves in MgB2 have suggested the presence of anomalies in some of the curves, particularly in the longitudinal acoustical (LA) branch in the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to $`A`$ direction. Similar behavior has been observed in numerous other superconductors with Tc’s higher than those of standard electron-phonon BCS superconductors. Phenomenological calculations of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }A`$ LA dispersion based on both an acoustical plasmon and a “resonant polarization” mechanism are given here to emphasize the importance of these similarities.

Single crystals of the new superconductor MgB2 large enough for inelastic neutron scattering experiments have not yet become available, but first principles calculations of the phonon dispersion curves have appeared. Bohnen ; Kong  In Ref. Kong, , a well-defined anomaly appears in the dispersion of the LA mode in the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to $`A`$ direction. This anomalous behavior is remarkably similar to that found in transition metalNakagawa  and transition metal carbideSmith  superconductors with high transition temperatures. Indeed, it has often been considered a signature of high-temperature electron-phonon superconductivity in these systems. Here, we call attention to and emphasize the potential importance of this similarity by carrying out model calculations in which the anomalies are produced both by an acoustical plasmon (AP) mechanism and by a parameterized, $`𝐪`$-dependent, interband contribution to the dielectric response function.

Many superconductors with even moderately high transition temperatures show some type of anomaly in the phonon dispersion curves when compared to their low-Tc or nonsuperconducting analogues. In this connection, the lattice dynamics in high-Tc cuprate materialsPintschovius  is currently being revisited. It now appears that there are effects in the optical modesMcQueeney  and in the electronic structureLanzara  that correlate with hole doping and that may be related to superconductivity.

We are mainly interested in anomalies in the LA dispersion curves because they are distinctive and prevalent, occurring in systems that have no optical modes as well as those that do. They were first observed and discussed for Nb (T$`{}_{c}{}^{}10`$K) more than thirty years agoNakagawa  and somewhat later in the transition metal carbidesSmith . Figure 1 shows the LA dispersion curves for NbC, TaC, and HfC, which have transition temperatures of approximately 11K, 11K, and $`<`$1K, respectively. The anomalies are obvious for the first two materials but do not occur in HfC. Many other examples of this type of behavior could be given, notably the elemental materials Nb, V, and Ta where only acoustical modes occur. Also shown on Fig. 1 are the results from Ref. Kong,  of recent first-principles calculations for MgB2 (T$`{}_{c}{}^{}=38.5`$K). While only four points were calculated in the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to $`A`$ direction, they clearly show that the behavior is anomalous in the sense being used here.

Nakagawa and WoodsNakagawa  found they could reproduce their phonon data for Nb with a Born-von Karman model utilizing numerous force constants. The need for such a complex model was thought to be indicative of a strong electron-phonon interaction. Ganguly and WoodGanguly  observed that the anomalies may be produced by the interaction of acoustical plasmons and phonons. While it is difficult to reconcile this suggestion with the electronic band structure of Nb, as pointed out by RuvaldsRuvalds , the notion that there is a connection between AP-like electronic modes and phonons persisted. The resonant electronic polarization arising from the double shell model of Weber et al.Weber  is somewhat related to the acoustical plasmon mechanism in that an additional mode which interacts with the “bare” phonons is introduced. First principles calculationsWeber1 ; Sinha  that began to appear subsequently could replicate the anomalies but the assignments to specific mechanisms were often in conflict. However, the important roles of electronic polarization and details of the band structure were clear.

The acoustical plasmon concept was introduced by PinesPines  in 1958 and subsequently applied to superconductivity by a number of authorsRadhakrishnan ; Gelikman ; Frohlich ; Rothwarf . It is thought that APs may occur in systems in which heavy and light mass carriers coexist and the light carriers screen the heavy ones to produce an acoustical ($`\omega 0`$ as $`𝐪0`$) excitation. Transition metal systems with the $`d`$ electrons playing the role of heavy particles and the $`s`$ electrons the light ones have been long seen as good candidates. In other systems, holes may be the heavy particles and electrons the light ones. In the simplest acoustical plasmon treatment of superconductivity in transition metals, the plasmons either replace entirely or simply complement the phonons in a standard BCS-type theory. An extensive criticism of AP-mediated superconductivity has been given based on system stability and other restrictive requirementsGinsburg ; Uspenskii . Nevertheless, while to our knowledge APs have not been shown to exist in any bulk material (see also Ref. Ruvalds, ), the concept is an intriguing one and based on sound theoretical arguments regardless of any role it may have in superconductivity. We note that acoustical plasmons have been proposedVoelker  as existing in MgB2, although not in the context of the present lattice dynamical discussion and in a much higher frequency range.

Magnesium diboride has the AlB2 structure consisting of hexagonal layers of Mg interspersed between graphite-like B layers. Several calculationsKortus ; Yildirim ; Ravindran  establish that the occupied bands consist of $`\sigma `$ bands formed from boron $`sp^2`$ hybridized orbitals and $`\pi `$ bands formed from the $`2p_z`$ orbitals directed along the $`c`$ axis. Interactions with the Mg $`3s`$ orbitals result in the $`\sigma `$ bands not being fully occupied, as in graphite, which creates holes at the top of the bands. The various calculations are in good agreement in showing a weakly dispersing band in the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to $`A`$ direction lying just above the Fermi surface. Voelker et al.,Voelker  have provided analytical fits to the bands they calculated, with the holes in the $`\sigma `$ bands having high effective mass for motion along the $`k_z`$ direction. This led those authors to investigate the possible existence of acoustical plasmons. They found evidence that they do exist but the validity of their calculation was subsequently questioned by Ku et al.Ku  We emphasize that in any case the APs considered in these calculations are in a far different frequency range than those needed here, as will be seen in the following.

We write the $`𝐪`$\- and $`\omega `$-dependent dielectric function as

$`\epsilon (𝐪,\omega )=1+\alpha ^0+\alpha ^l+\alpha ^h+\alpha ^L,`$ (1)
and look for its zeros in a standard approach. $`\alpha ^l`$ and $`\alpha ^h`$ are the polarizabilities of the two distinct groups of light and heavy carriers and $`\alpha ^0`$ contains all other contributions to the electronic polarizability, e.g., from interband transitions; $`\alpha ^L`$ is the lattice contribution. Electronic polarizabilities are calculated in the free electron approximation:

$`\alpha _𝐪^i(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{8\pi e^2}{q^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{n_{𝐪+𝐤}^in_𝐤^i}{\omega +E_𝐤^iE_{𝐪+𝐤}^i+i0}},`$ (2)
where $`E_𝐤^i`$ and $`n_𝐤^i`$ are the free-electron energy and Fermi function for the $`i=l,h`$ particles, respectively.

Neglecting $`\alpha ^L`$ for the moment, an approximate expression for the dispersion of the APs can be obtained in the long-wavelength limit. Using the first terms of the expansions given by Lindhard,Lindhard

$`\alpha _𝐪^i(\omega )\{\begin{array}{cc}3\omega _{0i}^2/q^2v_i^2& qv_i>\omega \\ \omega _{0i}^2/\omega ^2& qv_i<\omega .\end{array}`$ (5)
$`v_i`$ is the Fermi velocity of the $`i`$th particle, and $`\omega _{0i}^2=4\pi e^2n_i/m_i^{}`$ is the plasmon frequency, with $`m_i^{}`$ the effective mass and $`n_i`$ the particle density; the imaginary parts are neglected. Substituting these in Eq. (1) and defining $`1+\alpha ^0=\epsilon _0`$ gives for the acoustical plasmon frequency, $`\omega _p(q)`$,

$`\omega _p(q)={\displaystyle \frac{v_pq}{\sqrt{1+q^2\lambda ^2}}},qv_h\omega _p(q)qv_l,`$ (6)
where $`v_p=v_h\sqrt{N_h/3N_l}`$ is the acoustical plasmon sound velocity, $`N_i`$ is the density of states of the $`i`$th particle at the Fermi level, and $`\lambda =\sqrt{\frac{\epsilon _0\mathrm{}^2\pi }{4e^2k_{F,l}m_l^{}}}`$ is the screening length of light particles. The Landau damping of acoustical plasmons due to the continuum of light particles is neglected.

In a more complete calculation, we use Eqs. (1) and the full Lindhard expressions for $`\alpha ^i`$. To include the phonon contribution we use a simple, approximate expression for the lattice polarizability $`\alpha ^L`$

$`\alpha _𝐪^L(\omega )=\omega _{ph}^0(q)^2(\epsilon ^0+\alpha _𝐪^l(\omega ))/\omega ^2,`$ (7)
and take in the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to $`A`$ direction

$`\omega _{ph}^0(q)=c_0\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{q}{q_0}}\right),`$ (8)
where $`q/q_0`$ is the fractional distance to the BZ boundary and $`c_0`$ is adjusted to give the frequency of the LA phonon in MgB2 at the zone boundary, as taken from Refs. Bohnen, ; Kong, . This implies that the “bare” phonon frequency $`\omega _{ph}^0`$ already contains the screening due to $`\epsilon ^0`$ and the light carriers, hence this screening is taken out in Eq. (7).

The results of such a calculation are shown in Fig. 2a. The unperturbed or bare phonon dispersion curve is given by the dashed line and the acoustical plasmon by the dotted solid curve. The latter is Landau damped as it enters the heavy particle continuum at $`q_c0.25`$. Note again that the AP mode shown here is calculated without taking into account the phonon contribution. Also the bare phonon is before the interaction with heavy particles is included. The result of the full calculation ($`\epsilon =\epsilon _0+\alpha ^l+\alpha ^h+\alpha ^L`$) are shown by the solid line. After the phonon and heavy particles are allowed to interact, the phonon frequency rises above the unperturbed curve and continues to be affected even after the plasmon is damped, causing the anomalous behavior to develop. Interestingly, the perturbed phonon remains well-defined until it enters the heavy particle continuum where its width increases rapidly in the region of the anomaly due to the continuum of heavy particle contribution to the imaginary part of $`\epsilon (𝐪,\omega )`$. Neutron scattering experiments should readily pick up this feature if it exists. We note that this is also the region where the electron-phonon interaction was found to be strong in Ref. Kong, . Some of these effects will be discussed in more detail in a subsequent paper.

To obtain the curves on Fig. 2a we took the mass ratio $`m_h^{}/m_l^{}=20`$, and Fermi momentum ratio $`k_{F,l}/k_{F,h}=2.4`$. $`n_l=10^{21}`$ cm-3, $`n_h=0.75\times 10^{20}`$ cm-3, $`v_l=2.4\times 10^7`$ cm/s, and $`v_h=5\times 10^5`$ cm/s. This corresponds to the choice of light mass $`m_l^{}=1.5m_0`$. Also a value of $`\epsilon _0=30`$ was assigned. As was the case with Nb, it is difficult to reconcile these parameter values with the published band structure calculations and this remains a serious drawback for the application of the acoustical plasmon concept to lattice dynamics.

Additional dispersion curves, obtained by changing the effective mass of the heavy particles over a limited range, are shown on Fig. 2b. By varying other parameters, a wide variety of behavior can be obtained, which may be of interest for other materials.

We followed Fröhlich and Rothwarf a bit further by calculating Tc from a modified BCS-like expression, $`kT_c=\mathrm{}\omega _{pm}\mathrm{exp}(1/F)`$. $`\omega _{pm}`$ was taken to be the frequency at which the plasmon enters the heavy hole continuum and $`F`$ was calculated as described in Refs. Frohlich, ; Rothwarf, . Values of Tc quite close to the experimental value could be found but they were very sensitive to the relevant parameters which could be changed over a fairly wide range without greatly changing the dispersion curves. Having in mind the known restrictions on the acoustical plasmon mechanismGinsburg ; Uspenskii , we do not consider these results of direct, fundamental significance for the high transition temperatures in MgB2, that is to say, we do not argue that superconductivity is produced by acoustical plasmons. However, the results do suggest that the electronic structure of this material leads to some resonance-like interaction of the electrons or holes with “bare” phonons. How this might come about from another viewpoint is illustrated by the following calculation.

In Eq. (1), $`\alpha ^h`$, the polarizability of the heavy carriers, which gives rise to the acoustical plasmons, was replaced by a $`𝐪`$-dependent polarization term, $`\alpha ^{lh}`$, ascribed here to interband transitions that were previously included in the constant $`\epsilon ^0`$. $`\alpha ^{lh}(q)`$ was chosen to be a “skewed Lorentzian” of the form

$`\alpha ^{lh}(q)={\displaystyle \frac{a}{1+b^2(qq_0)^2}}.`$ (9)
We initially fixed $`q_0`$ at $`0.7`$ to locate the maximum in the vicinity of the dip in the phonon dispersion curve. Modification of the bare phonon dispersion and trial and error with the parameters $`a`$ and $`b`$ readily provided a satisfactory representation of the anomalous behavior. The results of three such calculations for different values of $`q_0`$ are shown by the upper curves on Fig. 3. We note that the importance of interband transitions has been emphasized in recent electronic structure calculations and particularly those of Refs. Voelker, ; Ku, .

An interesting aspect of this calculation is that the $`q`$-dependence of $`\alpha ^{lh}`$ correlates closely with that of the “supershell frequency”, $`\omega _{ss}(q)`$, in Weber’s double-shell modelWeber ; Weber1 . Smith et al.Smith1  calculated $`\omega _{ss}(q)`$ for TaC by assigning the free electron mass to the supershell. The supershell motion was then retained explicitly in the dynamical matrix rather than being transformed out as is usually done in the shell model. They found that $`\omega _{ss}(q)`$ for the longitudinal mode had a pronounced, asymmetrical dip centered at the position of the anomaly. Loosely speaking, the function of the supershell is to provide a “resonant polarization” mechanism to screen the relevant part of the dynamical matrix. This implies that the shell frequency should vary inversely with the square root of this polarization. Calculating the $`q`$-dependence of $`\omega _{ss}`$ in this way from Eq. (9) and comparing it with the $`\omega _{ss}`$ extracted from Ref. Smith1,  gives the results shown in the lower part of Fig. 3; the agreement is obviously quite good. The supershell frequencies have been normalized to one another at $`q=0`$ and then shifted into the range of phonon frequencies. Of course, the introduction of a distinct, well-defined mode for the supershell in this region of $`(𝐪,\omega )`$ space is a rather drastic simplification whose implications are not clear. However, it is remarkable that the calculations of Ref. Ku,  also point to a sharp resonance in the vicinity of 2.5 eV attributed to interband transitions. In any case, the simple form in Eq. (9) does seem to capture much the same physics contained in the double shell model, and perhaps also that in less phenomenological treatments.

The calculations of the phonon spectra of MgB2 in Ref. Kong, , which show the anomalies, used a density functional theory (DFT), full-potential linear response, LMTO approach. The calculations of Ref. Bohnen, , which show no anomaly, used a mixed basis pseudopotential method and DFT elastic\_c . While the results of the two calculations are in general agreement, they differ strongly in the dispersion of interest here. Kong et al.Kong  also calculated the electron-phonon interaction and found it to be particularly large in the vicinity of the anomaly. Since the calculations of Ref. Kong,  obtained the anomalies, their origin must be embedded in and, in principle, can be extracted from those calculations. Conversely, since the anomalies were not obtained in Ref. Bohnen, , a comparison of the two approaches is important from both a computational and a physical standpoint. As discussed above, attempts to identify a well-defined mechanism producing the anomalies in other materials in the 1970s were inconclusive and MgB2 may now provide an impetus to reconsider their origins. It will indeed be interesting to see how well these calculations fit the experimental lattice dynamical data when crystals large enough for neutron scattering become available. Of course, any hint of acoustical plasmon effects also would be of great interest.

To summarize, one recent first-principles calculation of the phonon dispersion curves in MgB2 shows anomalies in the LA branch similar to those found in other high-Tc electron-phonon BCS superconductors; however, another calculation did not give them. These anomalies can be calculated using an acoustical plasmon mechanism but the band parameters involved seem unrealistic. A resonant polarization mechanism in which interband transitions give a $`𝐪`$-dependent contribution to the dielectric response function is probably more realistic. A detailed analysis of the new MgB2 lattice-dynamical calculations and comparison with earlier calculations for transition metal materials should be invaluable in giving insight into the underlying mechanism.

We would like to acknowledge valuable discussions with R. Fishman, I. Mazin, and D. Singh. This research was supported by ORNL, managed by UT-Battelle, LLC, for the U.S. DOE under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Take a half–space occupied by an isotropic, homogeneous, dielectric medium of relative permittivity $`ϵ_r(\lambda _0)=ϵ_r^{}(\lambda _0)+iϵ_r^{\prime \prime }(\lambda _0)`$, where $`\lambda _0`$ is the free–space wavelength. When a plane wave with electric field phasor of unit amplitude is incident normally on this half–space, the amplitude $`r(\lambda _0)`$ of the electric field phasor of the reflected plane wave is given by

$$\begin{array}{c}r(\lambda _0)=\frac{n(\lambda _0)1}{n(\lambda _0)+1}\hfill \\ n(\lambda _0)=\sqrt{ϵ_r(\lambda _0)}\hfill \end{array}\},$$
(1)
where $`n(\lambda _0)`$ is the refractive index. The foregoing standard result is found in countless many textbooks; see, e.g., Born & Wolf  and Jackson . It can be applied to insulators, poor conductors as well as good conductors.

Let the medium occupying the half–space also have magnetic properties represented by the relative permeability $`\mu _r(\lambda _0)=\mu _r^{}(\lambda _0)+i\mu _r^{\prime \prime }(\lambda _0)`$. Then, the previous result has to be modified as follows:

$$\begin{array}{c}r(\lambda _0)=\frac{\left[n(\lambda _0)/\mu _r(\lambda _0)\right]1}{\left[n(\lambda _0)/\mu _r(\lambda _0)\right]+1}\hfill \\ n(\lambda _0)=\sqrt{ϵ_r(\lambda _0)\mu _r(\lambda _0)}\hfill \end{array}\}.$$
(2)
This result (2) for the reflection coefficient $`r(\lambda _0)`$ gains particular prominence in the context of composite materials that supposedly exhibit $`\left\{ϵ_r^{}<0,\mu _r^{}<0\right\}`$ and $`\left\{ϵ_r^{\prime \prime }0,\mu _r^{\prime \prime }0\right\}`$ in some spectral regime  — the time–dependence $`\mathrm{exp}(i\omega t)`$ being implicit for all electromagnetic fields, with $`\omega `$ as the angular frequency. Shelby et al.  argued that the real part of $`n(\lambda _0)=n^{}(\lambda _0)+in^{\prime \prime }(\lambda _0)`$ must then be chosen to be negative. Consequently, it was concluded  that “\[p\]lane waves appear to propagate from plus and minus infinity towards the source …… \[but\] …… clearly energy propagates outwards from the source.” The conclusion has been employed to deduce the amplification of evanescent plane waves, leading to a proposal for aberration–free lenses .

Certainly, energy does not flow in the backward direction. Rather, the forward direction is defined as the direction of the energy transport, while the phase velocity may then be pointed in the backward direction — a known phenomenon . Assuming the one–resonance Drude model for both $`ϵ_r(\lambda _0)`$ and $`\mu _r(\lambda _0)`$, confining themselves to the spectral regime wherein $`ϵ_r^{}(\lambda _0)<0`$ and $`\mu _r^{}(\lambda _0)<0`$, and impedance–matching the dielectric–magnetic half–space to free space, Ziolkowski and Heyman  pointed out that the reflection coefficient $`r(\lambda _0)`$ must have finite magnitude. Employing the one–resonance Lorentz model for both $`ϵ_r(\lambda _0)`$ and $`\mu _r(\lambda _0)`$, McCall et al.  recently deduced that

* both $`ϵ_r^{}(\lambda _0)`$ and $`\mu _r^{}(\lambda _0)`$ need not be negative for $`n^{}(\lambda _0)`$ to be negative and $`n^{\prime \prime }(\lambda _0)`$ to be positive, and
* the magnitude of the reflection coefficient $`r(\lambda _0)`$ does not then exceed unity.

Let us emphasize that the spectral regime for $`n^{}(\lambda _0)<0`$ overspills into the neighborhoods of the regime wherein both $`ϵ_r^{}(\lambda _0)`$ and $`\mu _r^{}(\lambda _0)`$ are negative.

Whereas frequency–domain analysis for the response of a half–space calls for the determination of the signs of $`n^{}(\lambda _0)`$ and $`n^{\prime \prime }(\lambda _0)`$, the refractive index does not enter time–domain analysis. Therefore, time–domain analysis offers an independent way of assessing the results of frequency–domain analysis. In this communication, we present our conclusions from the response of a dielectric–magnetic half–space with negative real refractive index in a certain spectral regime to a normally incident wideband pulse. The Fourier transform of the reflected pulse confirms the frequency–domain calculations of $`r(\lambda _0)`$ in that spectral regime, and underscores the requirement of $`n^{\prime \prime }(\lambda _0)>0`$ for real materials (which cannot be non–dissipative due to causality) to be sufficient.

## 2 Theory in Brief

Consider the region $`\left\{z0,t0\right\}`$ of spatiotemporal space. The half–space $`zz_{\mathrm{}}`$ is occupied by a homogeneous dielectric–magnetic medium whose constitutive relations are given by

$$\begin{array}{c}𝐃(𝐫,t)=ϵ_0\left[𝐄(𝐫,t)+(\chi _e𝐄)(𝐫,t)\right]\hfill \\ 𝐁(𝐫,t)=\mu _0\left[𝐇(𝐫,t)+(\chi _m𝐇)(𝐫,t)\right]\hfill \end{array}\},zz_{\mathrm{}},$$
(3)
where the asterisk denotes the convolution operation  with respect to time, while the susceptibility functions

$`\chi _{e,m}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`p_{e,m}{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi c_0}{\lambda _{e,m}}}\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi c_0t}{\lambda _{e,m}}}\right)`$ (4)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{c_0t}{M_{e,m}\lambda _{e,m}}}\right)𝒰(t)`$
obey the one–resonance Lorentz model. These susceptibility functions correspond to

$`ϵ_r(\lambda _0)`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{p_e}{1+(N_e^1i\lambda _e\lambda _0^1)^2}},`$ (5)
$`\mu _r(\lambda _0)`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{p_m}{1+(N_m^1i\lambda _m\lambda _0^1)^2}}`$ (6)
in the frequency domain . In these expressions, $`ϵ_0`$ and $`\mu _0`$ are the permittivity and the permeability of free space; $`c_0=(ϵ_0\mu _0)^{1/2}`$ is the speed of light in free space; $`𝒰(t)`$ is the unit step function; $`p_{e,m}`$ denote the so–called oscillator strengths; while $`N_{e,m}=2\pi M_{e,m}`$ and $`\lambda _{e,m}`$ determine the resonance wavelengths and the linewidths. The region $`zz_{\mathrm{}}`$ is vacuous.

At time $`t=0`$, an amplitude–modulated wave is supposedly launched normally from the plane $`z=0`$; therefore, all fields are independent of $`x`$ and $`y`$. The initial and boundary conditions on $`𝐄(z,t)`$ and $`𝐇(z,t)`$ are as follows:

$$\begin{array}{c}𝐄(z,0)=\mathrm{𝟎}z0\hfill \\ 𝐇(z,0)=\mathrm{𝟎}z0\hfill \\ 𝐄(0,t)=g(t)\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{2\pi c_0t}{\lambda _{car}}\right)\widehat{𝐲}t0\hfill \\ 𝐇(0,t)=(ϵ_0/\mu _0)^{1/2}g(t)\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{2\pi c_0t}{\lambda _{car}}\right)\widehat{𝐱}t0\hfill \end{array}\}.$$
(7)
Whereas $`\lambda _{car}`$ is the carrier wavelength, the function

$$g(t)=\frac{c_0t}{2\lambda _{car}}\mathrm{exp}(c_0t/\lambda _{car})$$
(8)
was chosen to represent the pulse. The cartesian unit vectors are denoted by $`(\widehat{𝐱},\widehat{𝐲},\widehat{𝐳})`$.

The differential equations to be solved are as follows:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{z}}E_y(z,t)=\mu _0\left[{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}H_x(z,t)+{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}(\chi _mH_x)(z,t)\right],`$ (9)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{z}}H_x(z,t)=ϵ_0\left[{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}E_y(z,t)+{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}(\chi _eE_y)(z,t)\right].`$ (10)
Their solution was carried out using a finite difference calculus described elsewhere in detail . It suffices to state here that $`z`$ and $`t`$ were discretized into segments of size $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, respectively; derivatives were replaced by central differences, and the leapfrog method was used .

Finally, the Fourier transform

$$\stackrel{~}{E}_y(z,\lambda _0)=_{t_a}^{t_b}E_y(z,t)\mathrm{exp}(i\frac{2\pi c_0}{\lambda _0}t)𝑑t$$
(11)
was calculated to determine the spectral contents of the incident and the reflected pulses. The parameters $`z`$, $`t_a`$ and $`t_b`$ were chosen to capture as much of both pulses as possible, following the procedure described elsewhere . The computed ratio of the Fourier transform of the reflected pulse to that of the incident pulse is denoted here by $`r_{TD}(\lambda _0)`$, the subscript TD indicating its emergence from time–domain analysis.

## 3 Numerical Results and Discussion

For the sake of illustration, the following values were selected for the constitutive parameters of the dielectric–magnetic half–space: $`p_e=1`$, $`p_m=0.8`$, $`\lambda _e=300`$ nm, $`\lambda _m=320`$ nm, $`M_e=M_m=100`$. Thus, $`ϵ_r^{\prime \prime }(\lambda _0)>0`$ and $`\mu _r^{\prime \prime }(\lambda _0)>0`$ for all $`\lambda _0`$. However, $`ϵ_r^{}(\lambda _0)`$ is negative for $`\lambda _0[212.1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}300}]`$ nm, but it is positive for all other $`\lambda _0`$; while $`\mu _r^{}(\lambda _0)`$ is negative for $`\lambda _0[238.6,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}320}]`$ nm, and positive for all other $`\lambda _0`$.

The definition of the refractive index in (2) suggests two possibilities: Either

* $`n^{\prime \prime }(\lambda _0)`$ is negative for $`\lambda _0[236.1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}316.8}]`$ nm and positive elsewhere, consistent with the requirement of $`n^{}(\lambda _0)>0\lambda _0`$; or
* $`n^{}(\lambda _0)`$ is negative for $`\lambda _0[236.1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}316.8}]`$ nm and positive elsewhere, consistent with the requirement of $`n^{\prime \prime }(\lambda _0)0\lambda _0`$.

Thus, our attention had to be focussed on the anomalous spectral regime $`\lambda _0[236.1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}316.8}]`$ nm. In this regime, the reflection coefficient $`r(\lambda _0)`$ for Possibility A is the reciprocal of that for Possibility B. The two possibilities can therefore be unambiguously distinguished from one another.

The carrier wavelength was chosen as $`\lambda _{car}=240`$ nm. The pulse duration is $`3`$ fs and its 3dB band is $`\lambda _0[218,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}261}]`$ nm. Therefore the anomalous spectral regime was substantively covered by our time–domain calculations. The segment sizes $`\mathrm{\Delta }z=5`$ nm and $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=0.015`$ fs used by us were adequate for the chosen constitutive parameters, but obviously would be totally inadequate in the resonance bands of $`ϵ_r(\lambda _0)`$ and $`\mu _r(\lambda _0)`$.

Possibility A is clearly nonsensical. It implies transport of energy in the half–space $`zz_{\mathrm{}}`$ towards the interface $`z=z_{\mathrm{}}`$. Not surprisingly therefore, (2), (5) and (6) yielded $`|r(\lambda _0)|>1`$ for all $`\lambda _0[236.1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}316.8}]`$ nm.

Figure 1 presents the computed values of $`|r(\lambda _0)|`$ obtained from (2), (5) and (6) for Possibility B (i.e., when $`n^{\prime \prime }(\lambda _0)0`$ is guaranteed for all $`\lambda _0`$). The computed values of $`|r_{TD}(\lambda _0)|`$ are also shown therein. The two sets of magnitudes compare very well for $`\lambda _0290`$ nm. Examination of the refracted pulse also showed that it transported energy away from the interface $`z=z_{\mathrm{}}`$, which corroborates the observations of Ziolkowski and Heyman .

Thus, time–domain analysis validates the conclusion that $`n(\lambda _0)`$ must be selected in frequency–domain research in such a way that $`n^{\prime \prime }(\lambda _0)0`$ — irrespective of the sign of $`n^{}(\lambda _0)`$.