text:
# Magnetothermopower and magnon-assisted transport in ferromagnetic tunnel junctions

## Abstract

We present a model of the thermopower in a mesoscopic tunnel junction between two ferromagnetic metals based upon magnon-assisted tunneling processes. In our model, the thermopower is generated in the course of thermal equilibration between two baths of magnons, mediated by electrons. We predict a particularly large thermopower effect in the case of a junction between two half-metallic ferromagnets with antiparallel polarizations, $`S_{AP}(k_B/e)`$, in contrast to $`S_P0`$ for a parallel configuration.

Spin valve systems and magnetic multilayers displaying giant magnetoresistance effects also exhibit substantial magnetothermopower  with a strong temperature dependence. In metals, the thermopower $`S`$ is related to the conductivity of electrons taken at a certain energy, $`\sigma (ϵ)`$, by the Mott formula, $`S=(\pi ^2k_B^2T/3e)\left(\mathrm{ln}\sigma (ϵ)/ϵ\right)_{ϵ_F}`$, so that it typically contains a small parameter such as $`k_BT/ϵ_F`$. Theories of transport in magnetic multilayers with highly transparent interfaces based upon the use of the Mott formula have explained the difference between thermopower in the parallel (P) and anti-parallel (AP) configuration of ferromagnetic layers as due to either the difference in the energy dependence of the density of states for majority and minority spin bands in ferromagnetic layers, or a different efficiency of electron-magnon scattering for carriers in opposite spin states. In particular, the electron-magnon interaction in a ferromagnetic layer was incorporated to explain the observation  of a strong temperature dependence of $`S(T)`$ and gave, theoretically, a much larger thermopower in the parallel configuration of multilayers with highly transparent interfaces than in the antiparallel one, $`S_PS_{AP}`$.

In this paper we investigate a model of the electron-magnon interaction assisted thermopower in a mesoscopic size ferromagnet/insulator/ferromagnet tunnel junction, which yields a different prediction. In the model we study below, the bottle-neck of both charge and heat transport lies in a small-area tunnel contact between ferromagnetic metals held at different temperatures, $`T\pm \mathrm{\Delta }T/2`$. The thermopower is generated in the course of thermal equilibration between two baths of magnons, mediated by electrons. We find that the magnetothermopower effect is most pronounced in the case of half-metallic ferromagnets, where the exchange spin splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ between the majority and minority conduction bands is greater than the Fermi energy $`ϵ_F`$ measured from the bottom of the majority band, and the Fermi density of states in the minority band is zero. In a highly resistive antiparallel configuration of such a junction, where the emission/absorption of a magnon would lift the spin-blockade of electronic transfer between ferromagnetic metals, we predict a large thermopower effect, whereas in the lower-resistance parallel configuration thermopower appears to be relatively weak:

$$S_{AP}0.64\frac{k_B}{e};\frac{S_P}{S_{AP}}\frac{k_BT}{ϵ_F}.$$
(1)
We also found that for a junction between two conventional ferromagnetic metals, the ability of electronic transfer assisted by magnon emission/absorption to create thermopower depends on the difference between the size of majority/minority band Fermi surfaces and it is reduced by a temperature dependent factor $`g(T)(k_BT/\omega _D)^{3/2}`$. The latter reflects the fractional change in the net magnetization of the reservoirs due to thermal magnons (Bloch’s $`T^{3/2}`$ law).

Below, we describe the calculation of the thermopower for the case of a tunnel contact between two half-metallic ferromagnets and, then, we present its generalization to conventional ferromagnetic metals. We obtain an expression for the current $`I(V,\mathrm{\Delta }T)`$ between bulk ferromagnetic reservoirs, as a function of bias voltage, $`V`$, and of the temperature drop, $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$, and, then, determine the thermopower coefficient $`S=V/\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ by satisfying the relation $`I(V,\mathrm{\Delta }T)=0`$. The expression for the current was derived using the balance equation, which takes into account competing elastic and inelastic electron transfer processes across the tunnel junction.

Let us consider, first, the AP configuration of ferromagnetic electrodes, with spin-$``$ majority electrons on the left hand side of the junction and spin-$``$ on the right. For such an alignment, elastic tunneling of carriers between electrodes is blocked by the absence of available states for a spin-polarized electron on the other side of an insulating barrier, whereas electron transfer may happen via tunneling processes assisted by a simultaneous emission/absorption of a magnon. Since tails of wavefunctions of majority-spin ($``$) electrons close to the Fermi level on the left hand side penetrate into the forbidden region on the right, an electron on one side of the junction acquires a weak coupling with core magnetic moments (and, therefore, magnons) on the other side. A characteristic event can be viewed as a two-step quantum process. First, an electron tunnels into a virtual intermediate high-energy state in the minority band. Then, it incorporates itself into the majority band by flipping spin in a magnon-emission process. Following the tunneling Hamiltonian approach, the amplitude for a spin-$``$ electron with wave number $`𝐤`$ on the left to finish in a state $`(,𝐤^{})`$ on the right after emitting a spin-wave with wavenumber $`𝐪`$ can be estimated using second order perturbation theory with respect to the electron - magnon interaction and the tunneling matrix element $`t_{𝐤,𝐤^{}+𝐪}`$:

$$A_{𝐤,𝐤^{}+𝐪}=\frac{t_{𝐤,𝐤^{}+𝐪}\mathrm{\Delta }}{\sqrt{2\xi 𝒩}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }+ϵ_{𝐤^{}+𝐪}ϵ_𝐤\right)}\frac{t_{𝐤,𝐤^{}+𝐪}}{\sqrt{2\xi 𝒩}},$$
(2)
For $`k_BT,eV\mathrm{\Delta }`$, when both initial and final electron states should be taken close to the Fermi level, only long wavelength magnons can be emitted, so that the energy deficit in the virtual states can be approximated as $`\mathrm{\Delta }+ϵ_{𝐤^{}+𝐪}ϵ_𝐤\mathrm{\Delta }`$. As noticed in Refs. , this cancels out the large exchange parameter since the same electron-core spin exchange constant appears both in the splitting between minority and majority bands and in the electron-magnon coupling. \[The number of localized moments in a ferromagnet $`𝒩`$ appears in Eq. (2) as we normalize both electron and magnon plane waves to the system volume, and $`\xi `$ is spin per unit magnetic cell.\]

To complete the balance equation describing electron transfer between half-metallic electrodes, one has to take into account four magnon-assisted tunneling processes depicted in Figure 1. Below, we describe them in detail assuming that the tunnel barrier is flat, so that the parallel component of the electron momentum conserves upon tunneling. Two of these processes, (a) and (b), involve the interaction of electrons with a thermal bath of magnons on the right hand side of the junction and are responsible for transferring electrons in opposite directions. The process (a) begins with a $``$ electron on the left with wavevector $`𝐤_\mathrm{L}=(𝐤_\mathrm{L}^{},k_\mathrm{L}^z)`$ \[with occupation number $`n_\mathrm{L}(𝐤_\mathrm{L})`$\], which tunnels through the barrier into an intermediate virtual $``$ state on the right ($`𝐤_\mathrm{R}=(𝐤_\mathrm{L}^{},k_\mathrm{R}^z)`$). Then, this electron flips spin by emitting a magnon with wavevector $`𝐪`$ \[this process is stimulated by the occupancy factor of thermal magnon excitations $`1+N_\mathrm{R}(𝐪)`$\], and, thus, incorporates itself into the majority spin band on the right, provided the final $``$ state ($`𝐤^{}=𝐤_\mathrm{R}𝐪`$) is not occupied \[which has probability $`1n_\mathrm{R}(𝐤_\mathrm{R}𝐪)`$\]. The process (b) is the reverse to the process (a). It begins with a $``$ electron on the right with wavevector $`𝐤^{}=𝐤_\mathrm{R}𝐪`$, that absorbs a magnon, flips its spin and moves into a virtual minority-spin state on the right. Then, it tunnels into an empty final state in the majority spin band in the left reservoir. The balance between these two processes contributes to the total current as

$`I_{\mathrm{ab}}`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{e}{h}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑ϵ{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤_\mathrm{L}𝐤_\mathrm{R}𝐪}{}}\left|A_{𝐤_\mathrm{L},𝐤_\mathrm{R}}\right|^2`$ (6)
$`\times \delta (ϵϵ_{𝐤_\mathrm{L}})\delta (ϵeVϵ_{𝐤_\mathrm{R}𝐪}\omega _𝐪)`$
$`\times \{n_\mathrm{L}(𝐤_\mathrm{L})[1n_\mathrm{R}(𝐤_\mathrm{R}𝐪)][1+N_\mathrm{R}(𝐪)]`$
$`[1n_\mathrm{L}(𝐤_\mathrm{L})]n_\mathrm{R}(𝐤_\mathrm{R}𝐪)N_\mathrm{R}(𝐪)\},`$
where $`n_{\mathrm{L}/\mathrm{R}}(𝐤)=[\mathrm{exp}\{(ϵ_𝐤ϵ_\mathrm{F}^{\mathrm{L}/\mathrm{R}}\}/k_BT_{\mathrm{L}/\mathrm{R}})+1]^1`$, $`ϵ_\mathrm{F}^\mathrm{L}ϵ_\mathrm{F}^\mathrm{R}=eV`$, $`N_{\mathrm{L}/\mathrm{R}}(𝐪)=[\mathrm{exp}(\omega _𝐪/k_BT_{\mathrm{L}/\mathrm{R}})1]^1`$, and $`T_{\mathrm{L}/\mathrm{R}}=T\pm \mathrm{\Delta }T/2`$.

Two other processes shown in Figure 1(c) and (d) involve emission/absorption of magnons on the left hand side of the junction. Their contribution to the total current is

$`I_{\mathrm{cd}}`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{e}{h}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑ϵ{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤_\mathrm{L}𝐤_\mathrm{R}𝐪}{}}\left|A_{𝐤_\mathrm{L},𝐤_\mathrm{R}}\right|^2`$ (10)
$`\times \delta (ϵeVϵ_{𝐤_\mathrm{R}})\delta (ϵϵ_{𝐤_\mathrm{L}𝐪}\omega _𝐪)`$
$`\times \{n_\mathrm{R}(𝐤_\mathrm{R})[1n_\mathrm{L}(𝐤_\mathrm{L}𝐪)][1+N_\mathrm{L}(𝐪)]+`$
$`+[1n_\mathrm{R}(𝐤_\mathrm{R})]n_\mathrm{L}(𝐤_\mathrm{L}𝐪)N_\mathrm{L}(𝐪)\}.`$
After combining them together into an expression for the total current $`I=I_{ab}+I_{cd}`$, and, then, performing summation over wave numbers and integration over initial electron energies, we arrived at the following expression

$`I`$ $`=`$ $`+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{G_P}{\xi e}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_BT}{\omega _D}}\right)^{3/2}\left[aeVbk_B\mathrm{\Delta }T\right],`$ (11)
where $`a=3\mathrm{\Gamma }(3/2)\zeta (3/2)`$, $`b=(5/2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(5/2)\zeta (5/2)`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)`$ is the gamma function, and $`\zeta (x)`$ is Riemann’s zeta function. Here, all properties of the interface are incorporated into a single parameter $`G_P`$ which coincides with the linear conductance of the same mesoscopic junction in the P configuration. For a flat, clean barrier of area $`A`$, where the parallel component of momentum is conserved upon tunneling, we consider the tunneling matrix element to have the form $`t_{𝐤,𝐤^{}}=\delta _{𝐤_{},𝐤_{}^{}}t|h^2v_L^zv_R^z/L^2|^{1/2}`$, which gives $`G_P4\pi ^2(e^2/h)\left|t\right|^2(A\mathrm{\Pi }_+/h^2)`$ where $`v_{L(R)}^z`$ is the perpendicular component of velocity on the left (right) side, $`L`$ is the length of an electrode, $`t`$ is the barrier transparency, and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_+`$ is the area of the maximal cross-section of the Fermi surface of majority electrons in the plane parallel to the interface. When deriving Eq. (11), we also assumed a quadratic magnon dispersion, $`\omega _q=Dq^2`$, and $`k_BT\omega _D`$, where $`\omega _D=D(6\pi ^2/v)^{2/3}`$ is the Debye magnon energy, and $`v`$ is the volume of a unit cell.

The thermopower coefficient $`S=V/\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ can be found by setting the total current in Eq. (11) to zero and determining the voltage created by the temperature difference. As a result, the tunneling conductance $`G_P`$ cancels from the final answer, and, in the antiparallel configuration, $`S_{AP}0.64k_B/e`$. In contrast to the AP configuration, magnon-assisted tunneling cannot contribute to the electron transfer between two electrodes in the P configuration, since both initial and final electron states should have the same spin polarization in order to belong to the majority bands in both of the reservoirs. As a result, the linear conductance of such a junction is formed without the involvement of magnon-assisted processes, and the thermopower may only appear due to the energy-dependent electron tunneling density of states, having the order of magnitude of $`S_P(k_B/e)(k_BT/ϵ_F)`$.

A generalization to conventional ferromagnetic metals of the proposed theory of the magnon-assisted (ma) tunneling contribution to the thermopower yields

$$S_{AP}^{\mathrm{ma}}=(k_B/e)g\theta ;S_P^{\mathrm{ma}}=0,$$
(12)
$`g{\displaystyle \frac{1.7}{\xi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_BT}{\omega _D}}\right)^{3/2};\theta =\{\begin{array}{cc}(\mathrm{\Pi }_+\mathrm{\Pi }_{})/\mathrm{\Pi }_{},\hfill & \mathrm{flat}\hfill \\ (\mathrm{\Pi }_+^2\mathrm{\Pi }_{}^2)/(\mathrm{\Pi }_+\mathrm{\Pi }_{}),\hfill & \mathrm{diff}\hfill \end{array}`$

where $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\pm `$ is the area of the maximal cross-section of the Fermi surface of majority/minority electrons in the plane parallel to the interface ($`\mathrm{\Pi }_+>\mathrm{\Pi }_{}`$), $`\xi `$ is the spin of localized moments, and $`\omega _D`$ is the magnon bandwidth. The function $`g(T)`$ is proportional to the fractional change in the net magnetization due to thermal magnons (Bloch’s $`T^{3/2}`$ law) and the function $`\theta `$ is written for both a flat, clean interface (‘flat’) and a diffusive tunnel barrier (‘diff’). This result was obtained after some amendments to the above analysis were made. First, the linear conductance in the AP configuration is not suppressed because an elastic tunneling channel is opened between the majority band on one side and the minority band on the other, which reduces the thermopower. Secondly, for the AP configuration, in addition to the magnon-assisted tunneling processes that enable transitions from majority initial to majority final states via an intermediate minority state (as described already for the half-metallic case and shown in Fig. 1), one should take into account the possibility of magnon-assisted tunneling processes that enable transitions from minority initial to minority final states via an intermediate majority state. A transition via a majority (minority) intermediate state results in the transfer of electrons in the same (opposite) direction as the net polarization transfer between two baths of magnons so that the additional processes partially compensate the thermally excited currents.

The authors thank G. Tkachov and A. Geim for discussions. This work was supported by EPSRC.


format: text

text:
# Matrix Elements of Generalized Coherent Operators

## 1 Introduction

Coherent states or generalized coherent states play an important role in quantum physics, in particular, quantum optics, see  and references therein, or the books , . They also play an important one in mathematical physics. See the textbook . For example, they are very useful in performing stationary phase approximations to path integral, , , .

Coherent operators which produce coherent states are very useful because they are unitary and easy to handle. Why are they so handy ? The basic reason is probably that they are subject to the elementary Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula. Many basic properties of them have been investigated, see , ,  or , . We are particularly interested in the following three ones : the matrix elements, the trace formula and the Glauber’s formula.

Generalized coherent operators which produce generalized coherent states are also useful. But the corresponding properties have not been investigated as far as the author knows, see for example . One of the reasons is that they are not easy to handle. Of course we have disentangling formulas corresponding to the elementary Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula, but they are still not handy.

In this paper we focus our attention only on matrix elements of generalized coherent operators based on Lie algebras $`su(1,1)`$ and $`su(2)`$, and give explicit forms to all of them.

We make a short comment on some applications. Matrix elements of coherent operator can be applied to Rabi oscillations in Quantum Optics, see  and . One of our aims is also to apply the calculations in this paper to the same subject. This will be published in .

## 2 Coherent and Generalized Coherent Operators

We review the general theory of both the coherent operator and generalized coherent ones based on Lie algebras $`su(1,1)`$ and $`su(2)`$.

### 2.1 Coherent Operator

Let $`a(a^{})`$ be the annihilation (creation) operator of the harmonic oscillator. If we set $`Na^{}a`$ (: number operator), then

$$[N,a^{}]=a^{},[N,a]=a,[a^{},a]=\mathrm{𝟏}.$$
(1)
Let $``$ be a Fock space generated by $`a`$ and $`a^{}`$, and $`\{|n|n𝐍\{0\}\}`$ be its basis. The actions of $`a`$ and $`a^{}`$ on $``$ are given by

$$a|n=\sqrt{n}|n1,a^{}|n=\sqrt{n+1}|n+1,N|n=n|n$$
(2)
where $`|0`$ is the normalized vacuum ($`a|0=0\mathrm{and}0|0=1`$). From (2) the state $`|n`$ for $`n1`$ is given by

$$|n=\frac{(a^{})^n}{\sqrt{n!}}|0.$$
(3)
These states satisfy the orthonormality and completeness conditions

$$m|n=\delta _{mn},\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|nn|=\mathrm{𝟏}.$$
(4)
Definition We call a state

$$|z=\text{e}^{za^{}\overline{z}a}|0U(z)|0\text{for}z𝐂$$
(5)
the coherent state.

Since the operator $`U(z)=\text{e}^{za^{}\overline{z}a}`$ is unitary, we call this a (unitary) coherent operator. For these operators the following property is crucial :

$$U(z+w)=\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}(z\overline{w}\overline{z}w)}U(z)U(w)\text{for}z,w𝐂.$$
(6)
From this we have a well–known commutation relation $`U(z)U(w)=\text{e}^{z\overline{w}\overline{z}w}U(w)U(z)`$. Here let us recall the disentangling formula of $`U(z)`$ for later convenience :

$$\text{e}^{za^{}\overline{z}a}=\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}|z|^2}\text{e}^{za^{}}\text{e}^{\overline{z}a}=\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}|z|^2}\text{e}^{\overline{z}a}\text{e}^{za^{}}.$$
(7)
This is obtained by the famous (elementary) Baker–Campbell–Hausdorff formula :

$$\text{e}^{A+B}=\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}[A,B]}\text{e}^A\text{e}^B$$
(8)
whenever $`[A,[A,B]]=[B,[A,B]]=0`$.

### 2.2 Generalized Coherent Operator Based on $`su(1,1)`$

Let us introduce generalized coherent operators and the states based on $`su(1,1)`$. Let $`\{k_+,k_{},k_3\}`$ be a Weyl basis of Lie algebra $`su(1,1)sl(2,𝐂)`$,

$$k_+=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right),k_{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),k_3=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(9)
Then we have

$$[k_3,k_+]=k_+,[k_3,k_{}]=k_{},[k_+,k_{}]=2k_3.$$
(10)
We note that $`(k_+)^{}=k_{}`$.

Next we consider a spin $`K(>0)`$ representation of $`su(1,1)sl(2,𝐂)`$ and set its generators $`\{K_+,K_{},K_3\}((K_+)^{}=K_{})`$,

$$[K_3,K_+]=K_+,[K_3,K_{}]=K_{},[K_+,K_{}]=2K_3.$$
(11)
We note that this (unitary) representation is necessarily infinite dimensional. The Fock space on which $`\{K_+,K_{},K_3\}`$ act is $`_K\{|K,n|n𝐍\{0\}\}`$ and whose actions are

$`K_+|K,n`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{(n+1)(2K+n)}|K,n+1,K_{}|K,n=\sqrt{n(2K+n1)}|K,n1,`$
$`K_3|K,n`$ $`=`$ $`(K+n)|K,n,`$ (12)
where $`|K,0`$ is a normalized vacuum ($`K_{}|K,0=0`$ and $`K,0|K,0=1`$). We have written $`|K,0`$ instead of $`|0`$ to emphasize the spin $`K`$ representation, see . From (2.2), states $`|K,n`$ are given by

$$|K,n=\frac{(K_+)^n}{\sqrt{n!(2K)_n}}|K,0,$$
(13)
where $`(a)_n`$ is the Pochhammer’s notation $`(a)_na(a+1)\mathrm{}(a+n1)`$. These states satisfy the orthonormality and completeness conditions

$$K,m|K,n=\delta _{mn},\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|K,nK,n|=\mathrm{𝟏}_K.$$
(14)
Now let us consider a generalized version of coherent states :

Definition We call a state

$$|z=\text{e}^{zK_+\overline{z}K_{}}|K,0V(z)|K,0\text{for}z𝐂.$$
(15)
the generalized coherent state (or the coherent state of Perelomov’s type based on $`su(1,1)`$ in our terminology).

Here is the disentangling formula :

$$\text{e}^{zK_+\overline{z}K_{}}=\text{e}^{\zeta K_+}\text{e}^{\mathrm{log}(1|\zeta |^2)K_3}\text{e}^{\overline{\zeta }K_{}}=\text{e}^{\overline{\zeta }K_{}}\text{e}^{\mathrm{log}(1|\zeta |^2)K_3}\text{e}^{\zeta K_+},\zeta \frac{\text{tanh}(|z|)}{|z|}z.$$
(16)
This is also the key formula for generalized coherent operators. See  or .

Here let us construct an important example of this representation. If we set

$$K_+\frac{1}{2}\left(a^{}\right)^2,K_{}\frac{1}{2}a^2,K_3\frac{1}{2}\left(a^{}a+\frac{1}{2}\right),$$
(17)
then it is easy to check (11). That is, the set $`\{K_+,K_{},K_3\}`$ gives unitary representations of $`su(1,1)`$with spin $`K=1/4\text{and}3/4`$, . Now we in particular call an operator

$$S(z)=\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}\{z(a^{})^2\overline{z}a^2\}}\text{for}z𝐂$$
(18)
the squeezed operator. This operator plays a very important role.

### 2.3 Generalized Coherent Operator Based on $`su(2)`$

Let us introduce generalized coherent operators and the states based on $`su(2)`$. Let $`\{j_+,j_{},j_3\}`$ be a Weyl basis of Lie algebra $`su(2)sl(2,𝐂)`$,

$$j_+=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right),j_{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),j_3=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(19)
Then we have

$$[j_3,j_+]=j_+,[j_3,j_{}]=j_{},[j_+,j_{}]=2j_3.$$
(20)
We note that $`(j_+)^{}=j_{}`$.

Next we consider a spin $`J(>0)`$ representation of $`su(2)sl(2,𝐂)`$ and set its generators $`\{J_+,J_{},J_3\}((J_+)^{}=J_{})`$,

$$[J_3,J_+]=J_+,[J_3,J_{}]=J_{},[J_+,J_{}]=2J_3.$$
(21)
We note that this (unitary) representation is necessarily finite dimensional. The Fock space on which $`\{J_+,J_{},J_3\}`$ act is $`_J\{|J,n|0n2J\}`$ and whose actions are

$`J_+|J,n`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{(n+1)(2Jn)}|J,n+1,J_{}|J,n=\sqrt{n(2Jn+1)}|J,n1,`$
$`J_3|J,n`$ $`=`$ $`(J+n)|J,n,`$ (22)
where $`|J,0`$ is a normalized vacuum ($`J_{}|J,0=0`$ and $`J,0|J,0=1`$). We have written $`|J,0`$ instead of $`|0`$ to emphasize the spin $`J`$ representation, see . From (2.3), states $`|J,n`$ are given by

$$|J,n=\frac{(J_+)^n}{\sqrt{n!{}_{2J}{}^{}P_{n}^{}}}|J,0$$
(23)
where $`{}_{2J}{}^{}P_{n}^{}(2J)(2J1)\mathrm{}(2Jn+1)`$.

These states satisfy the orthonormality and completeness conditions

$$J,m|J,n=\delta _{mn},\underset{n=0}{\overset{2J}{}}|J,nJ,n|=\mathrm{𝟏}_J.$$
(24)
Now let us consider a generalized version of coherent states :

Definition We call a state

$$|z=\text{e}^{zJ_+\overline{z}J_{}}|J,0W(z)|J,0\text{for}z𝐂.$$
(25)
the generalized coherent state (or the coherent state of Perelomov’s type based on $`su(2)`$ in our terminology).

We recall the disentangling formula :

$$\text{e}^{zJ_+\overline{z}J_{}}=\text{e}^{\eta J_+}\text{e}^{\mathrm{log}(1+|\eta |^2)J_3}\text{e}^{\overline{\eta }J_{}}=\text{e}^{\overline{\eta }J_{}}\text{e}^{\mathrm{log}(1+|\eta |^2)J_3}\text{e}^{\eta J_+},\eta \frac{\text{tan}(|z|)}{|z|}z.$$
(26)
This is also the key formula for generalized coherent operators.

A comment is in order. We can construct the spin $`K`$ and $`J`$ representations by making use of Schwinger’s boson method. But we don’t repeat it here, see for example .

## 3 Matrix Elements of Generalized Coherent Operators $`\mathrm{}`$ Results

In this section we first present matrix elements of coherent operators and next study matrix elements of generalized coherent operators.

Let us endeavor to make this section self–contained as far as we can because the proofs in the following are very important to understand mathematical structure of coherent or generalized coherent operators.

### 3.1 Matrix Elements of Coherent Operator

We show explicit formulas of matrix elements of coherent operators in (5). This result is well–known, see for example .

Matrix Elements The matrix elements of $`U(z)`$ are :

$`(\text{i})nmn|U(z)|m=\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}|z|^2}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{n!}{m!}}}(\overline{z})^{mn}L_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{(mn)}(|z|^2),`$ (27)
$`(\text{ii})nmn|U(z)|m=\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}|z|^2}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m!}{n!}}}z^{nm}L_{m}^{}{}_{}{}^{(nm)}(|z|^2),`$ (28)
where $`L_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{(\alpha )}`$ is the associated Laguerre polynomial defined by

$$L_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{(\alpha )}(x)=\underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}(1)^j\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+\alpha }{nj}\right)\frac{x^j}{j!}.$$
(29)
In particular $`L_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{(0)}L_n`$ is the usual Laguerre polynomial and these are related to diagonal elements of $`U(z)`$.

The proof is easy and as follows.

For the case $`nm`$

$`n|U(z)|m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{n!}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{m!}}}0|a^n\text{e}^{za^{}\overline{z}a}(a^{})^m|0\text{by (}\text{3}\text{)}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{n!m!}}}\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}|z|^2}0|a^n\text{e}^{\overline{z}a}\text{e}^{za^{}}(a^{})^m|0\text{by (}\text{7}\text{)}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{n!m!}}}\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}|z|^2}{\displaystyle \frac{^n}{(\overline{z})^n}}{\displaystyle \frac{^m}{z^m}}0|\text{e}^{\overline{z}a}\text{e}^{za^{}}|0.`$
Noting

$$\text{e}^{\overline{z}a}\text{e}^{za^{}}=\text{e}^{|z|^2}\text{e}^{za^{}}\text{e}^{\overline{z}a}$$

by (7) and $`a|0=0`$, $`0|a^{}=0`$

$`n|U(z)|m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{n!m!}}}\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}|z|^2}{\displaystyle \frac{^m}{z^m}}{\displaystyle \frac{^n}{(\overline{z})^n}}\text{e}^{|z|^2}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{n!m!}}}\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}|z|^2}{\displaystyle \frac{^m}{z^m}}\left(z^n\text{e}^{|z|^2}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{n!m!}}}\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}|z|^2}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{m}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{mk}}\right)(z^n)^{(mk)}\left(\text{e}^{|z|^2}\right)^{(k)}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{n!m!}}}\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}|z|^2}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{m}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{mk}}\right)n(n1)\mathrm{}(nm+k+1)z^{nm+k}(\overline{z})^k\text{e}^{|z|^2}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{n!m!}}}\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}|z|^2}z^{nm}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{m}{}}}(1)^k{\displaystyle \frac{m!}{k!(mk)!}}{\displaystyle \frac{n!}{(nm+k)!}}(|z|^2)^k`$
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m!}{n!}}}\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}|z|^2}z^{nm}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{m}{}}}(1)^k{\displaystyle \frac{n!}{(mk)!(nm+k)!}}{\displaystyle \frac{(|z|^2)^k}{k!}}`$
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m!}{n!}}}\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}|z|^2}z^{nm}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{m}{}}}(1)^k\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m+nm}{mk}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{(|z|^2)^k}{k!}}`$
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m!}{n!}}}\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}|z|^2}z^{nm}L_{m}^{}{}_{}{}^{(nm)}(|z|^2).`$
For the case $`nm`$ we have only to take a complex conjugate of (28) (note that $`U(z)^{}=U(z)`$).

Here we state an interesting application of matrix elements to the theory of special functions. From (6) $`U(z+w)=\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}(z\overline{w}\overline{z}w)}U(z)U(w)`$ let us take a matix element

$`n|U(z+w)|m`$ $`=`$ $`\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}(z\overline{w}\overline{z}w)}n|U(z)U(w)|m`$
$`=`$ $`\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}(z\overline{w}\overline{z}w)}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}n|U(z)|kk|U(w)|m.`$
Then by substituting (27) and (28) into the above equation and making some calculations we obtain

(i) $`N1`$

$`L_m^{(N)}(|z+w|^2)=\text{e}^{\overline{z}w}`$ $`\{\left({\displaystyle \frac{z}{z+w}}\right)^N{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{m}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{k!}{m!}}(z\overline{w})^{mk}L_k^{(m+Nk)}(|z|^2)L_k^{(mk)}(|w|^2)`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{z+w}}\right)^N{\displaystyle \underset{k=m+1}{\overset{m+N}{}}}z^{m+Nk}w^{km}L_k^{(m+Nk)}(|z|^2)L_m^{(km)}(|w|^2)`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{w}{z+w}}\right)^N{\displaystyle \underset{k=m+N+1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(m+N)!}{k!}}(\overline{z}w)^{kmN}L_{m+N}^{(kmN)}(|z|^2)L_m^{(km)}(|w|^2)\},`$
(ii) $`N=0`$

$`L_m(|z+w|^2)=\text{e}^{\overline{z}w}`$ $`\{{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{m}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{k!}{m!}}(z\overline{w})^{mk}L_k^{(mk)}(|z|^2)L_k^{(mk)}(|w|^2)`$ (31)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{k=m+1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{m!}{k!}}(\overline{z}w)^{km}L_m^{(km)}(|z|^2)L_m^{(km)}(|w|^2)\}.`$
To obtain equations of these types is not our purpose of this paper, so we omit the proof (we leave it to the readers).

Since the equation (6) is based on the elementary Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula (8), our equations (3.1) and (31) are highly non–trivial. What is the mathematical meaning of these formulas ? We think they are a kind of factorization formula.

### 3.2 Matrix Elements of Coherent Operator Based on $`su(1,1)`$

We in this section study matrix elements of the generalized coherent operator based on Lie algebra $`su(1,1)`$ (15).

Matrix Elements The matrix elements of $`V(z)`$ are :

$`(\text{i})nm`$ $`K,n|V(z)|K,m=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{n!m!}{(2K)_n(2K)_m}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\overline{\kappa })^{mn}}{(1+|\kappa |^2)^{K+\frac{n+m}{2}}}}\times `$ (32)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}}(1)^{nj}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2K+m+nj)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2K)(mj)!(nj)!j!}}(1+|\kappa |^2)^j(|\kappa |^2)^{nj},`$
$`(\text{ii})nm`$ $`K,n|V(z)|K,m=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{n!m!}{(2K)_n(2K)_m}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^{nm}}{(1+|\kappa |^2)^{K+\frac{n+m}{2}}}}\times `$ (33)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{m}{}}}(1)^{mj}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2K+m+nj)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2K)(mj)!(nj)!j!}}(1+|\kappa |^2)^j(|\kappa |^2)^{mj},`$
where

$$\kappa \frac{\text{sinh}(|z|)}{|z|}z=\text{cosh}(|z|)\zeta .$$
(34)
A comment is in order. The author doesn’t know whether or not the right hand sides of (32) and (33) could be expressed by some known special functions such as associated Laguerre functions in (29).

This result has been reported in  under some assumption ($`2K𝐍`$). In this paper we remove this extra condition and give a complete proof to this result.

Since (32) is given by taking a complex conjugate of (33), we have only to prove (33). The proof is as follows.

Step 1 For the case $`nm`$

$`K,n|V(z)|K,m`$ (35)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{n!(2K)_n}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{m!(2K)_m}}}K,0|K_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{n}\text{e}^{zK_+\overline{z}K_{}}K_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{m}|K,0\text{by (}\text{13}\text{)}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{n!m!(2K)_n(2K)_m}}}K,0|K_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{n}\text{e}^{\overline{\zeta }K_{}}\text{e}^{\mathrm{log}(1|\zeta |^2)K_3}\text{e}^{\zeta K_+}K_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{m}|K,0\text{by (}\text{16}\text{)}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{n!m!(2K)_n(2K)_m}}}{\displaystyle \frac{^n}{\alpha ^n}}{\displaystyle \frac{^m}{\beta ^m}}K,0|\text{e}^{(\alpha \overline{\zeta })K_{}}\text{e}^{\mathrm{log}(1|\zeta |^2)K_3}\text{e}^{(\beta +\zeta )K_+}|K,0|_{\alpha =\beta =0}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{n!m!(2K)_n(2K)_m}}}{\displaystyle \frac{^n}{\alpha ^n}}{\displaystyle \frac{^m}{\beta ^m}}\left\{(1|\zeta |^2)^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{(\alpha \overline{\zeta })(\beta +\zeta )}{(1|\zeta |^2)^{1/2}}}\right\}^{2K}|_{\alpha =\beta =0},`$
where we have used the exchange relation like (7) :

Formula

$$\text{e}^{aK_{}}\text{e}^{2bK_3}\text{e}^{cK_+}=\text{e}^{xK_+}\text{e}^{2yK_3}\text{e}^{zK_{}}$$
(36)
where

$$x=\frac{c\text{e}^b}{\text{e}^bac\text{e}^b},y=\mathrm{log}(\text{e}^bac\text{e}^b),z=\frac{a\text{e}^b}{\text{e}^bac\text{e}^b}.$$
(37)
For the proof see Appendix.

Step 2 Let us calculate the differential

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^n}{\alpha ^n}}{\displaystyle \frac{^m}{\beta ^m}}\left\{(1|\zeta |^2)^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{(\alpha \overline{\zeta })(\beta +\zeta )}{(1|\zeta |^2)^{1/2}}}\right\}^{2K}|_{\alpha =\beta =0}`$
$`=`$ $`\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1|\zeta |^2)^{1/2}}}\right\}^{2K}{\displaystyle \frac{^m}{\beta ^m}}{\displaystyle \frac{^n}{\alpha ^n}}\left\{1|\zeta |^2(\alpha \overline{\zeta })(\beta +\zeta )\right\}^{2K}|_{\alpha =\beta =0}`$
$`=`$ $`\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1|\zeta |^2)^{1/2}}}\right\}^{2K}{\displaystyle \frac{^m}{\beta ^m}}(2K)_n(\beta +\zeta )^n\left\{1|\zeta |^2+\overline{\zeta }(\beta +\zeta )\right\}^{2Kn}|_{\beta =0}`$
$`=`$ $`(2K)_n\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1|\zeta |^2)^{1/2}}}\right\}^{2K}{\displaystyle \frac{^m}{\beta ^m}}\left\{(\beta +\zeta )^n(1+\beta \overline{\zeta })^{2Kn}\right\}|_{\beta =0}`$
$`=`$ $`(2K)_n\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1|\zeta |^2)^{1/2}}}\right\}^{2K}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{m}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{j}}\right)\left\{(\beta +\zeta )^n\right\}^{(j)}\left\{(1+\beta \overline{\zeta })^{2Kn}\right\}^{(mj)}|_{\beta =0}`$
$`=`$ $`(2K)_n\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1|\zeta |^2)^{1/2}}}\right\}^{2K}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{m}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{j}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{n!}{(nj)!}}\zeta ^{nj}(1)^{mj}(2K+n)_{mj}\overline{\zeta }^{mj}`$
$`=`$ $`\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1|\zeta |^2)^{1/2}}}\right\}^{2K}\zeta ^{nm}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{m}{}}}(1)^{mj}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{j}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{n!}{(nj)!}}(2K)_n(2K+n)_{mj}(|\zeta |^2)^{mj}`$
$`=`$ $`\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1|\zeta |^2)^{1/2}}}\right\}^{2Knm}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\zeta }{(1|\zeta |^2)^{1/2}}}\right)^{nm}\times `$ (38)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{m}{}}}(1)^{mj}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{j}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{n!}{(nj)!}}(2K)_{n+mj}\left({\displaystyle \frac{|\zeta |^2}{1|\zeta |^2}}\right)^{mj}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{1|\zeta |^2}}\right)^j.`$
Now let us make a change of variables

$$\zeta \kappa \frac{\zeta }{\sqrt{1|\zeta |^2}}$$

then by (16)

$$\kappa =\frac{z\mathrm{sinh}(|z|)}{|z|},|\kappa |^2=\mathrm{sinh}^2(|z|),1+|\kappa |^2=\mathrm{cosh}^2(|z|)=\frac{1}{1|\zeta |^2}.$$

Therefore

(38) $`=`$ $`(1+|\kappa |^2)^{(K+\frac{n+m}{2})}\kappa ^{nm}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{m}{}}}(1)^{mj}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{j}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{n!}{(nj)!}}(2K)_{n+mj}(|\kappa |^2)^{mj}(1+|\kappa |^2)^j`$
$`=`$ $`n!m!\kappa ^{nm}(1+|\kappa |^2)^{(K+\frac{n+m}{2})}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{m}{}}}(1)^{mj}{\displaystyle \frac{(2K)_{n+mj}}{j!(mj)!(nj)!}}(|\kappa |^2)^{mj}(1+|\kappa |^2)^j`$
$`=`$ $`n!m!\kappa ^{nm}(1+|\kappa |^2)^{(K+\frac{n+m}{2})}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{m}{}}}(1)^{mj}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2K+n+mj)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2K)j!(mj)!(nj)!}}(|\kappa |^2)^{mj}(1+|\kappa |^2)^j,`$
where we have used the formula

$$(2K)_j(2K)(2K+1)\mathrm{}(2K+j1)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2K+j)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2K)}.$$

Combining (35) with (3.2) we finally obtain the matrix elements (33).

### 3.3 Matrix Elements of Coherent Operator Based on $`su(2)`$

We in this section study matrix elements of the generalized coherent operator based on Lie algebra $`su(2)`$ (25). In this case it is always $`2J𝐍`$.

Matrix Elements The matrix elements of $`W(z)`$ are :

$`(\text{i})nm`$ $`J,n|W(z)|J,m=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{n!m!}{{}_{2J}{}^{}P_{n}^{}{}_{2J}{}^{}P_{m}^{}}}}(\overline{\kappa })^{mn}(1|\kappa |^2)^{J\frac{n+m}{2}}\times `$ (40)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}}{}_{}{}^{}(1)_{}^{nj}{\displaystyle \frac{(2J)!}{(2Jmn+j)!(mj)!(nj)!j!}}(1|\kappa |^2)^j(|\kappa |^2)^{nj},`$
$`(\text{ii})nm`$ $`J,n|W(z)|J,m=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{n!m!}{{}_{2J}{}^{}P_{n}^{}{}_{2J}{}^{}P_{m}^{}}}}\kappa ^{nm}(1|\kappa |^2)^{J\frac{n+m}{2}}\times `$ (41)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{m}{}}}{}_{}{}^{}(1)_{}^{mj}{\displaystyle \frac{(2J)!}{(2Jmn+j)!(mj)!(nj)!j!}}(1|\kappa |^2)^j(|\kappa |^2)^{mj},`$
where

$$\kappa \frac{\text{sin}(|z|)}{|z|}z=\text{cos}(|z|)\eta .$$
(42)
Here $`_{}`$ means a summation over $`j`$ satisfying $`2Jmn+j0`$.

A comment is in order. The author doesn’t know whether or not the right hand sides of (40) and (41) could be expressed in terms of some known special functions.

The proof is almost the same as the preceding one, so we leave the proof of the first step to the readers. For the case $`nm`$ we reach

$`J,n|W(z)|J,m=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{n!m!{}_{2J}{}^{}P_{n}^{}{}_{2J}{}^{}P_{m}^{}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{^n}{\alpha ^n}}{\displaystyle \frac{^m}{\beta ^m}}\left\{(1+|\eta |^2)^{1/2}+{\displaystyle \frac{(\alpha \overline{\eta })(\beta +\eta )}{(1+|\eta |^2)^{1/2}}}\right\}^{2J}|_{\alpha =\beta =0}.`$
Let us calculate the differential.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^n}{\alpha ^n}}{\displaystyle \frac{^m}{\beta ^m}}\left\{(1+|\eta |^2)^{1/2}+{\displaystyle \frac{(\alpha \overline{\eta })(\beta +\eta )}{(1+|\eta |^2)^{1/2}}}\right\}^{2J}|_{\alpha =\beta =0}`$ (44)
$`=`$ $`\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1+|\eta |^2)^{1/2}}}\right\}^{2J}{\displaystyle \frac{^m}{\beta ^m}}{\displaystyle \frac{^n}{\alpha ^n}}\left\{1+|\eta |^2+(\alpha \overline{\eta })(\beta +\eta )\right\}^{2J}|_{\alpha =\beta =0}`$
$`=`$ $`\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1+|\eta |^2)^{1/2}}}\right\}^{2J}{\displaystyle \frac{^m}{\beta ^m}}{}_{2J}{}^{}P_{n}^{}(\beta +\eta )^n\left\{1+|\eta |^2\overline{\eta }(\beta +\eta )\right\}^{2Jn}|_{\beta =0}`$
$`=`$ $`{}_{2J}{}^{}P_{n}^{}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1+|\eta |^2)^{1/2}}}\right\}^{2J}{\displaystyle \frac{^m}{\beta ^m}}\left\{(\beta +\eta )^n(1\beta \overline{\eta })^{2Jn}\right\}|_{\beta =0}`$
$`=`$ $`{}_{2J}{}^{}P_{n}^{}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1+|\eta |^2)^{1/2}}}\right\}^{2J}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{m}{}}}{}_{}{}^{}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{j}}\right)\left\{(\beta +\eta )^n\right\}^{(j)}\left\{(1\beta \overline{\eta })^{2Jn}\right\}^{(mj)}|_{\beta =0}`$
$`=`$ $`{}_{2J}{}^{}P_{n}^{}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1+|\eta |^2)^{1/2}}}\right\}^{2J}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{m}{}}}{}_{}{}^{}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{j}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{n!}{(nj)!}}\eta ^{nj}{}_{2Jn}{}^{}P_{mj}^{}(\overline{\eta })^{mj}`$
$`=`$ $`\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1+|\eta |^2)^{1/2}}}\right\}^{2J}\eta ^{nm}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{m}{}}}{}_{}{}^{}(1)_{}^{mj}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{j}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{n!}{(nj)!}}{}_{2J}{}^{}P_{n}^{}{}_{2Jn}{}^{}P_{mj}^{}(|\eta |^2)^{mj}`$
$`=`$ $`\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1+|\eta |^2)^{1/2}}}\right\}^{2Jnm}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{(1+|\eta |^2)^{1/2}}}\right)^{nm}\times `$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{m}{}}}{}_{}{}^{}(1)_{}^{mj}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{j}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{n!}{(nj)!}}{}_{2J}{}^{}P_{n+mj}^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{|\eta |^2}{1+|\eta |^2}}\right)^{mj}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+|\eta |^2}}\right)^j`$
$`=`$ $`(1|\kappa |^2)^{J\frac{n+m}{2}}\kappa ^{nm}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{m}{}}}{}_{}{}^{}(1)_{}^{mj}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{j}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{n!}{(nj)!}}{}_{2J}{}^{}P_{n+mj}^{}(|\kappa |^2)^{mj}(1|\kappa |^2)^j`$
$`=`$ $`n!m!\kappa ^{nm}(1|\kappa |^2)^{J\frac{n+m}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{m}{}}}{}_{}{}^{}(1)_{}^{mj}{\displaystyle \frac{{}_{2J}{}^{}P_{n+mj}^{}}{j!(mj)!(nj)!}}(|\kappa |^2)^{mj}(1|\kappa |^2)^j`$
$`=`$ $`n!m!\kappa ^{nm}(1|\kappa |^2)^{J\frac{n+m}{2}}\times `$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{m}{}}}{}_{}{}^{}(1)_{}^{mj}{\displaystyle \frac{(2J)!}{(2Jnm+j)!j!(mj)!(nj)!}}(|\kappa |^2)^{mj}(1|\kappa |^2)^j,`$
where we have used a change of variables

$$\eta \kappa \frac{\eta }{\sqrt{1+|\eta |^2}}|\kappa |^2=\frac{|\eta |^2}{1+|\eta |^2},1|\kappa |^2=\frac{1}{1+|\eta |^2}$$

and the formula

$${}_{2J}{}^{}P_{j}^{}=(2J)(2J1)\mathrm{}(2Jj+1)=\frac{(2J)!}{(2Jj)!}.$$

Combining (3.3) with (44) we finally obtain the matrix elements (41).

## 4 A Problem

In this section let us present a problem for the readers.

In the definition ((25), (15)) of generalized coherent operators based on Lie algebras $`su(2)`$ and $`su(1,1)`$ operators $`J_3`$ and $`K_3`$ are not used. To use these ones we would like to extend generalized coherent operators as follows (see ).

Definition We set

$`su(2)`$ $`:`$ $`W(z,t)=\text{e}^{zJ_+\overline{z}J_{}+2itJ_3}\mathrm{for}z𝐂,t𝐑`$ (45)
$`su(1,1)`$ $`:`$ $`V(z,t)=\text{e}^{zK_+\overline{z}K_{}+2itK_3}\mathrm{for}z𝐂,t𝐑.`$ (46)
Both $`W(z,t)`$ and $`V(z,t)`$ are unitary and $`W(z,0)=W(z)`$, $`V(z,0)=V(z)`$. On the other hand we have used operators of these types in the process of proof, so it is very natural to consider the above. Then

Problem Determine the matrix elements of $`W(z,t)`$ and $`V(z,t)`$ :

$`su(2)`$ $`:`$ $`J,n|W(z,t)|J,m\mathrm{for}0n,m2J,`$ (47)
$`su(1,1)`$ $`:`$ $`K,n|V(z,t)|K,m\mathrm{for}0n,m.`$ (48)
See for example .

## 5 Discussion

In this paper we have determined the matrix elements of the generalized coherent operators based on $`su(1,1)`$ and $`su(2)`$ in a perfect manner.

By the way we have an interesting application of these matrix elements. In  Frasca has used matrix elements of coherent operator in section 3.1 to explain the recent experimental results on Rabi oscillations in a Josephson junction . See also .

Since we have calculated matrix elements of generalized coherent operators we should generalize his method. We will report the results in a forthcoming paper .

We believe strongly that our calculations will play an essential role in understanding the general (mathematical) structure of Rabi oscillations in the strong coupling regime.

Acknowledgment.
The author wishes to thank K. Funahashi and R. Sasaki for their helpful comments and suggestions, and also Y. Machida for his warm hospitality at Numazu College of Technology.

Appendix

An Exchange Relation of Operators

Let us prove the exchange relation (49).

Formula

$$\text{e}^{aK_{}}\text{e}^{2bK_3}\text{e}^{cK_+}=\text{e}^{xK_+}\text{e}^{2yK_3}\text{e}^{zK_{}}$$
(49)
where

$$x=\frac{c\text{e}^b}{\text{e}^bac\text{e}^b},y=\mathrm{log}(\text{e}^bac\text{e}^b),z=\frac{a\text{e}^b}{\text{e}^bac\text{e}^b}.$$
(50)
We divide the proof into two parts.

First we assume that $`\{K_+,K_{},K_3\}`$ is a differential representation of Lie group $`SU(1,1)`$, namely we have a unitary representation

$$\rho :SU(1,1)SL(2,𝐂)U()$$

such that

$$K_{}=d\rho (k_{}),K_3=d\rho (k_3),K_+=d\rho (k_+).$$

In this case we must take $`2K𝐍`$ (an integrability condition), see . Then since $`\rho `$ is a homomorphism of the group

$`\text{e}^{aK_{}}\text{e}^{2bK_3}\text{e}^{cK_+}`$ $`=`$ $`\text{e}^{ad\rho (k_{})}\text{e}^{2bd\rho (k_3)}\text{e}^{cd\rho (k_+)}=\rho (\text{e}^{ak_{}})\rho (\text{e}^{2bk_3})\rho (\text{e}^{ck_+})`$ (57)
$`=`$ $`\rho (\text{e}^{ak_{}}\text{e}^{2bk_3}\text{e}^{ck_+})`$
$`=`$ $`\rho \left(\text{exp}\left(\begin{array}{cc}& 0\\ a& \end{array}\right)\text{exp}\left(\begin{array}{cc}b& \\ & b\end{array}\right)\text{exp}\left(\begin{array}{cc}& c\\ 0& \end{array}\right)\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\rho \left(\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ a& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\text{e}^b& \\ & \text{e}^b\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& c\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)\right)`$ (64)
$`=`$ $`\rho \left(\left(\begin{array}{cc}\text{e}^b& c\text{e}^b\\ a\text{e}^b& \text{e}^bac\text{e}^b\end{array}\right)\right)\rho (A).`$ (67)
Next let us make another Gauss decomposition of $`A`$. It is easy to see

$$A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \frac{c\text{e}^b}{\text{e}^bac\text{e}^b}\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{\text{e}^bac\text{e}^b}& \\ & \text{e}^bac\text{e}^b\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ \frac{a\text{e}^b}{\text{e}^bac\text{e}^b}& 1\end{array}\right).$$

Here we set $`f=\text{e}^bac\text{e}^b`$ for simplicity. Therefore

$`\rho (A)`$ $`=`$ $`\rho \left(\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \frac{c\text{e}^b}{f}\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)\right)\rho \left(\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{f}& \\ & f\end{array}\right)\right)\rho \left(\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ \frac{a\text{e}^b}{f}& 1\end{array}\right)\right)`$ (74)
$`=`$ $`\rho \left(\text{exp}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \frac{c\text{e}^b}{f}\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)\right)\rho \left(\text{exp}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{log}(f)& \\ & \mathrm{log}(f)\end{array}\right)\right)\rho \left(\text{exp}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ \frac{a\text{e}^b}{f}& 0\end{array}\right)\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\rho \left(\text{e}^{\frac{c\text{e}^b}{f}k_+}\right)\rho \left(\text{e}^{2\mathrm{log}(f)k_3}\right)\rho \left(\text{e}^{\frac{a\text{e}^b}{f}k_{}}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\text{e}^{\frac{c\text{e}^b}{f}d\rho (k_+)}\text{e}^{2\mathrm{log}(f)d\rho (k_3)}\text{e}^{\frac{a\text{e}^b}{f}d\rho (k_{})}`$
$`=`$ $`\text{e}^{\frac{c\text{e}^b}{f}K_+}\text{e}^{2\mathrm{log}(f)K_3}\text{e}^{\frac{a\text{e}^b}{f}K_{}}.`$ (82)
That is, we obtained the formula under the condition $`2K𝐍`$. Next to remove this condition we use a method of differential equations. We set

$`F(a)`$ $`=`$ $`\text{e}^{aK_{}}\text{e}^{2bK_3}\text{e}^{cK_+},`$ (83)
$`G(a)`$ $`=`$ $`\text{e}^{\frac{c\text{e}^b}{f(a)}K_+}\text{e}^{2\mathrm{log}f(a)K_3}\text{e}^{\frac{a\text{e}^b}{f(a)}K_{}},`$ (84)
where $`f(a)=\text{e}^bac\text{e}^b`$.

First

$$F(0)=\text{e}^{2bK_3}\text{e}^{cK_+},F{}_{}{}^{}(a)=K_{}F(a).$$
(85)
Next by (84)

$$G(0)=\text{e}^{c\text{e}^{2b}K_+}\text{e}^{2bK_3}$$
(86)
so

$`G(0)`$ $`=`$ $`\text{e}^{c\text{e}^{2b}K_+}\text{e}^{2bK_3}=\text{e}^{2bK_3}\text{e}^{2bK_3}\text{e}^{c\text{e}^{2b}K_+}\text{e}^{2bK_3}=\text{e}^{2bK_3}\text{e}^{c\text{e}^{2b}\text{e}^{2bK_3}K_+\text{e}^{2bK_3}}`$ (87)
$`=`$ $`\text{e}^{2bK_3}\text{e}^{c\text{e}^{2b}\text{e}^{2b}K_+}=\text{e}^{2bK_3}\text{e}^{cK_+}=F(0).`$
Here we have used the formula

$$\text{e}^{\alpha K_3}K_+\text{e}^{\alpha K_3}=\text{e}^\alpha K_+.$$

Moreover

$`G{}_{}{}^{}(a)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(c\text{e}^b)^2}{f(a)^2}}K_+G(a)+{\displaystyle \frac{2c\text{e}^b}{f(a)}}\text{e}^{\frac{c\text{e}^b}{f(a)}K_+}K_3\text{e}^{2\mathrm{log}f(a)K_3}\text{e}^{\frac{a\text{e}^b}{f(a)}K_{}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{f(a)^2}}G(a)K_{}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(c\text{e}^b)^2}{f(a)^2}}K_+G(a)+{\displaystyle \frac{2c\text{e}^b}{f(a)}}\left\{\text{e}^{\frac{c\text{e}^b}{f(a)}K_+}K_3\text{e}^{\frac{c\text{e}^b}{f(a)}K_+}\right\}G(a)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{f(a)^2}}\left\{G(a)K_{}G(a)^1\right\}G(a)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(c\text{e}^b)^2}{f(a)^2}}K_+G(a)+{\displaystyle \frac{2c\text{e}^b}{f(a)}}\left(K_3{\displaystyle \frac{c\text{e}^b}{f(a)}}K_+\right)G(a)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{f(a)^2}}\left\{G(a)K_{}G(a)^1\right\}G(a)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{f(a)^2}}\left\{(c\text{e}^b)^2K_++2c\text{e}^bf(a)\left(K_3{\displaystyle \frac{c\text{e}^b}{f(a)}}K_+\right)+G(a)K_{}G(a)^1\right\}G(a).`$ (88)
Here we have used the formula

$$\text{e}^{\alpha K_+}K_3\text{e}^{\alpha K_+}=K_3\alpha K_+.$$

Now let us calculate the term $`G(a)K_{}G(a)^1`$ :

$`G(a)K_{}G(a)^1`$ $`=`$ $`\text{e}^{\frac{c\text{e}^b}{f(a)}K_+}\left\{\text{e}^{2\mathrm{log}f(a)K_3}K_{}\text{e}^{2\mathrm{log}f(a)K_3}\right\}\text{e}^{\frac{c\text{e}^b}{f(a)}K_+}`$ (89)
$`=`$ $`\text{e}^{\frac{c\text{e}^b}{f(a)}K_+}\left(\text{e}^{2\mathrm{log}f(a)}K_{}\right)\text{e}^{\frac{c\text{e}^b}{f(a)}K_+}=f(a)^2\text{e}^{\frac{c\text{e}^b}{f(a)}K_+}K_{}\text{e}^{\frac{c\text{e}^b}{f(a)}K_+}`$
$`=`$ $`f(a)^2\left(K_{}2{\displaystyle \frac{c\text{e}^b}{f(a)}}K_3+{\displaystyle \frac{(c\text{e}^b)^2}{f(a)^2}}K_3\right)`$
$`=`$ $`f(a)^2K_{}2c\text{e}^bf(a)K_3+(c\text{e}^b)^2K_3.`$
Here we have used the formula

$$\text{e}^{\alpha K_3}K_{}\text{e}^{\alpha K_3}=\text{e}^\alpha K_{},\text{e}^{\alpha K_+}K_{}\text{e}^{\alpha K_+}=K_{}2\alpha K_3+\alpha ^2K_+.$$

Therefore from (5) and (89) we reach

$$G{}_{}{}^{}(a)=K_{}G(a).$$
(90)
From the uniqueness of differential equations with the same initial condition we obtain $`F(a)=G(a)`$.

Similarly we have a formula for some operators based on $`su(2)`$.

Formula

$$\text{e}^{aJ_{}}\text{e}^{2bJ_3}\text{e}^{cJ_+}=\text{e}^{xJ_+}\text{e}^{2yJ_3}\text{e}^{zJ_{}}$$
(91)
where

$$x=\frac{c\text{e}^b}{\text{e}^b+ac\text{e}^b},y=\mathrm{log}(\text{e}^b+ac\text{e}^b),z=\frac{a\text{e}^b}{\text{e}^b+ac\text{e}^b}.$$
(92)
We leave the proof to the readers.


text:
# TeV Neutrinos from Companion Stars of Rapid-Rotating Neutron Stars

\[

## Abstract

We have estimated the number flux of of $`\nu _\mu `$’s which are produced due to the hadronic interactions between the cosmic rays coming from a neutron star and the matter in a companion star. The event rate at 1 km2 detectors of high-energy neutrinos such as ICECUBE, ANTARES and NESTOR is also estimated to be $`2.7\times 10^4`$ events yr-1 when the source is located at 10 kpc away from the Earth. We have estimated the number of such a system and concluded that there will be several candidates in our galaxy. Taking these results into consideration, this scenario is promising and will be confirmed by the future observations.

\]

Neutron stars have been suggested as possible sources of very high energy cosmic rays, including the ultra-high-energy cosmic rays whose energies are greater than $`10^{20}`$eV (see Refs.  and references therein). It is generally considered that a magnetosphere is formed around a neutron star where the number density has the Goldreich-Julian value . It is also pointed out that the conditions which lead to the conversion of most Poynting flux into kinetic energy flux in cold, relativistic hydromagnetic winds exist around the magnetosphere (i.e. the wind zone) .

On the other hand, it is considered that most of the normal stars are born in binaries. Observationally, it is reported that somewhere between 50 and 100$`\%`$ of the normal stars are in binaries . Thus it is very natural to consider the situation that a binary is composed of a neutron star which emits high energy cosmic rays and a red super giant whose radius is $`10^{14}`$ cm. What happens if the high energy cosmic rays rush into the companion? This is the theme in this paper. It is noted that the wind from the supergiant is much weaker than the pulsar wind and should be blown off. Thus it is not necessary to consider the effects of interaction between the wind from the companion star and the pulsar wind.

The conclusion is as follows. Charged pions are produced due to the hadronic interactions between the cosmic rays and the stellar matter. Before losing their energies, the pions can decay into leptons, including high energy (TeV) $`\nu _\mu `$’s. The $`\nu _\mu `$’s can be detected by 1 km2 detectors of high-energy neutrinos such as ICECUBE, ANTARES and NESTOR . The expected event rate is $`2.7\times 10^4`$ events yr-1. Also, we have estimated the number of such a system and concluded that there will be several candidates in our galaxy. It is noted that high energy neutrinos from Cygnus X-3 were calculated on the basis of the binary model in some excellent papers , but the companion star was assumed to be a main-sequence star whose column density seems to be too high to produce high energy neutrinos (see Eq. 15). In this study, the companion star is assumed to be a red super giant so as to solve the difficulty and neutrino flux is estimated using the result of the theoretical accerelation model of cosmic rays around the magnetosphere . Also, we estimate the number of candidates in our galaxy.

From now on, the energy spectrum of high energy cosmic rays is reconsidered. Then the energy loss processes for the cosmic rays and their daughters in a companion star are investigated. Next, the number flux of $`\nu _\mu `$’s at the Earth from a single source is estimated. Finally, the event rate and number of candidates are discussed.

Here the energy spectrum of high energy cosmic rays is estimated (see Ref.  for details). The Goldreich-Julian value can be expressed as $`n_{\mathrm{GJ}}(r)=B(r)\mathrm{\Omega }/(4\pi Zec),`$ where $`B(r)`$ is the strength of the magnetic field, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the angular velocity of the neutron star. It is assumed that the magnetic field in the magnetosphere is dominated by the dipole component and can be expressed as $`B(r)=B_s(R_s/r)^3,`$ where $`B_s`$ and $`R_s`$ are the strength of the surface magnetic field and radius of the neutron star, respectively. In this study, we set $`R_s=10`$ km throughout. The light cylinder radius can be expressed as $`R_{\mathrm{lc}}=10^7\mathrm{\Omega }_{3k}^1\mathrm{cm},`$ where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{3k}`$ is $`\mathrm{\Omega }/3000`$ rad s-1. The typical energy of the accelerated cosmic rays $`E_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ can be estimated by assuming that the equipartition of energy is realized between the magnetic fields and cosmic rays ($`E_{\mathrm{cr}}=B(r)^2/8\pi n_{\mathrm{GJ}}(r)`$). At $`R_{\mathrm{lc}}`$ in the equatorial plane, $`E_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ can be written as

$`E_{\mathrm{cr},0}=1.5\times 10^9ZB_{s,12}\mathrm{\Omega }_{3k}^2\mathrm{GeV},`$ (1)
where $`B_{s,12}`$ is $`B_s/10^{12}`$ Gauss. The strength magnetic field at $`(R_{\mathrm{lc}},h)`$ in the cylindrical coordinate, where $`h`$ is the height measured from the equatorial plane, can be expressed as $`B(R_{\mathrm{lc}},h)B((R_{\mathrm{lc}},0))\mathrm{cos}\alpha ,`$ where $`\mathrm{cos}\alpha =R_{\mathrm{lc}}/(R_{\mathrm{lc}}^2+h^2)^{1/2}`$. Thus $`E_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ depends on $`h`$ and it can be expressed as $`E_{\mathrm{cr}}(h)E_{\mathrm{cr},0}\mathrm{cos}^3\alpha .`$ Thus the energy spectrum of high energy cosmic rays from the light cylinder can be expressed as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dN}{dE_zdt}}={\displaystyle \frac{1.1\times 10^{35}B_{s,12}\mathrm{\Omega }_{3k}^2}{Z(E_{\mathrm{cr},0}E_z^2)^{1/3}\left[(E_{\mathrm{cr},0}/E_z)^{2/3}1\right]^{1/2}}},`$ (2)
where $`E_z`$ represents the energy of the cosmic rays whose charge number is $`Z`$. In this study, we consider two cases for the chemical composition of the cosmic rays, that is, protons and irons. The chemical composition of the cosmic rays may be dominated by protons, which will be ejected from the companion star and the magnetosphere may be filled with the protons. On the other hand, the chemical composition of the cosmic rays may be dominated by irons, which will be ejected from the surface of the neutron star.

Since the energy spectrum of cosmic rays can be obtained, we consider the energy loss processes for the cosmic rays and their daughters in a companion star. At first, we assume that the chemical composition of the cosmic rays is dominated by protons. We consider the energy losses due to ionization, synchrotron radiation, pair production due to proton-electron interaction, photopion production, proton-proton interaction, respectively. In order to calculate the energy loss timescale, the conditions in the companion star has to be specified. Here we assume that the radius and temperature of the red super giant is $`10^{14}`$cm and 3000K, respectively. Thus the number of photons in the star can be estimated as

$`n_\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`5.4\times 10^{11}\left({\displaystyle \frac{T}{3000\mathrm{K}}}\right)^3\mathrm{cm}^3.`$ (3)
The average baryon number density is used in this study for simplicity and is estimated as

$`n_B`$ $`=`$ $`2.8\times 10^{15}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M}{10M_{}}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{10^{14}\mathrm{cm}}{R_{\mathrm{star}}}}\right)^3\mathrm{cm}^3,`$ (4)
where $`R_{\mathrm{star}}`$ is the radius of the companion, $`M`$ is the mass of the companion and $`M_{}`$ is the solar mass.

Now we investigate the energy loss timescale. As for the energy loss rate due to coulomb interactions, collisions are dominated by the thermal electrons . Thus the energy loss rate can be written approximately as

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{dE}{dt}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{30c\sigma _\mathrm{T}m_ec^2Z^2}{\beta }}n_e\mathrm{eV}\mathrm{s}^1,`$ (5)
where $`\sigma _\mathrm{T}`$ is the Thomson cross section, $`\beta `$ is the velocity of the cosmic ray divided by the light speed. Thus the energy loss timescale can be estimated as

$`t_{\mathrm{ion}}`$ $``$ $`3.2\times 10^6{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{E}{10^{15}\mathrm{eV}}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{10^{15}\mathrm{cm}^3}{n_e}}\right)\mathrm{s}`$ (6)
which is, as we show below, too large to be effective.

As for the synchrotron energy loss timescale, it can be written as

$`t_{p,\mathrm{syn}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_p}{m_e}}\right)^4\times t_{e,\mathrm{syn}}1.1\times 10^{13}t_{e,\mathrm{syn}},`$ (7)
where $`t_{e,\mathrm{syn}}`$ is the synchrotron energy loss timescale for an electron and can be written as $`t_{e,\mathrm{syn}}=3.9\times 10\left(1\mathrm{GeV}/E\right)\left(10^2\mathrm{G}/B\right)^2\mathrm{s}.`$ Thus synchrotron energy loss is negligible.

As for the pair production process $`p`$ \+ $`\gamma `$ $``$ $`p`$ \+ $`e^{}`$ \+ $`e^+`$, the energy loss timescale can be written as

$`t_{\mathrm{pair}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{16c}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_p}{m_e}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha r_e^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{c\mathrm{}}{kT}}\right)^3\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_ec^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }kT}}\right)^2\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_ec^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }kT}}\right)`$ (8)
$``$ $`3.1\times 10^{19}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}}{E_p}}\right)^2\mathrm{exp}\left[10^6\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}}{E_p}}\right)\right]\mathrm{s},`$ (9)
where $`\alpha `$ is the fine-structure constant, $`r_e`$ is the classical electron radius, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the lorentz factor of proton and temperature is assumed to be 3000K. This timescale is too large to be effective in the energy range where we are interested in.

As for the photopion process, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-resonance occurs at

$`ϵ_p=2\times 10^8\left({\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{eV}}{ϵ_\gamma }}\right)\mathrm{GeV}.`$ (10)
At the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-resonance, the cross section becomes about 5$`\times 10^{28}`$ cm-2 . Even if this value is adopted, the interaction length for this process can be estimated as

$`l_{p\gamma }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{5\times 10^{28}n_\gamma }}3.7\times 10^{15}\left({\displaystyle \frac{3000\mathrm{K}}{T}}\right)^3\mathrm{cm}.`$ (11)
Thus energy loss timescale due to photopion production is

$`t_{p\gamma }l_{p\gamma }/c=1.2\times 10^5\left({\displaystyle \frac{3000\mathrm{K}}{T}}\right)^3\mathrm{s}.`$ (12)
On the other hand, the cross section of pion production due to proton-proton interaction is about 50mb . Thus the energy loss timescale due to proton-proton interaction is

$`t_{pp}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sigma _{pp}n_Bc}}2.4\times 10^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{10M_{}}{M}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{R_{\mathrm{star}}}{10^{14}\mathrm{cm}}}\right)^3\mathrm{s}.`$ (13)
This timescale is much shorter than the other timescales. Also, the interaction length $`l_{pp}=ct_{pp}`$ is much shorter than the radius of the companion.

From the above discussion, we conclude that the dominant energy loss process is proton-proton interaction and charged pions are produced due to the interactions. The high energy protons lose $`50\%`$ of their energies per each interaction. Here we have to investigate whether these pions can decay into leptons before losing their energy. If they can, the leptons also energetic and the energy of each neutrino is about 25$`\%`$ of the pion’s energy. Since the lifetime of a charged pion in its rest frame is 2.6$`\times 10^8`$ s, the observed lifetime is

$`t_{\pi ^+}=1.8\times 10^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{E}{10^{15}\mathrm{eV}}}\right)\mathrm{s}.`$ (14)
On the other hand, the cross section of proton-pion interaction is about 30mb . Thus the energy loss timescale due to this interaction can be estimated as

$`t_{p\pi ^+}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sigma _{p\pi }n_Bc}}4.0\times 10^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{10M_{}}{M}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{R_{\mathrm{star}}}{10^{14}\mathrm{cm}}}\right)^3\mathrm{s}.`$ (15)
Thus, charged pions with energy below $`2\times 10^{15}`$ eV can decay into leptons before losing their energy.

We also check the opacity of the companion star for the high energy neutrinos. The neutrino-nucleon total cross section can be written approximately as $`\sigma _{\nu ,N}5\times 10^{39}\left(E_\nu /1\mathrm{GeV}\right)\mathrm{cm}^2`$ . Thus the average number of interaction for a single neutrino in the companion star can be estimated as

$`l_{\nu ,N}=1.4\times 10^9\left({\displaystyle \frac{M}{10M_{}}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{10^{14}\mathrm{cm}}{R_{\mathrm{star}}}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{E_\nu }{1\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}}}\right).`$ (16)
From this estimate, we can regard that the neutrinos can escape from the companion freely.

Now we can estimate the number flux of $`\nu _\mu `$’s \[s-1 cm-2 GeV-1\] at the Earth from a single source. It is assumed that the source is located at 10 kpc away from the Earth ($`D`$ = 10kpc). The expected number flux is ($`E_\nu 5\times 10^{14}\mathrm{eV}`$)

$`f(E_\nu )`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi D^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dN_\nu }{dE_\nu dt}}|_{E_\nu }={\displaystyle \frac{N^2(E_p)}{4\pi D^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{12dN_p}{dtdE_p}}|_{E_p}`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`8.5\times 10^{17}\left({\displaystyle \frac{10\mathrm{k}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c}}{D}}\right)^2B_{12}^{1/3}\mathrm{\Omega }_{3k}^{2/3}Z^{5/3}{\displaystyle \frac{N^2(E_p)}{E_p^{1/3}}},`$ (18)
where $`N(E_p)=0.61+0.56\mathrm{ln}(1.88E_p)+0.129\mathrm{ln}^2(1.88E_p)`$ is mean value of the charged-particle multiplicity as a function of $`\sqrt{s}`$ . It is noted that the mean energy of $`\nu _\mu `$ can be written as $`E_p/12N(E_p)`$ when the average number of $`\pi ^{}`$, $`\pi ^+`$ and $`\pi ^{}`$ produced per one inelastic interaction is same with each other. As discussed above, there may be a cut-off around $`E_\nu 5\times 10^{14}`$ eV due to the interaction of the charged pions and stellar matter. Of course, such a cut-off energy strongly depends on the radius of the companion (see Eq. 15). The neutral pions produced by $`pp`$ collision decay into gamma-rays, which may also produce high energy pions through the $`p\gamma `$ interactions. Thus the present estimation for the flux of neutrinos will be a lower limit. Detailed Monte Carlo calculation is needed to obtain the precise flux of neutrinos, which is now underway and is presented in the forthcoming paper. It is also noted that the high energy gamma-rays can not penetrate the companion star and lose their energy by interactions with the matter in the companion.

Finally, the event rate for a single source at 1 km2 detectors of high-energy neutrinos is estimated. The probability that a muon neutrino will produce a high-energy upward moving muon with energy above 2 GeV in a terrestrial detector is approximately given by the ratio of the muon range to the neutrino mean free path . The result can be fitted as $`P(E_\nu )=1.3\times 10^9\left(E_\nu /1\mathrm{TeV}\right)^\beta `$ where $`\beta =2`$ for $`E_\nu 1`$ TeV and $`\beta =1`$ for $`E_\nu 1`$ TeV. Thus the expected event rate R \[yr-1\] is (over 2$`\pi `$ sr)

$`R`$ $`=`$ $`3\times 10^{17}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d}{1\mathrm{km}}}\right)^2{\displaystyle _{2\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}}}𝑑E_\nu 2{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{4\pi }}f(E_\nu )P(E_\nu )`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`2.7\times 10^4\left({\displaystyle \frac{d}{1\mathrm{km}}}\right)^2B_{12}^{1/3}\mathrm{\Omega }_{3k}^{2/3}Z^{5/3}\mathrm{events}\mathrm{yr}^1,`$ (20)
where $`d`$ is the diameter of the detector. The factor 2 in the integral is introduced to count in both of contributions from $`\nu _\mu `$’s and $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$’s. Strictly speaking, the factor (5.6/4$`\pi 0.45`$; see Eq. (28)) which takes into account the solid angle measured from the companion star should be multiplied in Eq. (20). Since the number of detected atmospheric neutrino background by the planned neutrino telescopes whose angular resolution $`\theta `$ is about $`1^{}`$ is estimated as $`N_{\mathrm{bkg}}10\left(\theta /1\mathrm{d}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{g}\right)^2\mathrm{km}^2\mathrm{yr}^1`$ , the signal from the companion star will be easily detected.

We add a comment on the chemical composition of the high energy cosmic rays. In the above discussions, the chemical composition is assumed to be proton. In the case that the chemical composition is iron, we have to estimate the fragmentation timescale. There is an empirical formula for the total inelastic cross-section of protons on nuclei with mass number $`A1`$ . According to the formula, the cross section can be written as $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}=45A^{0.7}\left[1+0.016\mathrm{sin}(5.32.63\mathrm{ln}A)\right]\mathrm{mb}.`$ Thus the fragmentation timescale can be estimated as $`\tau _\mathrm{f}=3.8\times 10^2\left(56/A\right)^{0.7}\left(10^{15}\mathrm{cm}^3/\mathrm{n}_\mathrm{B}\right)\mathrm{s}.`$ This timescale is shorter than the proton-proton interaction timescale (see Eq. 13). Even if the chemical composition is composed of deuterium ($`A=2`$), the fragmentation timescale is comparable with the proton-proton interaction timescale as long as $`n_\mathrm{B}3\times 10^{15}`$ cm-3. Thus we can conclude that the fragmentation occurs at first when the cosmic rays rush into the companion star and subsequent reactions are same with the case in which chemical composition of the cosmic rays is proton. As for the number flux of nucleus after the fragmentation, it will be $`(A/Z)^{5/3}3.2`$ times larger than the proton case (see Eq. 2). Thus the expected event rate of high energy neutrinos will be also enhanced by a factor of $`3.2`$.

When the neutrino mixing angles are really large , the fluxes of $`\nu _\mu `$’s and $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$’s will fall off by a factor of 3. In this case, $`\nu _\tau `$’s might be detected as the double bang events .

We also present a rough estimate for the number of candidates (N) in our galaxy. It may be expressed in the form

$`N`$ $`=`$ $`\tau \times \mathrm{SNR}\times f\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }}\right),`$ (21)
where $`\tau `$ is the duration \[yr\] for a source to emit the high-energy $`\nu _\mu `$’s, SNR is the supernova rate \[yr-1\] in our galaxy at present, $`f`$ is the probability that a massive star which forms a neutron star at its death has a companion whose mass is above $`8M_{}`$, $`d\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the average solid angle of a companion star measured from the neutron star.

The duration $`\tau `$ will be given as $`\tau `$ = min($`\tau _{\mathrm{star}}`$, $`\tau _{\mathrm{NS}}`$), where $`\tau _{\mathrm{star}}`$ is the lifetime of the massive companion star ($`10^6`$yr) and $`\tau _{\mathrm{NS}}`$ is the duration in which the neutron star can emit the high energy cosmic rays. From Eq. 14, the energy of the cosmic rays should be greater than $`10^{16}`$ eV in order to produce much energetic neutrinos. On the other hand, the angular velocity of a neutron star decreases as

$`\mathrm{\Omega }(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }_i^2}+\frac{B_s^2R_s^6}{3c^3I}t}}}\mathrm{rad}\mathrm{s}^1,`$ (22)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$ is the initial angular velocity and $`I10^{45}`$g cm2 is the inertial moment of a neutron star. From Eq. 1, $`E_{\mathrm{cr},0}`$ becomes $`10^{16}`$ eV when $`B_{s,12}=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{3k}=0.1`$. Thus, if $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$ is much larger than 0.1, $`\tau _{\mathrm{NS}}`$ can be estimated as

$`\tau _{\mathrm{NS}}`$ $``$ $`3\times 10^4\left({\displaystyle \frac{10^{12}\mathrm{G}}{B_s}}\right)^2\mathrm{yr},`$ (23)
which is shorter than $`\tau _{\mathrm{star}}`$. Thus it is concluded that $`\tau `$ = $`\tau _{\mathrm{NS}}`$.

The present SNR is about $`10^2`$ yr-1 . As for $`f`$, since most of the normal stars are considered to be born in binaries , we can estimate this value only by using the salpeter’s initial mass function. The result can be written as

$`f={\displaystyle \frac{_8^{125}𝑑mm^{2.35}}{_{0.5}^{125}𝑑mm^{2.35}}}=2.4\times 10^2.`$ (24)
Finally, the average solid angle of a companion star measured from the neutron star is estimated. Although there is much uncertainty, Popova et al. (1982) discussed that the distribution of the distance ($`a`$) between the binary stars may obey the relation as follows:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dN}{da}}={\displaystyle \frac{A}{a}}\mathrm{cm}^1\left(10R_{}a10^6R_{}\right),`$ (25)
where $`A`$ = $`(5\mathrm{ln}10)^1`$ is the normalization factor and $`R_{}`$ is the solar radius. Since the radius of the companion is assumed to be $`10^{14}`$ cm, the opening angle $`\theta `$ can be estimated as $`\mathrm{sin}\theta =10^{14}/a`$ as long as $`a`$ is greater than $`10^{14}`$cm. The solid angle can be estimated as

$`d\mathrm{\Omega }={\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\varphi {\displaystyle _0^\theta }\mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta =2\pi \left[1\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{10^{28}}{a^2}}\right)^{1/2}\right].`$ (26)
In case $`a10^{14}`$cm, we assume that the solid angle is 4$`\pi `$. We can easily show by Eqs. (6)-(13) that the dominant energy loss process is still proton-proton interaction within $`\tau \tau _{\mathrm{NS}}`$ even if the pulsar wind blows off the envelope of the companion star. Now we can estimate the mean solid angle of a companion measured from the neutron star. It can be calculated as

$`d`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }={\displaystyle _{10R_{}}^{10^{14}}}4\pi {\displaystyle \frac{dN}{da}}𝑑a`$ (28)
$`+{\displaystyle _{10^{14}}^{10^6R_{}}}2\pi \left[1\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{10^{28}}{a^2}}\right)^{1/2}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{dN}{da}}𝑑a5.6`$
At last, we can estimate the number of candidates (N) in our galaxy. It is written as

$`N`$ $``$ $`3\times 10^4\times 10^2\times 2.4\times 10^2\times {\displaystyle \frac{5.6}{4\pi }}=3.2.`$ (29)
We have estimated the number flux of of $`\nu _\mu `$’s which are produced due to the hadronic interactions between the cosmic rays coming from a neutron star and the matter in a companion star. The event rate at 1 km2 detectors of high-energy neutrinos such as ICECUBE, ANTARES and NESTOR is also estimated to be $`2.7\times 10^4`$ events yr-1 when the source is located at 10 kpc away from the Earth. Finally, we have estimated the number of such a system and concluded that there will be several candidates in our galaxy. Taking these results into consideration, this scenario is very promising and will be confirmed by the future observations.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

As it is well known, the lightest neutralino, $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$, is a weakly interacting massive particle (WIMP), and therefore a very interesting candidate for dark matter in the universe. In fact, many experimental efforts are being carried out in order to detect WIMPs through elastic scattering with nuclei in a detector . In this sense the theoretical analysis of the neutralino–nucleus cross section $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0N}`$ is very important. In particular, these analyses in the context of the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) are usually performed assuming the unification scale $`M_{GUT}10^{16}`$ GeV for the running of the universal soft supersymmetry (SUSY)–breaking terms. However, it was pointed out recently  that this cross section is very sensitive to the variation of the unification scale. For instance, by taking an intermediate unification scale $`M_I10^{1012}`$ GeV the cross section increases substantially, being compatible for large regions of the parameter space of the MSSM with the sensitivity of current dark matter experiments $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0N}10^7`$$`10^6`$ GeV-2, for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >3`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}100`$ GeV. For larger values of the scale, as e.g. $`M_I=10^{14}`$ GeV, a similar result is obtained for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >10`$. Explicit scenarios with intermediate scales, arising in D-brane constructions from type I strings, were analysed in ref. . Although compatibility with the experiments may also be obtained within the usual MSSM scenario with the scale $`10^{16}`$ GeV, it requires large values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ ($`\mathrm{tan}\beta >20`$) - or a specific non–universal structure of the soft terms .

In all the above works the relic neutralino density was also discussed. In these scenarios with a large cross section in some regions of the parameter space, generically $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}h^2<0.01`$. Of course, this might be a potential problem for the consistency of those regions given the observational bounds111It is worth noticing, however, that more conservative lower bounds, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}h^20.01`$, have also been quoted in the literature. For a brief discussion on this issue see e.g. ref.  and references therein. $`0.1<\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}h^2<0.3`$.

This result is obtained because in the usual early–universe model thermal production of neutralinos gives rise to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}h^21/\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^{\mathrm{ann}}v`$, where $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^{\mathrm{ann}}`$ is the cross section for annihilation of a pair of neutralinos, $`v`$ is the relative velocity between the two neutralinos, and $`..`$ denotes thermal averaging. Therefore, in this scheme the relic density is inversely proportional to the annihilation cross section. Let us recall that crossing arguments, when the main annihilation channel is into quarks, ensure that the cross sections of annihilation and scattering with nucleons are similar. Thus a large scattering cross section $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0N}`$ leads generically to a large annihilation cross section $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^{\mathrm{ann}}`$, and as a consequence to a small relic density.

However, it is important to remark that this result depends on assumptions about the evolution of the early universe. In principle, different cosmological scenarios might give rise to different results. To address this question is precisely the aim of this paper. We will study the relic density in the context of some non-standard cosmological scenarios. In particular, we will show that, when intermediate scales are present, results different from the usual ones summarised above may be produced. This is because a low reheating temperature, below the freeze-out temperature, can be obtained. We will see that, in the case of one of the scenarios, values of the relic density within the observational bounds are possible, even for regions of the parameter space with a large neutralino–nucleus cross section $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0N}10^7`$ GeV-2.

The content of the paper is as follows. In Section 2 we will briefly review the usual cosmological scenario where thermal production of neutralinos is assumed. Several well-known formulas will be explicitly written since we will use them in the discussions of the next sections. Then, in Section 3, we will discuss the modifications introduced in the relic density analysis by considering non–standard cosmological scenarios in the case of intermediate scales. In particular, we will study the situation when an inflation or a modulus field produce low reheating temperatures, close to the nucleosynthesis one. Finally, the conclusions are left for Section 4.

## 2 Thermal production of neutralinos

Let us briefly review the standard computation of the cosmological abundance of neutralinos . Neutralinos were in thermal equilibrium with the standard model particles in the early universe, and decoupled when they were non-relativistic. The process was the following. When the temperature $`T`$ of the universe was larger than the mass of the neutralino, the number density of neutralinos and photons was roughly the same, $`n_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^{eq}T^3`$, and the neutralino was annihilating with its own antiparticle into lighter particles and vice versa. However, shortly after the temperature dropped below the mass of the neutralino, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$, its number density dropped exponentially, $`n_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^{eq}e^{m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}/T}`$, because only a small fraction of the light particles mentioned above had sufficient kinetic energy to create neutralinos. As a consequence, the neutralino annihilation rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}=\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^{ann}vn_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ dropped below the expansion rate of the universe, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}<H`$, where $`H`$ is the Hubble expansion rate. At this point neutralinos came away, they could not annihilate, and their density is the same since then. This can be obtained using the Boltzmann equation:

$$\frac{dn_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}}{dt}+3Hn_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}=\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^{ann}v\left[(n_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0})^2(n_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^{eq})^2\right].$$
(1)
One can discuss qualitatively the solution using the freeze-out condition $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}=\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^{ann}v_Fn_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}=H`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}h^2=(\rho _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}/\rho _c)h^2`$, where $`\rho _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ is the current neutralino mass density and $`\rho _c`$ is the critical density, turns out to be

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}h^2={\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}H}{(2\pi ^2/45)g_{}(T_F)T_F^3\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^{ann}v_F}}{\displaystyle \frac{h^2}{\rho _c/s_0}}={\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}(45/6\pi \sqrt{10})}{M_Pg_{}^{1/2}(T_F)T_F\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^{ann}v_F}}{\displaystyle \frac{h^2}{\rho _c/s_0}},`$ (2)
where $`g_{}(T)`$ is the effective number of degrees of freedom at temperature $`T`$ (e.g. including all the standard-model degrees of freedom one gets $`g_{}=106.75`$), $`T_F`$ is the freeze-out temperature, and $`s_0`$ is the current entropy density. In the second expression we have used the fact that $`H=\left(\pi ^2g_{}(T)/90\right)^{1/2}T^2M_P^1`$, with $`M_P=M_{Planck}/\sqrt{8\pi }2.4\times 10^{18}`$ GeV the reduced Planck mass. Taking into account the current value $`\rho _c/s_03.6\times 10^9`$ GeV$`\times h^2`$, and the typical freeze-out temperature $`T_Fm_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}/20`$, one can write the above expression as

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}h^21.7\times 10^{10}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1GeV^2}{\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^{ann}v}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{100}{g_{}(T_F)}}\right)^{1/2}.`$ (3)
Since neutralinos freeze–out at $`T_Fm_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}/20<<m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$, they are non–relativistic and therefore the averaged annihilation cross section can be expanded as follows:

$$\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^{ann}v=\alpha _s+\alpha _pv^2,$$
(4)
where $`\alpha _s`$ describes the s-wave annihilation and $`\alpha _p`$ describes both s– and p– wave annihilation. Then, eq. (3) can alternatively be written as:

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}h^2`$ $``$ $`8.8\times 10^{11}{\displaystyle \frac{GeV^2}{g_{}^{1/2}(T_F)\left(\alpha _s/x_F+3\alpha _p/x_F^2\right)}},`$ (5)
where $`x_Fm_\chi /T_F`$.

As it is well known, in most of the parameter space of the MSSM the neutralino is mainly pure bino, and as a consequence it will mainly annihilate into lepton pairs through $`t`$–channel exchange of right–handed sleptons. The $`p`$–wave dominant cross section is given by

$`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^{ann}v8\pi \alpha ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(1+x_{\stackrel{~}{l}_R}\right)^2}}v^2,`$ (6)
where $`x_{\stackrel{~}{l}_R}m_{\stackrel{~}{l}_R}^2/m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^2`$ and $`\alpha ^{}`$ is the coupling constant for the $`U(1)_Y`$ interaction. Taking $`m_{\stackrel{~}{l}_R}m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}100`$ GeV, $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^{ann}v`$ in eq. (6) becomes of the order of $`10^9`$ GeV-2 or smaller. Using eq. (3) an interesting relic abundance, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}h^2>0.1`$, is obtained.

However, in the special regions mentioned in the Introduction, with non-universality and/or large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, the lightest neutralino may have an important Higgsino component, producing a larger cross section. This is also the case of scenarios with an intermediate unification scale. The upper bound for the annihilation cross section, obtained when the neutralino is Higgsino–like, is given by

$`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^{ann}v{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha _2^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(1x_W\right)^{3/2}}{\left(2x_W\right)^2}},`$ (7)
where $`x_Wm_W^2/m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^2`$ and $`\alpha _2`$ is the coupling constant for the $`SU(2)_L`$ interaction. Here one is considering that the Higgsino dominantly annihilates into W-boson pairs. Since now $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^{ann}v`$ in eq. (7) is of the order of $`10^8`$ GeV-2, the relic abundance given by eq. (3) turns out to be small, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}h^20.01`$, as expected.

## 3 Non–standard cosmological scenarios

In the standard computation reviewed in the previous section, one is tacitly assuming that the radiation–dominated era is the result of a reheat process in the early universe, where the reheating temperature $`T_{RH}`$ is very large, in particular $`T_{RH}>>T_F10`$ GeV. The scalar field $`\varphi `$, whose decay leads to reheating, is usually assumed to be the inflaton field. One can estimate the reheating temperature as a function of the decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi `$ as

$$T_{RH}=\left(\frac{90}{\pi ^2g_{}(T_{RH})}\right)^{1/4}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi M_P)^{1/2}.$$
(8)
However, the only constraint on the reheating temperature is $`T_{RH}>1`$ MeV in order not to affect the successful predictions of big–bang nucleosynthesis. This allows in principle to consider cosmological scenarios with a low reheating temperature , $`T_{RH}<T_F`$. On the other hand, the reheating process can also be associated with the decay of moduli fields, as e.g. those appearing in string theory. Thus the relic abundance could receive contributions from this source .

In what follows, we will show that scenarios with intermediate unification scales are explicit examples for the two non–standard cosmological possibilities mentioned above, namely, decay of the inflaton and moduli fields producing a low reheating temperature. For this analysis eq. (8) is still valid using $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi `$ as given by the corresponding scenario. This is also true for relation $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}h^21/\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^{\mathrm{ann}}v`$ in the case of neutralino production through modulus decay. Notice that in this case $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}1/T_F`$, as shown in eq. (2), and therefore if this mechanism produces a temperature smaller than the typical $`T_Fm_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}/20`$, the value of the relic neutralino density will be increased 222For another alternative cosmological scenario with the potential of increasing the relic density see ref. , where the decay of cosmic strings producing neutralinos is considered. . We will see below that temperatures as required can be obtained in scenarios with intermediate scales. In ref.  this mechanism was applied in order to obtain reasonable values of the relic wino density in anomaly-mediated SUSY breaking scenarios, using $`m_\varphi 100`$ TeV. In our case, standard masses in supergravity scenarios, $`m_\varphi 1`$ TeV, will be used.

On the other hand, in the scenario where the low reheating temperature is obtained through an inflaton field, the result for the relic density is quite different from the usual one with large $`T_{RH}`$. In fact, in certain cases, the usual relation $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}h^21/\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^{\mathrm{ann}}v`$ is not even valid, and the relic abundance may well be proportional to the annihilation cross section . We will see below, however, that the relic abundance will not increase when intermediate scales are considered.

### 3.1 Inflation scenario

Let us consider for example the SUSY hybrid inflation scenario studied in ref. . There, the inflaton decay width can be computed with the result

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi =\frac{1}{8\pi }\left(\frac{m_f}{\varphi }\right)^2m_\varphi ,$$
(9)
where $`\varphi `$ is the vacuum expectation value of the inflaton field, which is of the order of the unification scale, $`m_\varphi `$ is the inflaton mass, and $`m_f`$ is the mass of the particle $`f`$ that the inflaton decay to (in this case a right handed neutrino or sneutrino). Obviously, $`m_f`$ should be smaller than the inflaton mass to allow for the decay $`\varphi ff`$.

Now, using eqs. (8) and (9) one obtains the following reheating temperature:

$`T_{RH}=1.7\times 10^9GeV\left({\displaystyle \frac{100GeV}{\varphi }}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_f}{100GeV}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_\varphi }{100GeV}}\right)^{1/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{100}{g_{}(T_{RH})}}\right)^{1/4}.`$ (10)
In ref.  it has been shown that an intermediate unification scale of the order of $`M_I10^{11}`$ GeV is favoured by inflation. Then, recalling that the inflaton mass is constrained by $`m_\varphi <M_I^2/M_{Planck}`$, we obtain $`m_\varphi 10^2`$ GeV. From Eq.(10) we find that $`T_{RH}1`$ GeV, since now $`\varphi 10^{11}`$ GeV. This reheating temperature is lower than the typical freeze-out temperature $`T_Fm_\chi /20`$. Notice that in the standard GUT scenario discussed in ref. , one has $`m_\varphi 10^{11}`$ GeV, $`\varphi 10^{16}`$ GeV, and therefore $`T_{RH}10^9`$ GeV.

As mentioned above, a detailed analysis of the relic density with a low reheating temperature has been carried out in ref.  by Giudice, Kolb and Riotto. They study two possible non-relativistic cases, depending on whether or not the dark-matter particles are in chemical equilibrium. In the first one they are never in equilibrium, either before or after reheating. In the second one the dark-matter particles reach chemical equilibrium, but then freeze out before the completion of the reheat process. These scenarios not only lead to different qualitative and quantitative predictions for the relic density, but also these predictions are quite different from the standard ones summarised in eq. (5).

In the case of non–equilibrium production, the number density of neutralinos $`n_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ is much smaller than $`n_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^{eq}`$, thus the relevant Boltzmann equations can be approximated and solved. One gets

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}h^2=2.1\times 10^4\left({\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_{}(T_{RH})}{10}}\right)^{3/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{10}{g_{}(T_{})}}\right)^3{\displaystyle \frac{(10^3T_{RH})^7}{m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^5}}\left(\alpha _s+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _p}{4}}\right),`$ (11)
where $`g`$ is the number of degrees of freedom of the neutralino and $`T_{}`$ is the temperature at which most of the neutralino production takes place, it is given by $`T_{}4m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}/15`$. As we can see $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}h^2`$ is proportional to the annihilation cross section, instead of being inversely proportional as in eq. (5). This raises the hope that the relic abundance could be increased in scenarios with intermediate scales where generically it is low. Unfortunately, the assumption that $`n_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}<<n_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^{eq}`$ leads to a severe constraint on the annihilation cross section . Namely $`\alpha _s<\overline{\alpha _s}`$ and $`\alpha _p<\overline{\alpha _p}`$, where $`\overline{\alpha _s}`$ and $`\overline{\alpha _p}`$ are of the order of $`10^{15}`$ GeV-2 and $`10^{14}`$ GeV-2, respectively, for $`T_{RH}1`$ GeV. Since we are interested in large cross sections, of the order of $`10^7`$ GeV-2, eq. (11) cannot be applied.

With a large annihilation cross section ($`\alpha _s>\overline{\alpha _s}`$ or $`\alpha _p>\overline{\alpha _p}`$), the neutralino reaches equilibrium before reheating as discussed in ref. , and its relic density is given by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}h^2=2.3\times 10^{11}\frac{g_{}^{1/2}(T_{RH})}{g_{}(T_F)}\frac{T_{RH}^3GeV^2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^3\left(\alpha _sx_F^4+4\alpha _px_F^5/5\right)},$$
(12)
Now the relic density is again inversely proportional to the annihilation cross section as in eq. (5). Moreover, it has a further suppression because of the low reheating temperature $`T_{RH}1`$ GeV, and as a consequence we expect a result even worse than the one obtained in the standard computation discussed below eq. (5). Indeed, for a neutralino–nucleus cross section of the order of $`10^7`$ GeV-2 we obtain $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}h^210^5`$.

### 3.2 Modulus–decay scenario

It has been assumed in the above computation that the relic abundance does not receive any contribution from other sources. However, as shown by Moroi and Randall , the production of neutralinos through moduli decay can modify those results.

Let us recall first that moduli fields are present for example in string theory 333See other examples of moduli fields, for instance in GUTs, in ref. .. Since moduli acquire masses through SUSY breaking effects, these masses, $`m_\varphi `$, are expected to be of the order of the gravitino mass, i.e. $`𝒪`$($`1001000`$ GeV). On the other hand, their couplings with the MSSM matter are suppressed by a high energy scale. Thus one can parameterise the moduli decay width as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi =\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{m_\varphi ^3}{M_I^2},$$
(13)
where we denote with $`M_I`$ the effective suppression scale. Since we are interested in the analysis of scenarios with intermediate unification scales, we will consider the case of $`M_I10^{1114}`$ GeV. An explicit example where this situation arises is the case of type I string constructions. There, twisted moduli are present with interactions suppressed by the string scale. As discussed in ref.  intermediate values for this scale can be obtained, and they have very interesting phenomenological implications .

Using eqs. (8) and (13) one obtains the following reheating temperature:

$`T_{RH}=1MeV\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{6\times 10^{14}GeV}{M_I}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_\varphi }{100GeV}}\right)^{3/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{10.75}{g_{}(T_{RH})}}\right)^{1/4},`$ (14)
where note that $`g_{}=10.75`$ for $`T`$ $`𝒪`$($`110`$) MeV. This reheating temperature is shown as a function of the modulus mass in Fig. 1 for different values of $`M_I`$. The request that the modulus mass is larger than $`100500`$ GeV in order to allow for kinematical decays into neutralinos of suitable mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}50200`$ GeV, limits in practice the reheating temperature to be above $`3`$ GeV for the lowest scale on consideration $`M_I=10^{11}`$ GeV. This has important consequences for the relic density computation. As discussed in the introduction of this section, we need a temperature smaller than the typical $`T_Fm_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}/20310`$ GeV, in order to increase the relic neutralino density. This implies that the scale $`M_I10^{11}`$ GeV is in the border of validity. On the other hand, for larger values we can obtain very easily interesting reheating temperatures. For example, for $`M_I=10^{12}`$ GeV we have $`T_{RH}>0.3`$ GeV. For the highest scale with an interesting phenomenological value of the neutralino–nucleus cross section, in the case of universality and moderate $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ , $`M_I=10^{14}`$ GeV, the lowest value of the reheating temperature corresponds to $`T_{RH}6`$ MeV. Larger values of the scale, $`M_I>10^{15}`$ GeV, producing also a large cross section, are possible in D-brane scenarios since non-universality in soft terms is generically present . In this case the constraint $`T_{RH}>`$ 1 MeV from nucleosynthesis can be translated into a constraint on the modulus mass $`m_\varphi >140`$ GeV.

When considering the decay of the modulus field producing neutralinos, the evolution of the cosmological abundance of the latter becomes more complicated than in the usual thermal-production case reviewed in Section 2. Now one has to solve the coupled Boltzmann equations for the neutralino, the moduli field and the radiation :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dn_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}}{dt}}+3Hn_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{N}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi n_\varphi \sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^{ann}v\left[(n_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0})^2(n_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^{eq})^2\right],`$ (15)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dn_\varphi }{dt}}+3Hn_\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi n_\varphi ,`$ (16)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\rho _{rad}}{dt}}+4H\rho _{rad}`$ $`=`$ $`(m_\varphi \overline{N}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0})\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi n_\varphi +2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^{ann}v\left[(n_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0})^2(n_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^{eq})^2\right],`$ (17)
where $`\overline{N}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ is the averaged number of neutralinos produced in the decay of one modulus field.

Let us discuss qualitatively the solution following the arguments used in ref. . For a $`T_{RH}`$ higher than $`T_F`$ the relic density will roughly reproduce the usual result given by eq. (3). However, for the interesting case for us when $`T_{RH}`$ is lower than $`T_F`$, neutralinos produced from modulus decay are never in chemical equilibrium, unlike the thermal production case reviewed in Section 2. As a consequence, its number density always decreases through pair annihilation. When the annihilation rate $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^{ann}vn_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ drops below the expansion rate of the universe, $`H`$, the neutralino freezes out. Then the relic density can be estimated as

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}h^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi }{2(2\pi ^2/45)g_{}T_{RH}^3\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^{ann}v}}{\displaystyle \frac{h^2}{\rho _c/s_0}}.`$ (18)
This result is valid when there is a large number of neutralinos produced by the modulus decay. When the number is insufficient, they do not annihilate and therefore all the neutralinos survive. The result in this case is given by

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}h^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\overline{N}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}m_\chi \mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi ^2M_P^2}{(2\pi ^2/45)g_{}T_{RH}^3m_\varphi }}{\displaystyle \frac{h^2}{\rho _c/s_0}}.`$ (19)
The actual relic density is estimated  as the minimum of (18) and (19).

Now we can apply the above equations to our case with intermediate scales. Using eqs. (13) and (14), we can write expressions (18) and (19) as

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}h^2=\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_I}{1.5\times 10^{20}GeV}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1GeV^2}{\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^{ann}v}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{100GeV}{m_\varphi }}\right)^{3/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{10.75}{g_{}}}\right)^{1/4}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}}{100GeV}}\right),`$ (20)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}h^2=\overline{N}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1.2\times 10^{20}GeV}{M_I}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_\varphi }{100GeV}}\right)^{1/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{10.75}{g_{}}}\right)^{1/4}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}}{100GeV}}\right).`$ (21)
From these equations we can see that even with a large annihilation cross section, $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^{ann}v10^8`$ GeV-2, we are able to obtain the cosmologically interesting value $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}h^21`$. For example for $`M_I10^{13}`$ GeV we obtain it when $`\overline{N}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}1`$, using eq. (20). In Fig. 2 we show in more detail these results solving numerically the Boltzmann eqs. (15)–(17), for the large annihilation cross section introduced in eq. (7). There, the contours of constant relic neutralino density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}h^2`$ as a function of $`m_\varphi `$ and $`\overline{N}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ are shown, for fixed values of $`M_I`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$. In particular, we consider the cases $`M_I=10^{12},10^{13},10^{14}`$ GeV, with $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}=100`$ GeV. The corresponding reheating temperatures can be obtained from Fig. 1. Note that whereas many values of $`\overline{N}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ correspond to a satisfactory relic density for $`M_I=10^{12}10^{13}`$ GeV, for the case $`M_I=10^{14}`$ GeV only a small range works.

Let us finally remark that the numerical value of $`\overline{N}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ is in general model dependent. This was discussed in the context of supergravity in ref. . In this particular case both values $`\overline{N}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}1`$ and $`\overline{N}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}10^310^4`$ are plausible, depending on the characteristics of the supergravity theory under consideration.

## 4 Conclusions

Current dark matter experiments are sensitive to a large neutralino-nucleus cross section, $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0N}10^7`$$`10^6`$ GeV-2. There are regions in the parameter space of SUSY scenarios with an intermediate unification scale, where these cross sections can be obtained. However, in these regions, the standard computation of the relic abundance of neutralinos through thermal production in the early universe, would imply a small relic abundance, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}h^2<0.01`$.

We have analysed some alternatives to solve this potential problem. Let us recall that in the standard computation one is tacitly assuming that the reheating temperature is much larger than the freeze-out temperature, $`T_F10`$ GeV, and originated in an inflationary process. We have shown however that, when intermediate scales are present, reheating temperatures as small as $`𝒪`$($`11000`$ MeV) are possible. Unfortunately, although the result for the relic abundance is modified, still $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}h^2`$ is too small. On the other hand, when the above reheating temperatures are associated to the decay of moduli fields producing out of equilibrium neutralinos, the relic abundance increases considerably with respect to the standard production. Thus the neutralino becomes a good dark matter candidate with $`0.1<\mathrm{\Omega }h^2<0.3`$, for intermediate scales $`M_I10^{11}10^{14}`$ GeV, and moduli mass $`m_\varphi 1001000`$ GeV.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank G. Lazarides for useful discussions. The work of S. Khalil was supported by the PPARC. The work of C. Muñoz was supported in part by the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología under contract FPA2000-0980, and the European Union under contract HPRN-CT-2000-00148. The work of E. Torrente-Lujan was supported in part by the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología under contract FPA2000-0980, and by a MURST research grant.