format: text

text:
# Noncommutative effective theory of vortices in a complex scalar field

## Abstract

We derive a noncommutative theory description for vortex configurations in a complex field in $`2+1`$ dimensions. We interpret the Magnus force in terms of the noncommutativity, and obtain some results for the quantum dynamics of the system of vortices in that context.

Noncommutative field theories have recently been the subject of intense research, mostly because of their relevance to the study of some situations arising in string theory, where an antisymmetric tensor field coupled to the world sheet develops a non-zero vacuum expectation value . On the other hand, it has been realized that the noncommutative geometry setting may also be useful in the description of the quantum Hall effect , where the verification of noncommutative geometry effects should be more accessible from the experimental point of view than in the previous example.

The emergence of noncommutativity is usually understood as a consequence of the presence of a strong magnetic field, a role which in the string theory context is played by the antisymmetric tensor field, and by the real magnetic field in the quantum Hall effect. It is our purpose in this letter to emphasize that a noncommutative theory may also be a good approximation to the description of vortices in a planar (i.e., two spatial dimensions) complex field. Here, a dual description shall be introduced, such that the ‘magnetic field’ will actually be due to the non-zero vacuum density of the field.

Our starting point is the action for a self-interacting nonrelativistic complex field $`\varphi `$:

$$S(\varphi ^{},\varphi )=𝑑td^2x\left[\frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}(\varphi ^{}_0\varphi _0\varphi ^{}\varphi )\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}_j\varphi ^{}_j\varphi V(\varphi ^{}\varphi )\right]$$
(1)
where $`V(\varphi ^{}\varphi )=\frac{\lambda }{2}(\varphi ^{}\varphi \mu )^2`$, with $`\mu >0`$, is a potential which favors the emergence of a non zero expectation value for the charge density of the field: $`\rho =\varphi ^{}\varphi `$. To consider vortex configurations, we use the technique and notation that have been used for a similar system in . What follows is an adapted version of that technique to the case at hand.

We thus introduce a more convenient parametrization of the scalar field:

$$\varphi (x)=\sqrt{\rho (x)}e^{i\theta (x)}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(x)$$
(2)
in terms of the density; a field $`\theta `$ which is the regular part of the phase of $`\varphi `$; and $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$, which accounts for the singular part of the configuration. The singular part is, of course, constrained to have modulus equal to one.

Introducing the parametrization (2) into (1), we find an equivalent expression for the action, namely:

$$S=dtd^2x[\mathrm{}\rho _0\theta +i\mathrm{}\rho \stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{}_0\stackrel{~}{\varphi }$$

$$\frac{\mathrm{}^2\rho }{2m}(_j\theta i\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{}_j\stackrel{~}{\varphi })^2\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{8m\rho }_j\rho _j\rho V(\rho )].$$
(3)
To linearize the third term in (3), we introduce an auxiliary vector field $`\stackrel{}{J}`$, so that

$$S=dtd^2x[\mathrm{}\rho _0\theta +i\mathrm{}\rho \stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{}_0\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\mathrm{}J_k(_k\theta i\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{}_k\stackrel{~}{\varphi })$$

$$+\frac{m}{2\rho }J_kJ_k\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{8m\rho }_j\rho _j\rho V(\rho )].$$
(4)
The regular phase $`\theta `$ becomes now a Lagrange multiplier field, which imposes the linear constraint $`_0\rho +_kJ_k=0`$, i.e., a continuity equation mixing the density associated to the field $`\varphi `$ with a ‘current’ defined by the auxiliary field $`\stackrel{}{J}`$. This constraint may be solved by introducing a field $`b_\mu `$, such that $`\rho =ϵ_{jk}_jb_k`$ and $`J_k=ϵ_{kl}(_lb_0_0b_l)`$. This will not, of course, determine $`b_\mu `$ completely, since the equations that give $`\rho `$ and $`J_k`$ are invariant under the ‘gauge transformations’: $`b_\mu b_\mu +_\mu \alpha `$. This freedom should, and indeed will, be taken into account for the derivation of the effective theory, by adopting a gauge fixing condition whenever required (i.e., when inverting operators depending on the quadratic form for $`b_\mu `$).

After some elementary algebra, the action $`S`$ may be written in the form:

$$S=𝑑td^2x\left[hb_0\stackrel{~}{J}_0hb_k\stackrel{~}{J}_k+\frac{m}{2\rho _b}\stackrel{}{J}_b^2\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{8m\rho _b}_j\rho _b_j\rho _bV(\rho _b)\right],$$
(5)
where $`\stackrel{~}{J}_\mu `$ is a ‘topological’ vortex current, with components defined by

$$\stackrel{~}{J}_0=\frac{1}{2\pi i}ϵ_{kl}_k(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{}_l\stackrel{~}{\varphi })\stackrel{~}{J}_k=\frac{1}{2\pi i}ϵ_{kl}[_l(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{}_0\stackrel{~}{\varphi })_0(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{}_l\stackrel{~}{\varphi })]$$
(6)
and the notation $`\rho _b`$ and $`\stackrel{}{J}_b`$ has been used to emphasize the fact that those fields are determined by $`b_\mu `$, since $`\theta `$ has been integrated out, and the corresponding constraint completely solved.

Of course, the topological current can only be non-vanishing when the $`\varphi `$-field configuration has singularities. In two spatial dimensions, they can only correspond to isolated points $`\stackrel{}{x}^{(\alpha )}`$, around which the phase winds up an integer number of times, $`q_\alpha `$ 333The sign of $`q_\alpha `$ is defined as positive when the phase winding is counterclockwise.. Thus, an $`N`$ vortex configuration carries a vortex density and current which may be written as follows:

$$\stackrel{~}{J}_0(t,x)=\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{N}{}}q_\alpha \delta [\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}^{(\alpha )}(t)],\stackrel{~}{J}_k(t,x)=\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{N}{}}q_\alpha \dot{x}_k^{(\alpha )}\delta [\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}^{(\alpha )}(t)],$$
(7)
where $`\stackrel{}{x}^{(\alpha )}(t)`$ denotes the actual trajectory of the vortex labeled by the index $`\alpha `$. The quantum dynamics of the vortices corresponding to this current shall be derived by considering the functional integral representation of the vacuum transition amplitude, and integrating out the auxiliary field $`b_\mu `$. Namely, the action describing the effective dynamics of the vortices, $`S_{eff}`$, will be expressed as:

$$\mathrm{exp}\{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}S_{eff}[\stackrel{~}{J}_\mu ]\}=[𝒟b_\mu ]\mathrm{exp}\{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}S[b_\mu ;\stackrel{~}{J}_\mu ]\},$$
(8)
where the symbol $`[𝒟b_\mu ]`$ has been used to denote the $`b_\mu `$ field integration measure, including gauge fixing artifacts (i.e., Faddeev-Popov factors). They will be neglected in the following discussion, since the theory is Abelian and hence they factor out for the calculations we are interested in. $`S_{eff}`$ cannot be evaluated exactly, because of the presence of non-quadratic terms in the action. We may, however, obtain an approximation to $`S_{eff}`$ by integrating out the quadratic fluctuations around an homogeneous vacuum configuration for $`b_\mu `$. Taking into account the special form we have assumed for the potential $`V`$, we see that the homogeneous vacuum corresponds to a constant density $`\rho _b\rho _0=\mu `$ which may be solved for $`b_j`$, by adopting the symmetric gauge: $`b_j=\frac{\rho _0}{2}ϵ_{jk}x_k`$.

Assuming first the vacuum to be isotropic, the current $`\stackrel{}{J}_b`$ must of course vanish. Moreover, as $`\stackrel{}{b}`$ is time-independent, the spatial components of the current are: $`J_k=ϵ_{kl}_kb_0`$, and any constant $`b_0`$ value becomes compatible with this vacuum configuration. This constant will then have to be integrated out. Denoting by $`S_{eff}^{(0)}`$ the result of evaluating the action on this vacuum configuration, we see that

$$S_{eff}^{(0)}=𝑑t\frac{h\rho _0}{2}ϵ_{kl}x_l\stackrel{~}{J}_k,$$
(9)
plus the constraint:

$$Qd^2xJ_0=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}$$
(10)
which follows from the integration of the constant value $`b_0`$ 444We are assuming the gauge invariance to hold even at spatial infinity, i.e., the gauge group is not reduced to the identity at infinity. This is the reason why the net charge has to be zero. This, on the other hand, guarantees the finiteness of the static energy..

We shall now include fluctuations on top of this configuration. To that end, we consider small variations $`\delta \rho `$ and $`\delta \stackrel{}{J}`$, which may be written in terms of $`\delta b_\mu `$ by adopting a gauge. We then expand the action $`S`$ up to the quadratic order in $`\delta b_\mu `$, and integrate out $`\delta b_\mu `$. In this Gaussian approximation, and ignoring $`\stackrel{~}{J}`$-independent terms, we see that the effect of these fluctuations amounts to adding to $`S_{eff}^{(0)}`$ a contribution $`S_{eff}^{(1)}`$, given explicitly by

$$S_{eff}^{(1)}=\frac{h^2\rho _0}{2m}𝑑td^2xd^2x^{}\stackrel{~}{J}_0(t,x)\mathrm{\Delta }^1(x,x^{})\stackrel{~}{J}_0(t,x^{})$$

$$+\frac{h^2}{2}𝑑t𝑑t^{}d^2xd^2x^{}\stackrel{~}{J}_k(t,x)K_{kl}(tt^{},xx^{})\stackrel{~}{J}_l(t^{},x^{}),$$
(11)
where

$$K_{kl}(t,x)=\delta _{kl}\frac{d\omega d^2p}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{e^{i\omega t+i\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{x}}}{(\frac{\mathrm{}^2p^2}{4m\rho _0}+\lambda )p^2\frac{m}{\rho _0}\omega ^2}$$
(12)
is an operator containing nonlocalities in time 555We are omitting the (implicit) $`iϵ`$ to avoid the pole.. To obtain a local theory, we assume that $`\lambda `$ is sufficiently large, so that only the first term in (11) (which is $`\lambda `$-independent) remains. This yields a (time local) expression for $`S_{eff}^{(1)}`$:

$$S_{eff}^{(1)}=\frac{h^2\rho _0}{2m}𝑑td^2xd^2x^{}\stackrel{~}{J}_0(t,x)\mathrm{\Delta }^1(x,x^{})\stackrel{~}{J}_0(t,x^{})$$
(13)
where the first correction to this expression is of order $`\lambda ^1`$

$$𝒪(\lambda ^1)=\frac{h^2}{2\lambda }𝑑td^2xd^2x^{}\stackrel{~}{J}_k(t,x)\mathrm{\Delta }^1(xx^{})\stackrel{~}{J}_k(t,x^{}).$$
(14)
This large-$`\lambda `$ approximation may be justified if the condition $`\frac{mv^2}{\rho _0\lambda }<<1`$ (where $`v`$ denotes the typical velocity of the vortices) holds.

Putting together the first two leading terms contributing to the effective action, we get a tractable approximation to the effective action:

$$S_{eff}=𝑑t\left[\frac{h\rho _0}{2}ϵ_{kl}x_l\stackrel{~}{J}_k+\frac{h^2\rho _0}{2m}d^2xd^2x^{}\stackrel{~}{J}_0(t,x)\mathrm{\Delta }^1(x,x^{})\stackrel{~}{J}_0(t,x^{})\right],$$
(15)
which should be supplemented by the constraint that imposes the vanishing of the total vortex charge. Notice that even for finite $`\lambda `$ the second term in (11) will not modify the phase space structure of the theory described by (15). Indeed, its expansion is non-local in time, and there are no quadratic term in the time derivatives.

We will use this expression as a starting point for the noncommutative description of the vortex dynamics in this model. Let us first consider a ‘first quantized’ language: introducing in (15) expression (7) for the vortex current, we see that the effective action for $`N`$ vortices becomes

$$S_{eff}=𝑑t\left[\frac{h\rho _0}{2}\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{N}{}}q_\alpha ϵ_{jk}\dot{x}_j^{(\alpha )}x_k^{(\alpha )}+\frac{h^2\rho _0}{4\pi m}\underset{\alpha ,\beta =1}{\overset{N}{}}q_\alpha q_\beta \mathrm{ln}|\frac{x^{(\alpha )}x^{(\beta )}}{\xi }|\right]$$
(16)
where we have written explicitly the inverse of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in the coordinate representation, and the global neutrality condition is taken into account by assuming that $`_{\alpha =1}^Nq_\alpha =0`$. The parameter $`\xi `$ can be regarded as a minimum length, related to the size of the vortex core, as in reference . This action has a very particular structure since the kinetic term is linear in time derivatives. This means that the piece without time derivatives is (minus) the Hamiltonian; namely, the effective first order Lagrangian is:

$$_{eff}=\frac{h\rho _0}{2}\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{N}{}}q_\alpha ϵ_{kl}\dot{x}_k^{(\alpha )}x_l^{(\alpha )}$$
(17)
with

$$=\frac{h^2\rho _0}{4\pi m}\underset{\alpha ,\beta =1}{\overset{N}{}}q_\alpha q_\beta \mathrm{ln}|\frac{x^{(\alpha )}x^{(\beta )}}{\xi }|,$$
(18)
which coincides with the one of ref , where it was obtained using a hydrodynamic approach for a system of slightly deformed rectilinear vortices in an incompressible fluid.

The special form of the term containing the time derivatives is responsible for the noncommutativity, since the canonical commutators following from (17) are:

$$[x_k^{(\alpha )},x_l^{(\beta )}]=\frac{i}{2\pi \rho _0q^{(\alpha )}}\delta _{\alpha \beta }ϵ_{kl}\frac{i}{q^\alpha }\theta \delta _{\alpha \beta }ϵ_{kl}$$
(19)
(no sum over $`\alpha `$). Contrary to what happens when it is due to a real magnetic field, here the noncommutativity parameter $`\theta =(2\pi \rho _0)^1`$ is purely classical, i.e., there is no $`\mathrm{}`$ factor 666Of course, the commutator between $`x_k`$ and its canonical conjugate is proportional to $`\mathrm{}`$. The presence of an $`\mathrm{}`$ factor in the Lagrangian, however, cancels out the $`\mathrm{}`$ factor in the commutator between coordinates.. This is also consistent with dimensional analysis, since $`q`$ is dimensionless and $`\rho _0^1`$ has the dimensions of an area. By contrast, in the magnetic field induced noncommutativity, the analogous relation yields a $`\theta `$ proportional to $`l^2`$, where $`l`$ denotes the cyclotron length, which is proportional to $`\mathrm{}^{\frac{1}{2}}`$.

The Hamiltonian $``$ is the one of a two-dimensional neutral Coulomb gas, with the neutrality condition guaranteeing the finiteness of the energy. It should be noted that we are here considering a sector corresponding to a (fixed) number ($`N`$) of vortices. Had we wanted to compare sectors with different numbers of singularities, the constant terms we have neglected would have been relevant (i.e., to determine the chemical potential of the system). The partition function for the classical system of vortices at finite temperature is then proportional to the one of a (globally neutral) two dimensional Coulomb gas. It is noteworthy that this partition function is not exactly identical to the one of a standard, classical $`2+1`$ dimensional Coulomb gas composed of dynamical charges, since that theory would have a phase space twice as large, because the canonical momenta would be independent from the coordinates, at least assuming normal quadratic kinetic energy terms. The Gaussian integral over the canonical momenta would then, as usual, yield a decoupled factor which modifies the total entropy, as well as the zero of the free energy.

It is, at this level, already possible to make contact with some noncommutative geometry results. In particular, the interpretation of noncommutative field theory as describing elementary dipoles  is found by looking at the simplest case: $`N=2`$, i.e., a vortex-antivortex pair

$$_{eff}=\frac{h\rho _0q}{2}ϵ_{kl}[\dot{x}_k^{(1)}x_l^{(1)}\dot{x}_k^{(2)}x_l^{(2)}]\frac{h^2\rho _0q^2}{2\pi m}\mathrm{ln}|\frac{x^{(1)}x^{(2)}}{\xi }|,$$
(20)
where $`x^{(1)}`$ and $`x^{(2)}`$ denote the vortex ($`q_1=q`$) and antivortex ($`q_2=q`$) coordinates, respectively. Introducing the relative ($`r`$) and center of mass ($`R`$) coordinates, we see that

$$_{eff}=h\rho _0qϵ_{kl}\dot{r}_kR_l\frac{h^2\rho _0q^2}{2\pi m}\mathrm{ln}|\frac{r}{\xi }|,$$
(21)
where $`r_k=x_k^{(1)}x_k^{(2)}`$ and $`R_k=\frac{x_k^{(1)}+x_k^{(2)}}{2}`$. This form of the Lagrangian makes it explicit the fact that the center of mass and relative coordinates of the ‘dipole’ built from the vortex-antivortex pair become conjugate canonical variables. We also note that the interaction potential between vortex and antivortex is confining, so it makes sense to attempt a description in terms of the dipole as a single entity, with the noncommutativity taking into account part of the vortex ‘internal structure’.

For more tractable forms of the interaction potential, like a quadratic one, the system is equivalent to a single particle with the coordinates of the center of mass $`R_k`$ and a mass determined by the parameter of the harmonic interaction potential . In this interpretation, the uncertainty relations

$$\mathrm{\Delta }r_1\mathrm{\Delta }R_2\theta \mathrm{\Delta }r_2\mathrm{\Delta }R_1\theta ,$$
(22)
relate the ‘size’ of the dipoles to the uncertainty of the center of mass coordinates. The noncommutative description naturally arises when considering the quantum version of the theory defined by the effective action (15).

When a (globally neutral) configuration of the system is such that it can be approximately described as a set of condensed vortex-antivortex pairs, the dipole interpretation may also be introduced. Let us assume that $`N`$ is even, $`N=2M`$, with $`M`$ vortices of charge $`q=+1`$ and $`M`$ with charge $`q=1`$. Introducing coordinates $`x^{(\alpha )}`$ for the vortices, and $`y^{(\alpha )}`$ for the antivortices, we first arrange the different terms in the Lagrangian in a convenient way:

$$_{eff}=\frac{h\rho _0q}{2}\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{M}{}}ϵ_{kl}[\dot{x}_k^{(\alpha )}x_l^{(\alpha )}\dot{y}_k^{(\alpha )}y_l^{(\alpha )}]+\frac{h^2\rho _0q^2}{4\pi m}\underset{\alpha ,\beta =1}{\overset{M}{}}\mathrm{ln}|\frac{x^{(\alpha )}x^{(\beta )}}{\xi }|$$

$$+\frac{h^2\rho _0q^2}{4\pi m}\underset{\alpha ,\beta =1}{\overset{M}{}}\mathrm{ln}|\frac{y^{(\alpha )}y^{(\beta )}}{\xi }|$$

$$\frac{h^2\rho _0q^2}{2\pi m}\underset{\alpha ,\beta =1}{\overset{M}{}}\mathrm{ln}|\frac{x^{(\alpha )}y^{(\beta )}}{\xi }|.$$
(23)
Assuming that the situation is such that the system has condensed into vortex-antivortex pairs with $`x^{(\alpha )}`$ paired to $`y^{(\alpha )}`$, $`\alpha `$, it is convenient to introduce the new set of coordinates: $`\stackrel{}{r}^{(\alpha )}=\stackrel{}{x}^{(\alpha )}\stackrel{}{y}^{(\alpha )}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{R}^{(\alpha )}=\frac{\stackrel{}{x}^{(\alpha )}+\stackrel{}{y}^{(\alpha )}}{2}`$. If the dipoles have condensed, the relative distance $`|r^{(\alpha )}|`$ should be negligible in comparison with the distance between the center of masses of the dipoles. Using a two-dimensional multipole expansion for the interaction potentials, we have of course

$$_{eff}h\rho _0q\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{M}{}}ϵ_{kl}\dot{r}_k^{(\alpha )}R_l^{(\alpha )}\frac{h^2\rho _0q^2}{2\pi m}\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{M}{}}\mathrm{ln}|\frac{r^{(\alpha )}}{\xi }|,$$
(24)
as the leading contribution. The next to leading term introduces a dipole-dipole interaction potential $`V_{\alpha ,\beta }`$, such that for each pair $`\alpha ,\beta `$ of dipoles it is given by:

$$V_{\alpha \beta }=\frac{h^2\rho _0q^2}{2\pi m}r_j^{(\alpha )}\mathrm{\Omega }_{jk}^{(\alpha \beta )}r_k^{(\beta )}$$
(25)
where

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{jk}^{(\alpha \beta )}=\frac{2R_j^{(\alpha \beta )}R_k^{(\alpha \beta )}(R^{(\alpha \beta )})^2\delta _{jk}}{(R^{(\alpha \beta )})^4},R^{(\alpha \beta )}R^{(\alpha )}R^{(\beta )}.$$
(26)
We are interested in the quantum theory corresponding to this system. The convenience of having a ‘field’ description for the many particle case, should be evident. Indeed, it would be desirable to be able to define the quantum dynamics in terms of a field corresponding to the density $`J_0`$, a function of the coordinates. However, since the coordinates $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ of a vortex are conjugate variables, we see that the density has to be understood as a field defined on a noncommutative space. The situation is entirely analogous to the deformation quantization procedure  where one describes the dynamics in terms of the Wigner function, which defines a density on phase space. In the case at hand, the density will also be a function of the phase space coordinates $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$, and the Hamiltonian $`H_{eff}`$ may be expressed in terms of the Moyal product $``$ of the corresponding Weyl symbol:

$$A(x_1,x_2)B(x_1,x_2)=A(x_1,x_2)e^{i\frac{\theta }{2}(\stackrel{}{}_{x_1}\stackrel{}{}_{x_2}\stackrel{}{}_{x_2}\stackrel{}{}_{x_1})}B(x_1,x_2).$$
(27)
Using the notation $`\rho `$ for the Weyl symbol of the density, we see that the Hamiltonian $`H`$, as obtained from (15), should be

$$H_{eff}=\frac{h^2\rho _0}{2m}d^2xd^2x^{}\rho (t,x)\mathrm{\Delta }^1(x,x^{})\rho (t,x^{}),$$
(28)
where, of course, one of the stars may be deleted. Equation (28) may be understood as the mean energy of a configuration defined by the density $`\rho `$; static solutions that are extrema of (28) should be possible collective states of the system. The equation for those extrema is of course an eigensystem:

$$\frac{1}{4\pi }d^2y\mathrm{ln}(\frac{|xy|}{\xi })\rho (y)=E\rho (x)$$
(29)
or, replacing the $``$ by the equivalent shift in the corresponding coordinate:

$$\frac{1}{4\pi }d^2y\mathrm{ln}(\xi ^1\sqrt{(x_1i\frac{\theta }{2}D_{y_2})^2+(x_2+i\frac{\theta }{2}D_{y_1})^2})\rho (y)=E\rho (x)$$
(30)
where $`D_{y_1}=_{y_1}+\frac{2i}{\theta }y_2`$ and $`D_{y_2}=_{y_2}\frac{2i}{\theta }y_1`$ have the form of covariant derivatives for a constant uniform ‘magnetic field’ $`B=\frac{4}{\theta }`$. The presence of this covariant derivative is indeed a manifestation of the Magnus force at the purely quantum level, since when considering simplified versions of the interaction potential (like quadratic ones), it clearly induces a dynamical behavior similar to the one of particles in a magnetic field. Of course, the Magnus force is evident at the semiclassical level just from the particular form of the kinetic term in (15) .

Let us, for the sake of completeness, also present the result for the case of the non-isotropic vacuum with a non-vanishing constant value $`J_k^0`$ for the auxiliary field $`J_k`$. Keeping all the terms which survive for this configuration, the quadratic approximation yields now a correction $`S_{eff}^{(1)}`$, which is explicitly given by

$$S_{eff}^{(1)}=S_{eff}^{(1)}|_{J=0}+\frac{h^2}{2}𝑑td^2x𝑑t^{}d^2x^{}(\stackrel{~}{J}_k(t,x)\frac{J_k^0}{\rho _0}\stackrel{~}{J}_0(t,x))$$

$$M_{kl}^1(t,x;t^{},x^{})(\stackrel{~}{J}_l(t,x)\frac{J_k^0}{\rho _0}\stackrel{~}{J}_0(t,x))$$
(31)
where $`M_{kl}`$ is non-local in time and depends on the (constant) value of $`J_0`$. In momentum space, $`\stackrel{~}{M}^1`$, the Fourier transform of $`M^1`$, may be written as

$$(\stackrel{~}{M}^1)_{kl}(p)=\{[\frac{m}{\rho _0}\omega ^2(\frac{\mathrm{}^2p^2}{4m\rho _0}+\lambda )p^2+\frac{2m\omega }{\rho _0^2}\stackrel{}{J}^0\stackrel{}{p}]^1e_{kl}$$

$$+[\frac{m}{\rho _0}\omega ^2+(\frac{m}{\rho _0^3}(J^0)^2\frac{\mathrm{}^2p^2}{4m\rho _0}\lambda )p^2+\frac{2m\omega }{\rho _0^2}\stackrel{}{J}^0\stackrel{}{p}]^1f_{kl}\}$$
(32)
where $`e_{kl}e_ke_l`$, $`e_k`$: unit vector in the direction of $`\stackrel{}{J}^0`$, and $`f_{kl}\delta _{kl}e_{kl}`$.

In the same limit were we found an effective theory local in time (15) for the $`\stackrel{}{J}^0=0`$ case, we find here for the correction $`S_1`$:

$$S_{eff}^{(1)}\frac{h^2\rho _0}{2m}𝑑td^2xd^2x^{}\stackrel{~}{J}_0(t,x)\mathrm{\Delta }^1(x,x^{})\stackrel{~}{J}_0(t,x^{})$$

$$\frac{h^2}{2\lambda }𝑑td^2xd^2x^{}(\stackrel{~}{J}_k\frac{J_k^0}{\rho _0}\stackrel{~}{J}_0)(t,x)\mathrm{\Delta }^1(xx^{})(\stackrel{~}{J}_k\frac{J_k^0}{\rho _0}\stackrel{~}{J}_0)(t,x^{}).$$
(33)
This means that the correction to the previous case is still of order $`\lambda ^1`$, and amount to modifying the vortex current by the subtraction of a constant current $`\frac{J_k^0}{\rho _0}\stackrel{~}{J}_0`$.

It is interesting to compare the previous results with the ones that follow by starting from a relativistic model, since there are similarities but also very important differences between the two cases. To that end, we consider now the derivation of the effective theory for vortices in the relativistic scalar field case. The action is now assumed to be

$$S=d^3x\left[_\mu \varphi ^{}_\mu \varphi V(\varphi ^{}\varphi )\right]$$
(34)
where $`V`$ is assumed to have the same structure as in the non-relativistic case, equation (1). Of course, now the parameters in that potential have a different physical meaning, but we keep the same notation for the sake of simplicity.

Introducing in (34) the same decomposition we have used in the non-relativistic case, we see that the action $`S`$ becomes:

$$S=d^3x\left[\rho (\theta +i\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{}\stackrel{~}{\varphi })^2+\frac{1}{4\rho }(\rho )^2V(\rho )\right]$$
(35)
Again, an auxiliary field is employed to linearize the action. In this case, we need a vector field $`\xi `$ so that:

$$S=d^3x\left[\xi _\mu (^\mu \theta +i\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{}^\mu \stackrel{~}{\varphi })\frac{1}{4\rho }\xi _\mu \xi ^\mu +\frac{1}{4\rho }(\rho )^2V(\rho )\right].$$
(36)
Next, the pure gradient $`_\mu \theta `$ can be replaced by a vector field $`\theta _\mu _\mu \theta `$ which is, of course, constrained to verify the zero curl constraint: $`ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda }_\nu \theta _\lambda =0`$. This constraint may be enforced by adding to the action a new term $`S_\delta `$:

$$S_\delta =d^3xA_\mu ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda }_\nu \theta _\lambda ,$$
(37)
where $`A_\mu `$ is a Lagrange multiplier field.

This action is assumed to be used for the functional quantization of the system, so we may, as usual, perform field redefinitions since they amount to changes in the (functional) integration variables. Using in particular the shift

$$\theta _\mu \theta _\mu i\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{}_\mu \stackrel{~}{\varphi }$$
(38)
we find that

$$S=d^3[\xi _\mu \theta ^\mu \frac{1}{4\rho }\xi ^2+\frac{1}{4\rho }(\rho )^2$$

$$V(\rho )+A_\mu ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda }_\nu \theta _\lambda +2\pi A^\mu \stackrel{~}{J}_\mu ]$$
(39)
where $`\stackrel{~}{J}_\mu `$ denotes the topological current

$$\stackrel{~}{J}_\mu =\frac{1}{2\pi i}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }^\nu (\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{}^\lambda \stackrel{~}{\varphi }).$$
(40)
Finally, we integrate out the vector field $`\theta _\mu `$, obtaining,

$$S=d^3x\left[\frac{1}{4}(\frac{1}{2\rho })F_{\mu \nu }(A)F^{\mu \nu }(A)+2\pi A^\mu \stackrel{~}{J}_\mu +\frac{1}{4\rho }(\rho )^2V(\rho )\right]$$
(41)
where $`F_{\mu \nu }(A)=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu `$. This expression is useful in order to make a comparison with the already considered non-relativistic case. First we note that, depending on the form chosen for the potential, one still has the possibility of having a vacuum where $`\rho `$ (now a relativistic scalar) has a non-zero uniform value. This, however, does not necessarily mean that there will be a corresponding uniform vacuum magnetic field that guarantees the desired form for the kinetic term of the action, as in the non-relativistic case. In other words, to get a non-zero vacuum magnetic field for $`A_\mu `$, one should assume that there is spontaneous breaking of Poincare invariance. If that is the case, then one can assume a constant $`B=ϵ_{jk}_jA_k`$, a constant $`\rho =\rho _0`$, and look for the minima of a ‘potential’ $`U`$, resulting from adding to $`V(\rho _0)`$ the contribution coming from the $`F^2`$ term:

$$U(B,\rho _0)=V(\rho _0)\frac{1}{4\rho _0}B^2.$$
(42)
The solution for the minima of this potential will provide for an expression for the uniform magnetic field $`B_0`$ in terms of the background density $`\rho _0`$. Thus, the action evaluated in this configuration will look exactly like (9), but with $`h\rho _0`$ replaced by $`2\pi B_0`$.

We conclude that a noncommutative geometry description may very well be appropriate to the description of vortices in a planar system defined in terms of a complex scalar field. The dual description allows one to precisely identify all the parameters of the noncommutative theory, and moreover the dipole interpretation for the natural excitations in a noncommutative theory finds here a natural and concrete realization. Also, the introduction of corrections to the effective description is under control, and even the existence of external currents may be taken into account with minor changes in the model.


text:
# Magnetic field effect on the dielectric constant of glasses : an evidence of disorder within tunneling barriers ?

## I Introduction

Since the seventies Zeller , it is well established that at low temperature $`T`$, the properties of amorphous solids differ strongly from their crystaline counterparts. This is currently explained Anderson  within the tunneling two-level system (TLS) model, stating that the only relevant degrees of freedom at low $`T`$ are particles going back and forth between two neighboring sites of equilibrium. Indeed, the TLS model accounts for various properties of glasses below $`1`$ $`\mathrm{K}`$. A closer look, however, reveals that the TLS model often does not quantitatively account for the measured quantities. Since the late eighties, considerable efforts have been made to include interactions between TLS’s in order to explain such discrepancies Granaan  and justify the TLS model from first principles Klein , Burin  or, at least, to give a more consistent picture of TLS’s Wurger , Kettemann . However, the lack of TLS microscopic information allowed to consider interactions either to be weak Burin  or strong Wurger , Kettemann , Strehlow98  : these opposite starting points echo Leggett and Yu’s question : ”Is there anything really tunneling in glasses ?” Leggett .

The purpose of this work is to gain some microscopic information on TLS’s by studying the magnetic field effect on a glassy property, namely the $`1`$ $`\mathrm{kHz}`$ dielectric constant $`ϵ_r`$. Indeed, for a charge $`Q`$, the tunneling transparency of a barrier of size $`a`$ is strongly modified by magnetic fields $`H`$ of the order of $`H_c=\frac{\mathrm{}}{Qa^2}`$ : this is due to the ($`H`$ dependent) difference of quantum phase picked up by the various paths under the barrier Kettemann . However, setting the usual TLS parameters, $`a0.2`$ $`\mathrm{nm}`$ and $`Q=e`$, with $`e`$ the electronic charge, leads to $`H_c10^4`$ $`\mathrm{T}`$, a value so large that it seemed to explain Frossati et al’s results Frossati  reporting no detectable $`H`$ effects on $`ϵ_r`$. Recently, however, detectable $`ϵ_r(H)`$ effects were reported below $`80`$ $`\mathrm{mK}`$ (and down to $`1`$ $`\mathrm{mK}`$) on a multicomponent glass Strehlow98 , Strehlow00 . Very strikingly, $`ϵ_r(H)`$ is peaked around $`H_c0.03`$ $`\mathrm{T}`$, a very low value accounted for by using interactions : at low $`T`$, it was argued that interactions correlate a large number $`N1`$ of TLS’s and that the resulting spectrum resembles that of a single TLS with a charge $`Q=Ne`$ (and a renormalized tunneling energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$). In this work, a detectable $`ϵ_r(H)`$ effect is reported on a $`a\mathrm{SiO}_{2+\mathrm{x}}\mathrm{C}_\mathrm{y}\mathrm{H}_\mathrm{z}`$ glass for $`50`$ $`\mathrm{mK}T400`$ $`\mathrm{mK}`$ and $`H`$ up to $`3`$ $`\mathrm{T}`$. Even if our glass is not really a model glass (such as the various forms of vitreous silica, e.g. Suprasil), the $`ϵ_r(H)`$ dependence reported here shows that these effects are not restricted to the multicomponent glass studied previously Strehlow98 , Strehlow00 , favoring the idea that such effects are general in structural glasses. Furthermore our work shows, as stated previously Ahn , that such measurements demand special experimental care since $`ϵ_r(H)`$ effects are quite small: $`\delta ϵ_r^{}(H)/ϵ_r^{}`$ lies typically in the $`10^610^5`$ range ($`ϵ_r^{}`$ is the real part of $`ϵ_r`$). This is why, after a brief description of the experimental setup, it is explained how to overcome the difficult question of keeping $`T`$ constant with great accuracy, while increasing $`H`$. The resulting $`ϵ_r^{}(H)`$ effect is then accounted for by using numerical calculations of the $`H`$ effect on the tunneling transparency of a disordered nanometric barrier. As explained below, this additional mechanism should not contradict the one based upon interactions.

## II Experimental setup

The sample was deposited on a $`a\mathrm{SiO}_2`$ substrate as follows: i) a $`0.1`$ $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ thick Cu layer was first evaporated, ii) a $`L=0.8`$ $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ thick $`a\mathrm{SiO}_{2+\mathrm{x}}\mathrm{C}_\mathrm{y}\mathrm{H}_\mathrm{z}`$ layer was then deposited by a $`13`$ $`\mathrm{MHz}`$ plasma vapor technique using TetraEthylOrthoSilane mixed with He Boutard  iii) a $`0.08`$ $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ thick Cu layer, followed by a $`0.04`$ $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ Au layer was evaporated. Both electrodes are $`3`$ $`\mathrm{mm}`$ large $`10`$ $`\mathrm{mm}`$ long ribbons recovering each other along $`3`$ $`\mathrm{mm}`$ (i.e., the capacitance surface is $`S9`$ $`\mathrm{mm}^2`$) : the opposite ends of the electrodes are free of glass deposit allowing an ohmic contact to be made with a Cu wire glued with Ag paste. These two Cu wires are soldered to the inner wires of cryogenic coaxial cables going from room temperature to the cold copper box embedding the sample : this box is related to the mixing chamber of the dilution fridge by a thermal impedance and contains a $`\mathrm{RuO}_2`$ resistive thermometer whose resistance will be called $`\theta _{\mathrm{RuO}_2}`$ throughout this work (to avoid any confusion with the parallel resistance $`R`$ of the glass sample). The sample substrate was glued with varnish on a copper sample holder for thermalization. To decrease possible $`H`$-dependent heating in the electrodes, $`H`$ was set parallel to the electrodes (i.e., perpendicular to the $`1`$ $`\mathrm{kHz}`$ measuring field $``$). Semi-rigid home-made coaxial cables were installed at the top of the fridge and directly plugged in the Andeen-2500A capacitance bridge. The capacitance bridge was used in its parallel option, yielding $`Cϵ_r^{}`$ and $`Gϵ_r^{\prime \prime }`$, but throughout this work it was chosen to report on $`C`$ and $`R=1/G`$ due to the great similarity of the $`C(T)`$ and $`R(T)`$ curves (see Fig. 1) : this strongly confirms that the reported $`R`$ at low $`T`$ is not some parasitic edge effect but has the same origin that the reported $`C`$, namely the TLS’s.

From $`300`$ $`\mathrm{K}`$ to $`4.2`$ $`\mathrm{K}`$, the capacitance $`C`$ typically halves, while the parallel resistance $`R`$ increases by a factor $`100`$. Below $`4.2`$ $`\mathrm{K}`$, $`C`$ decreases, reaches its minimum for $`T_{rev.}`$ and then increases below $`T_{rev.}`$ before reaching a ultra low $`T`$ saturation value $`C_{sat}`$. According to the standard TLS model the $`C`$ decrease above $`T_{rev.}`$ is due to progressive freezing of the diagonal (or relaxational) part of the response, while the $`C`$ increase below $`T_{rev.}`$ comes from the induced off-diagonal (or resonant) part of the susceptibility : this effect enlarges as $`T`$ decreases as do all quantum effects.

## III Obtaining $`\delta ϵ_r^{}(H)`$

### III.1 Proof that a non-zero $`\delta ϵ_r^{}(H)`$ exists

Figure 1 shows $`C(T)`$ and $`R(T)`$ curves when a $`1`$ $`\mathrm{kHz}`$ field $`=3V/0.8`$ $`\mu \mathrm{m}=3.75`$ $`\mathrm{MV}/\mathrm{m}`$ is used. The high value of $`T_{rev.}0.3`$ $`\mathrm{K}8T_{rev.}(0)`$ reveals that such fields correspond to the strongly nonlinear regime Osheroff . Such large fields were used with a large integration time ($`100`$ $`\mathrm{s}`$) so as to reduce the bridge uncertainties $`c_{noise}`$ (resp. $`r_{noise}`$) over $`C`$ (resp. $`R`$) measurements down to $`c_{noise}/C=\pm 10^7`$ (resp. $`r_{noise}/R=\pm 10^5`$). Large fields were also used in Strehlow00 .

The second key point to investigate small $`ϵ_r(H)`$ effects is to be able to increase $`H`$ while keeping $`T`$ accurately constant. It demands either to set up a $`H`$-independent thermometry, which is extremely difficult over an extended $`T`$ range (it may have been the way used in Strehlow98 , Strehlow00 ); or, at least, to correct $`T`$ of the magnetoresistance of the thermometer. However, such a correction cannot be done with great accuracy since the standard technique for measuring the $`\theta _{\mathrm{RuO}_2}(H)`$ dependence is as follows Sanquer  : i) For $`H=0`$ the relationship between the power $`𝒫`$ injected in the fridge and the resulting $`T`$ is first recorded ; ii) For a given $`𝒫`$, $`H`$ is slowly raised to a given value, and the measured $`\theta _{\mathrm{RuO}_2}(H)\theta _{\mathrm{RuO}_2}(0)`$ at thermal equilibrium is attributed to the magnetoresistance of the thermometer : the corresponding results are shown in the lower inset of Fig. 1 and lead to corrections of the order of $`25\%`$ on $`T`$ when $`H`$ is raised up to a few $`\mathrm{T}`$. However, these $`\theta _{\mathrm{RuO}_2}(H)`$ measurements lie on the key assumption that the $`𝒫(T)`$ relationship does not depend at all on $`H`$ : this cannot hold accurately, e.g., due to the dissipation of energy resulting from the vibrations of the fridge within the magnetic field. These small and complicated effects cannot be ignored when seeking small $`ϵ_r(H)`$ effects which, translated into a thermal equivalent, amount to an effective variation of $`T`$ lying in the $`0.15\%`$ range (see B)2) below).

Going back to the $`C,R`$ measurements, the fact that both $`𝒫(T)`$ and $`\theta _{\mathrm{RuO}_2}(T)`$ relationships sligthly depend on $`H`$ implies that $`T`$ cannot be made accurately constant when $`H`$ is increased. For practical reasons, the $`C(H),R(H)`$ measurements were made letting $`𝒫`$ automatically adjust so as to keep the $`\theta _{\mathrm{RuO}_2}`$ value fixed at any $`H`$ value : raising $`H`$ while keeping $`\theta _{\mathrm{RuO}_2}`$ constant leads to a small shift $`\delta T(H)`$ of the temperature of the experiment as depicted in the upper inset of Fig. 1.

The measured variations $`\delta C(H)=[C(H)C(0)]_{constant\theta _{\mathrm{RuO}_2}}`$ are displayed in Fig. 2 for various $`T`$ values measured at $`H=0`$. The key point is that the $`\delta T(H)`$ dependence cannot explain all the qualitative features of Fig. 2. For example, whatever $`\delta T(H)`$ may be, if $`\delta ϵ_r(H)`$ were zero, $`\delta C(H)`$ and $`\delta R(H)`$ would vanish at the same $`H`$ : this is clearly contradicted by the $`50`$ $`\mathrm{mK}`$, $`100`$ $`\mathrm{mK}`$ and $`400`$ $`\mathrm{mK}`$ data reported on Fig. 2. This proves that a $`ϵ_r(H)`$ dependence exists in our sample but that an accurate correction of the $`\delta T(H)`$ effects must be done on the data of Fig. 2. This correction cannot be done with the data of the inset of Fig. 1 since, as above evoked, the sought $`ϵ_r(H)`$ is smaller than the accuracy of the $`\delta T(H)`$ estimate.

### III.2 Obtaining the order of magnitude of $`\delta ϵ_r^{}(H)`$

At this step, the existence of a detectable $`\delta ϵ_r^{}(H)`$ dependence is established but an accurate suppression of $`\delta T(H)`$ effects is still missing. It is shown here that using  both $`\delta R(H)`$ and $`\delta C(H)`$ allows to draw from Fig. 2 the order of magnitude of $`\delta ϵ_r^{}(H)`$, i.e., to know its value within a scale factor $`0.1<\eta <10`$ (see Eq. (2) below) : this interval might seem to be very large, but we will see in the next section that the physical interpretation only involves $`\mathrm{ln}(\eta )`$.

#### III.2.1 Overview of the method

The key idea is that since the relative variations of all the involved quantities are small, first order expansions are accurate. Defining $`\delta X(H)=X(H)X(0)`$ for any quantity $`X`$ measured as a function of $`H`$ keeping the $`\theta _{\mathrm{RuO}_2}`$ value constant, one gets :

$$\delta C(H)=\left(\frac{C}{T}\right)\delta T(H)+\delta C_{int.}(H),$$
$`(1a)`$
where the measured $`\delta C(H)`$ is shown on Fig. 2, $`\delta C_{int.}(H)`$ is proportionnal to the sought intrinsic variation of $`\delta ϵ_r^{}(H)`$ and throughout this work, all the partial derivatives with respect to $`T`$ are taken at $`H=0`$. Introducing the corresponding quantity $`\delta R_{int.}(H)`$, an equation similar to Eq. (1a) is obtained for $`R`$ measurements.

$$\delta R(H)=\left(\frac{R}{T}\right)\delta T(H)+\delta R_{int.}(H).$$
$`(1b)`$
Combining Eqs. (1a) and (1b) allows to accurately eliminate $`\delta T(H)`$, and to get :

$$\delta C_{int.}(H)=\eta \left(\frac{\left(\frac{C}{T}\right)}{\left(\frac{R}{T}\right)}\delta R(H)\delta C(H)\right),$$
$`(2a)`$
with $`\eta =\frac{1}{(\alpha 1)}`$ and $`\alpha `$ is defined by :

$$\alpha =\frac{\delta R_{int.}(H)}{\delta C_{int.}(H)}\frac{\left(\frac{C}{T}\right)}{\left(\frac{R}{T}\right)}.$$
$`(2b)`$
$`\alpha `$ is introduced here as an attempt to eliminate one of the three unknown quantities among $`\delta T(H)`$, $`\delta C_{int.}(H)`$ and $`\delta R_{int.}(H)`$ since only two quantities, $`\delta C(H)`$ and $`\delta R(H)`$, are measured. $`\alpha `$ cannot be predicted since, for strong $``$, a comprehensive treatment of the TLS dynamics, including quantum coherence effects, is still missing : at present, even the $`C(T)`$ curve is not well accounted for Osheroff . However, within the framework of the standard TLS model, $`\alpha `$ and $`\eta `$  cannot depend on $`H`$ since, as we show below, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{0,max}`$ is the only parameter of the TLS model which might slightly depend on $`H`$ : neglecting, as above, any second order terms, both the real and the imaginary parts of $`\delta ϵ_r(H)`$ (i.e., both $`\delta C_{int.}(H)`$ and $`\delta R_{int.}(H)`$) are expected to be proportionnal to the same small $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_{0,max}(H)/\mathrm{\Delta }_{0,max}`$ (see Eq. (4)).

There is no similar argument stating that, generally, $`\alpha `$ and $`\eta =1/(\alpha 1)`$ cannot depend on $`T`$. It is shown in the section A of the Appendix, by using the shape of the curves of Fig. 2 and quite general arguments, that $`\eta `$ lies,  at any reported $`T`$, in $`[0.1,10]`$, an interval which will turn out to be ”small” enough to neglect any $`\eta (T)`$ variations (see section IV). Basically, it is shown in the Appendix that the $`\delta T(H)`$ influence on the measured $`\delta C(H)`$ and $`\delta R(H)`$ enlarges as $`H`$ is increased : the quasilinear decrease of $`\delta C(H),\delta R(H)`$ seen in Fig. 2 at large $`H`$ thus comes from $`\delta T(H)`$ effects (at $`400`$ $`\mathrm{mK}`$ it turns to a quasilinear increase due to the fact that $`C/T>0`$ contrarily to the case of lower $`T`$ data).

#### III.2.2 The most salient features of $`\delta C_{int.}(H)`$

Since $`0.1<\eta <10`$, the order of magnitude of $`\delta C_{int.}(H)`$ is obtained by setting $`\eta =1`$ and disregarding any possible $`\eta (T)`$ variations within this interval : the resulting transformation of the data of Fig. 2 through Eq. (2a) is shown on Fig. 3. $`\delta C_{int.}(H)`$ is positive for the lowest temperatures (except for three low fields at $`50`$ $`\mathrm{mK}`$, see below) and negative at higher $`T`$, i.e., in the vicinity of $`T_{rev.}`$.

The $`200`$ $`\mathrm{mK}`$ data were not reported on Fig. 3 since they lie very close to zero. Indeed, it seemed more important to report, in the inset of Fig. 3, on $`\delta C(H)`$ measured just at $`T_{rev.}`$ (measured with a larger field $`=8.75`$ $`\mathrm{MV}/\mathrm{m}`$ to further increase the signal to noise ratio). For the inset of Fig. 3, at low $`H`$, the $`\delta T(H)`$ contribution (see Eq. (1a)) to $`\delta C(H)`$ is negligible since $`C/T=0`$ just at $`T_{rev.}`$ (at large $`H`$ this is no longer true due to the increase of $`\delta T(H)`$, yielding the quasilinear increase of $`\delta C(H)`$). The important point here is the decrease of $`\delta C(H,T_{rev.})`$ at low $`H`$ : it further confirms that $`\delta C_{int.}(H)`$ is negative in the vicinity of $`T_{rev.}`$ and that $`\eta >0`$ at $`400`$ $`\mathrm{mK}`$. Note that the results of Fig. 3 were reproduced on a second similar sample.

Let us translate the data of Fig. 3 to a thermal equivalent by using $`\delta T_{int.C}=\delta C_{int.}(H)/(\frac{C}{T})`$ (remember that $`\delta C_{int.}(H)`$ are calculated by setting $`\eta =1`$) : it is found that $`\delta T_{int.C}(H)`$ reaches at most $`7\%`$ of $`T`$ at $`50`$ $`\mathrm{mK}`$, $`2\%`$ at $`70`$ $`\mathrm{mK}`$, $`1\%`$ at $`100`$ $`\mathrm{mK}`$ and $`4\%`$ at $`400`$ $`\mathrm{mK}`$.  Beyond chemical differencies between glasses, this might explain why, with an uncertainty on $`T`$ of $`\pm 5\%`$, previous studies reported undetectable $`ϵ_r(H)`$ effects Frossati . Adding quadratically the uncertainties on both terms of the right hand-side of Eq. (2a), the final uncertainty $`c_{err}`$ about the $`\delta C_{int.}(H)`$ reported on Fig. 3 reads :

$$c_{err}=\eta \sqrt{(c_{noise})^2+(r_{noise}\frac{C}{T})^2(\frac{R}{T})^2}.$$
$`(3)`$
On Fig. 3, $`c_{err}`$ was reported for each $`T`$ : due to the strong decrease of $`R/T`$, it is much stronger at $`0.4`$ $`\mathrm{K}`$ than at low $`T`$ where it hardly exceeds the symbol size. However, even at $`0.4`$ $`\mathrm{K}`$, $`c_{err}`$ amounts to an uncertainty over $`T`$ of $`\pm 0.5\%`$, ten times smaller than in Frossati .

Let us note that $`\delta C_{int.}(H)/c_{err}`$ does not depend on the chosen $`\eta =1`$ : the trends of $`\delta C_{int.}(H)`$ reported on Fig. 3 are thus reliable at each $`T`$, even if the possible $`\eta (T)`$ dependence forbids any accurate comparison of $`\delta C_{int.}(H)`$ at different $`T`$. Comparing Fig. 3 with Strehlow’s results Strehlow00 , our $`\delta ϵ_r^{}(H)`$ is somewhat smaller but lies in the same range. As in Strehlow00 , our $`\delta ϵ_r^{}(H)`$  might be peaked around $`H0.02`$ $`\mathrm{T}`$ for our lowest $`T`$, but this effect is too close to our $`c_{err}`$ to be systematically studied.

## IV Physical interpretation

Let us move to the interpretation of Fig. 3. First, note that, due to the $`T`$-dependence of the data of Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, the reported $`\delta ϵ_r^{}(H)`$ can be attributed neither to the coaxial cables nor to the ”matrix” surrounding TLS’s. Furthermore, the change of sign of $`\delta C_{int.}(H)`$ in the vicinity of $`T_{rev.}`$ excludes a role of the electrode-glass interfaces and further confirms that TLS’s are responsible for the reported $`\delta ϵ_r^{}(H)`$. Last, it is shown in the section B of the Appendix that spin effects, if any, can be ruled out at low enough $`T`$, i.e., well below $`T_{rev.}`$ : this is why we will focus on the positive $`\delta ϵ_r^{}(H)`$ observed at $`T200`$ $`\mathrm{mK}`$.

### IV.1 Going from $`\delta C_{int.}(H)`$ to $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_{0,max}(H)`$

For the part of the capacitance $`C_{TLS}`$ coming from TLS’s, the usual result Osheroff  below $`T_{rev.}`$ can thus be used : $`C_{TLS}=𝒞\mathrm{ln}(E_{max}/k_BT)`$ where $`k_B`$ is Boltzmann constant, $`E_{max}=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }_{max}^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_{0,max}^2}`$ is the maximum interlevel spacing of TLS’s, and the constant $`𝒞0.03`$ $`\mathrm{pF}`$ is determined by fitting the increase of $`C(T)`$ of Fig. 1 below $`T_{rev.}`$ (details are given below).

Since both $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (see section B of the Appendix) and $`𝒞`$ note3  are $`H`$-independent,  the reported $`\delta ϵ_r^{}(H)`$ is interpreted as a $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{0,max}(H)`$ dependence, yielding :

$$\frac{2\delta C_{int.}(H)}{𝒞}=\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_{0,max}(H)}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{0,max}(0)}=\mathrm{ln}(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{0,max}(H)}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{0,max}(0)}),$$
$`(4)`$
where the standard assumption $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{max}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{0,max}`$ is responsible for the factor $`2`$ in the left hand-side of Eq. (4).

Let us note that the expression of $`C_{TLS}`$ used to derive Eq. (4) only holds accurately between $`90`$ $`\mathrm{mK}`$ and $`200`$ $`\mathrm{mK}`$ since, at lower $`T`$, the $`C(T)`$ curve tends to saturate. This failure of the fit at low $`T`$ is due to the fact that the above expression of $`C_{TLS}`$ is well established only in the linear regime, and that a comprehensive treatment for the strong $``$ used here is still missing. However, this formula should capture the essential part of the physics since it expresses that, well below $`T_{rev.}`$, the TLS susceptibility is due to the quantum transitions coherently induced by $``$. Since, physically, it is likely that tunneling plays a key role in the nonlinear $`C_{TLS}`$ at low $`T`$, Eq. (4) should finally hold, up to a multiplicative prefactor which can be disregarded just like $`\eta `$ (see below).

### IV.2 A possible microscopic explanation of $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_{0,max}(H)`$

A $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{0,max}(H)`$ dependence means that the tunnel transparency is affected by $`H`$. This is well known in another kind of disordered insulators, namely Anderson insulators (e.g. lightly doped semiconductors) where electronic states are localized due to potential disorder. At very low frequency, transport in Anderson insulators occurs by hopping on a fractal percolating path strongly affected by $`H`$. $`H`$ effects are smaller at high frequencies where the conducting path is broken since only the fastest hops contribute : note that, since they are disconnected from each other, each of these fast back-and-forth hops is a TLS. In both limits, $`H`$ effects were accounted for Sanquer , Levy  by studying the tunnel transparency $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ between two sites separated by a disordered barrier depicted in the inset of Fig. 4 : tunneling between the two sites of the (quasisymmetric) TLS separated by the distance $`a`$ is strongly affected by the potential disorder coming from the structural disorder within the tunneling barrier itself. This is modeled by a three dimensional network of ”impurities” (whose unit length is the elastic mean free path $`\lambda _{el}`$) and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ results from the coherent sum of all quantum paths along the impurity network : at $`H=0`$, a path picks up a phase $`1`$ each time it diffuses on an impurity whose energy $`e_i`$ is smaller than that of the TLS. Since the $`e_i`$ are drawn at random, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ must be first averaged over disorder (noted hereafter with $`<>`$).

Using this model to account for the measured $`\delta ϵ_r^{}(H)`$ is obviously an oversimplification. Indeed, TLS’s might be more complicated than a unique charge going back and forth between two sites separated by $`a`$: a TLS could be a group of charges, a ’molecule’, and more generally any charged species with two spatially separated potential minima. However, we show now that this model accounts for most of the salient features of the low-$`T`$ $`\delta ϵ_r^{}(H)`$ reported in Fig. 3.

### IV.3 Accounting for the data by using the disordered tunneling barrier model

Figure 4 is drawn from Medina et al’s calculations Medina  and shows that $`<\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }_0>`$ increases with $`H`$ (in Fig. 4 $`H_c=\frac{\mathrm{}}{e\lambda _{el}^2}`$), due to the additional quantum phase introduced by $`H`$. Using Eq. (4) with $`𝒞=0.03`$ $`\mathrm{pF}`$ and $`\lambda _{el}=0.2`$ $`\mathrm{nm}`$, the positive $`\delta ϵ_r^{}(H)`$ reported at $`100`$ $`\mathrm{mK}`$ on Fig. 3 can be displayed on Fig. 4. Comparison with the calculations, made for large $`a/\lambda _{el.}`$, reveals that both the sign and the sublinear dependence $`\delta ϵ_r^{}(H)H^{0.6\pm 0.2}`$ observed on the data are compatible with disorder effects. Moreover, using the roughly logarithmic decrease of $`<\delta \mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Delta }_0(H))>`$ with $`a/\lambda _{el}`$, the experimental data are quantitatively compatible with $`a5\lambda _{el}1`$ $`\mathrm{nm}`$, yielding an elementary dipole $`p_010`$ $`\mathrm{D}`$ note2 : this is the good order of magnitude with respect to the $`4`$ $`\mathrm{D}`$ value drawn from pulse echo experiments echo . Last, let us note that, once reported on Fig. 4, the $`50`$ $`\mathrm{mK}`$ and $`70`$ $`\mathrm{mK}`$ data lie very close to the $`100`$ $`\mathrm{mK}`$ data, yielding the same $`\delta ϵ_r^{}(H)H^{0.6\pm 0.2}`$ as well as the same order of magnitude for $`a/\lambda _{el.}`$ : these low $`T`$ data were not reported on Fig.4 since the expression of $`C_{TLS}`$ used to derive eq. (4) does not hold precisely below $`90`$ $`\mathrm{mK}`$.

To summarize, the microscopic model presented here allows to fit quantitatively the data with very reasonnable parameters. This is due to the extreme $`H`$-sensitivity of tunneling through a disordered barrier which yields non negligible effects even for $`HH_c`$. Indeed, suppressing disorder and taking $`a=\lambda _{el}=0.2`$ $`\mathrm{nm}`$, would lead, by standard tunneling calculations, to $`<\delta \mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Delta }_0(H))>(H/H_c)^210^8`$, i.e., to an undetectable quadratic negative effect, at odds with experiments.

Despite its success in accounting for our data, a limit of our mechanism is that it yields a monotonous $`H`$-behavior of $`\delta ϵ_r^{}(H)`$, i.e., it cannot account for the peaked structure around $`H=0.03`$ $`\mathrm{T}`$ reported in Strehlow00 . However, even if our scenario is based on disorder effects, it might not contradict the interaction picture used in Strehlow00 . Indeed, the disorder explanation lies upon a $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{0,max}(H)`$ effect with a very large $`H_c10^4`$ $`\mathrm{T}`$ while the interaction mechanism involves a $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{0,min}(H)`$ effect with a very small $`H_c10^2`$ $`\mathrm{T}`$ (due to the very large number $`N`$ of correlated TLS’s). In the Fig. 3 of Ahn , it seems that collective tunneling can be viewed simply as a simultaneous tunneling of $`N`$ elementary dipoles. If it is so, both mechanisms should simply add up due to their very different $`H_c`$ . It is well admitted Strehlow00  that averaging problems in the interaction picture demand further progress. It should explain, e.g. why, in Strehlow00 , $`\delta ϵ_r^{}(H)`$ is peaked around a $`H_c`$ field  decreasing when $`T`$ increases , which naively amounts to a counter-intuitive increase of $`N`$ when $`T`$ increases.

## V Conclusion

To summarize, a $`ϵ_r(H)`$ dependence was shown in a $`a\mathrm{SiO}_{2+\mathrm{x}}\mathrm{C}_\mathrm{y}\mathrm{H}_\mathrm{z}`$ glass for $`H1`$ $`\mathrm{T}`$ and $`T0.4`$ $`\mathrm{K}`$. This demanded to decrease the $`T`$ uncertainty to less than $`0.5\%`$ : beyond chemical differences between glasses, this might explain why previous studies reported undetectable $`ϵ_r(H)`$ effects. At low $`T`$, the reported $`ϵ_r(H)`$ effects were interpreted assuming that tunneling is affected by some disorder within the elementary tunneling barriers of size $`a1`$ $`\mathrm{nm}`$. This scenario might simply add up to the interacting one previously proposed.

###### Acknowledgements.

Many thanks to P. Ailloud (CNRS/LPS) and P. Trouslard (CEA/INSTN/LVdG) for samples realisation, and to P. Forget for cryogenic help. Useful discussions with D. Boutard, M. Ocio, M. Rotter, J. Joffrin and J.-Y. Prieur are greatly acknowledged.

## VI Appendix

### VI.1 Proof that $`\eta `$ lies in the interval $`[0.1;10]`$

It is argued here that, at any reported $`T`$, $`\eta `$ lies in the interval $`[0.1,10]`$. Defining the exponents $`s`$ and $`t`$ by $`\delta T(1`$ $`\mathrm{T}H3`$ $`\mathrm{T})H^t`$ and $`\delta C_{int.}(1`$ $`\mathrm{T}H3`$ $`\mathrm{T})H^s`$, we will first assume that $`ts0.3`$ and show, from the data of Fig. 2, that this implies $`0.1\eta 10`$ at any reported $`T`$. Reciprocally, assuming $`0.1\eta 10`$, we will show, by using the trends of Fig. 4 and Fig. 1 that $`ts>0.3`$. Note that $`s`$ and $`t`$ are not necessarily integers, due to subtle disorder averaging effects, such as those studied in Medina et al’s work Medina  (see section IV).

Since we must precisely compare the relative importances in eqs. (1a)-(1b) of the first term containing $`\delta T(H)`$ and the second one containing $`\delta ϵ_r(H)`$, it is more convenient to translate the measured $`\delta C(H)`$ and the sought $`\delta C_{int.}(H)`$ into thermal equivalents by introducing $`\delta T_C(H)=\delta C(H)/(\frac{C}{T})`$ and $`\delta T_{int.C}(H)=\delta C_{int.}(H)/(\frac{C}{T})`$. Eq. (1a) thus amounts to:

$$\delta T_C(H)=\delta T(H)+\delta T_{int.C}(H),$$
$`(A1)`$
while defining the corresponding quantities $`\delta T_R(H)`$ and $`\delta T_{int.R}(H)`$ for $`R`$ measurements yields from Eq. (1b):

$$\delta T_R(H)=\delta T(H)+\delta T_{int.R}(H).$$
$`(A2)`$
With these definitions note that the definition of $`\alpha `$ given in Eq. (2b) becomes $`\alpha =\delta T_{int.R}/\delta T_{int.C}`$ with still $`\eta =1/(\alpha 1)`$.

#### VI.1.1 Assuming $`ts>0.3`$ implies $`0.1\eta 10`$ at any reported $`T`$

i)  $`\eta <10`$ (i.e., $`\alpha >1.1`$) . Consider the magnitudes of the $`\delta C(H)`$ and $`\delta R(H)`$ bumps reported on Fig. 2 : for example at $`50`$ $`\mathrm{mK}`$, these positive bumps around $`H=0.5`$ $`\mathrm{T}`$ amount to $`\delta T_C6`$ $`\mathrm{mK}`$ and to $`\delta T_R7.6`$ $`\mathrm{mK}`$. These two values are ten times larger than that derived from the small negative magnetoresistance of the $`\mathrm{RuO}_2`$ thermometer (see inset of Fig. 1) and, even if the inset data cannot be accurately trusted, these $`\delta T_C,\delta T_R`$ values are anyway too large to be entirely attributed to the $`\mathrm{RuO}_2`$ thermometer note . This means that both $`\delta T_{int.C}(H)`$ and $`\delta T_{int.R}(H)`$ are negative at $`50`$ $`\mathrm{mK}`$, i.e., $`\alpha >0`$ at $`50`$ $`\mathrm{mK}`$ and both $`\delta C_{int.}(H)`$ and $`\delta R_{int.}(H)`$ positive in the Tesla range : with the above definition of $`s`$, $`\delta C_{int.}(H)`$ and $`\delta R_{int.}(H)`$ are expected to be proportionnal to the same $`H^s`$ with positive coefficients. Thus $`\delta C_{int.}(H)`$ and $`\delta R_{int.}(H)`$ increase with $`H`$ : the (quasilinear) decrease seen on Fig. 2 at large $`H`$ thus comes from $`\mathrm{RuO}_2`$ effects, i.e., $`\delta T(H)H^t`$ and $`t>s`$. Setting these $`H`$ expansions in Eqs. (A1),(A2) leads to $`\alpha =(H_R/H_C)^{ts}`$ with $`H_R`$ the magnetic field where $`\delta R(H)`$ vanishes and $`H_C`$ the corresponding one for $`\delta C(H)`$ : at $`50`$ $`\mathrm{mK}`$, $`H_R4.2`$ $`\mathrm{T}`$ and $`H_C2.9`$ $`\mathrm{T}`$, which with the above assumption $`ts>0.3`$ leads to $`\alpha >1.1`$, i.e., $`\eta <10`$. Finally, the same argument can be made at $`T>50`$ $`\mathrm{mK}`$ where $`H_R/H_C`$ ratios are larger, reaching $`2.5`$ at $`400`$ $`\mathrm{mK}`$.

ii)  $`\eta >0.1`$ (i.e., $`\alpha <10`$).  The assumption $`t>s+0.3`$ implies that the low field region $`H1`$ $`\mathrm{T}`$ is that where the relative importance of $`\delta T_{int.C}`$ (resp. $`\delta T_{int.R}`$) in the measured $`\delta T_C`$ (resp. $`\delta T_R`$) is the largest. In this range where $`\delta C(H)`$ and $`\delta R(H)`$ have the same sign, the data of Fig. 2 correspond, for any given $`T`$, to values of $`\delta T_C`$ and $`\delta T_R`$ which differ by less than a factor $`2`$. This means that $`\delta T_{int.C}`$ and $`\delta T_{int.R}`$ are of the same order of magnitude (this might be seen also in Strehlow00 ), hence $`\alpha <10`$ i.e, $`\eta >0.1`$: this result holds even at large $`H`$ since $`\alpha `$ and $`\eta `$ do not depend on $`H`$.

#### VI.1.2 Assuming $`0.1\eta 10`$ implies $`ts>0.3`$

This assumption on $`\eta `$ allows Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 to be drawn from Fig. 2, yielding $`s=0.6\pm 0.2`$ for $`H1`$ $`\mathrm{T}`$. Besides, the data of the lower inset of Fig. 1 about $`\theta _{\mathrm{RuO}_2}(H)`$ effects amount to $`t1.2`$ for $`1`$ $`\mathrm{T}H3`$ $`\mathrm{T}`$ (note that we do not rely here on the precise values of $`\theta _{\mathrm{RuO}_2}(H)`$ effects but only on their general trend). Hence, the data ensure $`ts>0.3`$.

### VI.2 Ruling out spin effects at low $`T`$

Due to the lack of microscopic information on TLS’s, spin effects cannot be ruled out at all $`T`$. Indeed, if each TLS contains a single electronic spin, the non negligible Zeeman energy $`\delta E_Z(H)0.7`$ $`\mathrm{K}/\mathrm{T}`$ comes into play : each TLS becomes a four-level system. This complicates greatly the $`ϵ_r^{}`$ calculation in the range $`TT_{rev.}`$ where the relaxational (i.e., ”thermodynamic”) contribution plays an important role. This is why the negative $`\delta ϵ_r^{}(H)`$ close to $`400`$ $`\mathrm{mK}`$ has not been interpreted and the efforts were focused on the positive $`\delta ϵ_r^{}(H)`$ at low $`T`$. Indeed, well below $`T_{rev.}`$, the TLS susceptibility is driven by the transitions coherently induced by $``$, and such quantum transitions are forbidden between states of different spins : TLS’s can thus be separated into two independent subclasses of a given spin state whose susceptibilities can be added. Thus, for a given spin state, the asymmetry energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ between the two potential wells of given TLS is effectively independent of $`\delta E_Z(H)`$.


text:
# The BeppoSAX broad-band spectrum and variability of the Seyfert 1 NGC 3783

## 1 Introduction

Intrinsic spectral variability has been observed in several Seyfert 1 galaxies: NGC 5548 (Nicastro et al.  (2000)), NGC 4151 (Piro et al. 2002), IC 4329A (Done et al.  (2000)), NGC 7469 (Nandra et al. 2000), MCG-6-30-15 (Vaughan & Edelson 2001). The usual behaviour is a steepening of the primary power law when the source brightens. The favoured model for the X-ray emission observed in AGN comprises a hot, optically-thin plasma (the corona) which up-scatters to X-ray energies the soft photons produced in a cold, optically-thick accretion disc (Haardt & Maraschi (1991)). In addition the optically thick disc reprocesses and re–emits part of the Comptonized flux producing the characteristic reprocessing features (the Compton reflection hump and the K$`\alpha `$ Fe line). In a disc+corona emission model the intrinsic variability has to be associated with a change of some properties either of the emitting corona (temperature kTe, optical depth $`\tau `$ or geometry, see Haardt, Maraschi & Ghisellini (1997)) or the accretion disc (flares) with the X-ray flux. A detailed Comptonization model applied to the BeppoSAX long look of NGC 5548 (Petrucci et al. 2000) showed that the steepening of the spectrum during a flare in the central part of the observation was probably associated with an increase of the soft photon luminosity, the hard photon luminosity remaining constant.

The presence of a broad iron line in the X-ray spectra of Seyfert galaxies (Fabian et al. 2000) is suggested by ASCA (Nandra et al.  (1997), Tanaka et al.  (1995), Yaqoob et al.  (2002)), BeppoSAX (Guainazzi et al. 1999) and XMM (Wilms et al. 2001) observations. Nevertheless a narrow iron line component is clearly detected in the Chandra (Kaspi et al. (2001), Yaqoob et al. 2001) and XMM observations (Reeves et al. 2001, Pounds et al. 2001). This narrow component could be attributed either to an optically thin medium (like the BLR), and in this case no Compton reflection should be associated to it, or to an optically thick medium with N$`{}_{H}{}^{}>10^{24}`$cm-2 (as the molecular torus like that observed in the Sy2 s, Matt 2001a ), which should contribute to the observed Compton reflection (Ghisellini et al.  (1994)). At least in the case of NGC 4051 (Guainazzi et al. 1998) it is possible to associate the narrow iron line component to a distant Compton-thick matter.

The Broad band spectral variability in bright Seyfert 1 galaxies program, carried out by BeppoSAX in the last 3 years, exploits the unique capability of BeppoSAX to provide spectral informations up to 200 keV. The primary goals of this program are to investigate the correlation of the intrinsic parameters ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`E_c`$) with the luminosity and to characterize the diverse components of Seyfert 1 spectra from 0.1 to 200 keV, by studying their response to changes of the intrinsic luminosity.

The bright Seyfert 1 galaxy NGC 3783 was selected as a target in the cited BeppoSAX program because: a) it is bright enough that the spectrum up to about 100 keV ($`F(210keV)>2\times 10^{11}`$ erg cm-2 s-1 could be measured; b) it is characterized by variations of a factor of two or more on the time scale of days. This time scale is appropriate to check possible correlations in the variations of the spectral components. The extensively studied X-ray spectrum of this object is characterized by narrow and broad features in addition to the intrinsic continuum. Deep Oxygen absorption edges (between 0.5 and 1 keV) were detected by ROSAT (Turner et al.  (1993)) and ASCA (George et al. 1998a , George et al. 1998b ) which also observed a variable warm absorbing gas along the line of sight. An OVII emission line, likely originating in the same warm gas, was also detected in the first ASCA observation (in 1993). The Chandra high energy resolution observation (Kaspi et al. (2000)) identified, in addition to many narrow absorption lines, several weak emission lines mainly from O and Ne, suggesting the presence of two absorption components (outflowing by the central source), that differ by an order of magnitude in their ionization parameters. A Compton reflection hump and a Fe K$`\alpha `$ emission line were detected by GINGA (Nandra & Pounds (1994)). A Chandra observation (Kaspi et al. (2001)) detected a narrow and unresolved iron line, with an upper limit to the FWHM of 3250 km s-1. These data could not constrain any broad iron line, though they are consistent with the broad line found in previous ASCA observations.

In this paper we present the analysis of a BeppoSAX observation of NGC 3783. In section 2 we describe the observation and the data reduction. In section 3 we report the spectral analysis of the data integrated over the total observation while in section 4 the spectral variability analysis is presented. The results are discussed in section 5. A summary is given in section 6.

## 2 Observations and data analysis

NGC 3783 was observed by BeppoSAX (Boella et al.  (1997), Piro, Scarsi & Butler (1995)) for $``$ 5 days ($`t_{exp}154`$ ks) from 1998 June 6 to 1998 June 10. The LECS, MECS and PDS data reduction followed the standard procedure (Fiore, Guainazzi & Grandi (1999)). The PDS spectra were filtered with fixed rise time. We extracted the spectrum within a circular region centered on the source with a radius of 4’ and 6’ for MECS and LECS respectively. The background was extracted from event files of source-free regions (“blank fields”). Spectral models were fitted to the data using the XSPEC package. All quoted uncertainties correspond to 90% confidence interval for one interesting parameter ($`\mathrm{\Delta }`$$`\chi ^2`$=2.71). The models included a normalization factor for each instrument to take into account possible miscalibrations. We allowed the PDS/MECS normalization to vary between 0.77 and 0.95, while the LECS/MECS normalization ratio was running between 0.7 and 1 (Fiore, Guainazzi & Grandi (1999)). The journal of the BeppoSAX observation of NGC 3783 is shown in Table 1.

In Figure 1 we show the LECS (0.2-3 keV), MECS (2-10 keV) and PDS (13-200 keV) light curves. The source showed rapid variability both in the soft (0.2-3 keV) and medium (2-10 keV) energy ranges, with the larger amplitude at low energies. The 2-10 keV and 0.2-3 keV flux variations were up to a factor 1.6 and 2, respectively, on a time scale of about half a day.

## 3 The broad band spectral analysis: 0.1-200 keV

In this section we present the spectral analysis of the data integrated over the total observation of NGC 3783 (t$`{}_{exp}{}^{}`$ 154 ks). We fitted the LECS, MECS and PDS data in the energy range 0.15-3 keV, 1.5-10 keV and 13-200 keV respectively. In Figure 2 we show the LECS, MECS and PDS spectra and the data/model ratio after fitting with (model A) a power law absorbed by the Galactic hydrogen column density ($`N_H^{gal}=9.6\times 10^{20}`$ cm-2, Murphy et al.  (1996)). The fit is very bad ($`\chi ^2`$/dof=818.6/114, with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$=1.58$`\pm `$0.06). Several deviations of the data from the model are apparent: an excess of counts at $``$ 0.6 keV, a deficit below 2 keV, an emission line at $``$ 6.4 keV and another deficit above 100 keV.

We then fitted the data with a model (B) including the known spectral components already detected in NGC 3783: a warm absorber (Turner et al.  (1993)), a Compton reflection hump and an iron emission line (modeled with a gaussian) at $``$ 6.4 keV (Nandra & Pounds (1994)). The warm gas, assumed to be in photoionization equilibrium, is characterized by two parameters: the ionization parameter $`U`$, defined as the ratio of the number density of ionizing photons to hydrogen nuclei, and the hydrogen column density NH. The description and discussion of the photoionization code we employed will be given in Sect. 5.2. To fit the Compton hump we use here a cold disc reflection model (PEXRAV in XSPEC, Magdziarz & Zdziarski (1995)). The reprocessed spectrum is characterized by the reflection fraction $`R=\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }/2\pi `$ i.e. the solid angle subtended by the reflecting medium. The inclination angle between the line of sight and the reflector is assumed i=30. For the moment neither ionization nor smearing effects (gravitationals and kinematic) are taken into account to fit the reprocessed features. We will discuss these cases in Sect. 5.3. All the line parameters (energy, intrinsic width and intensity) are free to vary. The effects of including a narrow line component - as observed by Chandra (Kaspi et al. (2001)) - will be discussed in Sect. 5.3. The result of the fit with the model B is still unacceptable ($`\chi ^2`$/dof=189.6/108. See Table 2). The ratio data/model B is shown in the upper plot of the left panel of Figure 3. This plot shows still some deviations of the model from the data: a deficit of counts above 100 keV and an excess at energy less than 1 keV. We therefore added to the primary power law in the model B an exponential cut-off (Model C). The statistical significance of this new spectral component is larger than 99% (following a F-test probability for the addition of 1 interesting parameter we find F=8.14, see Table 2).

The excess at low energies may correspond to OVII emission line. As suggested by the ASCA observation (George et al. 1998a ), we fitted this excess with a gaussian emission line. The model is indicated with D and the best fit parameters with the statistical significance of the new spectral component is shown in the second column in Table 2. The ratio data/model D is shown in the lower plot of the left panel in Figure 3.

Despite the good $`\chi ^2`$, there is a problem with model D regarding the origin of the emission line at low energy. We measure EWoxygen=240$`\pm `$27 eV (see Table 2). Can this spectral feature be produced in the same gas which produces the O edges at E $`<`$ 1 keV (the warm absorber)? We suppose the warm absorber to be ionized by the central source and in photoionization equilibrium. The value of the equivalent width for the OVII emission line produced in a gas characterized by $`\mathrm{lg}(U)=1.29\pm _{0.18}^{0.15}`$ and $`\mathrm{lg}(N_H)=21.85\pm _{0.14}^{0.16}`$ (as that observed by BeppoSAX), should not exceed $``$ 10 eV (Nicastro et al.  (1999)). If collisional ionization is also important, the emissivity from the gas strongly increases (Nicastro et al.  (1999)). In this case the blend of the OVII K$`\alpha `$ triplet is more prominent and the predicted EW would increase up to 70 eV, still lower than measured.

The HETG on board Chandra allowed to resolve the OVII triplet in NGC 3783 (Kaspi et al. (2000)); the total equivalent width was $``$ 10 eV (even if poorly constrained) i.e. much smaller than that measured by BeppoSAX.

All these considerations suggest that most of the low energy excess, which modeled with an emission line, was instead due to a soft X-ray continuum. We therefore fitted the excess at low energies with a black body component (model E). The best fit parameters are shown in Table 2. Comparing model E with model C (in which no oxygen line was included), we obtain that the black body component is required at the 99.99% confidence level (F=35.9).

In the upper plot of the right panel of Figure 3 we show the ratio data/model E. When we add a gaussian emission line to the model E (model F), with the intensity fixed at the Chandra value, we find that this component is required at only the 77% confidence level. A good fit ($`\chi ^2/dof=105.1/102`$) is also obtained fitting the excess at low energies with a thermal bremsstrahlung (the ratio data/model for a thermal bremsstrahlung is shown in the last panel on the right in figure 3, model G), with temperature kT=0.46$`\pm `$0.06 keV. However, in this model the value of the relative reflection is smaller ($`R`$=0.34 $`\pm `$0.23) than expected from the iron line EWFe ($``$ 200 eV). We therefore conclude that the BeppoSAX spectrum is best fitted by model F. The best fit model F is shown in Figure 4 where each spectral component is labelled. We plot in Figure 5 the intervals of confidence for the parameter EC and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (left panel), $`R`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (middle panel) and $`\sigma _{Fe}`$ and $`E_{Fe}`$ (right panel)

## 4 Spectral variability analysis

### 4.1 A model independent variability analysis

To investigate spectral variability, we extracted spectra from different flux level states of the source during the BeppoSAX observation (see Table 1, see Figure 1).

The states we selected were: High 1 (H1), Low 1 (L1), Medium 1 (M1), High 2 (H2) and Medium 2 (M2). To increase the statistics and to get comparable S/N ratios of the spectra extracted form the different flux levels, we added together those with similar flux. We fitted the ratios of the various spectra with a constant model, $`r(E)=C`$, to search for spectral variability. The best fit values for C are shown in Table 1. The ratios H1/H2 and M1/M2 are both consistent with a constant value C$``$1 (see Table 1). Then we create a new high state H=H1+H2, and a new low state L=M1+M2. In Figure 6 we present the ratio between H and L spectra. We can reject the hypothesis of constant value for this ratio at $`>3\sigma `$ confidence level (see Table 1). The plotted curves represent the expected spectral ratio in different cases. The variations can not be accounted for by a change of the warm absorber status (e.g. ionization parameter U). In fact we detected deviations of the spectral ratio from the constant model also above 2 keV (see Figure 6), where the warm gas is transparent to the radiation and no features can be produced by this material. In Figure 6 we also plotted the expected ratio if the only parameter which changes in the different flux states is the ionization of the warm gas (dash line). We suppose that the ionization structure is dominated by the intrinsic flux between 0.5 and 2 keV, this because the opacity of the gas is dominated by K shell absorption edges due to O VII and O VIII (the two most abundant ions of the most abundant element). So we rescaled U assuming $`U_H=U_L(L_{0.52keV}^H/L_{0.52keV}^L`$). In this case the absolute normalization of the Compton reflection is kept constant in the H and L states. The other curves in Figure 6 represent the expected ratio if the observed variations were produced by:

1) a change of the intrinsic slope of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.1`$ (dot - dash curve). The intensity of the reflected radiation is assumed to remain constant (i.e. the relative reflection $`R`$ is variable).

2) a change of the intrinsic slope as well as the reflected component (solid line). In this case the reflection component is assumed to promptly respond to the intensity variation of the continuum (i.e. relative reflection $`R`$ is constant).

Looking at Figure 6, it is clear that the limited statistics does not allow us to distinguish between the two cases of constant or variable reflection. The observed behaviour can be reproduced by a variation of the intrinsic slope. This will be confirmed with a spectral analysis on the separate flux states, discussed in the next section.

### 4.2 Spectral variability: the different flux level spectra

We performed a spectral analysis of the different flux spectra, extracted as shown in Figure 1 and in Table 1. The best fit model employed in this analysis is the one giving the best fit to the integrated spectra, i.e. the model F.

We confirm that the observed variations can be explained by a change of the intrinsic continuum. In particular the source steepens ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }0.1`$, see Figure 7, Table 3) when brightens. The limited statistics in the separate flux states did not allow us to detect variations of Ec (see contour plot in Figure 7). No variations in the ionization status of the warm gas was observed.

## 5 Discussion

### 5.1 Intrinsic Continuum and spectral variability

The presence of a high energy cut-off was required to fit the X-ray/$`\gamma `$-ray spectra of a sample of Seyfert observed with different satellites (Zdziarski et al.  (1996)). The $`E_C=340\pm _{109}^{560}`$ keV detected in NGC 3783 by BeppoSAX is consistent with the values observed in other Sy 1s of the BeppoSAX sample (ranging between 70 keV up to 300 keV, Perola et al. in preparation).

The spectral variability detected in our observation can be accounted for by variations of the intrinsic slope. In particular the intrinsic spectrum steepens when the source brightens ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }0.1`$ with $`(\mathrm{\Delta }F/F)_{210keV}20\%`$). This behaviour was observed also in other sources: NGC 5548 (Nicastro et al.  (2000)), NGC 4151 (Piro 2002), NGC 7469 (Nandra et al. 2000), MCG-6-30-15 (Vaughan & Edelson 2001), and IC 4329A (Done et al. 2000).

A two-phase model involving a hot corona emitting medium-hard X-rays by Comptonization and a cold optically thick layer which provides the soft photons to be Comptonized (Haardt & Maraschi 1991, Haardt et al. 1997), can explain the observed intrinsic variability. In this model the physical parameters of the corona can drive the spectral variations observed in the hard-medium energy range, while those in the soft band are driven by the temperature $`T_{BB}`$ of the soft photons emitted by the cold layer.

If the corona is not pair dominated, i.e. the compactness parameter $`l_c=\frac{L_c\sigma _T}{c\mathrm{\Delta }t(mc^3)}10`$, the two phases model predicts a noticeable spectral variability even when the luminosity variation is less than a factor two. Our variability study suggests that this is the case for NGC 3783. We measure $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }0.1`$ (see Figure 7 and Table 3), with no variation of the Comptonization luminosity (0.1-200 keV) in the H and L states: $`L_c^HL_c^L10^{44}`$ erg/s. We can put a lower limit to the compactness parameter. The time scale over which the flux changes by a factor 2 is greater than 5 days, so we obtain $`l_c0.2`$. A detailed Comptonization code was employed to fit the data of the BeppoSAX observation of NGC 5548 (Petrucci et al.  (2000)). The spectral variability observed in that source could by accounted for by a change of the spectral slope $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }0.2`$ with small hard luminosity changes. The spectral softening in the high state is explained (when a realistic model of Comptonization is employed) by a decrease of kTe due to an increase of the soft photon flux. The anticorrelation between the slope and the high energy cut-off is not revealed when a cut-off power law is used as a zero order approximation of a Comptonized spectrum. Also in the case of NGC 5548 the trend of variability suggests a hot plasma which is not pair-dominated (and the estimated lower limit for the compactness was $`l_c0.2`$). In the case of NGC 3783 an accurate Comptonization model was employed only to fit the total spectrum, with no spectral variability analysis (Petrucci et al.  (2001)). The estimated coronal parameters are substantially different between the two models (the coronal temperature kT$`{}_{e}{}^{}=265\pm _5^{15}`$ keV is higher than that measured with our simpe cut-off power law model Ec/2). This is due to the presence of an energy break in the Comptonization model, produced when the anisotropy of the soft photon field is taken into account.

### 5.2 Warm absorber and soft emission

The low energy spectrum of NGC 3783 is characterized by the presence of the warm absorber. The complex structure of this gas was investigated in the Chandra observation (Kaspi et al. (2001)). The model consisted of two absorption/emission components with the same column density $`\mathrm{lg}(N_H)=22.1`$, but different ionization parameter: $`\mathrm{lg}(U_{oxygen})=0.745`$, with a covering factor f=0.3 and $`\mathrm{lg}(U_{oxygen})=1.745`$, with a covering factor f=0.5 (these values are computed between 0.538 keV and 10 keV). We fitted the BeppoSAX data with a grid of single-zone warm absorber models build with CLOUDY (Ferland (1997)). These models include only the transmitted spectra, and do not include the contributions of both gas emission and resonant absorption. The ionization parameter, computed from $`E>`$ 1 Ryd, in the total spectrum was $`\mathrm{lg}(U)=1.33`$ (see Table 2). Taking into account the ionizing continuum used to fit Chandra data, we get the relation Uoxygen=0.114 U(0.1-10 keV) (Kaspi et al. (2001)); in the case of BeppoSAX spectrum we employed the ionizing continuum from Mathews & Ferland (1995) (listed in Table 4) to rescale the value of U($`>`$ 1 Ryd) in the 0.1-10 keV energy range. In this case we found U($`>`$ 1 Ryd) $``$ 50 U(0.1-10 keV) (see also George et al. 1998a). The ionization parameter during our observation is marginally consistent with that of the low ionization gas observed in the Chandra spectrum $`U_{SAX}`$(0.1-10 keV)=0.4$`\pm `$0.1. No variation of the low-ionization component was observed between BeppoSAX and Chandra observations, not surprisingly as no flux changes in 0.5-2 keV (F$`{}_{0.52keV}{}^{}=2\times 10^{11}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$) between the two observations have been detected.

The high ionized absorption features of the heavier elements produced in the more ionized component are too small to be observed given the limited LECS sensitivity and energy resolution. The warm absorber parameters obtained with BeppoSAX are derived mainly from the deep OVII and OVIII absorption edges produced in the low ionization gas. The OVII triplet observed by Chandra at $`0.50.6`$ keV is only marginally required by our data (PF=77%). This feature was also observed in the BeppoSAX spectrum of NGC 5548 (Nicastro et al.  (2000)), and later on confirmed by Chandra (Kaastra et al. 2000). An additional absorption line (at $``$ 1 keV) corresponding to the blend of many iron L-shell absorption lines observed by Chandra, is very marginally required by the model (PF=52%). When we add this component the warm absorber parameters as well as those of the intrinsic continuum do not change.

A reanalysis of the ASCA observation of 1996 taking into account (1) the inclusion of the reflection component as measured by the RXTE observation simultaneous with those Chandra in 2000 and (2) the use of the Yaqoob (2000) method to account for the degradation of the SIS detectors, was performed by Kaspi et al. (2001). The intrinsic continuum they found is fully consistent with that measured by BeppoSAX ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$=1.85$`\pm `$0.03, A(1 keV) =2.21$`\times 10^2`$ ph cm-2 s-1 keV-1), and the warm absorber is consistent with the low ionization component observed by Chandra ($`U_X`$=0.133$`\pm `$0.003, $`\mathrm{lg}N_H`$=22.15$`\pm `$0.03).

A significant soft emission well modeled by a black body component with a temperature kT=220$`\pm `$30 eV was detected in the BeppoSAX observation. No variation of the soft component emission was detected. We may associate this emission to the accretion disc around the central source. The IUE monitoring of NGC 3783 from 1978 to 1985 detected a UV-bump from 5150 $`\AA `$ up to the soft X-rays. The observed bump could be attributed to a thermal emission from an optically thick medium. When the UV bump was reproduced with a sum of blackbody spectra, the highest disc temperature was 280,000 K (Alloin et al.  (1995)).

### 5.3 Compton reflection and Iron line

The broad band capability of BeppoSAX allowed us to detect the Compton reflection together with a broad Fe K$`\alpha `$ emission line (Figure 8). The energy of the iron line $`E_{Fe}=6.39\pm 0.09`$ keV, is consistent with FeI-XII. In the model F (see Table 2) this features is well reproduced by a broad gaussian component with $`\sigma _{Fe}=0.36\pm _{0.08}^{0.09}`$ keV and EWFe=190$`\pm `$47 eV. A broad and asymmetric line is expected if the X-ray reflection is occurring in the inner region of an accretion disc (Fabian et al. 2000, Matt et al. 1992). However there is evidence that in NGC 3783 as well as in other Seyfert 1 galaxies, the line is actually composed of two components, one broad and variable and the other narrow and constant. To support this idea we recall that in the Chandra observation on NGC 3783 a narrow unresolved iron line (with EW=115$`\pm `$36 eV) was detected (Kaspi et al. 2001). The upper limit for the FWHM was 3250 km s-1, consistent with this line originating outside the BLR. The line flux is consistent with predictions from models of torus emission. The Chandra data could not constrain any broad Fe K$`\alpha `$ emission though they were consistent with the broad line found by ASCA in this source (EW=230$`\pm `$70 eV, George et al. 1998b ).

If we fit the iron line with a narrow component with the parameters fixed to those detected by Chandra (E$`{}_{nl}{}^{}=6.39`$ keV, I$`{}_{nl}{}^{}=6.6\times 10^5`$ ph cm-2 s-1), we find strong residuals around 6 and 7 keV (see Figure 9, left panel). If we add a second broad gaussian component the residuals disappear (see right panel in Figure 9). The broad component is required at 99.9% c.l. (following a F-test adding three interesting parameters), with $`\sigma _{bl}=0.72\pm _{0.27}^{1.28}`$ keV EWbl=115 $`\pm `$76 and E$`{}_{bl}{}^{}=6.27\pm _{0.30}^{0.25}`$ keV, i.e. corresponding to neutral iron. These values are fully consistent with those of the ASCA observation in 1996 when the ASCA data were modeled assuming the underlying continuum derived by the analysis of a RXTE observation (simultaneous with those of Chandra in 2000, Kaspi et al. (2001)), to constrain the reflection component.

The simultaneous BeppoSAX/XMM observation of the NLSy1 NGC 5506 (Matt et al. 2001b ) showed that in that case the bulk of the Compton reflection has to be associated with the narrow iron line, as in the the case of NGC 4051 (Guianazzi et al. 1998). In other objects observed by XMM (Mkn 509, Pounds et al. 2001; Mkn 205, Reeves et al. 2001), evidence for ionized accretion disc was also found. An ionized disc reflection model was also employed to fit the data of NGC 3783. This source was included in a small sample of Sy 1s observed by BeppoSAX analysed with the ionized disc reflection model of Ross & Fabian (1993) (De Rosa et al.  (2002)). In this model the most important quantity in determining the shape of the reflected continuum is the ionization parameter $`\xi =4\pi F_x/n_H`$, where Fx is the X-ray flux (between 0.01-100 keV) illuminating a slab of gas with solar abundances and constant hydrogen number density nH=1015 cm-3. The K$`\alpha `$ iron emission line as well as the emission features from the disc at low energy, are included in the model. In the fit, we applied to the spectrum a relativistic blurring appropriate for a Schwarszchild geometry assuming a disc emissivity law (Fabian et al. 1989). During the fit a narrow iron line component with all the parameters linked to those of Chandra observation was included. This analysis showed that the reflected spectrum of NGC 3783 can be produced ($`\chi ^2`$/dof=104/101) by a highly ionized disc characterized by: inner radius (pegged to the lower value) rin=6 rg, outer radius rout= 7$`\pm _{0.3}^1`$ rg with rg=GM/c2 the gravitational radius, ionization parameter $`\mathrm{lg}\xi =2.73\pm _{0.05}^{0.04}`$ and inclination angle $`i=35.6\pm _{2.2}^{1.1}`$ degrees (see Figure 10). In this case the observed soft X-rays excess can be accounted for by the disc emissivity and no additional component at E $`<`$ 2 keV is required. This suggests that the Compton reflection observed in NGC 3783 can be completely associated with the broad Fe component supposing that both were created in a relativistic disc. Unfortunately, the energy resolution and sensitivity of BeppoSAX are not adequate to disentangle both the Fe line components and simultaneously the fraction of reflection associated with them. A simultaneous BeppoSAX/XMM observation would be the best way to achieve this purpose.

## 6 Summary

We have analysed the long BeppoSAX observation of the Seyfert 1 galaxy NGC 3783. We detect a high energy cut-off of the intrinsic power; the value of Ec=340$`\pm _{107}^{560}`$ keV is consistent with those observed so far in a sample of Seyfert galaxies, which ranges from 70 keV up to 300 keV. Spectral variability was clearly present, well modeled by a steepening of the intrinsic continuum ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }0.1`$) with no total luminosity change. This behaviour is consistent with a two-phase disc-corona model in which with the hot plasma is not pairs dominated (as observed also in the Seyfert 1 galaxy NGC 5548).

The presence of a warm gas is confirmed by our analysis. Its ionization status is consistent with the low-ionization component detected by Chandra. NGC 3783 is one of the few sources in which BeppoSAX detected a soft excess. We reproduced the soft emission with a black body component with a temperature kT$``$0.2 keV.

The Compton reflection hump and the iron emission line are clearly detected. In addition to the narrow unresolved iron component observed by Chandra, a broad iron line component ($`\sigma =0.72\pm _{0.27}^{1.28}`$ keV) is required to fit the BeppoSAX data. The observed reprocessing features can be reproduced with a highly ionized accretion disc ($`\mathrm{lg}\xi =2.73\pm _{0.05}^{0.04}`$). In this case the soft excess observed at E $`<`$ 2 keV can be accounted for by the disc emissivity and no additional soft X-rays component is required to fit the spectrum.

###### Acknowledgements.

We gratefully acknowledge A.C. Fabian and D.R. Ballantyne for providing us with the ionized disc reflection code. A.D.R. would like to thank G.C. Perola for useful discussions. G.M. and F.F. acknowledge financial support from ASI and MURST (under grant cofin-00-02-36). We thank the SAX Scientific Data Center and the anonymous referee who provided helpful suggestions and comments.