text:
# BOAO PHOTOMETRIC SURVEY OF GALACTIC OPEN CLUSTERS. II. Physical Parameters of 12 Open Clusters

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Open clusters are an ideal tool for tackling many astrophysical problems such as star formation processes, stellar evolution and dynamical evolution of stellar systems. To date there are about 1200 known galactic open clusters in the Catalog of Open Cluster Data (Lyngå 1987; hereafter COCD). Owing to the high quantum efficiency, good linearity and large dynamic range of modern CCDs, accurate color-magnitude diagrams (CMD) of a large number of open clusters have been obtained to derive their basic physical parameters (distance, interstellar reddening, age and metallicity). Current understanding of the galactic disk has greatly benefited from several recent systematic CCD observations of young and old open clusters (Phelps & Janes, 1993; Janes & Phelps, 1994).

However, more than half of the known galactic open clusters are as yet virtually unstudied. All that we know about the majority of the open clusters are their positions and angular diameters, which are often inaccurate in many cases. To date only one third of the known open clusters have been studied in detail to derive their basic parameters. Moreover, more than half of the well studied clusters belong to Trumpler richness class $`m`$ and $`r`$, while most of the unstudied clusters are classified as $`p`$. Thus, present knowledge of open clusters is considered to be heavily biased by the properties of rich open clusters.

To understand the nature of open clusters and the structure of the galactic disk as a whole, we have started a comprehensive photometric survey of open clusters which have been little studied before, using the 1.8m telescope at Bohyunsan Optical Astronomy Observatory (BOAO) in Korea. The primary goal of the present survey is to obtain accurate CMDs of the unstudied clusters using $`UBVI`$ CCD photometry and to derive cluster parameters such as distance and age. We selected 343 clusters by the declination criterion of $`\delta >20^{}`$. They comprise about half of the clusters with unknown distance and age in COCD. A more detailed description of the present survey was given by Ann et al. (1999).

This is the second paper of our survey project. Here, we present the results of the photometric survey of 12 open clusters observed during the observing runs in 1998 and 1999. In §2, we describe the observations and data reduction. The physical parameters of the observed clusters are presented in §3 and a brief summary and discussion are given in the last section.

## 2 OBSERVATIONS

We observed 12 candidate clusters of the BOAO photometric survey in December 1998. The basic parameters of the observed clusters (Lyngå, 1987) are given in Table 1. The photometric observations were made using the SITe $`2048\times 2048`$ CCD camera with Johnson-Cousins $`UBVI`$ filters attached to the F/8 cassegrain focus of the BOAO 1.8m telescope. The pixel size of the CCD is 24 $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ corresponding to 0.<sup>′′</sup>34 on the sky. The gain and readout noise of the CCD are 1.8 electrons/ADU and 7 electrons, respectively. We have obtained images of the central $`11.^{}6\times 11.^{}6`$ regions of each cluster with a pair of long and short exposures for each filter. We observed several $`UBVI`$ standard stars in Landolt (1992)’s catalog for the calibration of our photometry during the observing run. However, owing to non-photometric conditions and difficulty in transforming the $`UB`$ colors to the standard system, we re-observed the clusters in a short exposure with the SAAO version of Landolt standard stars in the equator (Menzies et al., 1991) and blue and red standard stars (Kilkenny et al., 1998) on a photometric night during the observing run in October 1999. The observed standard stars (or regions) are SA 112, SA 114, SA 93, SA 99, BD -11 162, GL 876 and GL 273. Table 2 lists the observational log.

Grayscale maps of the $`V`$-band images of the clusters taken with long exposures are displayed in Fig. 1. In most cases, the cluster field is a small part of the observed frame. Solid circles in Fig. 1 represent the angular diameters of the clusters given in the COCD whose centers were determined by visual inspection of the images. We obtained photometric diagrams of the clusters for the stars located within the circles.

We have followed standard CCD reduction techniques using IRAF/CCDRED for the preprocessing of the images obtained. This includes the subtraction of bias levels with overscan correction, trimming and flat-fielding. We used IRAF/DAOPHOT to obtain instrumental magnitudes of the stars. We applied aperture corrections to the instrumental magnitudes of cluster stars obtained from Point Spread Function (PSF) fitting, using the instrumental magnitudes obtained with an aperture radius of $`7^{\prime \prime }`$.

The transformation of the instrumental system to the standard system was made using the following equations (see the similar transformation for the $`40^{\prime \prime }`$ telescope at Siding Spring Observatory: (Sung & Bessell, 2000)):

$$V=vk_VX0.046(BV)+\zeta _V,$$

or

$$V=vk_VX0.046(VI)+\zeta _V^{}forVI<1.5,$$

$$V=vk_VX+\zeta _V^{\prime \prime }forVI1.5,$$

$$I=ik_IX0.017(VI)+\zeta _IforVI<0.6,$$

$$I=ik_IX+0.083(VI)+\zeta _I^{}forVI0.6,$$

$$B=bk_BX+0.112(BV)+\zeta _B,$$

$$U=uk_UX+f(BV)+\zeta _U$$

where uppercase characters, lowercase characters, $`k`$, X and $`\zeta `$ represent standard magnitudes, instrumental magnitudes, extinction coefficients, airmass, and zero points, respectively. In the transformation of the $`U`$ magnitude, a non-linear function, $`f(BV)`$, is involved. The function $`f(BV)`$ allows the correction of redder $`(UB)`$ colors, probably due to a red-leak in the $`U`$ filter (Bessell, 2001). It increases linearly up to $`(BV)0.8`$, but shows a non-linear increase for redder stars. This correction dominated the other factors, and we did not take into account the ($`UB`$) term in the $`U`$ transformation. The extinction coefficients derived from standard star photometry are $`k_U`$ = 0.485 $`\pm `$ 0.024, $`k_B`$ = 0.232$`\pm `$ 0.035, $`k_V`$ = 0.142 $`\pm `$ 0.023 and $`k_I`$ = 0.058 $`\pm `$ 0.027. The final transformation errors were between 0.021 mag in $`V`$ and 0.038 mag in $`U`$. The instrumental magnitudes obtained from the observations in non-photometric conditions during the December run were transformed to the standard system using the observations of the October run. The photometric data will be presented in the electronic AJ.

We calculate the external observational errors of the photometry of the cluster stars using the pair of exposures in the 1998 December run and the short exposures in the 1999 October run. Fig. 2 shows the resulting observational errors as a function of $`V`$ magnitude. The error bars in Fig. 2 are the standard deviations of the observational errors for the stars in each magnitude bin. As shown in Fig. 2, the observational errors for stars fainter than $`V14`$ increase with increasing magnitude, while the observational errors for stars brighter than $`V14`$ are nearly constant with relatively large uncertainties due to the small number of stars in the magnitude bins.

## 3 RESULTS

We have determined the basic physical parameters of the 12 open clusters by analyzing the color-color diagrams and CMDs of the clusters. Photometric diagrams of the clusters are derived from the photometry of stars inside the angular diameters (Lyngå, 1987) plotted in Fig. 1. To achieve improved accuracy in the derived parameters, we used stars with DAOPHOT errors less than 0.1 mag. In addition, due to large errors in $`U`$, the $`(UB)`$ vs $`(BV)`$ diagrams were constructed using stars brighter than $`V17`$. In general, as shown in Fig. 2, the total observational errors are quite large ($`\sigma _v0.03`$) even for the brightest stars. However, the present photometry is good enough to derive the cluster parameters using isochrone fittings.

We have estimated the reddening of the clusters from $`(UB)`$ vs $`(BV)`$ diagrams, by comparing theoretical ZAMS of the Padova isochrones (Bertelli et al., 1994) with the observed distributions of cluster stars. To do this, we assumed a slope of $`E(BV)/E(UB)`$ = 0.72 (Johnson & Morgan, 1953), a total to selective extinction ratio $`R_V`$=3.0 and $`E(VI)=1.25E(BV)`$ (Dean, Warren & Cousins, 1978). The advantage of using theoretical ZAMS is the ability to take into account the metallicity effect on the stellar distribution in the color-color diagrams. Because the metallicity of clusters is not known beforehand, we assumed the solar abundance as the cluster abundance unless the stellar distributions in the color-color diagrams and CMDs can not be described by the solar abundance isochrones.

We used the Padova isochrones (Bertelli et al., 1994) in the isochrone fittings. We put the greatest weight on the stars in the turnoff regions and giant branches, if present, since the lower main sequences are more heavily contaminated by field stars. We attempted to fit the lower envelope of the main sequence, considering the photometric errors. The best fit solutions were obtained by visual inspections of the CMDs with the trial fittings. We present the results of the best fits in Fig. 3 and the resulting cluster parameters are given in Table 3.

Since we put the greatest weight on the stars in the regions which are supposed to be the giant branches of some clusters, the memberships of these stars are crucial to the derived cluster parameters. To see whether these stars are cluster giants or not, we plotted cleaned CMDs in Fig. 4. To obtain the cleaned CMDs, we statistically removed field stars from the cluster CMDs by finding stars nearest to the field stars with a photometric box of $`\pm 0.25`$ in $`V`$ and $`\pm 0.1`$ in $`(BV)`$. Because we did not observe field region of each cluster, we constructed the CMDs of field stars by selecting stars randomly from the regions outside the radii that are two times larger than the cluster radii in the same CCD images, except for Be 70 for which field stars are selected from the region outside 1.5 times larger than the cluster radius due to the larger angular size of the cluster. As shown in Fig. 4, giant stars are left over in the cleaned CMDs. This result strongly suggests that many stars in the red giants locus could be the members of the cluster. In the following, we briefly describe the properties of the individual clusters.

### 3.1 Berkeley 104

Be 104 is located to the south of a very bright star, HD225094. As indicated by its Trumpler class of $`II1p`$, Be 104 is one of the most poorly defined clusters. Due to the paucity of members and the heavy contamination by field stars, the CMDs of Be 104 show a very broad main sequence which is not much different from that of the field star CMDs near the cluster. Thanks to the presence of a few giants which are thought to be cluster members as they appear in the cleaned CMD in Fig.4, we could derive the cluster parameters by fitting the isochrones to the stellar distributions in the CMDs. The resulting cluster parameters are $`(mM)_0=13.2\pm 0.2`$, $`E(BV)=0.45\pm 0.05`$, log(t\[yrs\]) = $`8.9\pm 0.1`$, and \[Fe/H\] $`=0.07`$ dex. Most of the stars brighter than the turnoff point of the main-sequence stars are considered to be field stars. However, there seem also to be a few blue straggler candidates according to their positions on the CMDs.

### 3.2 Berkeley 60

Be 60 is also a poorly defined cluster with a Trumpler class of $`III1p`$. As shown in Fig. 1, there are several bright stars in the field of Be 60 most of which seem to be foreground stars. However, the CMDs of the stars in the central region of Be 60 show a well defined main sequence which permits a reasonably good isochrone fitting. The resulting best fit isochrone gives the cluster parameters as $`(mM)_0=13.2\pm 0.2`$, $`E(BV)=0.86\pm 0.05`$, log(t\[yrs\]) = $`8.2\pm 0.2`$ and \[Fe/H\] $`=0.07`$ dex. The two brightest red stars near $`(BV)=1.6`$ are not plotted in the $`V`$ vs $`(VI)`$ CMD due to saturation in the $`I`$ image.

### 3.3 King 15

As shown in Fig. 1, King 15 shows the typical properties of $`IV2p`$ clusters, which are characterized by a small number of member stars and no central concentration. However, as can be seen in Fig. 3, the stellar distributions in the CMDs of the cluster are well represented by the isochrone of log(t\[yrs\]) = $`8.4\pm 0.1`$ and \[Fe/H\] = $`0.07`$ dex with a distance modulus and reddening of $`(mM)_0=12.5\pm 0.4`$ and $`E(BV)=0.70\pm 0.12`$, respectively. Phelps & Janes (1994) derived a slightly smaller distance modulus, $`(mM)_0=12.29`$ and smaller reddening, $`E(BV)=0.46`$ for King 15. Since they had no $`U`$-band photometry, their reddening estimate was obtained by fitting the Schmidt-Kaler (1982)’s ZAMS to the stellar distribution in the $`V`$ vs $`(BV)`$ CMD. They estimated the age of King 15 to be $`3`$ Gyr from the color of the earliest spectral type star on the main-sequence ($`(BV)_o=0.19`$). The reason for the large discrepancy between the age derived from the isochrone fittings and that found by Phelps & Janes (1994) is due to the fact that they considered stars brighter than $`V15`$ to be field stars, while we consider them as cluster members according to their positions in the CMDs as well as spatial position in the cluster field.

As shown in Fig. 4, the presence of stars brighter than $`V15`$ in the cleaned CMD support the assumption that $`V14`$ are cluster members. However, it is quite natural for them to believe the stars brighter than $`V15`$ to be field stars since their CMD is heavily populated by field stars due to the larger field compared to ours. They constructed the CMD from the stars in a field of $`11.^{}6\times 11.^{}6`$, which is nearly the same field as that of the total CCD image for King 15 in Fig. 1. If stars brighter than $`V15`$ are member stars of King 15, there is a large gap in the upper main sequence of the cluster.

### 3.4 NGC 381

NGC 381 is an intermediate-age open cluster with a Trumpler class of $`III1m`$. There seem to be no giant stars in the cluster probably due to its small number member stars. The main sequence of the cluster is well defined in the CMDs although there are a large number of field stars in the direction of NGC 381. Owing to the foreground and background field stars, the color-color diagram of NGC 381 is quite complicated. However, it is not difficult to determine the cluster reddening by fitting the theoretical ZAMS to the distribution of the main-sequence stars in the color-color diagram because they are well isolated from the field stars. As shown Fig.3, the isochrone of log(t\[yrs\]) = $`8.5\pm 0.1`$ and \[Fe/H\] $`=0.07`$ dex fits well the stellar distribution in the CMDs of NGC 381 with a distance modulus and reddening of $`(mM)_0=10.3\pm 0.3`$ and $`E(BV)=0.40\pm 0.10`$, respectively. The present estimates of the distance modulus and reddening of the cluster are in good agreement with those determined by Phelps & Janes (1994) but their age estimate of log(t\[yrs\]) = 9.04, obtained using the isochrone of Maeder & Meynet (1991), is about a factor of three larger than ours.

### 3.5 Berkeley 64

Be 64 shows the typical morphology of a Trumpler class $`II1m`$ cluster which is characterized by a slight concentration of member stars of similar brightness with medium richness. Because the color-color diagram does not show any clear cluster sequences due to the small number of bright stars with small photometric errors in $`U`$, we adopt $`E(BV)=1.05`$ (Pandey et al., 1997) as the cluster reddening. The CMDs of Be 64 show a quite broad main sequence due to contamination by field stars However, the presence of giant stars, most of which are thought to be cluster members from the cleaned CMD in Fig. 4, makes it possible to fit the isochrones to the stellar distributions in the CMDs unambiguously. As shown in Fig. 3, the adopted isochrone of log(t\[yrs\]) = $`9.0\pm 0.1`$ and \[Fe/H\] = $`0.61`$ dex with $`(mM)_0=13.0\pm 0.3`$ and $`E(BV)=1.05\pm 0.15`$ fits the stellar distribution in the CMDs quite well. Our estimates of the distance modulus and age are in good agreement with those of Pandey et al. (1997).

### 3.6 King 6

King 6 is a nearby cluster with a Trumpler class of $`II2m`$. As shown in Fig. 1, the angular diameter of the cluster is comparable to the size of the observed field because of its proximity. The CMDs of King 6 show a well defined main sequence with a relatively small number of field stars, especially in the upper main sequence. However, the lower main sequence, fainter than $`V18`$, seems to be contaminated by field stars. Although there seems to be a clear sequence in Fig. 3, the stellar distributions in the color-color diagram of King 6 can not be fitted by the theoretical ZAMS with a single reddening value. The stars fainter than $`V16`$ seem to have a smaller reddening of $`E(BV)0.4`$, while the stars brighter than $`V13`$ appear to have a larger reddening of $`E(BV)0.6`$. Thus, we adopted a mean value of $`E(BV)=0.5\pm 0.10`$ as the reddening of King 6. This is the reason why the stellar distributions in the color-color diagram show a relatively poor match with the theoretical ZAMS which is shifted by a reddening value of $`E(BV)=0.5`$. However, as shown in Fig. 3, the isochrone of log(t\[yrs\]) = $`8.4\pm 0.1`$ and \[Fe/H\] $`=0.46`$ dex, shifted by a distance modulus and reddening of $`(mM)_0=9.7\pm 0.4`$ and $`E(BV)=0.5\pm 0.10`$, respectively, gives a pretty good match with the stellar distributions in the CMDs of the cluster. There is a slight indication of the presence of the binary sequence above the ZAMS.

### 3.7 NGC 1348

NGC 1348 is the youngest among the observed clusters and is relatively well recognized due to the absence of field stars comparable in brightness to the bright members of the cluster, although the cluster stars do not show any obvious central concentration. This is the reason why NGC 1348 is classified as Trumpler class $`III2m`$. As shown in Fig. 3, the color-color diagram of NGC 1348 shows a well defined sequence which is well matched with the theoretical ZAMS of the solar abundance shifted by $`E(BV)=1.02`$. The isochrone fittings to the stellar distributions in the CMDs give the cluster parameters of log(t\[yrs\]) = $`8.1\pm 0.1`$, $`(mM)_0=11.3\pm 0.3`$, $`E(BV)=1.02\pm 0.05`$ and \[Fe/H\] $`=0.07`$ dex, respectively. The brightest star near $`BV`$=2.4 is saturated in the $`I`$ image and is omitted in the $`V`$ vs $`(VI)`$ diagram.

### 3.8 Berkeley 12

Be 12 is an old cluster with a Trumpler class of $`II1m`$. Although Be 12 is located in the direction of a rich star field, it can be well distinguished from field stars due to the concentration of the member stars. The CMDs of the cluster show a broad main sequence caused by heavy contamination by field stars. The color-color diagram of Be 12 also shows no clear sequence due to the lack of a sufficient number of cluster main-sequence stars that are bright enough to have small photometric errors in $`U`$ as well as the contamination by field stars. The presence of blue straggler stars which are located in the bright extension of the main sequence of Be 12 may contribute to the large scatter in the color-color diagram. However, as shown in Fig. 3, the isochrone of log(t\[yrs\]) $`=9.6\pm 0.1`$ and \[Fe/H\] $`=0.07`$ dex fits the main sequence together with the giant branch quite well with a distance modulus and reddening of $`(mM)_0=12.5\pm 0.5`$ and $`E(BV)=0.7\pm 0.15`$, respectively. The old age of the cluster supports the existence of blue straggler stars based on the presence of stars brighter and bluer than the turnoff point of the cluster main sequence because such stars are more frequently found in old open clusters (Ahumada & Lapasset, 1995)

### 3.9 Berkeley 70

Be 70 is located in a direction toward which a large number of foreground stars are located. The CMDs of the cluster show a broad main sequence due to heavy contamination by field stars. The color-color diagram appears to be complicated due to the field star contamination, but we could determine the reddening of the cluster by fitting the theoretical ZAMS to the distributions of upper main-sequence stars and populous giant stars which constitute a well defined cluster sequence in the CNDs. The broad sequence around $`(BV)0.7`$ in the color-color diagram is due to the field star population, whose mean reddening is much smaller than that of the cluster. The heavy contamination of field stars is apparent from the cleaned CMD of Be 70 in Fig. 4. However, some of the bright blue stars above the turnoff point of the main sequence of Be 70 may be blue straggler stars from their presence in the cleaned CMD of the cluster. Owing to the well developed giant branch and the highly populated main sequences, it is not difficult to fit the isochrones to the stellar distributions in the CMDs. The resulting cluster parameters are log(t\[yrs\]) $`=9.6\pm 0.1`$, \[Fe/H\] $`=0.32`$ dex, $`(mM)_0=13.1\pm 0.3`$ and $`E(BV)=0.48\pm 0.10`$.

### 3.10 Berkeley 23

Be 23 is located near the direction of the anti-galactic center direction. As indicated by its Trumpler class of $`III1m`$, it shows no strong central concentration but can be identified by its relatively dense population compared to that of the field stars. Most of the brightest stars above the turnoff point are considered to be foreground stars because the CMD of a nearby field region shows similar stellar distributions. However, there is also a possibility that some of the stars that are brighter and bluer than the turnoff of the main sequence are blue straggler stars. We derived the cluster parameters by fitting the isochrone of log(t\[yrs\]) $`=8.9\pm 0.1`$ and \[Fe/H\] $`=0.07`$ to the stellar distribution, especially near the turnoff, with a distance modulus and reddening of $`(mM)_0=14.2\pm 0.3`$ and $`E(BV)=0.40\pm 0.05`$, respectively. The theoretical ZAMS of the solar abundance shifted by the adopted reddening of $`E(BV)=0.40`$ describes well the distribution of upper main-sequence stars in the color-color diagram. Most of the forground stars seems to be affected by negligible reddening.

### 3.11 NGC 2259

NGC 2259 is a well detached system of Trumpler class $`II1p`$. Most of the bright stars in the direction of NGC 2259 are cluster main-sequence stars near the main-sequence turnoff. There seems to be little contamination by field stars in the upper main sequence but the lower main sequence is somewhat contaminated by field stars. Owing to the proximity of the cluster, the main-sequence stars bluer than $`(BV)1.0`$ are bright enough to produce a clear sequence in the color-color diagram. Thus, we derived the cluster reddening by fitting the theoretical ZAMS to the distribution of bright main-sequence stars in the color-color diagram. We applied the isochrone fittings to the stellar distributions in the CMDs of NGC 2259 with the reddening derived from the ZAMS fitting. As shown in Fig. 3, the isochrone of log(t\[yrs\]) $`=8.5\pm 0.1`$ and \[Fe/H\] $`=0.07`$ dex with a distance modulus and reddening of $`(mM)_0=12.6\pm 0.3`$ and $`E(BV)=0.59\pm 0.05`$, respectively, matches well with the stellar distributions in the CMDs of NGC 2259.

### 3.12 NGC 2304

NGC 2304 is located in the direction of the anti-galactic center, slightly above the galactic plane. It is well distinguished from the field stars. The color-color diagram shows a well defined cluster sequence which is nicely matched with the theoretical ZAMS of \[Fe/H\] $`=0.32`$ shifted by $`E(BV)=0.10`$. However, as shown in Fig. 3, the main sequence, especially the lower main sequence, is somewhat contaminated by field stars. The stellar distributions in the CMDs of NGC 2304 show the typical characteristics of intermediate-age open clusters. The stars near the giant branch seem to be cluster members since all these stars are present in the cleaned CMD of NGC 2304 in Fig. 4. The isochrone of log(t\[yrs\]) $`=8.9\pm 0.1`$ and \[Fe/H\] $`=0.32`$ dex with $`(mM)_0=13.0\pm 0.1`$ and $`E(BV)=0.10\pm 0.02`$ fits well the stellar distribution in the CMDs of NGC 2304. There seems to be a binary sequence above the ZAMS.

## 4 DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY

We have determined the distances, reddenings, ages and metallicities of 12 target clusters by isochrone fittings complemented by ZAMS fittings for the reddening estimates. To our best knowledge, no known cluster parameters were previously derived for any of the clusters except for King 15, NGC 381, and Be 64. Comparison of the cluster parameters derived from the present photometry with those found by other researchers for King 15, NGC 381 and Be 64 (Phelps & Janes, 1994; Pandey et al., 1997) shows that our estimates are in good agreement with independent studies.

The mean interstellar absorption derived from the reddening of the 12 open clusters is $`0.72\pm 0.51`$ mag$``$kpc<sup>-1</sup>, which is slightly smaller than the mean interstellar absorption of the galactic disk, $`1.0`$ mag$``$kpc<sup>-1</sup>, derived from COCD (Lyngå, 1987). The smaller mean interstellar absorption reflects the general characteristics of the interstellar reddening toward the anti-galactic center, and the large standard deviation is due to the inhomogeneous distribution of the interstellar clouds (Lucke, 1978). Be 23 and NGC 2304, which are located in a direction very close to the anti-galactic center, show extremely small interstellar absorptions of 0.17 mag$``$kpc<sup>-1</sup> and 0.08 mag$``$kpc<sup>-1</sup>, respectively, while King 6 and NGC 1348, which are located in the direction of the Cassiopeia-Perseus region (Deutschman, Davis, & Schild, 1976), show large interstellar absorptions of 1.72 mag$``$kpc<sup>-1</sup> and 1.68 mag$``$kpc<sup>-1</sup>, respectively. The large interstellar absorption in this direction might be due to the dense interstellar cloud close to the Sun (Deutschman, Davis, & Schild, 1976).

The apparent gap in the main sequence of King 15 seems to be a real feature because the stars brighter than $`V15`$ are thought to be cluster members. Thus, the age of King 15 is $`250`$ Myr, which is much smaller than that suggested by Phelps & Janes (1994). However, the gap near $`V14`$ is not a physical gap related to stellar evolution but is caused by random statistical fluctuations due to the small number of member stars. King 15 is too young for the cluster to have a main-sequence gap similar to those of NGC 2420 (Anthony-Twarog et al., 1990; Lee, Ann, & Kang, 1999) and NGC 2243 (Bonifazi et al., 1990), which are thought to be related to the rapid hydrogen exhausting phase of the convective core (Demarque, Sarajedini, & Guo, 1994). The gap in King 15 is similar to those of Be 7, NGC 637, and Be 62 (Phelps & Janes, 1993), all of which are thought to be caused by statistical fluctuations in the high mass part of the IMFs (Scalo, 1986).

We have found blue straggler candidates in the four open clusters, Be 104, Be 12, Be 70, and Be 23, which have ages greater than 800 Myr. There is a tendency for older clusters to have more blue straggler stars, similar to that found by Ahumada & Lapasset (1995).

Our results for the 12 clusters presented in this study along with the results of Ann et al. (1999) are expected to be very useful for the investigation of the open cluster system in our Galaxy. Our survey project is still in progress and we plan to present a study of more open clusters in the near future.

The authors would like to thank to KAO for the allocation of telescope times. The work by H.B.Ann was supported in part by PNU grant 1999-2003.

A mosaic map of grayscale $`V`$-band images of 12 open clusters. The circles represent the angular diameters of the clusters given in the COCD (Lyngå, 1987). The size of each box is $`11.^{}6\times 11.^{}6`$. North is up and east is to the left.

Observational errors in the present photometry. The error bars represent the standard deviations of observational errors for stars in each magnitude bin of 0.5 mag. The large error bars for the brighter stars are caused by the small number of stars in the magnitude bin.

Photometric diagrams for the 12 open clusters. The dashed and solid lines in the color-color diagrams represent the theoretical ZAMS of the Padova isochrones(Bertelli et al., 1994). The solid lines in CMDs are the best fit isochrones.

The cleaned CMDs of the 6 open clusters that are supposed to have giant members. The best fit isochrones shifted according to the derived reddening and distance moduli are plotted.


format: text

text:
# References

I. Introduction

It was known in the first half of the twentieth century that, at the atomic level and at larger distance scales, all phenomena appear to be governed by the laws of classical general relativity and of quantum electrodynamics.

Gravitational and electromagnetic forces are long range and hence can be perceived directly without the mediation of highly sophisticated technical devices. The development of large scale physics, initiated by the Galilean inertial principle, is surely tributary to this circumstance. It then took about three centuries to achieve a successful description of long range effects.

The discovery of subatomic structures and of the concomitant weak and strong interaction short range forces raised the question of how to cope with short range forces in quantum field theory. The Fermi theory of weak interactions, formulated in terms of a four Fermi point-like current-current interaction, was predictive in lowest order perturbation theory and successfully confronted many experimental data. However, it was clearly inconsistent in higher order because of uncontrollable quantum divergences at high energies. In order words, in contradistinction with quantum electrodynamics, the Fermi theory is not renormalizable. This difficulty could not be solved by smoothing the point-like interaction by a massive, and therefore short range, charged vector particle exchange (the so-called $`W^+`$ and $`W^{}`$ mesons); theories with fundamental massive charged vector mesons are not renormalizable either. In the early nineteen sixties, there seemed to be insuperable obstacles for formulating a theory with short range forces mediated by massive vectors.

The solution of the latter problem came from the theory proposed in 1964 by Brout and Englert  and by Higgs . The Brout-Englert-Higgs (BEH) theory is based on a mechanism, inspired from the spontaneous symmetry breaking of a continuous symmetry, discussed in the previous talk by Robert Brout, adapted to gauge theories and in particular to non abelian gauge theories. The mechanism unifies long range and short range forces mediated by vector mesons, by deriving the vector mesons masses from a fundamental theory containing only massless vector fields. It led to a solution of the weak interaction puzzle and opened the way to modern perspectives on unified laws of nature.

Before turning to an exposé of the BEH mechanism, we shall in section II review, in the context of quantum field theory, the analysis given by Robert Brout of the spontaneous breaking of a continuous symmetry. Section III explains the BEH mechanism. We present the quantum field theory approach of Brout and Englert wherein the breaking mechanism for both abelian and non abelian gauge groups is induced by scalar bosons. We also present their approach in the case of dynamical symmetry breaking from fermion condensate. We then turn to the equation of motion approach of Higgs. Finally we explain the renormalization issue. In section IV, we briefly review the well-known applications of the BEH mechanism with particular emphasis on concepts relevant to the quest for unification. Some comments on this subject are made in section V.

II. Spontaneous Breaking of a Global Symmetry

Spontaneous breaking of a Lie group symmetry was discussed by Robert Brout in “The Paleolitic Age”. I review here its essential features in the quantum field theory context.

Recall that spontaneous breakdown of a continuous symmetry in condensed matter physics implies a degeneracy of the ground state, and as a consequence, in absence of long range forces, collective modes appear whose energies go to zero when the wavelength goes to infinity. This was exemplified in particular by spin waves in a Heisenberg ferromagnet. There, the broken symmetry is the rotation invariance.

Spontaneous symmetry breaking was introduced in relativistic quantum field theory by Nambu in analogy to the BCS theory of superconductivity. The problem studied by Nambu  and Nambu and Jona-Lasinio  is the spontaneous breaking of chiral symmetry induced by a fermion condensate111See the detailed discussion in Brout’s lecture, section VII.. The chiral phase group $`\mathrm{exp}(i\gamma _5\alpha )`$ is broken by the fermion condensate $`\overline{\psi }\psi 0`$ and the massless mode is identified with the pion. The latter gets its tiny mass (on the hadron scale) from a small explicit breaking of the symmetry, just as a small external magnetic field imparts a small gap in the spin wave spectrum. This interpretation of the pion mass constituted a breakthrough in our understanding of strong interaction physics. General features of spontaneous symmetry breakdown in relativistic quantum field theory were further formalized by Goldstone . Here, symmetry is broken by non vanishing vacuum expectation values of scalar fields. The method is designed to exhibit the appearance of a massless mode out of the degenerate vacuum and does not really depend on the significance of the scalar fields. The latter could be elementary or represent collective variables of more fundamental fields, as would be the case in the original Nambu model. Compositeness affects details of the model considered, such as the behavior at high momentum transfer, but not the existence of the massless excitations encoded in the degeneracy of the vacuum.

Let us first illustrate the occurrence of this massless Nambu-Goldstone (NG) boson in a simple model of a complex scalar field with $`U(1)`$ symmetry .

The Lagrangian density,

$$=^\mu \varphi ^{}_\mu \varphi V(\varphi ^{}\varphi )\text{with}V(\varphi ^{}\varphi )=\mu ^2\varphi ^{}\varphi +\lambda (\varphi ^{}\varphi )^2,\lambda >0,$$
(1)
is invariant under the $`U(1)`$ group $`\varphi e^{i\alpha }\varphi `$. The $`U(1)`$ symmetry is called global because the group parameter $`\alpha `$ is constant in space-time. It is broken by a vacuum expectation value of the $`\varphi `$-field given, at the classical level, by the minimum of $`V(\varphi ^{}\varphi )`$. Writing $`\varphi =(\varphi _1+i\varphi _2)/\sqrt{2}`$, one may choose $`\varphi _2=0`$. Hence $`\varphi _1^2=\mu ^2/\lambda `$ and we select, say, the vacuum with $`\varphi _1`$ positive. The potential $`V(\varphi ^{}\varphi )`$ is depicted in Fig.1 .

Around the unbroken vacuum the field $`\varphi _1`$ has negative mass and acquires a positive mass around the broken vacuum where the field $`\varphi _2`$ is massless. The latter is the NG boson of broken U(1) symmetry. The massive scalar describes the fluctuations of the order parameter $`\varphi _1`$. Its mass is the analog of the inverse longitudinal susceptibility of the Heisenberg ferromagnet discussed by Robert Brout while the vanishing of the NG boson mass corresponds to the vanishing of its inverse transverse susceptibility. The scalar boson $`\varphi _1`$ is always present in spontaneous breakdown of a symmetry. In the context of the BEH mechanism analyzed in the following section, it was introduced by Brout and myself, and by Higgs. We shall label it the BEH boson222It is often called the Higgs boson in the literature. (Fig.1).

In the classical limit, the origin of the massless NG boson $`\varphi _2`$ is clearly illustrated in the Fig.1. The vacuum characterized by the order parameter $`\varphi _1`$ is rotated into an equivalent vacuum by the field $`\varphi _2`$ at zero space momentum. Such rotation costs no energy and thus the field $`\varphi _2`$ at space momenta $`\stackrel{}{q}=0`$ has $`q_0=0`$ on the equations of motion, and hence zero mass.

This can be formalized and generalized by noting that the conserved Noether current $`J_\mu =\varphi _1_\mu \varphi _2\varphi _2_\mu \varphi _1`$ gives a charge $`Q=J_0d^3x`$. The operator $`\mathrm{exp}(i\alpha Q)`$ rotates the vacuum by an angle $`\alpha `$. In the classical limit, this charge is, around the chosen vacuum, $`Q=\varphi _1_0\varphi _2d^3x`$ and involves only $`\varphi _2`$ at zero momentum. In general, $`[Q,\varphi _2]=i\varphi _1`$ is non zero in the chosen vacuum. This implies that the propagator $`^\mu TJ_\mu (x)\varphi _2(x^{})`$ cannot vanish at zero four-momentum $`q`$ because its integral over space-time is precisely $`[Q,\varphi _2]`$. Expressing the propagator in terms of Feynman diagrams we see that the $`\varphi _2`$-propagator must have a pole at $`q^2=0`$. The field $`\varphi _2`$ is the massless NG boson.

The proof is immediately extended to the spontaneous breaking of a semi-simple Lie group global symmetry. Let $`\varphi ^A`$ be scalar fields spanning a representation of the Lie group $`𝒢`$ generated by the (antihermitian) matrices $`T^{aAB}`$. If the dynamics is governed by a $`𝒢`$-invariant action and if the potential has minima for non vanishing $`\varphi ^A`$,s , symmetry is broken and the vacuum is degenerate under $`𝒢`$-rotations. The conserved charges are $`Q^a=_\mu \varphi ^BT^{aBA}\varphi ^Ad^3x`$. As in the abelian case above, the propagators of the fields $`\varphi ^B`$ such that $`[Q^a,\varphi ^B]=T^{aBA}\varphi ^A0`$ have a NG pole at $`q^2=0`$.

III. The BEH Mechanism

\- From global to local symmetry

The global $`U(1)`$ symmetry in Eq.(1) can be extended to a local $`U(1)`$ invariance $`\varphi (x)e^{i\alpha (x)}\varphi (x)`$ by introducing a vector field $`A_\mu (x)`$ transforming according to $`A_\mu (x)A_\mu (x)+(1/e)_\mu \alpha (x)`$. The corresponding Lagrangian density is

$$=D^\mu \varphi ^{}D_\mu \varphi V(\varphi ^{}\varphi )\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu },$$
(2)
with covariant derivative $`D_\mu \varphi =_\mu \varphi ieA_\mu \varphi `$ and $`F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu `$.

Local invariance under a semi-simple Lie group $`𝒢`$ can be realized by extending the Lagrangian Eq.(2) to incorporate non-abelian Yang-Mills vector fields $`A_\mu ^a`$

$`_𝒢=(D^\mu \varphi )^A(D_\mu \varphi )^AV{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }^aF^{a\mu \nu },`$ (3)
where
$`(D_\mu \varphi )^A=_\mu \varphi ^AeA_\mu ^aT^{aAB}\varphi ^B,F_{\mu \nu }^a=_\mu A_\nu ^a_\nu A_\mu ^aef^{abc}A_\mu ^bA_\nu ^c.`$ (4)
Here, $`\varphi ^A`$ belongs to the representation of $`𝒢`$ generated by $`T^{aAB}`$ and the potential $`V`$ is invariant under $`𝒢`$.

The success of quantum electrodynamics based on local U(1) symmetry, and of classical general relativity based on a local generalization of Poincare invariance, provides ample evidence for the relevance of local symmetry for the description of natural laws. One expects that local symmetry has a fundamental significance rooted in causality and in the existence of exact conservation laws at a fundamental level, of which charge conservation appears as the prototype. As an example of the strength of local symmetry we cite the fact that conservation laws resulting from a global symmetry alone are violated in presence of black holes.

The local symmetry, or gauge invariance, of Yang-Mills theory, abelian or non abelian, apparently relies on the massless character of the gauge fields $`A_\mu `$, hence on the long range character of the forces they transmit, as the addition of a mass term for $`A_\mu `$ in the Lagrangian Eq.(2) or (3) destroys gauge invariance. But short range forces, such as the weak interaction forces, seem to be as fundamental as the electromagnetic ones despite the apparent absence of exact conservation laws. To reach a basic description of such forces one is tempted to link the violation of conservation to a mass of the gauge fields which would arise from spontaneous symmetry breaking. However the problem of spontaneous broken symmetry is different for global and for local symmetry.

To understand the difference, let us break the symmetries explicitly. To the Lagrangian Eq.(1) we add the term

$$\varphi h^{}+\varphi ^{}h,$$
(5)
where $`h,h^{}`$ are constant in space time. Let us take h real. The presence of the field $`h`$ breaks explicitly the global $`U(1)`$ symmetry and the field $`\varphi _1`$ always develops an expectation value. When $`h0`$, the symmetry of the action is restored but, when the symmetry is broken by a minimum of $`V(\varphi \varphi ^{})`$ at $`|\varphi |0`$, we still have $`\varphi _10`$. The tiny $`h`$-field simply picks up one of the degenerate vacua in perfect analogy with the infinitesimal magnetic field which orients the magnetization of a ferromagnet. As in statistical mechanics, spontaneous broken global symmetry can be recovered in the limit of vanishing external symmetry breaking. The degeneracy of the vacuum can be put into evidence by changing the phase of $`h`$; in this way, we can reach in the limit $`h0`$ any $`U(1)`$ rotated vacuum.

When the symmetry is extended from global to local, one can still break the symmetry by an external “magnetic” field. However in the limit of vanishing magnetic field the expectation value of any gauge dependent local operator will tend to zero because, in contradistinction to global symmetry, it cost no energy in the limit to change the relative orientation of neighboring “spins”; there is then no ordered configuration in group space which can be protected from disordering fluctuations. As a consequence, the vacuum is generically non degenerate and points in no particular direction in group space as the external field goes to zero. Local gauge symmetry cannot be spontaneously broken333For a detailed proof, see reference . and the vacuum is gauge invariant444Note that for global symmetry breaking, one can always choose a linear combination of degenerate vacua which is invariant under, say, the $`U(1)`$ symmetry. This choice has no observable consequences and only masks the degeneracy of the vacuum which is guaranteed by a superselection rule. The Hilbert space splits indeed, as in the ferromagnetic case analyzed by Robert Brout (section V of “The Paleolitic Age”), into an infinite number of orthogonal spaces formed by all the finite excitations on each degenerate vacuum.. Recalling that the explicit presence of a gauge vector mass breaks gauge invariance, we are thus faced with a dilemma. How can gauge fields acquire mass without breaking the local symmetry?

\- Solving the dilemma

In perturbation theory, gauge invariant quantities are evaluated by choosing a particular gauge. One imposes the gauge condition by adding to the action a gauge fixing term and one sums over subsets of graphs satisfying the Ward Identities555To this end, it is often necessary, in particular for non abelian gauge theories, to include Fadeev-Popov ghosts terms in the action. These contribute when closed gauge field loops are included in the computation..

Consider the Yang-Mills theory defined by the Lagrangian Eq.(3). Let us choose a gauge which preserves Lorentz invariance and a residual global $`𝒢`$ symmetry. This can be achieved by adding to the Lagrangian a gauge fixing term $`(2\eta )^1_\mu A_a^\mu _\nu A^{a\nu }`$. The gauge parameter $`\eta `$ is arbitrary and has no observable consequences.

The global symmetry can now be spontaneously broken, for suitable potential $`V`$, by non zero expectation values $`\varphi ^A`$ of BEH fields. In Fig.2 we have represented fluctuations of this parameter in the spatial $`q`$-direction and in an internal space direction orthogonal to the direction $`A`$. The orthogonal direction depicted in the figure has been labeled $`B`$. Fig.2a pictures the spontaneously broken vacuum of the gauge fixed Lagrangian. Fig.2b and 2c represent fluctuations of finite wavelength $`\lambda `$.

Clearly as $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$ these fluctuations can only induce global rotations in the internal space. In absence of gauge fields, such fluctuations would give rise, as in spontaneously broken global continuous symmetries, to massless NG mode. In a gauge theory, fluctuations of $`\varphi ^A`$ are just local rotations in the internal space and hence are unobservable gauge fluctuations. Hence the NG bosons induce only gauge transformations and its excitations disappear from the physical spectrum.

The degrees of freedom of the NG fields were present in the original gauge invariant action and cannot disappear. But what makes local internal space rotations unobservable in a gauge theory is precisely the fact that they can be absorbed through gauge transformations by the Yang-Mills fields. The absorption of the long range NG fields renders massive those gauge fields to which they are coupled, and transfers to them the missing degrees of freedom which becomes their third polarization.

We shall see in the next sections how these considerations are realized in quantum field theory, giving rise to an apparent breakdown of symmetry: despite the absence of spontaneous local symmetry breaking, gauge invariant vector masses will be generated in a coset $`𝒢/`$, leaving long range forces only in a subgroup $``$ of $`𝒢`$.

\- The quantum field theory approach

$`\alpha `$) Breaking by BEH bosons

Let us first examine the abelian case as realized by the complex scalar field $`\varphi `$ exemplified in Eq.(2).

In the covariant gauges, the free propagator of the field $`A_\mu `$ is

$$D_{\mu \nu }^0=\frac{g_{\mu \nu }q_\mu q_\nu /q^2}{q^2}+\eta \frac{q_\mu q_\nu /q^2}{q^2},$$
(6)
where $`\eta `$ is the gauge parameter. It can be put equal to zero, as in the Landau gauge used in reference , but we leave it arbitrary here to illustrate explicitly the role of the NG-boson.

In absence of symmetry breaking, the lowest order contribution to the self-energy, arising from the covariant derivative terms in Eq.(2), is given by the one-loop diagrams of Fig.3. The self-energy (suitably regularized) takes the form of a polarization tensor

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }=(g_{\mu \nu }q^2q_\mu q_\nu )\mathrm{\Pi }(q^2),$$
(7)
where the scalar polarisation $`\mathrm{\Pi }(q^2)`$ is regular at $`q^2=0`$, leading to the gauge field propagator

$$D_{\mu \nu }=\frac{g_{\mu \nu }q_\mu q_\nu /q^2}{q^2[1\mathrm{\Pi }(q^2)]}+\eta \frac{q_\mu q_\nu /q^2}{q^2}.$$
(8)
The polarization tensor in Eq.(7) is transverse and hence does not affect the gauge parameter $`\eta `$. The transversality of the polarization tensor reflects the gauge invariance of the theory666The transversality of polarisation tensors is a consequence of the Ward Identities alluded to in the preceding section. and, as we shall see below, the regularity of the polarization scalar signals the absence of symmetry breaking. This guarantees that the $`A_\mu `$-field remains massless.

Symmetry breaking adds tadpole diagrams to the previous ones. To see this write

$$\varphi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\varphi _1+i\varphi _2)\varphi _10.$$
(9)
The BEH field is $`\varphi _1`$ and the NG field $`\varphi _2`$. The additional diagrams are depicted in Fig.4.

In this case, the polarisation scalar $`\mathrm{\Pi }(q^2)`$ in Eq.(7) acquires a pole

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(q^2)=\frac{e^2\varphi _1^2}{q^2},$$
(10)
and, in lowest order perturbation theory, the gauge field propagator becomes

$$D_{\mu \nu }=\frac{g_{\mu \nu }q_\mu q_\nu /q^2}{q^2\mu ^2}+\eta \frac{q_\mu q_\nu /q^2}{q^2},$$
(11)
which shows that the $`A_\mu `$-field gets a mass

$$\mu ^2=e^2\varphi _1^2.$$
(12)
The generalization of Eqs.(7) and (10) to the non abelian case described by the action Eq.(3) is straightforward. One gets from the graphs depicted in Fig.5,

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{ab}=(g_{\mu \nu }q^2q_\mu q_\nu )\mathrm{\Pi }^{ab}(q^2),`$ (13)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }^{ab}(q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{e^2\varphi ^BT^{aBC}T^{bCA}\varphi ^A}{q^2}},`$ (14)
from which follows the mass matrix

$$\mu ^{ab}=e^2\varphi ^BT^{aBC}T^{bCA}\varphi ^A.$$
(15)
In terms of the non-zero eigenvalues $`\mu _a`$ of the mass matrix the propagator for the massive gauge vectors takes the same form as Eq.(11)

$$D_{\mu \nu }^a=\frac{g_{\mu \nu }q_\mu q_\nu /q^2}{q^2\mu ^{a2}}+\eta \frac{q_\mu q_\nu /q^2}{q^2}.$$
(16)
The gauge invariance is expressed, as it was in absence of symmetry breaking, through the transversality of the polarization tensors Eqs.(7) and (13). The singular $`1/q^2`$ contributions to the polarization scalars Eqs.(10) and (14), which preserve transversality while giving mass to the gauge fields, stem from the long range NG boson fields encoded in their $`1/q^2`$ propagator. We shall verify below that this pole has no observable effect as such. On the other hand, its absorption in the gauge field propagator transfers the degrees of freedom of the NG bosons to the third degree of polarization of the massive vectors. Indeed, on the mass shell $`q^2=\mu ^{a2}`$, one easily verifies that the numerator in their propagator Eq.(16) is:

$$g_{\mu \nu }\frac{q_\mu q_\nu }{q^2}=\underset{\lambda =1}{\overset{3}{}}e_\mu ^{(\lambda )}.e_\nu ^{(\lambda )},q^2=\mu ^{a2},$$
(17)
where the $`e_\mu ^{(\lambda )}`$ are the three polarization vectors which are orthonormal in the rest frame of the particle.

In this way, the NG bosons generate massive propagators for those gauge fields to which they are coupled. Long range forces only survive in the subgroup $``$ of $`𝒢`$ which leaves invariant the non vanishing expectation values $`\varphi ^A`$.

Note that (as in the abelian case) the scalar potential $`V`$ does not enter the computation of the gauge field propagator. This is because the trilinear term arising from the covariant derivatives in the Lagrangian Eq.(3), which yields the second graph of Fig.5, can only couple the tadpoles to other scalar fields through group rotations and hence couple them only to the NG bosons. These are the eigenvectors with zero eigenvalue of the scalar mass matrix given by the quadratic term in the expansion of the potential $`V`$ around its minimum. Hence the mass matrix decouples from the tadpole at the tree level considered above. An explicit example of this feature will be given for the Lagrangian Eq.(32).

$`\beta `$) Dynamical symmetry breaking

The symmetry breaking giving mass to gauge vector bosons may arise from the fermion condensate breaking chiral symmetry. This is illustrated by the following chiral invariant Lagrangian

$$=_0^Fe_V\overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu \psi V_\mu e_A\overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu \gamma _5\psi A_\mu \frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }(V)\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }(A).$$
(18)
Here $`F_{\mu \nu }(V)`$ and $`F_{\mu \nu }(A)`$ are abelian field strength for $`U(1)\times U(1)`$ symmetry. Chiral anomalies are eventually canceled by adding in the required additional fermions.

The Ward identity for the chiral current

$$q^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu 5}(p+q/2,pq/2)=S^1(p+q/2)\gamma _5+\gamma _5S^1(pq/2),$$
(19)
shows that if the fermion self-energy $`\gamma ^\mu p_\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }_2(p^2)\mathrm{\Sigma }_1(p^2)`$ acquires a non vanishing $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1(p^2)`$ term, thus a dynamical mass $`m`$ at $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1(m^2)=m`$ (taking for simplicity $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2(m^2)=1),`$ the axial vertex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu 5}`$ develops a pole at $`q^2=0`$. In leading order in $`q`$, we get

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu 5}2m\gamma _5\frac{q_\mu }{q^2}.$$
(20)
The pole in the vertex function induces a pole in the suitably regularized gauge invariant polarization tensor $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{(A)}`$ of the axial vector field $`A_\mu `$ depicted in Fig.6

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{(A)}=e_A^2(g_{\mu \nu }q^2q_\mu q_\nu )\mathrm{\Pi }^{(A)}(q^2),$$
(21)
with

$$\underset{q^20}{lim}q^2\mathrm{\Pi }^{(A)}(q^2)=\mu ^20.$$
(22)
The field $`A_\mu `$ acquires in this approximation777The validity of the approximation, and in fact of the dynamical approach, rests on the high momentum behavior of the fermion self energy, but this problem will not be discussed here. a gauge invariant mass $`\mu `$ .

This example illustrates the fact that the transversality of the polarization tensor used in the quantum field theoretic approach to mass generation is a consequence of a Ward identity. This is true whether vector masses arise through fundamental fundamental BEH bosons or through fermion condensate. The generation of gauge invariant masses is therefore not contingent upon the “tree approximation” used to get the propagators Eqs.(11) and (16). It is a consequence of the $`1/q^2`$ singularity in the vacuum polarisation scalars Eqs.(10), (13) or (22 ) which comes from NG boson contribution.

\- The equation of motion approach

Shortly after the above analysis was presented, Higgs wrote two papers. In the first one  , he showed that the proof of the Goldstone theorem , which states that, in relativistic quantum field theory, spontaneous symmetry breaking of a continuous global symmetry implies zero mass NG bosons, fails in the case of gauge field theory. In the second paper , he derived the BEH theory in terms of the classical equations of motion, which he formulated for the abelian case.

From the action Eq.(2), taking as in Eq.(9), the expectation value of the BEH boson to be $`\varphi _1`$, and expanding the NG field $`\varphi _2`$ to first order, one gets the classical equations of motion to that order

$`^\mu \{_\mu \varphi _2e\varphi _1A_\mu \}=0,`$ (23)
$`_\nu F^{\mu \nu }=e\varphi _1\{^\mu \varphi _2e\varphi _1A^\mu \}.`$ (24)
Defining

$$B_\mu =A_\mu \frac{1}{e\varphi _1}_\mu \varphi _2\text{and}G_{\mu \nu }=_\mu B_\nu _\nu B_\mu =F_{\mu \nu },$$
(25)
one gets

$$_\mu B^\mu =0,_\nu G^{\mu \nu }+e^2\varphi _1^2B^\mu =0.$$
(26)
Eq.(26) shows that $`B_\mu `$ is a massive vector field with mass squared $`e^2\varphi _1^2`$ in accordance with Eq.(12).

In this formulation, we see clearly how the Goldstone boson is absorbed into a redefined massive vector field which has no longer explicit gauge invariance. The same phenomenon in the quantum field theory approach is related to the unobservability of the $`1/q^2`$ pole mentioned in the discussion of Eq.(15); this will be made explicit in the next section.

The equation of motion approach is classical in character but, as pointed out by Higgs , the formulation of the BEH mechanism in the quantum field theory terms of reference  indicates its validity in the quantum regime. We now show how the latter formulation signals the renormalizability of the BEH theory.

\- The renormalization issue

The massive vector propagator Eq.(16) differs from a conventional free massive propagator in two respects. First the presence of the unobservable longitudinal term reflects the arbitrariness of the gauge parameter $`\eta `$. Second the NG pole at $`q^2=0`$ in the transverse projector $`g_{\mu \nu }q_\mu q_\nu /q^2`$ is unconventional. Its significance is made clear by expressing the propagator of the $`A_\mu `$ field in Eq.(16) as (putting $`\eta `$ to zero)

$$D_{\mu \nu }^a\frac{g_{\mu \nu }q_\mu q_\nu /q^2}{q^2\mu ^{a2}}=\frac{g_{\mu \nu }q_\mu q_\nu /\mu ^{a2}}{q^2\mu ^{a2}}+\frac{1}{\mu ^{a2}}\frac{q_\mu q_\nu }{q^2}.$$
(27)
The first term in the right hand side of Eq.(27) is the conventional massive vector propagator. It may be viewed as the (non-abelian generalization of the) free propagator of the $`B_\mu `$ field defined in Eq.(25) while the second term is a pure gauge propagator due to the NG boson ($`[1/e\varphi _1]_\mu \varphi _2`$ in Eq.(25) ) which converts the $`A_\mu `$ field into this massive vector field $`B_\mu `$.

The propagator Eq.(16) which appeared in the field theoretic approach contains thus, in the covariant gauges, the transverse projector $`g_{\mu \nu }q_\mu q_\nu /q^2`$ in the numerator of the massive gauge field $`A_\mu ^a`$ propagator. This is in sharp contradistinction to the numerator $`g_{\mu \nu }q_\mu q_\nu /\mu ^{a2}`$ characteristic of the conventional massive vector field $`B_\mu `$ propagator. It is the transversality of the self energy in covariant gauges, which led in the “tree approximation” to the transverse projector in Eq.(16). As already mentioned, the transversality is a consequence of a Ward identity and therefore does not depend on the tree approximation. This fact is already suggested from the dynamical example presented above but was proven in more general terms in a subsequent publication888The proof given in reference  was not complete because closed Yang-Mills loops, which would have required the introduction of Fadeev-Popov ghosts were not included. . The importance of this fact is that the transversality of the self-energy in covariant gauges determines the power counting of irreducible diagrams. It is then straightforward to verify that the BEH quantum field theory formulation is renormalizable by power counting.

On this basis we suggested that the BEH theory constitutes indeed a consistent renormalizable field theory . To prove this statement, one must verify that the theory is unitary, a fact which is not apparent in the “renormalizable” covariant gauges because of the $`1/q^2`$ pole in the projector, but would be manifest in the “unitary gauge” defined in the free theory by the $`B_\mu `$ propagator. In the unitary gauge however, renormalization from power counting is not manifest. The equivalence, at the free level, between the $`A_\mu `$ and $`B_\mu `$ free propagators, which is only true in a gauge invariant theory where their difference is the unobservable NG propagator appearing in Eq.(27), is the clue of the consistency of the BEH theory. A full proof that the theory is renormalizable and unitary was achieved by ’t Hooft and Veltman .

IV. Consequences

The most dramatic application of the BEH mechanism is the electroweak theory, amply confirmed by experiment. Considerable work has been done, using the BEH mechanism, to formulate Grand Unified theories of non gravitational interactions. We shall summarize here these well known ideas and then evoke the construction of regular monopoles and flux lines using BEH bosons, because they raise potentially important conceptual issues. We shall also mention briefly the attempts to include gravity in the unification quest, in the so called M-theory approach, and focuses in this context on an interesting geometrical interpretation of the BEH mechanism.

\- The electroweak theory

In the electroweak theory, the gauge group is taken to be $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ with corresponding generators and coupling constants $`gA_\mu ^aT^a`$ and $`g^{}B_\mu Y^{}`$. The $`SU(2)`$ acts on left-handed fermions only. The electromagnetic charge operator is $`Q=T^3+Y^{}`$ and the electric charge $`e`$ is usually expressed in terms of the mixing angle $`\theta `$ as $`g=e/\mathrm{sin}\theta ,g^{}=e/\mathrm{cos}\theta `$. The BEH bosons $`(\varphi ^+,\varphi ^0)`$ are in a doublet of $`SU(2)`$ and their $`U(1)`$ charge is $`Y^{}=1/2`$. Breaking occurs in such a way that $`Q`$ generates an unbroken subgroup, coupled to which is the massless photon field. Thus the vacuum is characterized by $`\varphi =1/\sqrt{2}(0,v)`$.

Using Eqs.(12) and (15) we get the mass matrix

$`|\mu ^2|`$=$`{\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{4}}\begin{array}{cccc}g^2& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& g^2& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& g^2& gg^{}\\ 0& 0& gg^{}& g^2\end{array}`$

whose diagonalization yields the eigenvalues

$$M_{W^+}^2=\frac{v^2}{4}g^2,M_W^{}^2=\frac{v^2}{4}g^2,M_Z^2=\frac{v^2}{4}(g^2+g^2),M_A^2=0.$$
(28)
This permits to relate $`v`$ to the the Fermi coupling $`G`$ as $`v^2=(\sqrt{2}G)^1`$.

Although the electroweak theory has been amply verified by experiment, the existence of the BEH boson has, as yet, not been confirmed. It should be noted that the physics of the BEH boson is more sensitive to dynamical assumptions than the massive vectors $`W^\pm `$ and $`Z`$, be it a genuine elementary field or a manifestation of a composite due to a more elaborate mechanism. Hence observation of its mass and width is of particular interest for further understanding of the mechanism at work.

\- Grand unification schemes

The discovery that confinement could be explained by the strong coupling limit of quantum chromodynamics based on the “color” gauge group $`SU(3)`$ led to tentative Grand Unification schemes where electroweak and strong interaction could be unified in a simple gauge group $`𝒢`$ containing $`SU(2)\times U(1)\times SU(3)`$ . Breaking occurs through vacuum expectation values of BEH fields and unification can be realized at high energies because while the renormalization group makes the small gauge coupling of $`U(1)`$ increase logarithmically with the energy scale, the converse is true for the asymptotically free non abelian gauge groups.

\- Monopoles, flux tubes and electromagnetic duality

In electromagnetism, monopoles can be included at the expense of introducing a Dirac string . The latter creates a singular potential along the string terminating at the monopole. For instance to describe a point-like monopole located at $`\stackrel{}{r}=0`$, one can take the line-singular potential

$$\stackrel{}{A}=\frac{g}{4\pi }(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )\stackrel{}{}\varphi ,$$
(29)
This potential has a singularity along the negative $`z`$-axis $`(\theta =\pi )`$ where the string has been put (see Fig.7). The unobservability of the string implies that its fictitious flux be quantized according to the Dirac condition

$$eg=2\pi nnZ.$$
(30)
In contradistinction to the string in the $`U(1)`$ theory, the Dirac string in non abelian gauge groups can be removed by a gauge singularity for well chosen quantized magnetic charges, reducing the line singularity to a point like singularity.

An example is the SO(3) monopole, represented in Fig.8, arising from the potential

$$A^{ai}=\frac{g}{4\pi }ϵ^{iab}\frac{r^b}{r^2},eg=4\pi .$$
(31)
Breaking the symmetry to $`U(1)`$ by a BEH field belonging to the adjoint group $`SO(3)`$ one can remove the point singularity to get the topologically stable ’t Hooft-Polyakov regular monopole .

This procedure can be extended to Lie groups $`𝒢`$ of higher rank . For a general Lie group $`𝒢`$, the possibility of gauging out the Dirac string depends on the global properties of $`𝒢`$. Namely, the mapping of a small circle surrounding the Dirac string onto $`𝒢`$ must be a curve continuously deformable to zero. Closed curves in $`𝒢`$ are characterized by $`Z`$ where $`Z`$ is the subgroup of the center of the universal covering $`\stackrel{~}{𝒢}`$ of $`𝒢`$ such that $`𝒢=\stackrel{~}{𝒢}/Z`$. Gauging out only occurs for the curve corresponding to the unit element of $`Z`$. This is the origin for the unconventional factor of $`2`$ ($`4\pi =2.2\pi `$) in Eq.(31) as $`SO(3)=SU(2)/Z_2`$.

The construction of regular monopoles has interesting conceptual implications.

The mixing between space and isospace indices in Eq.(31) means that the regular monopole is invariant under the diagonal subgroup of $`SO(3)_{space}\times SO(3)_{isospace}`$. This implies that a bound state of a scalar of isospin $`1/2`$ with the monopole is a space-time fermion. In this way, fermions can be made out of bosons .

One can define regular monopoles in a limit in which the BEH-potential vanishes. These are the BPS monopoles. They admit a supersymmetric extensions in which there are indications that electromagnetic duality can be realized at a fundamental level, namely that the interchange of electric and magnetic charge could be realized by equivalent but distinct actions.

The BEH-mechanism, when $`𝒢`$ symmetry is completely broken, is a relativistic analog of superconductivity. The latter may be viewed as a condensation of electric charges. Magnetic flux is then channeled into quantized flux tubes. In confinement, it is the electric flux which is channeled into quantized tubes. Therefore electric-magnetic duality suggests that, at some fundamental level, confinement is a condensation of magnetic monopoles and constitutes the magnetic dual of the BEH mechanism .

\- A geometrical interpretation of the BEH mechanism

The BEH mechanism operates within the context of gauge theories. Despite the fact that grand unification schemes reach scales comparable to the Planck scale, there was, a priori, no indication that Yang-Mills fields offer any insight into quantum gravity. The only approach to quantum gravity which had some success, in particular in the context of a quantum interpretation of the black holes entropies, are the superstring theory approaches and the possible merging of the five perturbative approaches (Type IIA, IIB, Type I and the two heterotic strings) into an elusive M-theory whose classical limit would be 11-dimensional supergravity. Of particular interest in that context is the discovery of Dp-branes along which the ends of open strings can move . This led, for the first time, to an interpretation of the area entropy of some black holes in terms of a counting of quantum states. Here we shall explain how Dp-branes yield a geometrical interpretation of the BEH mechanism.

When $`N`$ BPS Dp-branes coincide, they admit massless excitations from the $`N^2`$ zero length oriented strings with both end attached on the $`N`$ coincident branes. There are $`N^2`$ massless vectors and additional $`N^2`$ massless scalars for each dimension transverse to the branes. The open string sector has local $`U(N)`$ invariance. At rest, BPS Dp-branes can separate from each other in the transverse dimensions at no cost of energy. Clearly this can break the symmetry group from $`U(N)`$ up to $`U(1)^N`$ when all the branes are at distinct location in the transverse space, because strings joining two different branes have finite length and hence now describe finite mass excitations. The only remaining massless excitations are then due to the zero length strings with both ends on the same brane.

This symmetry breaking mechanism can be understood as a BEH mechanism from the action describing low energy excitations of $`N`$ Dp-branes. This action is the reduction to $`p+1`$ dimensions of 10-dimensional supersymmetric Yang-Mills with $`U(N)`$ gauge fields .

The Lagrangian is

$$=\frac{1}{4}Tr𝐅_{\mu \nu }𝐅^{\mu \nu }+Tr\left(\frac{1}{2}D_\mu 𝐀^iD^\mu 𝐀^i\frac{1}{4}[𝐀^i,𝐀^j]^2\right)+\text{fermions},$$
(32)
where $`\mu `$ labels the $`p+1`$ brane coordinates and $`i`$ the directions transverse to the branes. $`𝐅_{\mu \nu }=F_{\mu \nu }^a𝐓^a`$, $`𝐀^i=A^{ai}𝐓^a`$ where $`𝐓^a`$ is a generator of $`U(N)`$ in a defining representation.

The states of zero energy are given classically, and hence in general because of supersymmetry, by all commuting $`𝐀^i=\{x_{mn}^i\}`$ matrices, that is, up to an equivalence, by all diagonal matrices $`\{x_{mn}^i\}=\{x_m^i\delta _{mn}\}`$. Label the $`N^2`$ matrix elements of $`𝐀_\mu `$ by $`A_{\mu mn}`$. The $`(N^2N)`$ gauge fields given by the non diagonal elements $`mn`$ acquire a mass

$$m_{mn}^2(\stackrel{}{x}_m\stackrel{}{x}_n)^2,$$
(33)
if $`\stackrel{}{x}_m\stackrel{}{x}_n`$, as is easily checked by computing the quadratic terms in $`A_{\mu mn}`$ appearing in the covariant derivatives $`TrD_\mu 𝐀^iD^\mu 𝐀^i`$.

This symmetry breaking is induced by the expectation values $`\{x_m^i\}`$. The gauge invariance is ensured, as usual, by unobservable ($`N^2N`$) NG bosons. To identify the latter we consider the scalar potential in Eq.(32), namely

$$V=Tr\frac{1}{4}[𝐀^i,𝐀^j][𝐀^i,𝐀^j]=\frac{1}{4}\underset{i,j;m,n}{}m|[𝐀^i,𝐀^j]|nn|[𝐀^i,𝐀^j]|m.$$
(34)
We write

$$m|𝐀^j|n=x_m^j\delta _{mn}+y_{mn}^j.$$
(35)
Here the diagonal elements $`\{x_m^j\}`$ are the BEH expectation values and the $`y_{mn}^j(=[y_{nm}^j]^{})`$ define $`d(N^2N)`$ hermitian scalar fields $`(y_{mn}^i)^a(a=1,2)`$ where $`y_{mn}^j=(y_{mn}^j)^1+i(y_{mn}^j)^2,m>n`$ , and $`d`$ is the number of transverse space dimensions. The mass matrix for the fields $`(y_{mn}^i)^a`$ is

$$\frac{^2V}{(y_{mn}^k)^a(y_{mn}^l)^b}=\delta ^{ab}[(\stackrel{}{x}_m\stackrel{}{x}_n)^2\delta ^{kl}(x_m^kx_n^k)(x_m^lx_n^l)],$$
(36)
and has for each pair $`m,n(m<n)`$, two zero eigenvalues corresponding to the eigenvectors $`(y_{mn}^l)^a(x_m^lx_n^l)`$. These are the required $`(N^2N)`$ NG bosons, as can be checked directly from the coupling of $`𝐀^i`$ to $`𝐀_\mu `$ in the Lagrangian Eq.(32) .

As mentioned above, the breaking of $`U(N)`$ up to $`U(1)^N`$ may be viewed in the string picture as due to the stretched strings joining branes separated in the dimensions transverse to the branes. One identifies the $`\{x_m^i\}`$ as coordinates transverse to the brane $`m`$. The mass of the vector meson $`A_{\mu mn}`$ is then the mass shift due to the stretching of the otherwise massless open string vector excitations. The unobservable NG bosons $`\stackrel{}{y}_{mn}(\stackrel{}{x}_m\stackrel{}{x}_n)`$ are the field theoretic expression of the unobservable longitudinal modes of the strings joining the branes $`m`$ and $`n`$. In this way Dp-branes provide a geometrical interpretation of the BEH mechanism.

It may be worth mentioning the interesting situation which occurs when $`p=0`$ . The Lagrangian Eq.(32) then describes a pure quantum mechanical system where the $`\{x_{mn}^i\}`$ are the dynamical variable. The time component $`𝐀_t`$ which enters the covariant derivative $`D_t𝐀^i`$ can be put equal to zero, leaving a constraint which amounts to restrict the quantum states to singlets of $`SU(N)`$. The $`\{x_m^i\}`$ which define in string theory D$`0`$-brane coordinates (viewed as partons in the infinite momentum frame in reference ) are the analog, for $`p=0`$, of the BEH expectation values in the $`p0`$ case, although they label now classical collective position variables of the quantum mechanical system and not vacuum expectation values. The nondiagonal quantum degrees of freedom $`\stackrel{}{y}_{mn}(\stackrel{}{x}_m\stackrel{}{x}_n)`$ have a positive potential energy proportional to the distance squared between the D$`0`$-branes $`m`$ and $`n`$. Hence they get locked in their ground state when the D$`0`$-branes are largely separated from each other. In this way, the D0-brane $`𝐀^i=\{x_{mn}^i\}`$ matrices commute at large distance scale and define geometrical degrees of freedom. However these matrices do not commute at short distances where the potential energies of the $`y_{mn}^i`$ go to zero. This suggests that the space-time geometry exhibits non commutativity at small distances, a feature which may well turn out to be an essential element of quantum gravity.

V. Remarks

Physics, as we know it, is an attempt to interpret the apparent diversity of natural phenomena in terms of general laws. By essence then, it incites one towards a quest for unifying diverse physical laws.

Originally the BEH mechanism was conceived to unify the theoretical description of long range and short range forces. The success of the electroweak theory made the mechanism a candidate for further unification. Grand unification schemes, where the scale of unification is pushed close to the scale of quantum gravity effects, raised the possibility that unification might also have to include gravity. This trend towards the quest for unification received a further impulse from the developments of string theory and from its connection with eleven-dimensional supergravity. The latter was then viewed as a classical limit of a hypothetical M-theory into which all perturbative string theories would merge. In that context, the geometrization of the BEH mechanism is suggestive of the existence of an underlying non commutative geometry.


text:
# Chaotic dot-superconductor analog of the Hanbury Brown Twiss effect

\[

## Abstract

As an electrical analog of the optical Hanbury Brown Twiss effect, we study current cross-correlations in a chaotic quantum dot-superconductor junction. One superconducting and two normal reservoirs are connected via point contacts to a chaotic quantum dot. For a wide range of contact widths and transparencies, we find large positive current correlations. The positive correlations are generally enhanced by normal backscattering in the contacts. Moreover, for normal backscattering in the contacts, the positive correlations survive when suppressing the proximity effect in the dot with a weak magnetic field.

\]

In quantum theory, identical particles are indistinguishable. Under exchange of any pair of particles, the many-body wavefunction remains invariant up to a sign, positive for bosons and negative for fermions. This exchange symmetry was used in the pioneering interferometer experiment with photons, by Hanbury Brown and Twiss . Several theoretical works  have suggested different analogs of this experiment with electrons in mesoscopic multiterminal conductors. It has been shown  that the fermionic statistics of electrons leads to negative correlations between currents flowing in different terminals. Such negative correlations were also recently observed experimentally .

When normal conductors are connected to a superconductor, correlations are introduced between electrons and holes due to Andreev reflections at the normal-superconductor interface, a phenomenon known as the proximity effect. The influence of the proximity effect on the current auto-correlations, i.e. the shotnoise, in a two-terminal diffusive normal-superconductor junctions was recently studied .

In multiterminal conductors, Andreev reflection can lead to positive cross correlations between currents flowing in the contacts to the normal reservoirs. So far, positive correlations have been predicted only for single mode junctions . Moreover, in multiterminal diffusive junctions it was found that cross correlations are negative in the absence of the proximity effect.

This raises two important questions: i) are the positive correlations in normal-superconducting junctions a large effect, of the order of the number of modes in multimode junctions, and if this is the case ii) is the proximity effect necessary to obtain these positive correlations? In this paper we give an answer to these two questions. The positive correlations are large, and surprisingly, get enhanced by normal backscattering at the normal-superconducting interface. Moreover, positive correlations can exist even in the absence of the proximity effect, if the normal-superconductor interface is nonideal.

We study the current correlations in a system consisting of a chaotic quantum dot connected via point contacts to one superconducting and two normal reservoirs. Systems consisting of chaotic dots coupled to superconductors have recently attracted a lot of interest. The generic properties of the model makes our result qualitatively relevant for multiterminal normal-superconducting structures with random scattering.

A schematic picture of the system is shown in Fig. 1. A quantum dot is connected to two normal reservoirs ($`N_1`$ and $`N_2`$) and one superconducting reservoir ($`S`$) via quantum point contacts. The contacts to the normal and superconducting reservoirs have mode independent transparency $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_S`$ respectively and support $`N`$ and $`M`$ transverse modes. The conductances of the point contacts are much larger than the conductance quanta $`2e^2/h`$, i.e. $`N\mathrm{\Gamma }_N,M\mathrm{\Gamma }_S1`$, so Coulomb blockade effects in the dot can be neglected. The two normal reservoirs are held at the same potential $`V`$ and the potential of the superconducting reservoir is zero.

We consider the case where the classical motion in the dot is chaotic on time scales longer than the ergodic time $`\tau _{erg}`$. The quasiparticle dwell time in the dot, $`\mathrm{}/E_{Th}`$, is assumed to be much larger than $`\tau _{erg}`$, but much smaller than the inelastic scattering time. Here $`E_{Th}=(2N\mathrm{\Gamma }_N+M\mathrm{\Gamma }_S)\delta /\pi `$, where $`\delta `$ is the mean level spacing in the dot. Under these conditions random matrix theory can be used to describe the statistical properties of the scattering matrix $`S_d`$ of the dot. The scattering matrix $`S`$ of the combined system, dot and superconductor, can be expressed  in terms of the scattering matrix $`S_d`$ of the dot and the Andreev reflection amplitude at the contact-superconductor interface.

Due to the random scattering in the dot, the current $`I_i(t)`$ in contact $`i`$ fluctuates around its quantum statistical average $`\overline{I_i}`$. We study the zero-frequency spectral density of the current cross-correlations $`P_{12}=2𝑑t\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }I_1(t)\mathrm{\Delta }I_2(0)}`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }I_j(t)=I_i(t)\overline{I_i}`$. The correlation can be expressed in terms of the scattering matrix $`S`$. We consider the limit of zero temperature and a potential $`eV`$ much lower than $`E_{Th}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, where the energy dependence of the scattering matrix $`S`$ can be neglected. Moreover, at $`|E|<\mathrm{\Delta }`$ no quasiparticles can escape into the superconductor and the scattering matrix $`S`$ describes only scattering between the normal reservoirs,

$$S=\left(\begin{array}{cc}S^{ee}& S^{eh}\\ S^{he}& S^{hh}\end{array}\right),S^{\alpha \beta }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}S_{11}^{\alpha \beta }& S_{12}^{\alpha \beta }\\ S_{21}^{\alpha \beta }& S_{22}^{\alpha \beta }\end{array}\right),$$
(1)
where $`S_{ij}^{\alpha \beta }`$ are matrix amplitudes ($`N\times N`$) for injected quasiparticles (e or h) of type $`\beta `$ in lead $`j`$ to be back reflected as quasiparticles of type $`\alpha `$ in lead $`i`$.

Noting that the current fluctuation is just the sum of the fluctuations of electron and hole currents, the noise power can be conveniently written ,

$$P_{12}=P_{12}^{ee}+P_{12}^{hh}+P_{12}^{eh}+P_{12}^{he}$$
(2)
where the noise power $`P_{12}^{\alpha \beta }`$ for correlation between quasiparticle currents, is given by

$$P_{12}^{\alpha \beta }=\sigma V\frac{4e^3}{h}\underset{i,j=1,2}{}\text{tr}\left[(S_{1i}^{\alpha e})^{}S_{1j}^{\alpha h}(S_{2j}^{\beta h})^{}S_{2i}^{\beta e}\right],$$
(3)
with $`\sigma =+()`$ for $`\alpha =\beta (\alpha \beta )`$. The expression for the correlations in Eqs. (2)-(3) is an extension of the result  for a purely normal conductor, taking into account both electron and hole quasiparticles. However, unlike the normal cross correlations, which are manifestly negative, the cross-correlation $`P_{12}`$, can be positive, because the correlations between different types of quasiparticles, $`P_{12}^{eh}+P_{12}^{he}`$, are positive. Note however that $`P_{12}^{ee}+P_{12}^{hh}(P_{12}^{eh}+P_{12}^{he})`$, the cross-correlator between probability currents, is manifestly negative, a consequence of the ferminonic statistics of the quasiparticles.

The ensemble averaged correlations $`P_{12}`$ are calculated using the statistical properties of the scattering matrix $`S_d`$ of the dot. We first consider the case with ideal contacts $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_N,\mathrm{\Gamma }_S=1`$ and no magnetic field in the dot, i.e. conserved time reversal symmetry. In this case it is useful to decompose $`S_d`$ as (see e.g. Ref.)

$$S_d=\left(\begin{array}{cc}U& 0\\ 0& U^{}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}r_{2N,2N}& t_{2N,M}\\ t_{M,2N}& r_{M,M}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}U^T& 0\\ 0& U^T\end{array}\right),$$
(4)
where $`U`$($`U^{}`$) is a unitary matrix of dimension $`2N\times 2N`$ ($`M\times M`$), uniformly distributed in the unitary group. The diagonal matrices $`r_{2N,2N}`$ and $`r_{M,M}`$ have $`\text{min}(2N,M)`$ elements $`\sqrt{1T_n}`$ and the rest unity ($`t_{2N,M}`$ and $`t_{M,2N}`$ follow from the unitarity of $`S_d`$). Here $`T_n`$ are the transmission eigenvalues, which have a density $`\rho (T)=(2N+M)/(2\pi )\sqrt{TT_{min}}/(T\sqrt{1T})`$, where $`T_{min}=[(2NM)/(2N+M)]^2`$ is the smallest possible eigenvalue.

Inserting the decomposition into the expression for the total scattering matrix $`S`$ we find  the quasiparticle scattering amplitudes $`S^{\alpha \beta }`$ in Eq. (1) as e.g $`S^{ee}=U\sqrt{1T}/(2T)U^{}`$ ($`T=1r_{2N,2N}^2`$). Summing over injection contacts in the expression for the individual quasiparticle current correlators in Eq. (3) and inserting the scattering amplitudes we get

$`P_{12}^{ee}=V{\displaystyle \frac{4e^3}{h}}\text{tr}[U(1)U^{}C_1U^TU^{}C_2]`$ (5)
and similar for the other terms $`P_{12}^{\alpha \beta }`$. Here $`=T^2/(2T)^2`$ are eigenvalues of the matrix product $`(S^{eh})^{}S^{eh}`$ and the matrix $`C_1`$ is diagonal with elements $`(C_1)_n=1`$ for $`nN`$ and $`0`$ otherwise. The matrix $`C_2=1C_1`$. The ensemble average of Eq. (5) is carried out in two steps. First, $`P_{12}^{\alpha \beta }`$ is averaged over the unitary matrix $`U`$, using the diagrammatic technique in Ref. . This gives to leading order in $`N,M`$ (i.e neglecting weak localization corrections) for the total current corellations in Eq. (2),

$$P_{12}_U=V\frac{4e^3}{h}\left(\text{tr}[(1)]\frac{\text{tr}()\text{tr}(1)}{4N}\right).$$
(6)
We then perform the average over transmission eigenvalues by integrating $`P_{12}_U`$ weighted by the density $`\rho (T)`$. Using that to leading order in $`N`$ we have $`\text{tr}()\text{tr}(1)_T=\text{tr}()_T\text{tr}(1)_T`$, we get ($`<..>=<..>_{U,T}`$)

$$\frac{P_{12}}{P_0}=\frac{(1+\gamma )^2}{2\gamma ^2}\left(\frac{1}{1+\gamma }2\frac{\gamma }{f}\frac{f^216\gamma ^3}{f^{5/2}}\right)$$
(7)
where $`f(\gamma )=1+6\gamma +\gamma ^2`$ and $`\gamma =2N/M`$, the ratio between the conductances of the point contacts connected to the normal and the superconducting reservoirs. The correlation is normalized with $`P_0=4VNe^3/h`$, i.e. it is large, of order $`N`$. The correlation $`P_{12}`$, plotted in Fig. 2, is positive for a dominating coupling to the superconductor, but crosses over (at $`\gamma 0.5`$) to negative values upon increasing the coupling to the normal reservoirs.

In the general case, it is difficult to provide a simple explanation for the sign and magnitude of the correlations $`P_{12}`$, since they result from a competition between $`P_{12}^{ee}+P_{12}^{hh}`$ and $`P_{12}^{eh}+P_{12}^{he}`$, which have opposite sign and generally are of the same magnitude. It is however possible to get a qualitative picture in certain limits by studying the different contributing scattering processes.

In the limit $`\gamma 0`$, the coupling to the normal reservoirs is negligible and a gap in the spectrum opens up around Fermi energy in the dot. As a consequence, quasiparticles injected from one normal reservoir are Andreev reflected, effectively direct at the contact-dot interface, with unity probability back to the same reservoir. There is thus no partition of incoming quasiparticles and hence no noise, $`P_{12}=0`$.

Increasing the coupling to the normal reservoir, the probability of normal reflection($`\gamma `$) as well as cross Andreev reflection ($`\gamma ^2`$), from one reservoir to the other, becomes finite. Since normal reflection is the dominant process, we can neglect the terms in $`P_{12}`$ in Eq. (3) containing the cross Andreev reflection amplitude (e.g. $`S_{12}^{eh}`$). This gives $`P_{12}=8V(e^3/h)\text{tr}(S_{12}^{ee}(S_{12}^{ee})^{}S_{11}^{eh}(S_{11}^{eh})^{})=2P_0\gamma `$, positive since only terms in $`P_{12}^{eh}+P_{12}^{he}`$ contribute. This expression shows that the correlations can be explained as partition noise of injected electrons, which have probability $`1`$ to be Andreev reflected (effectively at the contact-dot interface) and probability $`\gamma `$ to be normally reflected.

In the opposite limit, $`\gamma 1`$, the coupling to the superconductor is weak and the Andreev reflection probability is small, of order $`1/\gamma `$. The correlation can be written as $`P_{12}=16V(e^3/h)\text{tr}(S_{11}^{ee}(S_{11}^{ee})^{}S_{21}^{eh}(S_{21}^{eh})^{})=P_0/\gamma `$, which is negative since we find that in this limit only terms in $`P_{12}^{ee}+P_{12}^{hh}`$ contribute. This shows that the correlation can be explained as partition noise of electrons which have probability $`1/2`$ to be normally reflected (without reaching the dot-superconductor contact) and probability $`1/\gamma `$ to be Andreev reflected.

When the proximity effect is suppressed by a weak magnetic field in the dot,  it is no longer possible to express the correlations directly in terms of the transmission eigenvalues $`T`$, as in Eq. (6). We instead use the fact that the scattering matrix $`S_d`$ of the dot itself is uniformly distributed in the unitary group, without constraints on symmetry of $`S_d`$. Since the scattering matrix amplitudes $`S^{\alpha \beta }`$ in Eq. (3) can be expressed  in terms of $`S_d`$, the correlations $`P_{12}^{\alpha \beta }`$ can be directly averaged over $`S_d`$ using the diagrammatic technique in Ref. . This gives for the total correlations

$$\frac{P_{12}}{P_0}=\frac{\gamma ^2(1+\gamma )}{(2+\gamma )^4},$$
(8)
plotted in Fig. 2. The gap in the spectrum is suppressed and the scattering processes responsible for the positive correlations in the presence of the proximity effect are strongly modified, most notably in the limit $`\gamma 1`$. As a consequence, the correlations are manifestly negative for all $`\gamma `$, i.e. there are no positive correlations in the absence of the proximity effect, similar to what was found for a metallic diffusive system .

Until now we have only considered ideal point contacts, with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_N,\mathrm{\Gamma }_S=1`$. In an experimental situation, it is often difficult to obtain an ideal contact between the dot and the superconductor. It is therefore of interest to study the situation with a nonideal dot-superconductor contact. We consider first the case with proximity effect in the dot. To calculate the current correlations in this case we note  that a nonideal interface changes the density of transmission eigenvalues, $`\rho (T)`$, but not the distributions of the unitary matrix $`U`$ in Eq. (5). The transmission eigenvalue density is calculated numerically  for different contact transparencies $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_S<1`$ and the integrals in Eq. (6) are then performed.

The resulting correlations are plotted in Fig. 3. Surprisingly, the main effect of normal backscattering at the dot-superconductor contact is to cause a crossover from negative to positive correlation for a strong coupling to the normal reservoirs. In this limit, $`\gamma 1`$, injected quasiparticles undergo at the most one scattering event at the dot-superconductor contact before leaving the junction. The expression for the scattering matrices $`S_{ij}^{\alpha \beta }`$ in Eq. (3) simplify considerably and we can derive an analytical expression for the correlations, giving

$$\frac{P_{12}}{P_0}=\frac{1}{\gamma }R_{eh}(12R_{eh})$$
(9)
where $`R_{eh}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_S^2/(2\mathrm{\Gamma }_S)^2`$ is the Andreev reflection probability of quasiparticles incident in the dot-superconductor contact. There is a crossover from negative to positive correlations already for $`R_{eh}=1/2`$, i.e $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_S=2(\sqrt{2}1)0.83`$, in agreement with the full numerics in Fig. 3.

Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_S<1`$, now $`R_{eh}`$ is smaller than one. As a consequence, there is additional partition due to the possibility of normal reflection at the dot-superconductor contact. The partition noise discussed above, from electrons being either Andreev reflected or normally reflected (without reaching the dot-superconductor contact), is thus reduced to $`P_0R_{eh}/\gamma `$. However, the additional normal reflection at the dot-superconductor contact give rise to a noise term $`2P_0R_{eh}(1R_{eh})/\gamma `$, with opposite sign \[together they give Eq. (9)\]. For $`R_{eh}<1/2`$, the second term is dominating, causing the crossover to positive correlations.

Interestingly, in the absence of a proximity effect in the dot, we find in the same way that the correlation for $`\gamma 1`$ is also given by Eq. (9), the argument being the same as in the presence of the proximity effect. The proximity effect thus plays no role in this limit, where the quasiparticles undergo at most one Andreev reflection. This shows that the proximity effect is not a necessary condition for positive correlations.

Finally, we note that the effect of normal backscattering in the contacts between the dot and the normal reservoirs is to enhance the positive correlations for a dominating coupling to the superconducting reservoir. In the limit with tunnel barriers in all contacts, the transmission eigenvalue density is known analytically and the correlation $`P_{12}`$ follows from Eq. (6)

$$\frac{P_{12}}{P_0\mathrm{\Gamma }_N}=\frac{\overline{\gamma }}{(1+\overline{\gamma }^2)^{3/2}}\left(15\frac{\overline{\gamma }^2}{(1+\overline{\gamma }^2)^2}\right),$$
(10)
where $`\overline{\gamma }=2N\mathrm{\Gamma }_N/(M\mathrm{\Gamma }_S)`$. The correlations are thus positive for $`\overline{\gamma }<(\sqrt{5}1)/2`$ and $`\overline{\gamma }>(\sqrt{5}+1)/2`$, and negative for intermediate values.

In conclusion, we have studied the current cross-correlations in a three terminal superconducting-chaotic dot analog of the Hanbury Brown Twiss interferometer. We find that the correlations are positive for a wide range of junction parameters, and survive even in the absence of a proximity effect in the dot. The magnitude of the positive correlations is large, proportional to the number of transport modes in the contacts to the dot, which should simplify an experimental observation.

We acknowledge discussions with C.W.J. Beenakker, W. Belzig, E. Sukhorukov, and G. Johansson. The work was supported by the Swiss National Science foundation and the program for Materials with Novel Electronic Properties. In the final stages of this work we became aware of Boerlin et al. , who investigate a three terminal junction in the tunnel limit. In this limit, our results coincide.