format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

Dynamic nonlinear (cubic) susceptibility

in quantum Ising spin glass

G. Busielloa***Corresponding author,tel.(0)39-89-965426 - fax (0)39-89-965275 - e-mail: busiello@sa.infn.it

Dipartimento di Fisica “E.R. Caianiello”, Università di Salerno,
84081 Baronissi - Salerno and INFM - Unità di Salerno, Salerno, Italy
R. V. Saburova and V. G. Sushkova

Kazan State Power-Engineering University, Kazan, Russia

## Abstract

Dynamic nonlinear (cubic) susceptibility in quantum d-dimensional Ising spin glass with short-range interactions is investigated on the basis of quantum droplet model and quantum-mechanical nonlinear response theory. Nonlinear response depends on the tunneling rate for a droplet which regulates the strength of quantum fluctuations. It shows a strong dependence on the distribution of droplet free energies and on the droplet length scale average. Comparison with recent experiments on quantum spin glasses like disordered dipolar quantum Ising magnet is discussed .

PACS numbers: 75.40.Gb ; 75.10.Nr ; 64.70.Pf

Keywords: A. Spin glasses ; D. Phase transition

The dynamics of glassy systems is an attractive and rapidly developing field of physics \[1-5\]. Spin glasses and quantum spin glasses are very interesting systems for theoretical and experimental investigation of dynamic phenomena \[2-4\]. Two major theoretical description of spin glass phenomena have evolved over the past twenty years:the mean field theory based on the Parisi replica symmetry-breaking approach and the droplet model based on renormalization group arguments \[1-6\]. The two pictures give very different physical interpretation of observable spin-glass phenomena. In this paper we investigate theoretically nonlinear cubic dynamic susceptibility as function of frequency and temperature in the Ising spin glass in a transverse field in terms of quantum droplet model at very low temperatures (quantum regime). The quantum phase transition is governed by quantum fluctuations of the system which may tunnel from one local minimum of the free energy to another; new physical effects such as quantum channel of relaxation appear. There are few theoretical studies on the nonlinear static response in quantum spin glasses \[7-10\] and almost no studies on the dynamic nonlinear response . In  dynamic nonlinear response of a quantum spin glass was found frequency independent and nonsingular in quantum critical regime in contrast to the behavior in usual spin glass. There are experimental data on the nonlinear dynamic response in classical \[11-13\] and quantum  spin glasses investigated by Fourier-transform technique. The third-order nonlinear susceptibility is negative and diverges at an ordinary spin glass transition temperature $`T_g`$ from both the upper and the lower sides. But when $`\chi _3^{}`$ is measured by a finite probing frequency the response falls out equilibrium before the transition temperature and does not diverge at $`T_g`$. Then $`\chi _3^{}(\omega )`$ shows a maximum at $`TT_f(\omega )`$ where $`T_f(\omega )`$ is the freezing temperature which is the upper bound on $`T_g`$ and $`T_g=T_f(\omega 0)`$. Such behavior was observed, for example, for classical Ising spin glass $`\mathrm{Fe}_{0.5}\mathrm{Mr}_{0.5}\mathrm{TiO}_3`$ . W. Wu et al.  measured nonlinear susceptibility $`\chi _3^{}(\omega ,T)`$ in quantum spin glass (the diluted dipolar-coupled Ising spin glass $`\mathrm{LiHo}_{0.167}\mathrm{Y}_{0.833}\mathrm{F}_4`$ in the transverse field) tuning transverse field $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ from the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0`$ classical to the $`T=0`$ quantum limit. At $`mK`$ temperatures they found a clear dynamic signature of the spin glass to paramagnet transition whether dominated by thermal or quantum fluctuations. In  it was shown that the $`\chi _3^{}`$ depends on frequency for $`\omega >10Hz`$. However it depends very weakly on $`\omega `$ for $`\omega <10Hz`$. There is a crossover between high $`\omega `$ ($`\omega `$ \- dependent) and low $`\omega `$ ($`\omega `$ \- independent) behaviors. Nonlinear susceptibility contains a diverging component which dominates at $`T=98mK`$, but disappears by $`25mK`$. The $`\chi _3^{}(\omega )`$ does not diverge but shows a maximum at $`T_f(\omega )`$. $`\chi _3^{}(\omega )`$ measured at a higher temperature and lower transverse field has a larger maximum than $`\chi _3^{}(\omega )`$ measured at a lower temperature and larger transverse field. The analysis of these experimental data seems not clear  because frequencies used in the experiments  are not sufficiently low such as to determine the equilibrium behavior of system. Contrary to the theoretical expectations, quantum transitions may be qualitatively different from thermally driven transitions in real spin glasses. Recently the linear dynamic susceptibility (in-phase and out of phase components) at $`T=0`$ was investigated theoretically for the Ising spin glass in a transverse field in terms of quantum droplet model by M. J. Thill and D. A. Huse . A basic assumption of the droplet picture is that the spin glass dynamics is governed by large-scale excitations whose relaxation time increases with length scale. In previous papers  we have calculated the real and imaginary parts of linear dynamic susceptibility in the same model, as in , for very low nonzero temperatures using the general linear response theory of magnetic dispersion and absorption phenomena for quantum systems by Kubo and Tomita . We note that in  the real part of the cubic nonlinear ac susceptibility was defined as the in-phase $`3\omega `$ magnetization response $`M(3\omega )`$ to a small time-dependent applied field $`h\mathrm{cos}(\omega t)`$

$$\chi _3^{}=\underset{h0}{lim}\frac{24M(3\omega )}{h^^3V}$$
(1)
where $`V`$ is the sample volume. The authors of  gave some expression for $`\chi _3^{}`$ they only expect at zero temperature.

The full nonlinear response theory despite its generality and importance is of limited practical value because it is mathematically difficult. It is necessary to make approximations, as the well-known perturbation expansion of the time-evolution operator, using Hamiltonian with some small parameter. Nonlinear response theory was developed and described, for example, in \[17-22\]. Here we summarize briefly the theory of higher-order dynamic response. It is based on the Hamiltonian

$$\widehat{}_t=\widehat{}_0+\widehat{}_1=\widehat{}_0\widehat{A}_jF_j(t),tt_0$$
(2)
where $`\widehat{}_0`$ is nonperturbation Hamiltonian of system, $`\widehat{}_1`$ is perturbation Hamiltonian which describes the interaction between the Heisenberg operators $`\widehat{A}_j`$ (material operators) and the external perturbation $`\widehat{F}_j`$. At time $`t>t_0`$ one is interested in the expectation value of the Heisenberg operator $`\widehat{B}_i`$ which is given by

$$\widehat{B}_i(t)=Tr[\rho _0\widehat{B}_i(t)]=Tr[\widehat{\rho }(t)\widehat{B}_i]$$
(3)
where the density matrix $`\widehat{\rho }(t)=\widehat{U}(t,t_0)\widehat{\rho }(t_0)\widehat{U}^{}(t,t_0)`$. The time-evolution operator $`\widehat{U}`$ satisfies the Schrödinger equation $`ih\frac{d\widehat{U}}{dt}=\widehat{}\widehat{U}`$. It is difficult to find an expression for $`\widehat{U}`$ in closed form. It was used that $`\widehat{}_1(t)`$ is in some sense small. We define the total response of the system at time $`t`$ to the external force $`F_j`$ as the difference

$$\mathrm{\Delta }B_i(t)\widehat{B}_i(t)\widehat{B}_i_0$$
(4)
where the subscript zero on expectation values refers to the equilibrium expectations. One can then understand the behavior of the system in terms of the dynamical response. Using aforementioned expressions \[2-3\] the dynamical response can be written through the third order in the perturbation $`\widehat{}_1`$ in the following form

$$<\widehat{B}_i(t)><\widehat{B}_i>_0=\mathrm{\Delta }B_i(t)_{t_0}^t𝑑t^{}\phi _{ij}(tt^{^{}})F_j(t^{^{}})+$$

$$_{t_0}^t𝑑t_1_{t_0}^{t_1}𝑑t_2\phi _{ijk}(tt_2,t_1t_2)F_k(t_1)F_j(t_2)+$$

$$_{t_0}^t𝑑t_1_{t_0}^{t_1}𝑑t_2_{t_0}^{t_2}𝑑t_3\phi _{ijkl}(tt_3,t_2t_3,t_1t_2)F_e(t_1)F_k(t_2)F_j(t_3)+\mathrm{}$$
(5)
where $`\phi _{ij}`$, $`\phi _{ijk}`$, $`\phi _{ijkl}`$ are the first-, second- and third order response functions,

$$\phi _{ij}(tt^{^{}})=\frac{1}{ih}[\widehat{A_j},B_i(tt^{^{}})]_0,$$
(6)
$$\phi _{ijk}(tt_2,t_1t_2)=\frac{1}{(ih)^2}[\widehat{A}_j,[\widehat{A}_k(t_1t_2),\widehat{B}_i(tt_2)]]_0,$$
(7)
$$\phi _{ijkl}(tt_3,t_2t_3,t_1t_2)=\frac{1}{(ih)^3}[\widehat{A}_j,[A_k(t_1t_2),[A_l(t_2t_3),B_i(tt_3)]]]_0.$$
(8)
Here we have employed the summation convention over repeated indices and cyclic invariance of the trace. The expressions (6-8) can be written in a more revealing form if we set $`t_0=\mathrm{}`$ and change integration variables including an adiabatic switching factor if necessary. We take (instead of $`t`$, $`t_1`$, $`t_2`$, $`t_3`$) $`\tau _1=tt_1`$, $`\tau _2=t_1t_2`$ time differences further. Ordinary linear response theory utilized only $`\phi _{ij}(\tau _1)`$ and it is the simplest approximation to the full theory of linear dynamic response . Using new variables we may write the expressions for response functions in the form

$$\phi _{ij}^{(1)}=\frac{1}{ih}[A(\tau ),B(0)],$$
(9)
$$\phi _{ijk}^{(2)}=\frac{1}{(ih)^2}[[A(\tau _1+\tau _2),A(\tau _2)],B],$$
(10)
$$\phi _{ijkl}^{(3)}=\frac{1}{(ih)^3}[[[A(\tau _1+\tau _2+\tau _3),A(\tau _2+\tau _3)],A(\tau _3)],B]$$
(11)
where the bracket $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes an expectation value with respect to the equilibrium ensemble. The useful interpretation is generated from eq. (5) in the case that $`t_0=\mathrm{}`$ if we consider the external force $`F`$ is constant and vanishes for $`t0`$. For $`t=0`$ the system is in partial equilibrium and starts to relax to equilibrium. It is convenient to write nonlinear response for this case (initial value case ) as

$$\widehat{B}(t)\widehat{B}_0=R^{(1)}(t)F+\frac{1}{2}R^{(2)}(t)FF+\frac{1}{3}R^{(3)}(t)FFF+\mathrm{}$$
(12)
where $`R^\alpha (t)`$ are the relaxation functions,

$$R^{(1)}(t)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau \phi _{ij}^{(1)}(\tau _1),$$
(13)
$$R^{(2)}(t)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau _1_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau _2\phi _{ijk}^{(2)}(\tau _2,\tau _1+\tau _2),$$
(14)
$$R^{(3)}(t)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau _1_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau _2_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau _3\phi _{ijkl}^{(3)}(\tau _3,\tau _2+\tau _3,\tau _1+\tau _2+\tau _3).$$
(15)
In this form response may describe relaxation of the system. If response function $`\phi (t)^{(1)}`$ vanishes as $`t\mathrm{}`$, then $`\phi (t)^{(1)}=\frac{\delta }{\delta t}R^{(1)}(t)`$, so $`R^{(1)}(t)`$ contains much more information than the response function.

Let the $`ac`$ magnetic field $`h_\omega =h\mathrm{cos}(\omega t)`$ be applied to a magnetic system. The magnetization nonlinear response $`M(\omega ,t)=_{k=1}^n\{\mathrm{\Theta }_k^{^{}}\mathrm{cos}(k\omega t)+\mathrm{\Theta }_k^{^{\prime \prime }}\mathrm{sin}(k\omega t)\}`$ to harmonic magnetic field $`h`$ contains only odd harmonic; $`\mathrm{\Theta }_1^{^{}}\chi _1^{^{}}h`$, $`\mathrm{\Theta }_3^{^{}}\chi _3^{^{}}h^3`$, etc . In expression for $`M(\omega ,t)`$ the magnitudes $`\mathrm{\Theta }_k^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_k^{\prime \prime }`$ are real and imaginary parts of harmonic amplitudes respectively. For the general theory of nonlinear processes one can evaluate

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_1^{^{}}=\chi _1^{^{}}(\omega t)h+[\chi _3^{^{}}(\omega ,0,\omega )]\frac{h^3}{4}+[4\chi _5^{^{}}(\omega ,0,\omega ,0,\omega )+2\chi _5^{^{}}(\omega ,0,\omega ,2\omega ,\omega )+$$

$$2\chi _5^{^{}}(\omega ,2\omega ,\omega ,0,\omega )+\chi _5^{^{}}(\omega ,2\omega ,\omega ,2\omega ,\omega )+\chi _5^{^{}}(\omega ,2\omega ,3\omega ,2\omega ,\omega )]\frac{h^5}{16}+\mathrm{}$$
(16)
$$\mathrm{\Theta }_3^{^{}}=\chi _3^{^{}}(3\omega ,2\omega ,\omega )\frac{h^3}{4}+[\chi _5^{^{}}(3\omega ,2\omega ,3\omega ,2\omega ,\omega )+\chi _5^{^{}}(3\omega ,4\omega ,3\omega ,2\omega ,\omega )$$

$$2\chi _5^{^{}}(3\omega ,2\omega ,\omega ,0,\omega )+\chi _5^{^{}}(3\omega ,2\omega ,\omega ,2\omega ,\omega )]\frac{h^5}{16}+\mathrm{},$$
(17)
$$\mathrm{\Theta }_5^{^{}}=\chi _5^{^{}}(5\omega ,4\omega ,3\omega ,2\omega ,\omega )\frac{h^5}{16}+\mathrm{}$$
(18)
The measurement of all the harmonic amplitudes $`\mathrm{\Theta }_k`$ gives a measurement of the susceptibilities $`\chi _a`$ in two limits: a) if $`\chi _1^{^{}}h\chi _3^{^{}}h^3\chi _5^{^{}}h^5`$ the back reaction is negligible and each harmonic measures the susceptibility of the same order; b) in the static ($`\omega 0`$) limit the solution of the linear system  fully accounts for the back reaction. In the absence of $`ac`$ magnetic field, the back reaction can be made small so that the dynamic susceptibilities can be obtained from eq. (15). In a more compact notation we may write

$$M(\omega ,t)[M_0+M_\omega +M_{3\omega }+\mathrm{}]+(complexconjugate)$$
(19)
where $`M_0`$ is the equilibrium magnetization in zero field; $`M_\omega `$ is the $`\omega `$-magnetization response; $`M_{3\omega }`$ is the $`3\omega `$-magnetization response and so on.

The expressions (9-11) may be considered as solution of the corresponding quantum equations considered above. The external $`ac`$ field we assume classical value. This field interacts with quantum system and system behavior is determined by quantum laws. We shall focus on the real part of the third-order nonlinear dynamic susceptibility $`\chi _3^{}(3\omega ,2\omega ,\omega )`$ and denote it as $`\chi _3^{}(\omega )`$. In this paper we are interested in the response when the $`ac`$ magnetic field is applied in $`z`$-direction; $`\chi _1=\chi _{zz}`$ and so on. In formulas (2-11) both $`A_i`$ and $`B_i`$ are the magnetic dipole moment operators. Considering the initial value case  we suppose, like in , that the system is in equilibrium with a small time-independent field $`h=h_z`$ for $`t0`$ and that the external field is turned off at $`t=0`$, then for $`t0`$ the induced magnetization of the sample in $`z`$-direction to first order of perturbation theory is given by $`M(t)M_0R^{(1)}(t)h`$, where a relaxation function

$$R^{(1)}(t)=_0^{\mathrm{}}\phi ^{(1)}(\tau )𝑑\tau $$
(20)
and the first order response function is

$$\phi _{ij}^{(1)}(\tau )\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}[M_i(\tau ),M_j].$$
(21)
The higher-order response functions are given by

$`\phi _{ijk}^{(2)}(\tau _1,\tau _2)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(i\mathrm{})^2}}[[M_i(\tau _1+\tau _2),M_j(\tau _2)],M_k];`$ (22)
$`\phi _{ijkl}^{(3)}(\tau _1,\tau _2,\tau _3)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(i\mathrm{})^3}}[[[M_i(\tau _1+\tau _2+\tau _3),M_j(\tau _2+\tau _3)],M_k(\tau _3)],M_l].`$ (23)
The linear and the nonlinear dynamic susceptibilities (admittances in the spectral representation ) may be found through response functions (21-23). In order to find the complete expression for susceptibility, we should use its symmetry and causality properties .

The nonlinear susceptibilities may be chosen so that these susceptibilities were symmetrical relative to simultaneous permutation of tensor indices and corresponding to them arguments, for example, the second rank tensors are $`\chi _{ijk}(\omega _1,\omega _2)=\chi _{ikj}(\omega _2,\omega _1)`$, and the fourth rank tensors are

$$\chi _{ijkl}(\omega _1,\omega _2,\omega _3)=\chi _{ikjl}(\omega _2,\omega _1,\omega _3)=\chi _{ijlk}(\omega _1,\omega _3,\omega _2)=\mathrm{}$$
(24)
according to causality property

$$\chi _{ij}=0\text{for}\tau _1<\text{max}(\tau _2,\tau _3,\mathrm{}).$$
(25)
Linear and nonlinear dynamic susceptibilities are given by

$`\chi _{ij}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\tau \phi _{ij}^{(1)}(\tau )e^{i\omega \tau }`$ (26)
$`\chi _{ijk}(\omega _1,\omega _2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2!}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\tau _1{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\tau _2\left\{\phi _{ijk}^{(2)}(\tau _1,\tau _2)e^{i(\omega _1+\omega _2)\tau _1+i\omega _1\tau _1}\right\}`$ (27)
$`\chi _{ijkl}(\omega _1,\omega _2,\omega _3)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{P_3}{3!}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}d\tau _1{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}d\tau _2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}d\tau _3\phi _{ijkl}^{(3)}(\tau _1,\tau _2,\tau _3)\times `$ (28)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left[i(\omega _1+\omega _2+\omega _3)\tau _1+i\omega _2\tau _2+i\omega _3\tau _3\right]`$
In eq. (28) $`P_3`$ means the summation over all permutations of the subscripts $`(\omega _1j)`$, $`(\omega _2k)`$ and $`(\omega _3l)`$ ; response functions $`\phi `$ are given by expressions (21-23).

In particular, the second harmonics generation process is characterized by tensor $`\chi _{ijk}(\omega ,\omega )`$. If $`\omega _1=\omega _2=\omega _3=\omega `$, the triple frequency $`3\omega `$ is formed; the frequency tripling is described by tensor $`\chi _{ijkl}(\omega ,\omega ,\omega )`$ (we note it as $`\chi _3^{}(\omega )`$).

The droplet model of classical Ising spin glass was considered by D. S. Fisher and D. A. Huse . The features of this model are described also, for example, in . In the droplet model there are only two pure thermodynamical states related to each other by a global spin flip. In magnetic field there is no phase transition. A droplet is an excited cluster in an ordered state where all the spins are inverted. The natural scaling ansatz for droplet free energy $`ϵ_L`$ (which are considered to be independent random variables) is $`ϵ_LL^\theta ,L\zeta (T)`$; $`\zeta `$ is the correlation length, $`L`$ is the length scale of droplet and $`\theta `$ is the zero temperature thermal exponent, $`\theta (d1)/2`$. One droplet consists of order $`L^d`$ spins. Below the lower critical dimension $`d_l`$, $`\theta <0`$; above $`d_l`$ one has $`\theta >0`$.

Recently M. J. Thill and D. A. Huse  have shown that the $`d`$-dimensional quantum ising spin glass in a transverse field with Hamiltonian

$$=\underset{i,j}{}_{ij}S_i^zS_j^z\mathrm{\Gamma }\underset{i}{}S_i^x$$
(29)
(where $`S_i`$ are the Pauli matrices, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the strength of the transverse field and the nearest neighbor interactions $`_{ij}`$ are independent random variables of mean zero) can be represented as the Hamiltonian of the independent quantum two-level systems (low energy droplets) of the form

$$=\frac{1}{2}\underset{L}{\overset{}{}}\underset{D_L}{}\left(ϵ_{D_L}S_{D_L}^z+\mathrm{\Gamma }_LS_{D_L}^x\right)$$
(30)
where $`S_{D_L}^z`$ and $`S_{D_L}^x`$ are the Pauli matrices representing the two states of the droplet; the sum is over all droplets $`D_L`$ at length scale $`L`$ and over all length scales $`L`$, and

$$\underset{L}{\overset{}{}}_{L_0}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dL}{L}$$
(31)
with a short-distance cutoff $`L_0`$. The value $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L`$ regulates the strength of quantum fluctuations ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L0`$ corresponds to the classical limit).

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_L=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0e^{\sigma L^d}$$
(32)
is the tunneling rate for a droplet of linear size $`L,\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ is the microscopic tunneling rate; $`\sigma `$ is defined from the equation $`2K=\sigma L^d`$ where $`2K`$ is the surface free energy of an interface between the two droplet states, so $`\sigma `$ is a reduced surface tension for this interface; $`\sigma `$ is approximately the same for all droplet. We will assume $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L`$ is the same for all droplets of scale $`L`$. The droplet excitations have a broad distribution of their free energies at scale $`L`$ for large $`L`$ in a scaling form

$$P_L(ϵ_L)dϵ_L=\frac{dϵ_L}{\gamma (T)L^\theta }𝒫\left(\frac{ϵ_L}{\gamma (T)L^\theta }\right),L\mathrm{}.$$
(33)
It is assumed that $`P_L(x0)>0`$, $`P_L(0)P_L(x)x^\varphi `$ at $`x0`$. $`\gamma (T)`$ is a generalized temperature dependent stiffness modulus which is of order of characteristic exchange $`=\overline{\left(_{ij}^2\right)}^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ at $`T=0`$ and vanishes for $`TT_g`$.

There is a crossover length scale, $`L^{}(T)`$, defined by condition $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{L^{}(T)}=k_BT`$ or $`L^{}(T)=\left(\frac{1}{\sigma }\mathrm{log}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}{k_BT}\right)^{1/d}`$. For droplets with $`LL^{}(T)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Lk_BT`$ the energy $`\sqrt{ϵ_L^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_L^2}`$ is always more than $`k_BT`$ and thermal fluctuations are insignificant at temperature $`T`$. Droplets with $`LL^{}(T)`$ have $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Lk_BT`$ and behave classically. The large droplets ($`ϵ_Lk_BT,\mathrm{\Gamma }_Lk_BT`$) are thermally active. At low $`T`$ only a small fraction of droplets is thermally active, but many low-$`T`$ static properties are dominated by these droplets at the crossover length $`L^{}(T)`$.

The total magnet moment of a droplet will scale as $`qL^{\frac{d}{2}}`$ where $`q`$ a random number with mean zero and $`\overline{q^2}q_{EA}`$, $`q_{EA}=\overline{S_i^z^2}`$ is the Edwards-Anderson order parameter . The total magnetization $`M`$ of the sample will be

$$M=\underset{L}{\overset{}{}}\frac{V}{L^d}\underset{D_L}{}S_{D_L}^zqL^{\frac{d}{2}}$$
(34)
and

$$m=\frac{M}{V}=\underset{L}{\overset{}{}}\overline{S_{D_L}^zqL^{\frac{d}{2}}}$$
(35)
where $`\overline{S_{D_L}^zqL^{\frac{d}{2}}}`$ means the average over the droplets energies $`ϵ_L`$. The static susceptibilities are defined in terms of the expansion of magnetization into Taylor series approximately as

$$M=\chi _1h\chi _3h^3+\mathrm{}.$$
(36)
For enough small external field it is possible to be restricted by few terms of this expansion. The susceptibilities are got as derivatives with respect to $`h`$ at $`h=0:\chi _1=\frac{m}{h}|_{h=0}`$, $`\chi _3=\frac{^3m}{h^3}|_{h=0}`$.

M. J. Thill and D. A. Huse have calculated static linear and nonlinear susceptibilities for droplet system described by the Hamiltonian (29). The static linear susceptibility diverges at $`T=0`$ below the lower critical dimension $`d_l`$. The static nonlinear susceptibility diverges in all dimensions $`d`$. The static linear susceptibility appears to start away from the nonzero constant $`T=0`$ value decreasingly versus T to lowest order .

Now using the quantum droplet model of the short-range Ising spin glass in a transverse field and quantum-mechanical case $`\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }_L1`$ (quantum regime) we calculate the third order nonlinear dynamic response at very low finite temperatures.

When we consider the droplets at finite temperatures they may have two characteristic rates, (a) the Rabi frequency (is of order $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L`$) and (b) the rate of classical activation over energy barrier B for annihilation and creation of the droplet excitations

$$t\tau _0e^{\frac{B}{k_BT}},$$
(37)
where $`B\mathrm{\Delta }L^\psi `$, $`0\psi d1`$, $`\psi `$ is some exponent , $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a barrier energy at $`TT_g`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$; $`\tau _0`$ is a microscopic time. There is a complicated dynamical classical-to-quantum crossover depending on temperature, frequency of $`ac`$ external field and length scale $`L`$. According to  the crossover dynamic length is determined from the condition $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L^1=T`$, i.e.

$$L_{dyn}^{}(T)\left(\frac{\sigma }{\mathrm{\Delta }}k_BT\right)^{\frac{1}{\psi d}}$$
(38)
The system behaves presumably classically or quantum mechanically when the dominant length scale $`L`$ is above or below $`L_{dyn}^{}`$ for frequency $`\omega `$.

Now we consider dynamic third-order susceptibility $`\chi _3^{}(\omega ,T)`$ at finite very low temperatures (quantum regime) when $`\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }_L1`$. We define nonlinear third order dynamic susceptibility $`\chi _3^{}(\omega ,T)`$ by expression (23) and (28)

$$\chi _3^{}(\omega ,T)=\frac{1}{(i\mathrm{})^3}\frac{P_3}{3!}_0^{\mathrm{}}d\tau _1_0^{\mathrm{}}d\tau _2_0^{\mathrm{}}d\tau _3\mathrm{exp}\left[i(3\omega \tau _1+\omega \tau _2+\omega \tau _3)\right]\times $$

$$[[[M_i(\tau _1+\tau _2+\tau _3),M_j(\tau _2+\tau _3)],M_k(\tau _3)],M_l].$$
(39)
The contribution of a single droplet to the real part of dynamic third-order susceptibility up to some factor $`q_{EA}^2L^{2d}`$ is proportional to

$$\chi _{3D_L}^{}q_{EA}^2\frac{\left(\underset{k=0}{\overset{5}{}}A_k(\omega ,\mathrm{\Gamma }_L)ϵ_L^{2k}\right)\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{1}{2}\beta \sqrt{ϵ_L^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_L^2}\right)}{\left(ϵ_L^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_L^2\right)^{\frac{5}{2}}\left(ϵ_L^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_L^29\omega ^2\right)\left(ϵ_L^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_L^2\omega ^2\right)^2\left(ϵ_L^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_L^2\frac{\omega ^2}{4}\right)\omega ^2},$$
(40)
where $`A_0=\omega ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_L^{10}+4\omega ^4\mathrm{\Gamma }_L^85\omega ^6\mathrm{\Gamma }_L^6`$; $`A_1=2\mathrm{\Gamma }_L^{10}12,5\omega ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_L^849,75\omega ^4\mathrm{\Gamma }_L^623,5\omega ^6\mathrm{\Gamma }_L^42,25\omega ^8\mathrm{\Gamma }_L^2`$; $`A_3=12\mathrm{\Gamma }_L^645,5\omega ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_L^4+41,75\omega ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_L^4`$; $`A_4=8\mathrm{\Gamma }_L^415,5\omega ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_L^2`$; $`A_5=2\mathrm{\Gamma }_L^2`$.

We have to average $`\chi _{3D_L}`$ over droplet energies $`ϵ_L`$ using the distribution of droplet free energies (33) and changing variables from $`ϵ_L`$ to $`x=\beta ϵ_L`$.

After averaging over droplet energies for cases $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L>3\omega ,\mathrm{\Gamma }_L3\omega ,\mathrm{\Gamma }_L<3\omega `$ we receive that the real part of the nonlinear susceptibility is dominated by droplets of length scale

$$L_{dom(3\omega )}\left(\frac{1}{\sigma }\left|\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{3\omega }{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}\right)\right|\right)^{\frac{1}{d}}$$
(41)
which is determined by condition $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L3\omega `$. Then for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L>3\omega `$ the result of two averages is given by the following expression

$$\chi _3^{}\frac{q_{EA}^2}{\gamma ^{1+\varphi }}\{\pi \mathrm{sec}\left[\frac{\pi \varphi }{2}\right]\underset{k=2,0,2}{}A_k\omega ^{k2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^{\varphi k}\frac{(\sigma (\varphi k))^\alpha }{d}\mathrm{G}[\alpha ,|\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{3\omega }{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}\right)\left|(\varphi k)\right]+$$

$$\frac{\left(\frac{1}{\sigma }\left|\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{3\omega }{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}\right)\right|\right)^\alpha }{\alpha d}e^{3\beta \omega }\underset{k=0,1}{}B_k\omega ^{\frac{\varphi 52k}{2}}\beta ^{\frac{\varphi 12k}{2}}\},$$
(42)
where $`\mathrm{G}[\alpha ,z]`$ is incomplete gamma-function. The coefficients in this expression depend on $`\varphi `$ only and are given by

$`\alpha =\frac{d\theta (1+\varphi )}{d};`$

$`A_2=\frac{1}{4}\frac{\varphi }{4},A_0=\frac{6263}{1600}\frac{23\varphi }{100}+\frac{6441}{6400}2^{\frac{\varphi +1}{2}},A_2=\frac{135}{10}+\mathrm{12\hspace{0.17em}2}^{\frac{\varphi +1}{2}},`$

$`B_0=\mathrm{G}\left[\frac{\varphi 1}{2}\right]\frac{2^{\frac{\varphi 7}{2}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}^{\frac{\varphi 1}{2}}(1435\varphi ^2+843\varphi 1988)}{175},B_1=\mathrm{G}\left[\frac{\varphi 1}{2}\right]\frac{2^{\frac{\varphi 7}{2}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}^{\frac{\varphi 3}{2}}(791791\varphi ^2)}{5}`$.

$$\chi _3^{}(\omega ,T)\frac{q_{EA}^2}{\gamma ^{1+\varphi }}\frac{\left(\frac{1}{\sigma }\left|\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{3\omega }{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}\right)\right|\right)^\alpha }{\alpha d}\left\{C_0\pi \mathrm{sec}\left[\frac{\pi \varphi }{2}\right]\omega ^{\varphi 2}+e^{3\beta \omega }\underset{k=1}{\overset{4}{}}C_k\omega ^{\frac{\varphi +12k}{2}}\beta ^{\frac{\varphi +52k}{2}}\right\}$$

for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L3\omega `$ where

$`C_0=\frac{\mathrm{243\hspace{0.17em}35}^{\frac{\varphi 1}{2}}2^{7\varphi }}{185}\frac{\mathrm{68931\hspace{0.17em}2}^{3\varphi 3}}{925}+\frac{3^\varphi }{2}\frac{\mathrm{391\hspace{0.17em}2}^{\frac{\varphi +5}{2}}3^\varphi }{925}\frac{\mathrm{27\hspace{0.17em}2}^{\frac{3\varphi 5}{2}}\varphi }{5},C_1=\mathrm{G}\left[\frac{\varphi 1}{2}\right]\frac{2^{\frac{\varphi 3}{2}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}^{\frac{\varphi +3}{2}}}{5},`$

$`C_2=\mathrm{G}\left[\frac{\varphi 1}{2}\right]\frac{2^{\frac{\varphi 3}{2}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}^{\frac{\varphi +1}{2}}}{5}\mathrm{G}\left[\frac{\varphi +1}{2}\right]\frac{2^{\frac{\varphi +1}{2}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}^{\frac{\varphi 5}{2}}(458+945\varphi )}{35},`$

$`C_3=\mathrm{G}\left[\frac{\varphi +1}{2}\right]\frac{\mathrm{11897\hspace{0.17em}2}^{\frac{\varphi 7}{2}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}^{\frac{\varphi 5}{2}}}{175}+\mathrm{G}\left[\frac{\varphi +3}{2}\right]\frac{\mathrm{10206\hspace{0.17em}2}^{\frac{\varphi 7}{2}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}^{\frac{\varphi 5}{2}}}{35},`$

$`C_4=\mathrm{G}\left[\frac{\varphi +3}{2}\right]\frac{\mathrm{359106\hspace{0.17em}2}^{\frac{\varphi 7}{2}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}^{\frac{\varphi 5}{2}}}{175}`$.

This expression does not diverge if $`2<\varphi <3`$ and $`1+\frac{d}{\theta }<\varphi `$. This expression has singularity at $`\omega \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}{3}`$. When the frequency increases the values of $`\chi _3^{}`$ are growing to infinity while $`\omega \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}{3}`$. $`\chi _3^{}`$ maintains this property when $`\omega `$ is more than $`\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}{3}`$. The temperature dependence of $`\chi _3^{}`$ in this case has no extremes, we observe monotonous decrease of values of $`\chi _3^{}`$ with temperature.

Nonlinear susceptibility given by expression (42) does not diverge if $`2<\varphi <3`$ and $`1+\frac{d}{\theta }<\varphi `$.

We observe that nonlinear susceptibility has strong dependence on distribution function $`P_L(ϵ_L)`$, i. e. on $`\varphi `$, on droplet microscopic tunneling rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ and other parameters. One can see that the real part $`\chi _3^{}(\omega ,T)`$ varies approximately logarithmically with frequency. This signalizes broad distribution of relaxation times of the system.

Let us take for numerical calculation the following numbers: $`\theta =1,\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=10^{10}s^1,d=3,\varphi =2.5,\gamma =10^{15}erg,\sigma =10^{15},q=0.5`$. The frequency dependence of $`\chi _3^{}(\omega ,T)`$ is shown in Fig. 1. We give $`\mathrm{log}_{10}f`$-dependence at $`\mathrm{log}_{10}f`$ from 0 to 11 at fixed several temperatures: $`T_1=0.001,T_2=0.005,T_3=0.01,T_4=0.05`$.

The frequency interval covers some decades of frequencies. Our numerical calculations show the crossover between low-$`\omega `$ and high-$`\omega `$ behaviors. In low-$`\omega `$ region the nonlinear response is found nonsingular and slowly decreasing. When frequency increases the curve falls down more quickly, the nonlinear response diverges at $`\omega \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}{3}`$, then the curve rises to some value. In low-$`\omega `$ region we have a qualitative agreement with experimental data for disordered dipolar magnet $`\mathrm{LiHo}_x\mathrm{Y}_{1x}\mathrm{F}_4`$. At different low fixed temperatures the behavior of $`\chi _3^{}(\omega ,T)`$ is the same and the values of $`\chi _3^{}(\omega ,T)`$ are approximately the same. Therefore we give only one curve for all fixed temperatures.

In Fig. 2 we give the temperature dependence of $`\chi _3^{}(\omega ,T)`$ at temperatures from 0 to $`10^2`$K at fixed several frequencies: $`f_1=10^7Hz,f_2=2.5\times 10^7Hz,f_3=5\times 10^7Hz,f_4=7.5\times 10^7Hz,f_5=10^8Hz`$ of $`ac`$ field ($`f=\frac{\omega }{2\pi }`$). The behavior of $`\chi _3^{}(\omega ,T)`$ indicates the following glassy-like features. The curves of the temperature dependence of $`\chi _3^{}(\omega ,T)`$ have maxima depending on fixed frequency. The temperature of $`\chi _3^{}`$-maximum $`T_f(\omega )`$ depends on frequency. The nonlinear susceptibility magnitudes at different fixed frequencies are remarkably distinguishable. The temperatures of maximum values are different. When the frequency increases the temperature of $`\chi _3^{}`$-maximum shifts towards high temperatures. The similar curve of temperature variation of $`\chi _3^{}`$ was observed in spin glasses at more high temperatures . If we consider only T-dependent part of $`\chi _3^{}`$ we see that the $`\chi _3^{}`$-maxima are sharp (Fig. 3).

The cubic dynamic susceptibility $`\chi _3^{}(3\omega )`$ is analitically and numerically calculated in quantum spin glass in terms of quantum droplet model on the basis of general dynamic nonlinear quantum-mechanical response theory. We have carefully analyzed the susceptibility temperature-frequency behavior to study the properties of the low temperature magnetic state and to determine whether or not a conventional spin glass state exists below $`T_f`$. Comparing with the case of a true spin glass transition we see that our data indicate that the magnetic state below $`T_f`$ does not correspond to a conventional spin glass state below $`T_f`$. We find a glassy type slow dynamics. Similar frequency dependence was observed by W. Wu et al..

Our calculations at $`T=0`$ coincide with $`T=0`$ result of M. J. Thill and D. A. Huse . For finite temperatures we find some features which have been recently observed . We suppose that at some very low temperature $`T_f`$ (temperature of maximum of $`\chi _3^{}(\omega ,T)`$) there is a phase transition. If $`\theta >0`$ and $`d=3`$ we suppose a true phase transition at very low temperature $`T_f10^4÷8.5\times 10^4K`$ for $`f=10^7÷10^8Hz`$ respectively (Fig. 3).

Besides frequency and temperature dependence the shape of $`\chi _3^{}(3\omega )`$ depends crucially on the probability distribution of droplet free energies, on the tunneling rate for a droplet of linear size L, on the material parameters. In consequence of this dependence there is divergence (or convergence) of $`\chi _3^{}(3\omega )`$. We need to take into account (in future paper) the dipole-dipole interaction between droplets and also droplet-lattice interaction.

Applying our results to the reported experimental data on the nonlinear dynamic susceptibility of $`\mathrm{LiHo}_x\mathrm{Y}_{1x}\mathrm{F}_4`$ we observe that a fairly good agreement may be achieved.

References

1. Glassy dynamics and optimization (Ed.: Y.L. van Hemmen, M. Morgenstern) Springer Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 1987.
2. M.Mezard, G.Parisi and M.A.Virasoro ”Spin Glass Theory and Beyond”,World Scientific, Singapore, (1987); A.P. Young (Ed.) ”Spin-glasses and random fields”, World Scientific, Singapore, (1997).
3. T. Kopec, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 4266 (1997)
4. D. S. Fisher and D. A. Huse, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 1601 (1986); Phys. Rev. B 36, 8937 (1987); Phys. Rev. B 38, 373,386 (1988); D.S. Fisher, J. Appl. Phys. 61, 3672 (1987).
5. A. Barrat and L. Berthier, preprint cond-mat/0102151 8 Feb. 2001;

Y.G. Joh and R. Orbach. Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 4648 (1996).
6. M.J. Thill and D.A. Huse, Physica A241 , 321 (1995)
7. H. Ishii and T. Yamamoto, J. Phys. C18, 6225 (1985);
8. N. Read, S. Sachdev and J. Ye, Phys. Rev. B52, 384 (1995).
9. H. Rieger and A.P. Young, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 4141 (1994).
10. L.P. Lévi and A.T. Ogielski, Phys. Rev. Lett 26, 3288 (1986)
11. L.P. Lévi, Phys. Rev. Lett B38,4963 (1988)
12. T. Jonsson, K. Jonason, P. Jönsson and P. Nordblad, Phys. Rev. B59, 8770 (1999)
13. K. Gunnarsson et al. Phys. Rev. B. 43, 8199 (1991);

M. Hagiwara et al. J MMM, 177-181, 175 (1998).
14. W. Wu, D. Bitko, T. F. Rosenbaum and G. Aeppli, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 1919 (1993);

D. Bitko, T. F. Rosenbaum and G. Aeppli, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 1679 (1995).
15. J. Mattsson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 1678 (1995).
16. G. Busiello and R. V. Saburova, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B14, 1843 (2000);

R. Saburova, G.P. Chugunova and G. Busiello. The physics of metals and metallography, 87, 509-515 (1999);G. Busiello, R. V. Saburova and V.G. Sushkova, Sol.State Comm.119,545 (2001).
17. R. Kubo and K. Tomita, J. Phys. Soc. Japan 9, 888 (1954)

R. Kubo , J. Phys. Soc. Japan 12, 570 (1957)
18. W. Bernard and H.B. Callen, Rev. Mod. Phys. 31, 1017 (1959).

R.L. Peterson, Rev. Mod. Physics 39, 69 (1967)
19. W.T. Grandy, Jr. ”Foundation of statistical mechanics” D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland, 1988.
20. W. Brenig ”Statistical theory of heat” Springer-Verlag, 1989.
21. R.L. Stratonovich ”Nonlinear nonequilibrium thermodynamics I” Springer-Verlag, 1992;

V.M. Fain. Kvantovaya Radiophizika. Izdatelstvo Sovietskoe Radio. Moskva, 1972 (Russian).
22. J.A. Mydosh ”Spin Glasses: an experimental introduction. Taylor & Francis, London, 1993.
23. P. Esquinazi (Ed.) Tunneling systems in amorphous and crystalline solids. Springer-Verlag-Heidelberg, 1998.

Figure captions

Fig.1 - The frequency dependence of the real part of the nonlinear dynamical susceptibility at fixed temperature.

Fig.2 - The temperature dependence of the real part of the nonlinear dynamical susceptibility at various frequencies.

Fig.3 - The temperature dependence of the T-dependent part of the nonlinear dynamical susceptibility at various frequencies f.


text:
# Experimental identification of non-pointlike dark-matter candidates

\[

## Abstract

We show that direct dark matter detection experiments can distinguish between pointlike and non-pointlike dark-matter candidates. The shape of the nuclear recoil energy spectrum from pointlike dark-matter particles, e. g., neutralinos, is determined by the velocity distribution of dark matter in the galactic halo and by nuclear form factors. In contrast, typical cross sections of non-pointlike dark matter, for example, Q-balls, have a new form factor, which decreases rapidly with the recoil energy. Therefore, a signal from non-pointlike dark matter is expected to peak near the experimental threshold and to fall off rapidly at higher energies. Although the width of the signal is practically independent of the dark matter velocity dispersion, its height is expected to exhibit an annual modulation due to the changes in the dark-matter flux.

preprint: UCLA/01/TEP/7;
\]

Direct detection of weakly interacting dark-matter particles is the goal of several ongoing and planned experiments, which try to observe the nuclear recoils from interactions with dark matter. In this letter we will show that, in addition to measuring the cross section and the flux of dark-matter particles, the same experiments may be able to probe the structure of dark matter and distinguish between pointlike and extended objects, both of which have been proposed as dark-matter candidates.

A number of reasons have led one to consider pointlike and non-pointlike candidates for dark matter. For example, supersymmetric extensions of the Standard Model predict both the pointlike dark matter in the form of the lightest supersymmetric particles (LSP) , as well as a non-pointlike dark matter in the form of SUSY Q-balls . The population of LSP could be produced by their freeze-out from equilibrium, while Q-balls could be copiously generated by fragmentation of the Affleck-Dine condensate . Mirror atoms have also been proposed as extended dark matter candidates . Recent analyses of dark matter halos have provided an additional motivation for considering extended objects as dark matter . Numerical simulations with improved resolution seem to predict an excessive number of subhalos and satellite galaxies , as well as a cuspy distribution of dark matter, which is at variance with some observations . However, recent measurements of substructure in gravitational lens galaxies show agreement with N-body simulations . Self-interacting dark matter  could erase small-scale structure. However, the required cross section for self-interaction is so large that, for pointlike particles, it violates unitarity, unless they have masses of the order of a few GeV or lighter .

This limit does not apply, however, to the extended objects, such as Q-balls, which could be self-interacting dark matter with a wide range of masses $`M__D`$ and sizes $`R`$ . Their cross section of self-interaction can be as large as their geometrical size, $`\sigma _{{}_{D}{}^{}_D}R^2`$, and can be in the range necessary for removing the cusp and the galactic satellites :

$$\sigma _{{}_{D}{}^{}_D}=(0.810)\times 10^{24}(M__D/\mathrm{GeV})\mathrm{cm}^2.$$
(1)
Mirror atoms  are also not a subject to the unitarity bound.

Various dark matter candidates, pointlike or not, can have interactions with ordinary matter. Although there are several limits on strong matter-dark-matter interactions , those interactions that do not exceed the strength of standard weak interactions are definitely allowed. Therefore, experiments designed to detect weakly interacting massive particles (WIMP) can detect both pointlike particles and extended objects.

The challenge of identifying the dark matter in the universe requires, in particular, an answer to the question of whether the dark matter particles are pointlike or not. We will show that, for a certain range of masses and sizes of dark-matter particles, this question can be answered based on the shape of the nuclear recoil energy spectrum of the signal in direct detection experiments.

The very nature of extended objects implies that the cross section of their interactions with matter includes a form factor whose dependence on the momentum transfer is an identifiable signature of a non-pointlike object. Although the interaction strength is unknown, if such interactions are detected, the extended objects can be identified by a signal with a recoil energy spectrum strongly peaked at low energies. Thus, a WIMP experiment should observe a signal that is strong near the threshold and falls off so rapidly at higher energies that, in a realistic detector, only one energy bin should show an annual modulation.

Although this behavior of the cross section is rather general, we will discuss Q-balls, for definiteness. Let us assume that the dark matter particles are Q-balls, non-topological solitons made of a scalar field $`\varphi `$. A Q-ball is a coherent state of $`Q`$ quanta of the $`\varphi `$ field. We denote its mass $`M__D=M__D(Q)`$.

For simplicity, let us assume that the dark matter particles scatter off nuclei via the exchange of some heavy boson $`Z^{}`$, the analog of $`Z`$ exchange in neutralino-nuclear scattering. While the resulting interaction is almost pointlike at some fundamental level, the extended structure of the DM particle causes a form factor $`F_D`$ to appear in the elastic scattering amplitude. This form factor is analogous to the nuclear form factor $`F_N(A)`$ that reflects the nuclear structure.

The direct detection strategy for WIMPs relies on detecting the recoil of nuclei with atomic number A and mass $`M__N=M__N(A)`$. Dark-matter particles have velocities $`\beta =v/c10^3`$, so the maximum energy deposited in a collision is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E=2\frac{\beta ^2\mu ^2}{M__N(A)},$$
(2)
where $`\mu `$ is the reduced mass of the dark matter particle, with mass $`M__D(Q)`$, and the target nucleus, with mass $`M__N(A)`$. Existing and future detectors, have energy thresholds of a few keV. Hence, we require that $`\mathrm{\Delta }E\stackrel{>}{}10`$ keV. For $`M__N(A)100`$ GeV, this implies $`M__D(Q)\stackrel{>}{}M__N(A)`$. We, therefore, restrict our discussion to Q-balls heavier than nuclei, for which

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E2\beta ^2M__N(A).$$
(3)
The differential cross section for elastic scattering is

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dq^2}=\frac{(G__F^{})^2}{4\pi }\frac{M__Z^{}^4}{\left(q^2M__Z^{}^2\right)^2}\frac{A^2}{\beta ^2}Q^2|F_A|^2|F_D|^2,$$
(4)
where, $`q`$ is the momentum transfer, $`G__F^{}`$ is the analogue of the Fermi constant for $`Z^{}`$ exchange, while $`F_A`$ and $`F_D`$ are the form factors of the nucleus and the Q-ball, respectively:

$$F_{D,A}(q)=d^3\stackrel{}{r}e^{i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{r}}\rho _{{}_{D}{}^{},_A}(\stackrel{}{r}).$$
(5)
To a good approximation, the form factor of a nucleus can be calculated using $`\rho __A=\rho _0/\left(1+\mathrm{exp}\{(rc)/z\}\right)`$, where, for example, for Ge, $`c=4.503,z=0.583`$.

If (i) the size of a DM particle exceeds the size of the nucleus, and (ii) the putative interaction with quarks allows a coherent channel, then the form factor $`F_D`$ imprints the cross section (4) with an easily identifiable signature: a rapid fall-off for large $`q`$.

For definiteness we assume that the cross section $`\sigma _{{}_{D}{}^{}_D}`$ and mass $`M__D`$ satisfy eq. (1), which relates the Q-ball mass and its radius:

$$R(13)\times 10^{12}\mathrm{cm}\left(\frac{M__D}{\mathrm{GeV}}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(6)
We now demand that the collision be elastic. Q-balls have nearly massless modes, for example, the Goldstone mode of a spontaneously broken U(1) symmetry. The lowest excitation has a Compton wavelength of the order $`R`$ and energy gap $`1/R`$. The collision is elastic as long as the energy transfer, which is at most $`2\beta ^2M__N(A)`$, is smaller than $`1/R`$. Hence, the collision is always elastic for

$$R<\frac{1}{2\beta ^2M__N(A)}\frac{1}{0.1\mathrm{MeV}}1\times 10^{10}\mathrm{cm}$$
(7)
Using eq. (6), we get the upper limit on the mass of Q-balls that scatter elastically, $`M__D<10^4`$ GeV. As mentioned above, a detection threshold of a few keV requires the Q-ball to have a mass similar or larger than the nucleous mass, which is of the order of $`10^2`$ GeV.

Hence, we restrict our discussion to the range111 In the case of mirror matter, if the $`Z^{}`$ is coupled to both the ordinary quarks and the electrons, the ordinary atoms would scatter coherently off a mirror atom. In this case the range of radii for which the scattering is elastic and coherent extends as far as to $`10^{11}\mathrm{cm}\stackrel{<}{}R\stackrel{<}{}10^8\mathrm{cm}`$.

$`10^2\mathrm{GeV}\stackrel{<}{}`$ $`M__D`$ $`\stackrel{<}{}10^4\mathrm{GeV},`$ (8)
$`10^{11}\mathrm{cm}\stackrel{<}{}`$ $`R`$ $`\stackrel{<}{}10^{10}\mathrm{cm}`$ (9)
The form factor $`F_D`$ in eq. (5) can be evaluated for a given Q-ball profile. Depending on the scalar potential $`U(\varphi )`$, Q-balls can have a thin-wall  or a thick-wall profile . However, in either case, for $`qR>1`$

$$F(q)\frac{1}{(qR)^n},n2.$$
(10)
$`F(q)`$ decreases rapidly for $`qR>1`$. The slowest possible fall-off occurs when the Q-ball profile is approximated by a step-function. In this case,

$$F_{\mathrm{step}}(q)\left(\frac{qR\mathrm{cos}(qR)\mathrm{sin}(qR)}{(qR)^3}\right)$$
(11)
which fall off as $`(qR)^2`$, for $`qR>1`$.

For realistic profiles, $`F(q)`$ need not have the oscillating behavior of eq. (11) and, more importantly, it has a faster asymptotic fall-off, e. g, $`(qR)^3`$ or faster.

The key observation is that, for the range of parameters in eqs. (8-9), $`(qR)>1`$ in typical direct detection experiments. Indeed, the maximum momentum transfer in an elastic collision is $`q_{max}2\beta M__A200`$ MeV. On the other hand, the minimal observable energy of recoil is determined by the experimental threshold of a few keV. For $`M_D>M_A`$, this means $`q^2/2M_A>1`$ keV, or $`q\stackrel{>}{}10`$ MeV. Hence, from eqs. (8-9),

$$5\stackrel{<}{}(qR)\stackrel{<}{}10^3.$$
(12)
The $`q`$-dependence of the differential cross section (4) is, therefore, dominated by $`|F_D|^2(qR)^{2n},n2`$:

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dq^2}\frac{1}{(qR)^l},l4$$
(13)
Thus, the nuclear recoil energy spectrum falls off very fast with increasing energy, independent of the incident DM velocity distribution. The signal is dominated by the low-energy events near the threshold. The magnitude of this signal should be modulated by the annual variation of the DM velocity distribution. In contrast, the signal from pointlike dark matter would have a wider recoil-energy profile determined by the velocity distribution of dark matter particles and the nuclear form factor. Halo models with effectively maxwellian distribution, including those with triaxiality, velocity anisotropy, or clumping, predict similar differential event rates . For pointlike dark matter particles with masses above $`20`$ GeV, the falloff of the differential spectrum is much less steep than $`1/q^6`$.

The reason why the nuclear $`F_A`$ form factor does not have a similar effect on the shape of the signal from pointlike dark matter is because the corresponding value of $`(qR)`$ is smaller. It is essential that a condition $`(qR)>1`$ is satisfied for extended objects we are considering.

Finally, we show that, for some reasonable model parameters, one can get the detection rates for dark-matter Q-balls as high as those for neutralinos. The cross section in eq. (4) is, of course, model-dependent. The constant $`G__F^{}`$ reflects the strength of some interactions beyond the Standard Model. The bounds on new heavy $`Z^{}`$ bosons imply that $`M(Z^{})\stackrel{>}{}500`$ GeV. Let us take $`G__F^{}10^4G__F`$, which corresponds to a TeV scale of new physics. The form factor $`|F_D|`$ can be taken of the order of $`10^6`$ for $`n=3`$ and $`(qR)10`$, or, equivalently, $`n=2`$, $`(qR)30`$. For the cross section to be of the order of weak cross section, the enhancement from coherent scattering $`Q^2`$ must compensate for the smaller coupling and the form-factor suppression, that is $`10^4\times 10^6\times Q^21`$. This is possible for $`Q10^5`$, which is within the range of values considered in Ref. . Using the parameterization from Ref. , Q-ball with mass $`M__D\mu Q10^4`$ GeV and radius $`R__Q\mu ^1Q^{1/3}10^{10}`$cm is within the range of eqs. (8-9) for $`Q10^5`$, $`\mu 0.1`$ GeV.

To conclude, direct detection experiments designed to search for weakly interacting massive particles may be able to discern the spatial extent of a dark-matter particle in a certain range of parameters. The signal from extended objects would pile up near the experimental threshold, unlike a typical signal from a pointlike dark matter. This offers an exciting possibility to distinguish an extended object from a pointlike particle.

This work was supported by in part by U.S. Department of Energy grant DE-FG03-91ER40662 (GG and AK) and by Israeli National Science Foundation Grant number 561/99 (SN). SN thanks UCLA for hospitality.


text:
# Discrete subsets of ℝ² and the associated distance sets

## Basic definitions

###### Definition Separated sets

We say that $`S^d`$ is separated if there exists $`c_{separation}>0`$ such that $`xyc_{separation}`$ for every $`x,yS`$, $`xy`$. Here and throughout the paper, $`x=\sqrt{x_1^2+\mathrm{}+x_d^2}`$ is the standard Euclidean distance.

###### Definition Well-distributed sets

We say that $`S^d`$ is well-distributed if there exists a $`C_{density}>0`$ such that every cube of side-length $`C_{density}`$ contains at least one element of $`S`$.

###### Definition $`K`$-distance

Let $`K`$ be a bounded convex set, symmetric with respect to the origin. Given $`x,y^d`$, define the $`K`$-distance, $`xy_K=inf\{t:xytK\}`$.

###### Definition $`K`$-distance sets

Let $`A^2`$. Define $`\mathrm{\Delta }_K(A)=\{||xy||_K:x,yA\}`$, the $`K`$-distance set of $`A`$.

Notation: $`AB`$, with respect to the parameter $`R`$, means that there exists a positive constant $`C_ϵ`$ such that $`AC_ϵR^ϵB`$ for any $`ϵ>0`$. Similarly, $`AB`$ means that there exists a $`C>0`$ such that $`ACB`$, and $`AB`$ means that $`AB`$ and $`BA`$.

## Introduction

Distance sets play an important role in combinatorics and its applications to analysis and other areas. See, for example, \[AP95\] and the references contained therein. Perhaps the most celebrated classical example is the Erdős Distance Problem, which asks for the smallest possible cardinality of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{B_2}(A)`$, where $`A^2`$ has cardinality $`N<\mathrm{}`$ and $`B_2`$ is the Euclidean unit disc. Erdős conjectured that $`\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\Delta }_{B_2}(A)N`$. The best known result to date in two dimensions is due to Solymosi and Tóth who prove in \[ST01\] that $`\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\Delta }_{B_2}(A)N^{\frac{6}{7}}`$. For a survey of higher dimensional results see \[AP95\] and the references contained therein. For applications of distance sets in analysis, see, for example, \[IKP99\], where distance sets are used to study the question of existence of orthogonal exponential bases.

The situation changes drastically if the Euclidean disc $`B_2`$ is replaced by a convex planar set with a “flat” boundary. For example, suppose that $`K=[1,1]^2`$, which corresponds to the “taxi-cab” or $`l^1(^2)`$ distance. Let $`A=\{m^2:0m_iN^{\frac{1}{2}}\}`$. Then $`\mathrm{\#}AN`$, and it is easy to see that $`\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\Delta }_K(A)N^{\frac{1}{2}}`$, which is much less than what is known to be true for the Euclidean distance. In fact, it follows from an argument due to Erdős (\[Erd46\]; see also \[I01\]) that the estimate $`\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\Delta }_K(A)N^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ holds for any $`K`$.

The example in the previous paragraph shows that the properties of the the distance set very much depend on the underlying distance. One way of bringing this idea into sharper focus is the following. Let $`S`$ be a separated subset of $`^2`$, $`\alpha `$-dimensional in the sense that

$$\mathrm{\#}(S[R,R]^2)R^\alpha .$$
$`0.1`$
If Erdős’ conjecture holds, then $`\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\Delta }_{B_2}(S[R,R]^2)R^{\frac{2\alpha }{2}}`$. This would imply that if $`\alpha >1`$ then $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{B_2}(S)`$ is not separated. This formulation expresses the Erdős Distance Conjecture in the language of the Falconer Distance Conjecture (see e.g. \[Wolff02\]) which says that if a compact set $`E^2`$ has Hausdorff dimension $`\alpha >1`$, then $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{B_2}(E)`$ has positive Lebesgue measure.

On the other hand, as we have seen above, if $`K=[0,1]^2`$, $`S`$ may be $`2`$-dimensional (for example, the integer lattice), and the distance set $`\mathrm{\Delta }_K(S)`$ is, nevertheless, separated. The purpose of this paper is to address the following question. Suppose that $`S`$ is a well-distributed subset of $`^2`$. For which $`K`$’s can $`\mathrm{\Delta }_K(S)`$ be separated? We conjecture that this can only happen if $`K`$ is a polyhedron. This is indeed what we prove in two dimensions.

###### Theorem 0.1

Let $`S`$ be a well-distributed subset of $`^2`$. Suppose that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_K(S)`$ is separated. Then $`K`$ is a polygon with finitely many sides.

## Proof of Theorem 0.1

Let $`S^2`$ be a well-distributed set. We may assume that $`C_{density}=1`$. We identify $`^2`$ with $``$ via $`z=re^{i\theta }`$, and denote by $`C_{\theta _1,\theta _2}`$ the cone $`\{re^{i\theta }:\theta _1<\theta <\theta _2\}`$. We also write $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=K`$. A line segment will always be assumed to have non-zero length.

Theorem 0.1 is an immediate consequence of Lemmas 1.1 and 1.2 below.

###### Lemma 1.1

Let $`S`$ be as above. If $`\mathrm{\Delta }_K(S)`$ is separated, then for any $`\theta _1<\theta _2`$ the curve $`\mathrm{\Gamma }C_{\theta _1,\theta _2}`$ contains a line segment.

###### Lemma 1.2

Let $`S`$ be as above. If $`\mathrm{\Delta }_K(S)`$ is separated, then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ may contain only a finite number of line segments such that no two of them lie on one straight line.

We now prove Lemmas 1.1 and 1.2. The main geometrical observation is contained in the next lemma.

###### Lemma 1.3

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=K`$, where $`K^2`$ is convex. Let $`\alpha >0`$, $`x^2`$, $`x0`$.

(i) If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }+x)`$ contains three distinct points, at least one of these points must lie on a line segment contained in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

(ii) $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }+x)`$ cannot contain more than 2 line segments such that no two of them lie on one line.

We will first prove Lemmas 1.1 and 1.2, assuming Lemma 1.3; the proof uses a variation on an argument of Moser \[Mo\]. The proof of Lemma 1.3 will be given later in this section.

Fix 2 points $`P,QS`$; translating $`S`$ if necessary, we may assume that $`P=Q`$. Let

$$A_N=\{z^2:d_K(x,0)(10N,10(N+1))\}.$$
$`1.1`$
Observe that for all $`N`$ large enough (depending on $`\theta _1,\theta _2`$) the set $`A_NC_{\theta _1,\theta _2}`$ contains at least $`N(\theta _2\theta _1)`$ points of $`S`$.

Observe that for all $`sSA_N`$ we have

$$d_K(s,P)[10Nd_K(P,0),10(N+1)+d_K(Q,0)],$$

and similarly for $`d_K(s,Q)`$. The length of the interval above is independent of $`N`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }_K(S)`$ is separated, it follows that the number of distinct distances

$$d_K(s,P),d_K(s,Q):sSA_N$$
$`1.2`$
is bounded by a constant $`L`$ uniformly in $`N`$.

### Proof of Lemma 1.1

We may assume that $`0<\theta _2\theta _1<\pi /2`$. Fix $`\theta _1^{},\theta _2^{}`$ so that $`\theta _1<\theta _1^{}<\theta _2^{}<\theta _2`$, and let $`C=C_{\theta _1,\theta _2}`$, $`C^{}=C_{\theta _1^{},\theta _2^{}}`$. Then for all $`N`$ large enough we have

$$C^{}A_N(C+P)(C+Q)$$
$`1.3`$
and

$$\mathrm{\#}(SC^{}A_N)N(\theta _2^{}\theta _1^{}).$$
$`1.4`$
Let

$$\{d_1,\mathrm{},d_l\}=\{d_K(s,P):sSA_N\},\{d_1^{},\mathrm{},d_l^{}^{}\}=\{d_K(s,Q):sSA_N\},$$
$`1.5`$
where $`d_jd_k`$, $`d_j^{}d_k^{}`$ if $`jk`$. Then $`l,l^{}L`$ with $`L`$ independent of $`N`$ (see (1.2)). We have

$$SC^{}A_NSC^{}\underset{i,j}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_j^{},$$
$`1.6`$
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i=d_i\mathrm{\Gamma }+P`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_j^{}=d_j^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }+Q`$. Thus if $`N`$ is large enough ($`N10L^2(\theta _2^{}\theta _1^{})^1`$ suffices), there are $`i,j`$ such that $`\mathrm{\#}(SC^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_j^{})10`$. It follows from Lemma 2.3(i) that at least one of the points in $`SC^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ lies on a line segment $`I`$ contained in $`C^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$. By (1.3), $`I`$ is contained in $`d_i\mathrm{\Gamma }C`$, hence $`\mathrm{\Gamma }C`$ contains the line segment $`d_i^1I`$.

### Proof of Lemma 1.2

Suppose that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ contains line segments $`I_1,\mathrm{},I_M`$, all pointing in different directions.

We will essentially continue to use the notation of the proof of Lemma 1.1. Choose $`P,Q`$ as above, and let $`C_m`$ denote cones $`C_m=C_{\theta _m,\theta _m^{}}`$ such that $`\theta _m<\theta _m^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }C_mI_m`$. Let also $`C_m^{}C_m`$ be slightly smaller cones. Let $`N`$ be large enough so that each sector $`C_m^{}A_N`$ contains at least $`10`$ points of $`S`$, and so that

$$A_NC_m^{}(C_m+P)(C_m+Q).$$
$`1.7`$
Let also $`d_i,d_j^{},\mathrm{\Gamma }_i,\mathrm{\Gamma }_j^{}`$ be as above. Then for each $`m`$

$$SA_NC_m^{}\underset{i,j}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_j^{}C_m^{}.$$
$`1.8`$
If $`N`$ is large enough, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_iC_m^{}C_m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_j^{}C_m^{}C_m`$, hence the set on the right is a union of line segments parallel to $`I_m`$. It must contain at least one such segment, since the set on the left is assumed to be non-empty. Therefore the set

$$\underset{i,j}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_j^{}$$
$`1.9`$
contains at least $`M`$ line segments pointing in different directions, one for each $`m`$. But on the other hand, by Lemma 2.3(ii) any $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_j^{}`$ can contain at most two line segments that do not lie on one line. It follows that the set in (1.9) contains at most $`2L^2`$ line segments in different directions, hence $`M2L^2`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ can contain at most two parallel line segments that do not lie on one line, the number of line segments in Lemma 1.2 is bounded by $`4L^2`$ as claimed.

### Proof of Lemma 1.3

We first prove part (i) of the lemma. Suppose that $`P_1,P_2,P_3`$ are three distinct points in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }+x)`$. We may assume that they are not collinear, since otherwise the conclusion of the lemma is obvious. We have $`P_1,P_2,P_3\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`P_1^{},P_2^{},P_3^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, where $`P_j^{}=\alpha ^1(P_jx)`$. Let $`T`$ and $`T^{}`$ denote the triangles $`P_1P_2P_3`$ and $`P_1^{}P_2^{}P_3^{}`$, and let $`K^{}`$ be the convex hull of $`TT^{}`$. Since $`K^{}K`$ and all of the points $`P_j,P_j^{}`$ lie on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=K`$, they must also lie on $`K^{}`$.

Observe that $`K^{}`$ consists of some number of the edges of the triangles $`T,T^{}`$ and at most 2 additional line segments. If $`K^{}`$ contains at most one of $`P_iP_j`$ and $`P_i^{}P_j^{}`$ for each $`i,j`$, $`K^{}`$ is a polygon with at most 5 edges, hence at most 5 vertices. Thus if the 6 points $`P_j,P_j^{}`$ lie on $`K^{}`$, at least three of them must be collinear, and one of them must be $`P_j`$ for some $`j`$ (otherwise the $`P_j^{}`$ would be collinear). If these three points are distinct, then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ contains the line segment joining all of them, and we are done. Suppose therefore that they are not distinct. It suffices to consider the cases when $`P_1=P_1^{}`$ or $`P_1=P_2^{}`$. If $`P_1=P_1^{}`$, then we must have $`\alpha 1`$ and $`P_1,P_2,P_2^{}`$ are distinct and collinear; if $`P_1=P_2^{}`$, then $`P_1^{},P_1,P_2`$ are distinct and collinear. Thus at least three of the points $`P_j,P_j^{}`$ are distinct and collinear, and we argue as above.

It remains to consider the case when $`K^{}`$ contains both $`P_iP_j`$ and $`P_i^{}P_j^{}`$ for some $`i,j`$. The outward unit normal vector to $`P_iP_j`$ and $`P_i^{}P_j^{}`$ is the same, hence all four points $`P_i,P_j,P_i^{},P_j^{}`$ are collinear, at least three of them are distinct, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ contains a line segment joining all of them.

Part (ii) of the lemma is an immediate consequence of the following. Let $`(x_1,x_2)`$ denote the rectangular coordinates in the plane.

###### Lemma 1.4

Let $`I`$ be a line segment contained in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }+u)`$, where $`u=(c,0)`$.

(i) If $`\alpha =1`$, then $`I`$ is parallel to the $`x_1`$-axis.

(ii) If $`\alpha 1`$, then the straight line containing $`I`$ goes through the point $`(\frac{c}{1\alpha },0)`$.

###### Demonstration Proof of Lemma 1.4

Part (i) is obvious; we prove (ii). If $`I`$ lies on the line $`x_2=ax_1+b`$, then so does $`\alpha I+u`$. But on the other hand $`\alpha I+u`$ lies on the line

$$x_2=\alpha \left(a\frac{x_1c}{\alpha }+b\right)=ax_1ac+\alpha b.$$
$`1.10`$
It follows that $`b=\alpha bca`$, hence $`\frac{b}{a}=\frac{c}{1\alpha }`$. But $`b/a`$ is the $`x_1`$-intercept of the line in question.

Similarly, if $`I`$ lies on the line $`x_1=b`$, then $`\alpha I+u`$ lies on the lines $`x_1=b`$ and $`x_1=\alpha b+c`$, hence $`b=\frac{c}{1\alpha }`$.

To finish the proof of Lemma 2.3 (ii), it suffices to observe that in both of the cases (i), (ii) of Lemma 2.4 the boundary of a convex body cannot contain three such line segments if no two of them lie on one line.

## References