format: text

text:
# X-ray Sources and Star Formation Activity in the Sgr B2 Cloud Observed with Chandra

## 1 Introduction

The giant molecular cloud Sgr B2, located at the projected distance of $``$100 pc from the Galactic center (GC), is one of the richest star forming regions (SFRs) in our Galaxy. Due to its proximity to the GC, Sgr B2 is heavily obscured in the optical, even near infrared (NIR) and soft X-ray bands. Accordingly, the star formation activity has been traced mainly with the radio and mid–far infrared (MIR and FIR) bands. The VLA continuum observations have revealed at least 12 separate HII regions in the Sgr B2 cloud (Benson & Johnston 1984), which are grouped into three main concentrations, Sgr B2 North (HII region K), Main (HII regions A–G, I, and J) and South (HII region H). The follow-up high-resolution continuum observations have revealed nearly 60 ultra compact (UC) HII regions lying along the north-to-south elongation (Gaume et al. 1995; De Pree, Goss, & Gaume 1998), which are also traced by molecular lines and FIR (e.g. Sato et al. 2000; Goldsmith et al. 1992). Clusters of molecular maser sources are found from the HII complexes, Sgr B2 North (N), Main (M), and South (S) ($`\mathrm{H}_2\mathrm{O}`$: Kobayashi et al. 1989; OH: Gaume & Glaussen 1990; SiO: Mehringer, Goss, & Palmer 1994; Shiki, Ohishi, & Deguchi 1997). The ages of Sgr B2 (N) and Sgr B2 (M) are estimated to be $`10^4`$ years, using the photon flux of the exciting stars and the ambient gas density (De Pree et al. 1995, 1996). Powerful bipolar outflows are found from Sgr B2 (N) and Sgr B2 (M), with the dynamical age of $`10^4`$ years (Vogel, Genzel, & Palmer 1987; Lis, et al. 1993; Mehringer 1995; Kuan & Snyder 1996; Liu et al. 1998). MIR sources are also found at Sgr B2 (M) and (S) (Egan et al. 1999). All these results indicate that Sgr B2 harbors many clusters of very young stellar objects (YSOs) of high-mass stars.

There is mounting evidence that star forming regions, whatever low-mass or high-mass, generally emit fairly strong X-rays (e.g., Feigelson & Montmerle 1999 and references there in; Garmire et al. 2000). $`ASCA`$ and later $`Chandra`$ revealed that a significant fraction of YSOs emit hard X-rays above 2 keV (e.g., Koyama et al. 1996a; Shultz et al. 2001; Kohno, Koyama. & Hamaguchi 2002). The hard X-rays can penetrate through the large Galactic $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ to Sgr B2, hence may provide a new view on the star formation activity in this cloud. This paper reports on the first $`Chandra`$ results of hard X-ray sources and studies the X-ray population in Sgr B2.

Throughout this paper, the distance to Sgr B2 is assumed to be 8.5 kpc, the same as to Sgr A, and is similar to the estimated distance of 7.1 $`\pm `$ 1.5 kpc (Reid et al., 1988).

## 2 Observations and Analyses

### 2.1 Source Detection and Identification

The $`Chandra`$ ACIS observation of Sgr B2 was carried out on 29–30 March 2000 with the nominal aim-point at $`\mathrm{R}.\mathrm{A}.(2000)=17^\mathrm{h}47^\mathrm{m}07^\mathrm{s}`$, $`\mathrm{Dec}.(2000)=28^\mathrm{d}26^\mathrm{m}29^\mathrm{s}`$. The satellite and instrument are described by Weisskopf, O’dell, & van Speybroeck (1996) and Garmire, Nousek, & Bautz (2001), respectively. Sgr B2 lies near the center of the ACIS-I array of four front-side illuminated CCDs, each with $`1024\times 1024`$ array of $`0\mathrm{}.5\times 0\mathrm{}.5`$ pixels covering a $`8\mathrm{}\times 8\mathrm{}`$ field of view. Using the Level 2 processed events provided by the pipeline processing at the $`Chandra`$ X-ray Center, we selected the $`ASCA`$ grades111see http://asc.harvard.edu/udocs/docs/POG/MPOG/index.html 0, 2, 3, 4, and 6, as X-ray events; the other events, which are due to charged particles, hot and flickering pixels, are removed. The effective exposure is about 100 ksec.

In the soft (0.5–2.0 keV) band image of the ACIS-I field of $`17\mathrm{}.4\times 17\mathrm{}.4`$, we find four bright X-ray sources that have Tycho-2 counterparts. The positions of the Tycho-2 sources have accuracy of 60 mas (Høg et al., 2000), hence the Chandra frame is fine-tuned using these four sources within an absolute error of 0.25 arcsec (1 sigma dispersion). In order to search the Sgr B2 cloud member sources, we run the program of wavdetect 222see http://asc.harvard.edu/udocs/docs/swdocs/detect/html/ in the 2–10 keV band, because X-ray photons below 2 keV are totally absorbed by the interstellar gas to Sgr B2 of $`1\times 10^{23}\mathrm{H}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ (Sakano 2000). The threshold significances of the wavdetect are set at $`10^6`$ and 0.001 for the source list and the background estimation, respectively. The wavelet scales are 1, $`\sqrt{2}`$, 2, $`2\sqrt{2}`$, 4, $`4\sqrt{2}`$, 8, $`8\sqrt{2}`$, and 16 pixels. We then find 15 sources in the Sgr B2 cloud area of a $`3^{}\times 3\mathrm{}.5`$ region.

The 2–10 keV band image of this region and the position of detected X-ray sources are given in Figure 1 by the solid circles with a diameter of three times of the half power diameter (HPD) of the point spread function (hereafter, $`3\times `$HPD). In addition to the wavdetect search, we inspect X-ray sources manually from all the compact HII regions including the Sgr B2 (N) and (S) complexes. For this search, we extract the X-ray photon from a $`3\times `$HPD-diameter circle or from the same area as the HII regions (those extending larger than $`3\times `$HPD). We then find X-ray excess from Sgr B2 (N) and Sgr B2 (S) with more than $`3\sigma `$ confidence level (in the 2–10 keV band). The source areas are also given by the dotted box (Sgr B2 (N)) and circle (Sgr B2 (S)) in Figure 1. Since this paper focuses on single or compact cluster of point sources, we do not search diffuse sources other than those of the HII regions. All the detected sources, the positions and photon counts are listed in Table 2.

The closed-up image of Sgr B2 (M) is shown in Figure 2 overlaid on the radio contours. The brightest X-ray sources in Sgr B2, No. 10 and 13 are located in this complex.

### 2.2 Spectrum and Time Variability

The X-ray spectra are made from the source areas given in Figures 1 and 2. In order to properly subtract the diffuse X-rays in the Sgr B2 and GC regions (Murakami, Koyama, & Maeda 2001; Koyama et al. 1996b), we make the background spectrum from the full region of Sgr B2 excluding all the source areas (see Figure 1). Since No. 10 and 13 are located in the local diffuse maximum near the HII complex Sgr B2 (M) (Murakami et al. 2001), the background data are taken from a $`30\mathrm{}`$-radius circle with the center at the middle of the two sources (the data in the source regions are excluded). No. 16, on the other hand, lies in a local diffuse minimum, hence the background is taken from an annulus around the source.

To eliminate obvious foreground or background sources, the background-subtracted spectra are fitted with a model either power-law of fixed photon indices 2.0, or 1-keV thin thermal plasma of solar-abundances; the former is representative to background AGNs and the latter is for foreground stars. The interstellar $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ to Sgr B2 is $`10^{23}`$ H cm-2 (Sakano 2000), while that of intra-Sgr B2 cloud is $`10^{24}`$ H cm-2 (Lis & Goldsmith 1989). Thus the sources well outside the (1–10)$`\times 10^{23}`$ H cm-2 range should be regarded as either background AGNs or foreground stars. No. 2 and 5 show the $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ of $`<`$ 1 $`\times 10^{23}`$ H cm-2 within the error, hence are regarded as foreground stars. The others are likely located in the cloud (hereafter, the cloud members).

Since the statistics of individual cloud member is limited (6–80 photons, see Table 2), we group them into two classes; class A comprises No. 10–13, which are associated with the HII regions, and the class B sources have neither radio nor IR counterpart (No. 1, 3, 4, 6–9, and 14–17). We then make the composite spectra for the class A and B sources (Figure 3) separately, and examine the average properties.

The composite spectra are nicely fitted with a thin thermal plasma of solar-abundances. However, an excess near at 6.4 keV is found, hence we add a narrow line at 6.4 keV, which represents the K-shell transition of neutral or low-ionization irons. The best-fit parameters and models are shown in Table 1 and Figure 3, respectively. The mean $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ of 3.6 and 1.3 $`\times 10^{23}\mathrm{H}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ for the class A and B sources are consistent with being in the cloud.

For the spectral fitting of individual X-ray sources, allowable (free) parameters depend on the continuum and line fluxes. Since No. 10 shows the strong iron lines (see Figure 4) and the total flux is reasonably high (51 counts), we allow the temperature ($`kT`$), absorption column density ($`N_\mathrm{H}`$), abundance ($`Z`$), and equivalent width ($`E.W.`$) of the 6.4-keV line to be free. For comparison, we also use the same free parameters for No. 13. For the other sources, we refer the best-fit parameters of the composite spectra with free parameters depending on the flux; those with flux between 29–50 counts (No. 8 and 11), free parameter is $`N_\mathrm{H}`$; and the faintest sources less than 21 counts, we fix all the parameters to those of the composite spectra and estimate the luminosity ($`L_\mathrm{x}`$) only. The best-fit thin thermal plasma model parameters are listed in Table 2, while the spectra and the best-fit models of the two brightest sources, No. 10 and 13, are shown in Figure 4.

Since the 6.4-keV line feature in addition to the 6.7-keV line may be sensitive to the charge transfer inefficiency (CTI), we examine the CTI correction issue using the software described by the method of Townsley et al. (2001). In order to achieve the best statistics, we use the diffuse emission from all the $`3^{}\times 3\mathrm{}.5`$ region which includes the strong 6.4-keV line in Sgr B2 (Murakami et al. 2001). The standard level 2 process gives the center energy of $`6.40(6.366.41)`$ keV, flux of $`5.6(5.16.2)\times 10^5\mathrm{photons}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$, and width of $`60(8.8130)`$ eV, which are essentially the same as those by the method of Townsley et al. (2001) (see Table 2 in Murakami et al. 2001). Thus we conclude that the Level 2 process correct the CTI reasonably well, at least for the present data set.

The 6.4-keV line flux is also sensitive to the background subtraction, because the background itself is a luminous 6.4-keV line source. We therefore re-subtract the background taken from the right half region of Sgr B2, where the 6.4-keV line is about two times larger than the average. Still we obtain consistent results. Thus the 6.4- and 6.7-keV iron lines are not artifacts due to CTI nor background subtraction.

We examine the time variability for all sources with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (Press et al. 1992) under the constant flux hypothesis using lcstats in the XRONOS (Ver 5.16) package333see http://xronos.gsfc.nasa.gov. Five (cloud members) and two (non cloud members) sources are found to be time variable with more than 90 % significant level. However, no flare-like event with a fast rise and slow decay profile is found from any of them.

## 3 Discussion

### 3.1 X-rays Associated with the HII complexes

No. 10 and 13, the most obvious cloud members, are associated with the complex of ultra compact HII regions (UC HIIs), Sgr B2 (M) (e.g., Gaume & Claussen 1990) (see Figure 2). The absorption column density of $`4\times 10^{23}\mathrm{H}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ supports that No. 10 and No. 13 are lying in the core of the Sgr B2 (M).

No. 10 seems to be elongated along the UC HIIs F3, F4 and G (De pree et al. 1998) and the MIR source MSX5C G000.6676-00.0355 (Egan et al. 1999), hence would comprise several point sources. The X-ray peak comes near the position of the brightest UC HII, F3 (De Pree et al. 1998), which is also considered to be an engine of the HC3N bipolar flow (Lis et al. 1993). From the HII and outflow data, this X-ray peak may correspond to a very high-mass (e.g., O6, assuming the zero age main sequence (ZAMS) star: De Pree et al. 1998), young (well below $`10^5`$ year: Lis et al. 1993) star.

A notable feature of No. 10 is strong lines at 6.7 keV and 6.4 keV. The best-fit iron abundance of 5 times of solar is extremely large but, within the large error, it is consistent with that of the Sgr B2 cloud of 2–3, estimated from X-ray reflection nebula (Murakami et al. 2001) and that predicted from the abundance gradient of HII regions toward the GC (e.g., Simpson et al. 1995). The abundances, on the other hand, is significantly larger than that of any other high-mass SFRs (Kohno et al. 2002; Schulz et al. 2001; Yamauchi et al. 1996). It may be noted that He66$`\alpha `$ line observation by De Pree et al. (1996) predicts anomalously low helium-abundance from the HII region F only, in contrast of apparent iron over-abundance with the present study.

No. 13 is also extended, lying beyond the east filament of the cometary HII region I (Gaume & Claussen 1990). The ionized gas filament is likely produced by an interaction of outflow(s) from the UC HIIs F as is supported by the extremely broad H66$`\alpha `$ recombination lines (De Pree et al. 1996). However the outflow velocity of $``$ 100 km s-1 (FWHM of the line width; Gaume et al. 1995) is insufficient to produce the 5-keV plasma we observed.

The best-fit iron abundance of No. 13, in contrast to No. 10, is sub-solar (0.3 of solar), although the error is large for a concrete conclusion. It is debatable whether the chemical abundances or the X-ray emission mechanisms is different between the two sources (No 10 and 13) in Sgr B2 (M) separated by only 0.2–0.3 pc.

No. 11 is extended over the whole region of Sgr B2 (N). The best-fit absorption of 5.7$`\times 10^{23}\mathrm{H}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ supports that No. 11 is located in the core of the UC HII complex. The radio continuum and molecular bipolar flow data indicate that Sgr B2 (N) is younger than Sgr B2 (M) (Gaume et al. 1995; Lis et al. 1993) and may contain $`7`$ massive stars ranging from O5 to B0 (Gaume et al. 1995). The He66$`\alpha `$ line from one of the UC HII (K6) in Sgr B2 (N) shows doubly peaked profile, indicating an expanding shell of the dynamical age of $`10^4`$ year (De Pree et al. 1995). From the expansion velocity of $`22\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ (De Pree et al. 1995), this shell can not be an origin of the hard X-rays of No. 11.

No. 12, at the Sgr B2 (S), is not resolved, and is likely to associated with an isolated star of spectral type O6.5 (Gaume et al. 1995). The MIR source MSX5C G000.6564–00.0411 is also found at No. 12 within $`1\sigma `$ position error (Egan et al. 1999).

### 3.2 Origin of the X-rays from the HII Regions

As we discussed in the previous sections, X-ray sources No. 10–13 are closely associated with the UC HII complexes Sgr B2 (M), (N) and (S) with the absorption corrected luminosity (in 2–10 keV) of 23, 12 and $`2.2\times 10^{32}`$ erg s-1, respectively. Since Sgr B2 (M), (N) and (S) may contain $``$ a few to 20 UC HIIs each (De Pree et al. 1998), No. 10–13 are possibly clusters of high-mass YSOs with similar numbers. The individual YSO luminosity is then $`10^{32}`$ erg s-1, which is consistent with the high-mass YSOs (Kohno et al. 2001; Schulz et al. 2001).

The plasma temperatures of about 5 keV are, however, significantly higher than that of stellar-wind-driven X-rays found in high-mass main sequence stars (MSSs) (Berghöfer et al. 1997). We accordingly propose a scenario that high-mass stars produce hard ($``$5 keV) X-rays due to the magnetic activity in a phase of pre main sequence (Babel & Montnerle 1997; Hayashi, Shibata, & Matsumoto 1996). In fact, high temperature plasma has been found from high-mass YSOs in the Orion Nebula and Mon R2 cloud (e.g., Shultz et al. 2001; Kohno et al. 2001). It may continue until ZAMS, then gradually decline to the stellar wind dominant activity. Finally, high-mass MSSs predominantly emit soft ($``$1 keV temperature) X-rays originated from the strong stellar wind.

The observed temperature of about 5 keV is, on the other hand, more typical to low-mass protostars (Kamata et al. 1997; Koyama et al. 1996a; Tsuboi et al. 2000; Imanishi, Koyama, & Tsuboi 2001) with the luminosity of $`10^{2830}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ (Feigelson et al. 1993; Casanova et al. 1995), hence it is also possible that No. 10–13 is a cluster of numerous number ($`10^2`$$`10^4`$) of low-mass YSOs. The most probable scenario, therefore, would be that the X-rays from the UC HII complexes are the mixture of YSOs with various mass range (high-medium-low mass stars).

The best-fit absorption of $`5\times 10^{23}`$ H cm-2 for the Sgr B2 (M) X-rays is the largest among the known stellar X-ray sources. Our observation demonstrates that hard X-rays are very powerful to discover deeply embedded YSOs even if they are suffered with a large optical extinction of $`A`$v$``$200–300 $`mag`$.

### 3.3 X-ray sources with no HII region (class B)

In the Sgr B2 cloud, we find 11 class B sources. The lowest flux of those sources is estimated to be $`3\times 10^{15}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$ after removing the absorption of $`1.3\times 10^{23}\mathrm{H}\mathrm{cm}^2`$, the mean value of the class B sources. The expected number of extra galactic sources above the flux of $`3\times 10^{15}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$ is only $`2.5`$ in the Sgr B2 region of $`3\mathrm{}\times 3\mathrm{}.5`$ (Mushotzky et al. 2000). If we fit the composite class B spectrum with a power-law model, the photon index is found to be $`\mathrm{\Gamma }<1.3`$, which is out side of the typical value for AGNs (1.5–2.0). The average $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ of $`1.3\times 10^{23}`$ H cm-2 also supports that most of the class B sources are not background AGNs, but are the cloud members. The temperature of $`>4.2`$ keV (see Table 1), and each X-ray luminosity of a few times $`10^{3132}`$ erg s-1 are consistent with those of class A sources, hence support that the class B source is either a single or cluster of YSO(s) with various mass ranges. The time variable sources is likely a single star, either a high-mass or a low-mass in the high end of the luminosity function.

A problem of the YSO scenario is that no HII region, maser source, nor outflow has been found. Furthermore, the star forming regions and high density regions elongate north to south in Sgr B2 (e.g., Sato et al. 2000), while the class B sources are widely distributed over the whole Sgr B2 cloud. This leads us to an alternative scenario that isolated white dwarfs (WDs) are powered by the Bondi-Hoyle accretion (Bondi & Hoyle 1944) from the dense cloud gas. In fact, the observed thin thermal plasma with the mean temperature of $`>4.2`$ keV is consistent with those of accretion powered WDs (e.g., Ezuka & Ishida 1999 and references there in). The Bond-Hoyle accretion rate is given by;

$$\dot{M}=2\times 10^{15}(\frac{n_{\mathrm{H}_2}}{10^4\mathrm{cm}^3})(\frac{v}{10\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1})^3(\frac{M}{M_{}})^2\mathrm{g}\mathrm{s}^1,$$
(1)
where $`M`$ and $`v`$ are the mass and traveling velocity of WDs relative to cloud, and $`n_{\mathrm{H}_2}`$ is the number density of molecular hydrogen in the cloud. The mean $`n_{\mathrm{H}_2}`$ can be estimated to be $`10^4`$ cm-3, from the $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ value of $`10^{24}`$ H cm-2 and typical depth of the cloud of about 20 pc (Lis & Goldsmith 1989). The X-ray luminosity is given by $`L_\mathrm{x}=GM\dot{M}/R`$, where $`R`$ is the radius of the WD and $`G`$ is the gravitational constant. Assuming the standard mass to radius relation of WDs ($`R=5.5\times 10^8(M/M_{})^{1/3}`$), $`L_\mathrm{x}`$ is estimated

$$L_\mathrm{x}=10^{32}(\frac{n_{\mathrm{H}_2}}{10^4\mathrm{cm}^3})(\frac{v}{10\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1})^3(\frac{M}{0.6M_{}})^{10/3}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1,$$
(2)
where, $`0.6M_{}`$ is the typical mass of WDs (Ramsay 2000 and references there in). Accordingly, with a reasonable range of gas density and WD parameters, the predicted X-ray luminosity is consistent with that of the observations. The number density of WDs in the solar neighbor is (5–6)$`\times 10^3`$ pc-3 (Holberg, Oswalt, & Sion 2001). Since the number density of stars near the Sgr B2 region (100 pc from the GC) is more than $`10^2`$ times higher than that the solar neighbor (e.g., Oort 1977), the population of WDs in our observed area (assuming a rectangle of 7.2 $`\times `$ 8.4 $`\times `$ 20 pc3) can be estimated to be $`>`$ 600. Therefore it is conceivable that the class B sources are a part of isolated WDs, which may lie in the higher end of the luminosity function.

### 3.4 Cloud Cores Irradiated by X-ray Sources

The composite spectra of all the cloud members has a 6.4-keV line with the $`E.W.`$ of 200–230 eV. The line energy corresponds to the K-shell emission from neutral or low-ionized irons, hence the most plausible origin is fluorescence from cold irons in the cloud gas. Assuming that homogeneous circumstellar gas is irradiated by a central X-ray sources, the required column density to emit observed 6.4 keV line is estimated from the relation of,

$$E.W.100Z_{\mathrm{Fe}}(\frac{N_\mathrm{H}}{10^{23}\mathrm{H}\mathrm{cm}^2})\mathrm{eV},$$
(3)
where $`Z_{\mathrm{Fe}}`$ is the iron abundance relative to solar (Inoue 1985). Most of the source photons (except for No. 11) are extracted from a circle with a $`3\times `$HPD-diameter, which corresponds $`0.1\mathrm{pc}`$ in radius. Thus the number density of atomic hydrogen ($`n_\mathrm{H}`$) in the source regions must be 6$`\times 10^5\mathrm{cm}^3`$, assuming $`Z_{\mathrm{Fe}}`$ is 1. This estimated value exceeds the average $`n_{\mathrm{H}_2}`$ in the Sgr B2 cloud of $`10^4\mathrm{cm}^3`$ (see previous subsection). We further find that the $`E.W.`$ does not decrease as we reduce the radius of the photon extraction circles. Therefore the gas density should be concentrated very close to the X-ray sources. In fact, De Pree et al. (1998) suggested that the density ($`n_{\mathrm{H}_2}`$) in the close vicinity ($`10^3`$ pc) of the UC HII region in Sgr B2 (M) is in between $`2\times 10^7\mathrm{cm}^3`$ and $`1\times 10^8\mathrm{cm}^3`$, if they are in pressure equilibrium.

No. 10 requires exceptionally strong 6.4-keV line with the $`E.W.`$ of 630 eV. Using the $`n_{\mathrm{H}_2}`$ value proposed by De Pree et al. (1998) and the core radius of $`10^3`$ pc, the column density in the core region of Sgr B2 (M) is (1–6)$`\times 10^{23}\mathrm{H}\mathrm{cm}^2`$. Then the expected abundance $`Z_{\mathrm{Fe}}`$ is $``$ 1–6, which is consistent with the best-fit value of a thin thermal fit (see 3.1).

The X-ray sources in a dense cloud cores such as Sgr B2 (M), (N), and (S), may photo-ionize the core regions. Using the X-ray ionization rate by Lorenzani & Palla (2001), we estimate that a dense core of $`n_\mathrm{H}10^{78}\mathrm{cm}^3`$ is largely ionized within $`0.010.03`$ pc in radius from a central source of 10-keV plasma with the luminosity of $`10^{32}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$. For Sgr B2 (M), which may contains $`20`$ X-ray sources in a $``$ 0.15-pc radius, the ionized volume is $`120`$% of the core. Since the ionized gas strongly couples to the magnetic field, it may have a significant effect on the cloud compression for star formation.

The X-ray ionization may also have an impact on the abundance of molecules. The abundance of $`\mathrm{HC}_3\mathrm{N}`$, for example, drops very rapidly with increasing ionization. The $`\mathrm{HC}_3\mathrm{N}`$ abundance in Sgr B2 (M) is 20 times less than that of Sgr B2 (N) (De Vicente et al. 2000). Since Sgr B2 (N) is less X-ray active and more largely extended than Sgr B2 (M), the abundance difference between these two cloud cores may be explained with the X-ray ionization effect.

## 4 Conclusion

1. We discovered a dozen X-ray sources in the giant molecular cloud Sagittarius B2 (Sgr B2). Judging from the large absorptions ($`N_\mathrm{H}`$) of (1–10)$`\times 10^{23}`$ H cm-2 and log$`N`$-log$`S`$ relation for the background sources, most of these are the cloud members.
2. The brightest two sources are found near at the HII complex Sgr B2 (M), which are likely the cluster of X-ray emitting YSOs. The X-ray spectra are largely different between the two sources. One has extremely strong iron lines, while the other has only weak lines.
3. X-ray excess from the HII complexes Sgr B2 (N) and (S) are found, the former is extended, while the latter is point-like. Both have the X-ray spectra and luminosities consistent with YSOs. No significant X-rays are found from any other HII regions.
4. The other X-ray sources also have the X-ray spectra and luminosities consistent with a single or a cluster of YSO(s). However, no counterpart of any other wavelength, neither optical/IR star, HII region, maser source nor molecular core has been reported. Thus alternative possibility is isolated white dwarfs powered by the Bondi-Hoyle accretion.
5. Strong 6.4-keV lines are found from the X-ray sources. The origin of this line would be the fluorescence of the circumstellar gas irradiated by the central stars. The gas density is not uniform but is centrally concentrated.

We thank to our referee, E. Feigelson for his useful comments and suggestions. H. M. is financially supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.


text:
# Theory for the optimal control of time-averaged quantities in open quantum systems

## Abstract

We present variational theory for optimal control over a finite time interval in quantum systems with relaxation. The corresponding Euler-Lagrange equations determining the optimal control field are derived. In our theory the optimal control field fulfills a high order differential equation, which we solve analytically for some limiting cases. We determine quantitatively how relaxation effects limit the control of the system. The theory is applied to open two level quantum systems. An approximate analytical solution for the level occupations in terms of the applied fields is presented. Different other applications are discussed.

The manipulation of quantum mechanical systems by using ultrashort time-dependent fields represents a challenging fundamental physical problem. In the last years, a considerable amount of experimental and theoretical work was concentrated on designing laser pulses having optimal amplitude and modulation. Thus the control of the quantum dynamics in various systems like atoms and molecules, quantum dots, semiconductors, superconducting devices and Bose-Einstein condensate was achieved.

Several theoretical studies, most of them using numerical optimization techniques, have shown that it is possible to construct optimal external fields (e.g. laser pulses) to drive a certain physical quantity, like the population of a given state, to reach a desired value at a given time.

Although this kind of control might be relevant for many purposes, a more detailed manipulation of real systems may require the control of physical quantities over a finite time interval. The search for optimal fields able to perform such control is a much more challenging problem for which no theoretical description has been given so far.

In this letter we present for the first time an analytical theory for the control of simple open systems over a finite time interval. By applying a variational approach we derive a high-order differential equation from which the optimal control fields are obtained. We also determine the influence of relaxation, the limits of this control and its potential applications to the manipulation of fundamental physical quantities, like the induced current through impurities in semiconductors or the population of electronic states at metallic surfaces.

Our goal is to formulate a theory which permits to derive explicit equations to be satisfied by the optimal control field. Note that one can guess the form of such equations from general physical arguments. Since memory effects are expected to be important, one should search for a differential equation containing both the pulse area $`\theta (t)=_{t_0}^t𝑑t^{}V(t^{})`$, where $`V(t)`$ is the external field envelope, and its time derivatives. Therefore, for the case of optimal control of dynamical quantities at a given time $`t_0`$, the differential equation satisfied by $`\theta (t)`$ must be of at least second order to fulfill the initial conditions $`\theta (t_0)`$, $`\dot{\theta }(t_0)`$. In the same way, the control of time averaged quantities over a finite time interval $`[t_0,t_0+T]`$ with boundary conditions requires a differential equation of at least forth order for $`\theta (t)`$ due to the boundary conditions for $`\theta (t)`$ and $`\dot{\theta }(t)`$ at $`t_0`$ and $`t_0+T`$. We show below that for certain open systems a forth order differential equation for the control fields arises naturally using variational approach as an Euler-Lagrange (EL) equation.

We start by considering a quantum-mechanical system which is in contact with the environment and interacting with an external field $`E(t)=V(t)\mathrm{cos}(\omega t)`$. Here $`V(t)`$ refers to an arbitrary pulse and $`\omega `$ is the carrier frequency. The evolution of such system obeys the quantum Liouville equation for the density matrix $`\rho (t)`$ with dissipative terms. The control of a time averaged dynamical quantity of the system requires the search for the optimal shape $`V(t)`$ of the external field.

Thus, in order to obtain the optimal $`V(t)`$ on time interval $`[0,T]`$ we propose the following Lagrangian (throughout the paper we use atomic units $`\mathrm{}`$=m=e=1)

$`L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^T}A(t)\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}+i\widehat{𝒵}(t)\right)\rho (t)𝑑t+\beta {\displaystyle _0^T}_1𝑑t.`$ (1)
$`\beta `$ is a Lagrange multiplier and $`A(t)`$ is a Lagrange multiplier density. The first term in Eq. (1) ensures that the density matrix satisfies the quantum Liouville equation with the corresponding Liouville operator $`\widehat{𝒵}(t)`$. While the first term describes the dynamics of the system under the external field, the functional $`_1`$ explicitly includes the description of the optimal control and is given by

$`_1(\rho ,V)=_{ob}(\rho )+\lambda V^2(t)+\lambda _1\left({\displaystyle \frac{dV(t)}{dt}}\right)^2,`$ (2)
where $`\lambda `$ and $`\lambda _1`$ are Lagrange multipliers. $`_{ob}(\rho )`$ refers to a physical quantity to be maximized during the control time. The second term represents a constraint on the total energy of the control field

$`2{\displaystyle _0^T}E^2(t)𝑑t{\displaystyle _0^T}V^2(t)𝑑t=E_0.`$ (3)
The third term represents a further constraint on the properties of the pulse envelope. The requirement

$`{\displaystyle _0^T}\left({\displaystyle \frac{dV(t)}{dt}}\right)^2𝑑tR,`$ (4)
where $`R`$ is a positive constant, excludes infinitely narrow or sharp step-like solutions, which cannot be achieved experimentally.

Assuming that the density matrix $`\rho (t)`$ depends only on $`\theta (t)`$ and time, one obtains an explicit expression for the functional $`_1=_1(\theta ,\dot{\theta },\ddot{\theta },t)`$. The corresponding extremum condition $`\delta _1=0`$ yields the high-order EL equation

$$\lambda _1\frac{d^4\theta }{dt^4}+\lambda \frac{d^2\theta }{dt^2}\frac{1}{2}\frac{_{ob}(\rho )}{\theta }=0.$$
(5)
In order to solve Eq. (5) one can assume the natural boundary conditions $`\theta (0)=\dot{\theta }(0)=\dot{\theta }(T)=0`$, $`\theta (T)=\theta _T`$, which also ensure that $`V(0)=V(T)=0`$. The choice of the constant $`\theta _T`$ depends on the problem. In general, the constants $`\theta _T`$, $`R`$ and $`E_0`$ can be also object of the optimization. Note, that above formulated problem is highly nonlinear with respect to the function $`\theta (t)`$ and can be solved only numerically.

Eq. (5) is the central result of this letter and provides an explicit differential equation for the control field. Note that this equation is only applicable if $`\rho =\rho (\theta (t),t)`$.

In order to show that Eq. (5) can describe optimal control in real physical situations, we apply our theory to an open two level quantum system. This is characterized by the energy levels $`ϵ_1`$ and $`ϵ_2`$, a dipole matrix element $`\mu `$ and the longitudinal and transverse relaxation constants, $`\gamma _1`$ and $`\gamma _2`$, respectively. The carrier frequency of the control field is chosen to be the resonant frequency $`\omega =ϵ_2ϵ_1`$. The dynamics of the density matrix $`\rho (t)`$ follows the equations (in the rotating wave approximation)

$`i{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{\mathrm{}}(\mu V(t)(\rho _{21}\rho _{12})i\gamma _1\rho _{22}),`$ (6)
$`i{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _{12}}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mu V(t)(\rho _{22}\rho _{11})i\gamma _2\rho _{12},`$ (7)
with $`\mathrm{}=1,2`$. Note that $`\rho _{11}+\rho _{22}=1`$ and $`\rho _{21}=\rho _{12}^{}`$. Eqs. (6) are used for the description of different effects, like for instance, the response of donor impurities in semiconductors to teraherz radiation, or the excitation of surface- into image charge states at noble metal surfaces. Therefore, the initial conditions are set as $`\rho _{11}=1,\rho _{22}=\rho _{12}=\rho _{21}=0`$.

Eqs. (6) have the form $`i\rho (t)/t=\widehat{\stackrel{~}{𝒵}}(t)\rho (t)`$ and are difficult to integrate, since $`[\widehat{\stackrel{~}{𝒵}}(t),\widehat{\stackrel{~}{𝒵}}(t^{})]0`$. However, the commutators $`[\widehat{\stackrel{~}{𝒵}}(t),\widehat{\stackrel{~}{𝒵}}(t^{})]`$ become arbitrarily small under the condition

$`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}V(t)}{t}}\gamma _{\mathrm{}}\right|1,`$ (8)
with $`\mathrm{}=1,2`$. In this case approximate solution for $`\rho _{22}(t)`$ is

$`\rho _{22}(t)=2\theta ^2(t)F^1(1\mathrm{cosh}(H)\mathrm{exp}((\gamma _1+\gamma _2)t/2)`$ (9)
$`+(\gamma _1+\gamma _2)t\mathrm{sinh}(H)\mathrm{exp}((\gamma _1+\gamma _2)t/2)H^1),`$ (10)
where $`H=\sqrt{((\gamma _1\gamma _2)^2t^216\theta ^2(t))/2}`$, and $`F=\gamma _1\gamma _2t^2+4\theta ^2(t)`$. Note that this approximate solution becomes exact when $`\gamma _1=\gamma _2=0`$ or for a constant control field $`V(t)=V_0`$. The expression of Eq. (9) has the form $`\rho =\rho (\theta (t),t)`$ and therefore Eq. (5) is applicable.

Now we construct the functional $`_{ob}(\rho )=\rho _{22}(t),`$ so that the average occupation of the upper level $`n_2=_0^T\rho _{22}(t)𝑑t`$ is maximized. Note, that $`n_2`$ proportional to the observed photocurrent in teraherz experiments on semiconductors. The resonant tunneling current through an array of coupled quantum dots is also proportional to a such value.

We have calculated the optimal $`V(t)`$ from the numerical integration of Eq. (5) for different values of the relaxation constants $`\gamma _1`$ and $`\gamma _2`$ and of the energy $`E_0`$ and the curvature $`R`$ of the control fields. For simplicity we consider the control interval $`[0,1]`$.

In Fig. 1 we show the optimal field for an isolated ($`\gamma _1=\gamma _2=0`$) and for an open two level system for given values of the pulse energy and curvature. Note, that for both cases the pulse maximum occurs near the beginning of the control interval. This leads to a rapid increase of the population $`\rho _{22}(t)`$ and therefore to a maximization of $`n_2`$. In the case of an isolated system the pulse vanishes when the population inversion has been achieved, whereas for an open system the pulse must compensate the decay of $`\rho _{22}(t)`$ due to relaxation effects and remains finite over the whole control interval.

In the inset of Fig. 1 we show the corresponding dynamics of the population $`\rho _{22}(t)`$ for both cases. As mentioned before, Eq. (9) is exact for the isolated system. Note, that for the open system the analytical form of $`\rho _{22}`$ (Eq. (9)) compares well with the numerical solution of the Liouville equation. This indicates that $`V(t)`$ fulfills the condition(8) on the control interval.

We found that the value of $`n_2`$ increases both for the isolated and for the open system monotonously with energy of the optimal control field. In Fig. 2 we plot $`n_2`$ as a function of the energy $`E_0`$ and the curvature $`R`$ of the optimal fields obtained from Eq. (5). Note, that pulses of fixed shape (for instance Gaussian) would show an oscillating behavior for increasing energy due to Rabi oscillations . The monotonous increase is a feature which characterizes the optimal pulses.

In order to achieve a simplified study of the physics contained in the control fields of Fig. 1, we analyze the problem in certain limiting cases. For instance, if $`\gamma _{1,2}T1`$ one can neglect decoherence within the control interval and Eq. (9) becomes $`\rho _{22}(t)=\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\theta (t)\right)`$. In order to make the problem analytically solvable, we reduce the order of the differential equation for the control fields. For that purpose we replace the constraint on the derivative of the field envelop (Eq. (4)) by a weaker one obtained from the condition

$$_0^T\dot{\theta }^2(t)𝑑t\frac{1}{T}\left(_0^T\dot{\theta }(t)𝑑t\right)^2=_0^T_w(\theta )S,$$
(11)
where S is a positive constant. Eq. (11) merely bounds the width of the envelope $`V(t)`$ in order to avoid unphysically narrow pulses. Thus, the Lagrangian density $`_1`$ for the optimal control has the form

$$_1=\rho _{22}(t)+\lambda \dot{\theta }^2(t)+\lambda _2_w(\theta ),$$
(12)
while the corresponding EL equation is given by

$$2\lambda ^{}\ddot{\theta }(t)\mathrm{sin}(2\theta (t))=0.$$
(13)
Note, that condition (11) only leads to a rescaling of the Lagrangian multiplier $`\lambda `$ to $`\lambda ^{}=\lambda +\lambda _2`$. The second order differential Eq. (13) requires two boundary conditions, for which we choose $`\theta (0)=0`$ and $`\theta (T)=\pi /2`$ (which ensure the population inversion). Eq. (13) resembles that for a mathematical pendulum and can be solved analytically. The resulting field envelope is given by

$$V(t)=V(0)dn(V(0)t,C),$$
(14)
where $`dn`$ is the Jacobian elliptic function, and $`C=(\lambda ^{}V^2(0))^1`$ is a constant of integration. Note, that $`V(0)0`$. Using conditions (3) and (11) we determine coefficients $`\lambda `$ and $`\lambda _2`$. If we choose $`C1`$ then we can obtain $`V(T)0`$. In this case, Eq. (14) can be significantly simplified to $`V(t)=\frac{}{t}\mathrm{arccos}[2\mathrm{exp}(V(0)t)/(1+\mathrm{exp}(2V(0)t))].`$

In Fig. 3 we plot the optimal control field $`V(t)`$ which maximizes the Lagrangian (12) for isolated and open two level systems. In both cases the field has its maximum value at $`t=0`$ and exhibits a monotonous decay. As in the case of the solutions of the forth-order Eq. (5) the control field is broader for the open system. In the inset of Fig. 3 we plot the population $`\rho _{22}(t)`$. The overall behavior of $`\rho _{22}(t)`$ is similar to that of the populations shown in Fig. 1.

It is important to point out, that a Lagrangian of the form of Eq. (12) always leads to a second order differential equation for the control fields as long as the condition $`\rho =\rho (\theta (t),t)`$ is satisfied. Therefore, one cannot demand extra boundary conditions for the fields $`V(0)=V(T)=0`$. Otherwise one would obtain the trivial solution $`V(t)0`$, which is not consistent with either (3) or (11). Therefore, if conditions on $`V(0)`$ and $`V(T)`$ have to be imposed, a Lagrangian leading to a forth order differential equation is necessary, as we have shown before.

As it was mentioned before $`n_2`$ increases monotonously with the pulse energy for the optimal field. Since for the isolated system $`n_2`$ approaches the maximum possible value $`n_2=T`$, in the case of nonisolated systems there is a limit. In order to show that this limits is due to general physical reasons we analyze the occupation $`\rho _{22}(t)`$ (Eq. (9)) in more detail. For a strong control field satisfying $`\gamma _{1,2}t/\theta (t)1`$ the occupation $`\rho _{22}(t)`$ always lies under the curve $`\rho _{22}^{max}(t)=(1+\mathrm{exp}((\gamma _1+\gamma _2)t/2))/2`$. This means that it exhibits an absolute upper bound. Therefore due to dissipative processes the following inequality holds for the controlled averaged value of $`\rho _{22}`$:

$`n_2={\displaystyle _0^T}\rho _{22}(t)dtT/2+(1\mathrm{exp}((\gamma _1+\gamma _2)T/2)/(\gamma _1+\gamma _2).`$ (15)
Eq. (15) shows the absolute limit for the optimal control of averaged occupations in open two level systems. In Fig. 4 we show the maximal possible value $`\rho _{22}^{max}(t)`$ and the time evolution of $`\rho _{22}(t)`$ induced by 40 randomly generated pulses (for some of which the condition $`\gamma _{1,2}t/\theta (t)1`$ is even not strictly fulfilled). From Fig. 4 we conclude that under the action of arbitrary control fields, the life time of the upper level cannot be longer than $`2/(\gamma _1+\gamma _2)`$.

Using this result we can determine the maximal possible life-time for an image state at a Cu(111) surface which can be achieved by pulse shaping. According to Hertel et al., those states are characterized by $`\gamma _1=510^{13}s^1`$ and $`\gamma _2=\gamma _1/2`$. Thus, our theory predicts in that case an effective decay constant $`\gamma _{eff}=(\gamma _1+\gamma _2)/2=3.7510^{13}s^1`$.

In summary, we presented a theory for the description of optimal control of time-averaged quantities in open quantum systems. In particular we have shown that the boundary conditions of the problem make a significant influence on the shape of the optimal fields. In contrast to other approaches our theory allows to derive an explicit differential equation for the optimal control field, which we integrated both numerically and exactly for some limiting cases. Our approximation $`\rho (t)=\rho (\theta ,t)`$ was checked by direct integration of the Liouville equations and it seems to hold also in the case of strong relaxation. Using our theory we found the optimal fields which maximize the population of the upper levels of isolated and open two-level systems. We found an absolute upper bound for this kind of optimal control. Our approach can be used for further investigations, for instance,control of the dynamics of multi-level systems.


text:
# Matrix Elements of Random Operators and Discrete Symmetry Breaking in NucleiSupported in part by the CNPq and FAPESP (Brazil)

## I Acknowledgment

We thank Gary Mitchell for very useful suggestions and remarks.

Figure Captions:

Fig. 1 Four histograms of the logarithm of the matrix elements distributions of the random operator $`O_C`$ for the transition GOE$``$2GOE’s, for the indicated values of the parameter $`\lambda `$. The calculations were done with matrices of dimension $`N=150`$ and block sizes $`M_1=80`$ and $`M_2=70`$. The dashed line corresponds to P-T, the dotted line to the fit with one $`\chi ^2`$\- distribution and the solid one to a sum of two $`\chi ^2`$\- distributions. See text for details.

Fig. 2 Four histograms of the logarithm of the matrix elements distributions of the generic random operator $`O`$ for the case of the transition GOE$``$2GOE’s, for the indicated values of the parameter $`q`$. The calculations were done with matrices of dimension $`N=150`$ and block sizes $`M_1=80`$ and $`M_2=70`$. The lines are as in Fig. 1.

Fig. 3 The effect of the missing transitions in the P-T distribution. The calculations were done with matrices of dimension $`N=100`$. See text for details.


text:
# 1. Introduction

## 1. Introduction

Since the seminal work of Bekenstein  and Hawking  in the early 1970s, we have understood that black holes are thermodynamic objects, with characteristic temperatures and entropies. The Bekenstein-Hawking entropy depends on both Planck’s constant $`\mathrm{}`$ and Newton’s gravitational constant $`G`$, and offers one of the few known “windows” into quantum gravity. In particular, an understanding of the microscopic statistical mechanics of black hole thermodynamics may give us valuable information about the fundamental degrees of freedom of quantized general relativity. Until quite recently, though, standard derivations of the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy involved only macroscopic thermodynamics, and a statistical mechanical description was more a hope than a reality.

In the past few years, this situation has changed dramatically. Today, indeed, we face the opposite problem: we have many candidate descriptions of black hole statistical mechanics, all of which yield the same entropy despite counting very different states. In particular, there are two string theoretical descriptions, one based on counting D-brane states  and another involving a dual conformal field theory ; an approach in loop quantum gravity that counts spin network states ; and a slightly more obscure method  based on Sakharov’s old idea of induced gravity . The problem of “universality” is to explain why these approaches agree, and why they agree with the original semiclassical computations  that know nothing of the details of quantum gravity.

One possible answer is that black hole thermodynamics may be controlled by a symmetry inherited from the classical theory. This idea has its roots in an observation by Strominger  and Birmingham et al.  that black hole entropy in three spacetime dimensions can be obtained from Cardy’s formula  for the density of states of a two-dimensional conformal field theory at the “boundary” of spacetime. A number of authors have tried to extend such arguments to black holes in arbitrary dimensions , but while these calculations seem to have the right “flavor,” none is yet fully satisfactory . In particular, all such proposals so far require awkward boundary conditions at black hole horizons, and most have serious difficulties in two spacetime dimensions, where there does not seem to be enough room at the one-dimensional horizon for the required degrees of freedom.

In this paper, I point out three new ingredients that lead to an improved description of the near-horizon symmetries of a black hole, and show how they may overcome these difficulties. The new ingredients are the following:

1. Conformal symmetry: In the presence of a stationary black hole—or, more generally, a black hole with a momentarily stationary region near its horizon—the Einstein-Hilbert action of general relativity acquires a new conformal symmetry. Indeed, let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a segment of such a horizon (see figure 1), and let $`𝒩`$ be a “momentarily stationary” neighborhood, that is, a neighborhood admitting a Killing vector $`\chi ^a`$ for which $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a Killing horizon. If $`f`$ is an arbitrary smooth function that vanishes outside $`𝒩`$, then under the transformation

$$g_{ab}_c(f\chi ^c)g_{ab}$$
(1.1)
the action in $`n`$ dimensions transforms, up to possible boundary terms, as

$$\delta I=\frac{1}{16\pi G}_N_c(f\chi ^c)g^{ab}G_{ab}ϵ=\frac{1}{16\pi G}\frac{n2}{2}_Nf\chi ^c_cRϵ=0,$$
(1.2)
where $`ϵ`$ is the volume element and the last equality follows from the fact that $`\chi ^a`$ is a Killing vector. The addition of matter to the Lagrangian will not change this result, as long as the matter fields have the same symmetries as the metric in $`𝒩`$.

For (1.1) to be a genuine symmetry, of course, it must preserve the relevant space of fields; that is, the new metric must also admit a Killing vector in $`𝒩`$. It is straightforward to check that this will be the case if

$$(\chi ^a_a)^2f=0.$$
(1.3)
Below, we shall generalize this argument to the case of an asymptotic symmetry, for which $`(\chi ^a_a)^2f(x)`$ approaches zero as $`x`$ approaches $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

The transformation (1.1) is not a symmetry of the full Einstein-Hilbert action, of course, since a generic metric admits no local Killing vector. If one is interested in quantum gravitational questions about black holes, though, one should restrict the action to field configurations in which a black hole is present . For such configurations, a symmetry of the form (1.1) is present at least as an asymptotic symmetry.
2. Horizon symplectic form: In the presence of a horizon, the canonical symplectic form of general relativity—that is, roughly, the Poisson brackets—picks up a new contribution from the horizon. This is most easily seen in the covariant canonical formalism , in which the symplectic form for a collection of fields $`\varphi `$ is given by an integral

$$\mathrm{\Omega }[\varphi ;\delta _1\varphi ,\delta _2\varphi ]=_C\omega [\varphi ;\delta _1\varphi ,\delta _2\varphi ]$$
(1.4)
of a closed form $`\omega `$ over a (partial) Cauchy surface $`C`$. Consider the two surfaces $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ of figure 1. The fact that $`\omega `$ is a closed form ensures that

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{C_1}[\varphi ;\delta _1\varphi ,\delta _2\varphi ]=\mathrm{\Omega }_{C_2}[\varphi ;\delta _1\varphi ,\delta _2\varphi ]+_{\mathrm{\Delta }C_1}^{\mathrm{\Delta }C_2}\omega [\varphi ;\delta _1\varphi ,\delta _2\varphi ],$$
(1.5)
where the integral on the right-hand side is over the portion of the horizon joining $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$. For the isolated horizon boundary conditions of Ref. , the restriction of $`\omega `$ to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is exact, and the horizon integral can be absorbed in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. In general, though, there is no reason to expect such a simple outcome. Instead, to define a symplectic structure that is independent of the choice of Cauchy surface $`C`$, one must choose a “reference” cross-section $`S`$ of the horizon and define

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_C[\varphi ;\delta _1\varphi ,\delta _2\varphi ]=_C\omega [\varphi ;\delta _1\varphi ,\delta _2\varphi ]+_S^{\mathrm{\Delta }C}\omega [\varphi ;\delta _1\varphi ,\delta _2\varphi ]$$
(1.6)
where the second integral is over the portion of the horizon connecting $`S`$ and $`C_1`$. This term is already implicit in , where the boundary contribution to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is fixed in terms of a reference cross-section that is used to determine the relevant “integration constant.”

The Poisson brackets thus include a contribution from the horizon itself. As we shall see below, for an asymptotic symmetry of the sort we are interested in here, this horizon contribution will dominate.
3. Asymptotic symmetry: The horizon of a generic black hole need not have a stationary neighborhood $`𝒩`$. The nonexpanding horizon boundary conditions of Ashtekar et al. , for example, require a Killing vector only on the horizon itself. What we really need is the notion of an asymptotic symmetry, in which the spacetime is “almost” stationary as one approaches the horizon.

Traditionally, an “asymptotic symmetry” in general relativity has meant an exact symmetry, i.e., a diffeomorphism, that preserves some extra asymptotic structure. Here we have a slightly different situation: a symmetry of the action that may be exact only at the horizon, but that can be made arbitrarily good by shrinking the neighborhood $`𝒩`$ in which the parameter $`f`$ has its support. This circumstance is probably best viewed as an instance of a weakly broken symmetry. In particular, we can find an approximate Killing vector $`\chi ^a`$ near the horizon (e.g., in the manner of ) and a metric $`\overline{g}`$ for which $`\chi ^a`$ is an exact Killing vector, and write $`g=\overline{g}+h`$, where $`h=0`$ at the horizon. The Lagrangian $`𝐋[\overline{g}+h]`$ is then invariant up to terms of order $`h`$, and it may be shown that the would-be Noether current for the transformation (1.1) is conserved up to terms of order $`h`$. While more work is required to fully understand this sort of symmetry, it is reasonably clear that if $`h`$ is sufficiently smooth, an asymptotic symmetry near the horizon should become an exact symmetry for fields located on the horizon itself

## 2. The two-dimensional black hole

We can now ask whether the new symmetry (1.1) places any restrictions on black hole thermodynamics. In general, one ought not expect a symmetry to determine anything as “microscopic” as a density of states. There is one important exception, though: for a one- or two-dimensional conformal symmetry described by a Virasoro algebra

$$[L_m,L_n]=(mn)L_{m+n}+\frac{c}{12}m(m^21)\delta _{m+n,0}$$
(2.1)
with central charge $`c`$, the Cardy formula  tells us that the number of states having eigenvalue $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of $`L_0`$ goes asymptotically as

$$\rho (\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{exp}\left\{2\pi \sqrt{\frac{c_{\text{eff}}\mathrm{\Delta }}{6}}\right\}\text{with }c_{\text{eff}}=c24\mathrm{\Delta }_0,$$
(2.2)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ is the lowest eigenvalue of $`L_0`$. The question is thus whether the symmetry (1.1) can be described by such an algebra.

To answer this question, it is useful to focus on a particular example, two-dimensional dilaton gravity. This is not as restrictive as it may seem, since general relativity in any dimension can be dimensionally reduced via a Kaluza-Klein mechanism to two-dimensional gravity coupled to “matter” fields, and I shall argue below that the extra fields do not affect the conclusions. Still, this work should be considered a first step, which can presumably be considerably generalized.

The action for dilaton gravity can be written in the form

$$I=𝐋=\frac{1}{2G}\left(\varphi R+\frac{1}{\mathrm{}^2}V[\varphi ]\right)ϵ,$$
(2.3)
where $`ϵ`$ is the two-dimensional volume form and $`V`$ is an arbitrary function of the dilaton field $`\varphi `$. (The kinetic term for $`\varphi `$ has been absorbed into $`\varphi R`$ by field redefinition.) Strictly speaking, one cannot define the expansion of a null congruence in two dimensions, but the analog in dilaton gravity is

$$\vartheta =\frac{1}{\varphi }\mathrm{}^a_a\varphi $$
(2.4)
where $`\mathrm{}^a`$ is the null normal. All known exact black hole solutions, including dimensionally reduced descriptions of higher-dimensional black holes, have null horizons with vanishing $`\vartheta `$.

As in previous work , we will start with a “stretched horizon,” in this case a null surface $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ with null normal $`\mathrm{}^a`$ for which $`\vartheta `$ is small but nonzero. Near a genuine horizon, we can take $`\vartheta `$ to be a measure of how far we have “stretched” away; in the end, we will take the limit $`\vartheta 0`$.

In two dimensions, the vector $`\mathrm{}^a`$ determines a unique “orthogonal” null vector $`n^a`$, such that $`\mathrm{}^an_a=1`$. We extend $`n^a`$ from $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ by requiring that

$$n^a_an_b=0,$$
(2.5)
from which it follows that

$$_a\mathrm{}_b=\kappa n_a\mathrm{}_b,_an_b=\kappa n_an_b$$
(2.6)
where $`\kappa `$ is the “surface gravity.” Note, though, that unlike a timelike or spacelike unit vector, a null normal does not have a fixed normalization: by rescaling $`\mathrm{}^af\mathrm{}^a`$, one can change $`\kappa `$ almost arbitrarily on a fixed null surface $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ ,

$$\kappa \mathrm{}^a_af+\kappa f,n^a_af=0,$$
(2.7)
where the last condition ensures that (2.5) is preserved. We shall use this freedom below to choose a convenient form for $`\kappa `$.

Observe from (2.6) that

$$_a\mathrm{}_b+_b\mathrm{}_a=\kappa g_{ab},$$
(2.8)
so $`\mathrm{}_a`$ is a conformal Killing vector. We will see later that the natural scaling of $`\mathrm{}_a`$ leads to a surface gravity $`\kappa `$ proportional to $`\vartheta `$, so $`\mathrm{}_a`$ is actually an approximate Killing vector near the horizon.

The application of the transformation (1.1) to two dimensions is a bit tricky, both because a new field $`\varphi `$ is present and because the field equations of dilaton gravity differ from those of ordinary general relativity. In general, we should expect $`\varphi `$ as well as $`g_{ab}`$ to transform, and it is easy to check that under a transformation

$`\delta g_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`_c(f\mathrm{}^c)g_{ab}=(\mathrm{}^c_cf+\kappa f)g_{ab}`$
$`\delta \varphi `$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{}^c_ch+\kappa h),`$ (2.9)
the Lagrangian (2.3) satisfies $`\delta 𝐋\vartheta `$. We thus have an asymptotic symmetry in the sense described earlier. In particular, by restricting $`f`$ and $`h`$ to have their support in a small region near a horizon, we can make the variation $`\delta I`$ arbitrarily small. For now, the relationship of $`f`$ and $`h`$ will remain unspecified; we shall see later that the choice that makes the transformation (2.9) canonical actually implies that $`\delta 𝐋\vartheta ^2`$.

Equation (2.9) is not enough to determine the separate variations of $`\mathrm{}^a`$ and $`n^a`$. This is to be expected, since the normalization of $`\mathrm{}^a`$ is not fixed; the only restriction, from (2.6), is that $`n^a_a(n_b\delta \mathrm{}^b)=0`$. We are thus free to choose $`\delta \mathrm{}^a=0`$, which then implies that

$`\mathrm{}_a\delta n^a`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}^c_cf+\kappa f`$
$`\delta \kappa `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}^b_b(\mathrm{}^c_cf+\kappa f)`$ (2.10)
$`\delta s`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}^a_a(\mathrm{}^b_bh+\kappa h)`$
where $`s=\mathrm{}^a_a\varphi =\vartheta \varphi `$. It follows that

$$[\delta _1,\delta _2]g_{ab}=(\mathrm{}^c_c\{f_1,f_2\}+\kappa \{f_1,f_2\})g_{ab}\text{with }\{f_1,f_2\}=(\mathrm{}^a_af_1)f_2(\mathrm{}^a_af_2)f_1,$$
(2.11)
giving the standard conformal algebra.

To express the transformations (2.9) in Hamiltonian form, we need the symplectic form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of (1.6). This can be computed by Wald’s methods . For variations that have their support only in a small neighborhood $`𝒩`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$, the main contribution will come from the integral along $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$. Restricting the symplectic form of Ref.  to $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$, one finds that

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}=\frac{1}{2G}_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\left(\mathrm{}^a_a(\delta _1\varphi )\mathrm{}_b\delta _2n^b\mathrm{}^a_a(\delta _2\varphi )\mathrm{}_b\delta _1n^b\right)\widehat{ϵ},$$
(2.12)
where $`\widehat{ϵ}=n`$ is the induced volume element on $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$. Since $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ is null, one can integrate by parts, and use (2.) to obtain

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}[\delta _1,\delta _2]=\frac{1}{2G}_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\left(\delta _1\varphi \delta _2\kappa \delta _2\varphi \delta _1\kappa \right)\widehat{ϵ}.$$
(2.13)
## 3. Hamiltonian and Virasoro algebra

The next question is whether the transformation (2.9) is canonical, that is, whether it is generated by a “Hamiltonian” $`L`$. Such a Hamiltonian must satisfy

$$\delta L[f,h]=\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}[\delta ,\delta _{f,h}]=\frac{1}{2G}_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\left[\delta \varphi \mathrm{}^b_b(\mathrm{}^c_cf+\kappa f)\delta \kappa (\mathrm{}^c_ch+\kappa h)\right]\widehat{ϵ}$$
(3.1)
where again $`s=\mathrm{}^a_a\varphi `$ and I have integrated by parts to obtain the last equality. The variation $`\delta `$ can be thought of as an exterior derivative on the space of fields, and the integrability condition for (3.1) is that $`\delta ^2L[f,h]=0`$. If we assume that the parameters $`f`$ and $`h`$ are field-independent, so $`\delta f=\delta h=0`$, it is easy to see that this condition requires that $`\delta s`$ be proportional to $`\delta \kappa `$. In particular, this proportionality must hold for variations of the form (2.9), and this, together with the requirement that $`f`$ and $`h`$ be field-independent, implies that

$$\frac{\kappa }{s}=\text{constant on }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }},$$
(3.2)
$$sf=\kappa h.$$
(3.3)
Despite appearances, (3.2) is not a real restriction on the geometry, since it can always be satisfied by rescaling $`\mathrm{}^a`$ as in (2.7). As noted earlier, this relation makes the transformation (2.9) an even better approximate symmetry. Indeed, it may be checked that now

$$\delta \varphi Rϵ=2\left[n^a_af(\mathrm{}^a_as\kappa s)+n^a_a\left(\frac{s}{\kappa }f\right)\mathrm{}^a_a\kappa \right]ϵ,$$
(3.4)
and the integrand goes as $`\vartheta ^2`$ near $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. While no corresponding suppression appears automatically in the potential term in (2.3), the variation of that term can easily be arranged to be of order $`\vartheta ^2`$ by an appropriate choice of $`\kappa /s`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$.

With the relation (3.3) between $`h`$ and $`f`$, (3.1) can be easily integrated, yielding

$$L[f]=\frac{1}{2G}_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}s\left(2\mathrm{}^a_af+\kappa f\right)\widehat{ϵ}=\frac{1}{2G}_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\left(2\mathrm{}^a_as\kappa s\right)f\widehat{ϵ}.$$
(3.5)
We must next choose a basis for the functions $`f`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$. Since the normalization of $`\mathrm{}^a`$ is not fixed—even (3.2) determines it only up to a constant—the corresponding light cone coordinate has no intrinsic physical meaning. There is, however, a natural coordinate on $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$, the dilaton $`\varphi `$ itself, which by the two-dimensional version of the Raychaudhuri equation should be monotonic on $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$. Let

$$z=e^{2\pi i\varphi /\varphi _+},$$
(3.6)
where $`\varphi _+`$ is the value of $`\varphi `$ on the horizon, so $`z1`$ at $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.***This choice is almost unique, in that $`\varphi _+`$ is the only natural quantity in the theory having the right dimension. In principle, though, we could have chosen $`w=z^\alpha `$ to define our modes. This would leave the central charge (3.12) unchanged, but would shift the Hamiltonian (3.10). We can then choose a basis of functions to be proportional to $`z^n`$, with the proportionality constants determined from (2.11) and the requirement that the $`f_n`$ satisfy the standard $`\text{Diff}(S^1)`$ commutation relations:

$$f_n=\frac{\varphi _+}{2\pi s}z^n,\{f_m,f_n\}=i(mn)f_{m+n}.$$
(3.7)
Note that with this choice, the consistency condition (1.3) is satisfied asymptotically:

$$(\mathrm{}^a_a)^2f_n=\frac{2\pi n^2}{\varphi _+}sz^n0\text{as }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\mathrm{\Delta }.$$
(3.8)
In terms of these modes, the Hamiltonian (3.5) becomes

$$L[f_n]=\frac{1}{2G}\frac{\kappa }{s}_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\left(1+2\frac{\mathrm{}^a\mathrm{}^b_a_b\varphi }{\kappa }\right)sf_n\frac{\varphi _+}{2\pi i}\frac{dz}{z}.$$
(3.9)
On shell, though, $`_a_b\varphi g_{ab}`$ , so the last term in (3.9) vanishes, giving

$$L[f_n]=\frac{1}{2G}\frac{\kappa }{s}\frac{\varphi _+^2}{2\pi }\delta _{n0}.$$
(3.10)
It remains for us to compute the Poisson brackets $`\{L[f_m],L[f_n]\}`$. This is most easily done directly from equation (3.1), and a straightforward computation yields

$$\{L[f_m],L[f_n]\}=\delta _{f_m}L[f_n]=\frac{2\pi i}{G}\frac{s}{\kappa }n^3\delta _{m+n,0}.$$
(3.11)
This may be recognized as the expression for a central term in the Virasoro algebra, with central charge

$$c=\frac{24\pi }{G}\frac{s}{\kappa }.$$
(3.12)
Inserting (3.10) and (3.11) into the Cardy formula (2.2), we obtain a density of states

$$\mathrm{log}\rho (L_0)=\frac{2\pi \varphi _+}{G},$$
(3.13)
giving exactly the standard Bekenstein-Hawking entropy for the two-dimensional dilaton black hole .

In contrast to previous work on Virasoro algebras at the horizon, this derivation has the nice feature that the central charge (3.12) does not depend on the particular black hole being considered. The algebra may therefore be viewed as a universal one, with different black holes represented by different values (3.10) of $`L_0`$.

For simplicity, I have dealt only with two-dimensional black holes. An extension to higher dimensions would clearly be of interest. As noted above, though, higher-dimensional general relativity may be dimensionally reduced in the manner of Kaluza and Klein to two-dimensional dilaton gravity coupled with extra “matter” fields (see, for example, ). It is fairly easy to see that these added terms cannot contribute to the classical central charge (3.12), although they might give quantum corrections. The algebra derived here is thus more universal than it might seem.

As also noted above, we should probably worry further about the making the notion of an “asymptotic symmetry” used here more rigorous. It may be useful to exploit a generalization of the symmetry (1.1) that exists in the presence of a conformal Killing vector $`\eta ^a`$,

$$_a\eta _b+_b\eta _a=\kappa g_{ab}.$$
(3.14)
It is not hard to check that the transformation

$$g_{ab}\left(\eta ^c_cf+\frac{n2}{2}\kappa f\right)g_{ab}$$
(3.15)
leaves the Einstein-Hilbert action invariant provided that $`f`$ is chosen to satisfy

$$g^{ab}_a\kappa _bfϵ=0.$$
(3.16)
Moreover, if the original metric $`g_{ab}`$ admits a conformal Killing vector, it is easily checked that the transformed metric does as well. Maintaining the condition (3.16) is more complicated, but at least one solutions exists: if both $`\kappa `$ and $`f`$ are functions of a single null coordinate $`v`$, (3.16) holds automatically, and is preserved by (3.15). Work on understanding the implications of this extended symmetry is in progress.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Peter Beach Carlip, age $`2\frac{3}{4}`$, for all the “black hole information” and “quantum gravity” he gave me during this research. This work was also supported in part by Department of Energy grant DE-FG03-91ER40674.


text:
# Magnetic Field Effect on the Pseudogap Temperature within Precursor Superconductivity

\[

## Abstract

We determine the magnetic field dependence of the pseudogap closing temperature $`T^{}`$ within a precursor superconductivity scenario. Detailed calculations with an anisotropic attractive Hubbard model account for a recently determined experimental relation in BSCCO between the pseudogap closing field and the pseudogap temperature at zero field, as well as for the weak initial dependence of $`T^{}`$ at low fields. Our results indicate that the available experimental data are fully compatible with a superconducting origin of the pseudogap in cuprate superconductors.

\]

High-temperature superconductors are characterized by a pseudogap phase, whereby a temperature $`T^{}`$ for the closing of the pseudogap is identified in addition to the (lower) superconducting critical temperature $`T_c`$. The origin of this pseudogap phase remains controversial and has mainly been ascribed to two alternative scenarios, namely, to the occurrence of a “competing order parameter” (due, e.g., to an underlying antiferromagnetic or charge order) or to the presence of “precursor superconductivity” (due to strong pairing attraction above $`T_c`$). The issue is thus to decide whether pseudogap and superconductivity (better, precursor pairing) represent related or different phenomena.

In this context, magnetic effects are good candidates for distinguishing between the two scenarios. It turns out that $`T^{}`$ and $`T_c`$ behave differently as functions of hole concentration and magnetic field $`H`$, in the sense that, in the underdoped region, $`T^{}`$ is weakly dependent on $`H`$ while $`T_c`$ shows more pronounced dependence . A similar behavior is observed at optimal doping , while in the overdoped region the pseudogap behavior is strongly field dependent . The above distinction between the two temperature (or energy) scales has sometimes been quoted as evidence that the two scales have different physical origin .

Recently, by applying magnetic fields up to $`60`$ T, a systematic determination of the pseudogap closing field $`H_{\mathrm{pg}}`$ (above which the pseudogap phase is destroyed at any temperature) has been made using data for several doping values , showing strikingly different dependencies from the characteristic fields of the superconducting state. In addition, it has been found  that $`H_{\mathrm{pg}}`$ and $`T^{}`$ at zero field are related (within experimental uncertainty) through the simple Zeeman-like expression $`g\mu _BH_{\mathrm{pg}}=k_BT^{}`$, where $`g=2`$ is the electronic $`g`$-factor, $`\mu _B`$ the Bohr magneton, and $`k_B`$ the Boltzmann constant. This expression suggests that the magnetic field couples to the pseudogap by the Zeeman energy of the spin degrees of freedom, thus entailing a predominant role of the spins over the orbital frustration effects in the formation of the pseudogap.

Within the framework of the pairing scenario, a calculation of the effect of a magnetic field on $`T^{}`$ and $`T_c`$ has already been presented by including orbital  magnetic effects only but no Zeeman coupling in a continuum model , with the conclusion that orbital effects should contribute in an important way to the field dependence of $`T^{}`$.

In this Letter, we calculate the magnetic field dependence of $`T^{}`$ within a precursor superconductivity scenario, by taking explicit account of the Zeeman splitting for the spin degrees of freedom, and provide specific comparison with the data of Ref. . To this end, we initially consider the Zeeman splitting only, within an attractive Hubbard model for an anisotropic (layered) structure with a $`d`$-wave pseudogap. At a second stage, we include also orbital effects in a continuum model, to assess the relative importance of Zeeman and orbital couplings. Our results are that, when pseudogap effects are weak (i.e., at low pairing interaction), $`T^{}`$ depends markedly on $`H`$, while at stronger pairing $`T^{}`$ is weakly field dependent. In addition, at the doping levels relevant to experiments, we reproduce quantitatively the expression $`g\mu _BH_{\mathrm{pg}}=k_BT^{}`$ proposed by the authors of Ref. . Specifically, we find that: (i) Inclusion of the sole Zeeman splitting for an attractive Hubbard model with an anisotropic (layered) structure recovers the above expression within about a factor of two (which we attribute to the difference between the temperature $`T^{}`$ as identified within precursor superconductivity and the energy scale associated with pair breaking); (ii) The contribution of the orbital effect (estimated for a continuum model) does not significantly affect the results obtained for $`H_{pg}`$ with the sole inclusion of the Zeeman effect, in the intermediate-coupling regime relevant to experiments; (iii) In the small $`H`$ region, $`T^{}(H)`$ is weakly dependent on $`H`$ and somewhat sensitive to the inclusion of the orbital effect. Our results imply that the magnetic field effects in the pseudogap phase, as determined by the experiments reported in Ref.  as well as in Refs., and, are fully compatible with precursor superconductivity as the origin of $`T^{}`$.

The relative importance of the Zeeman and orbital effects on $`H_{\mathrm{pg}}`$ could be assessed by applying a magnetic field, alternatively, parallel  and orthogonal  to the layered structure of the high-temperature superconducting materials, thus suppressing the orbital contribution when the magnetic field is parallel to the layers. Although no experimental indication in this sense yet exists, the relation between $`H_{\mathrm{pg}}`$ and $`T^{}`$ found in Ref.  constitutes per se an empirical suggestion that the Zeeman effect dominates over the orbital frustration, at least as far as $`H_{\mathrm{pg}}`$ is concerned.

For the above reasons, we consider initially the Zeeman effect only, which can be evaluated for arbitrary magnetic field and for which lattice effects (even with anysotropy) and the $`d`$-wave character of precursor pairing can be readily included. To this end, we consider an attractive extended Hubbard model, with nearest-neighbor ($`t_{}`$) and next-nearest neighbor ($`t_{}^{}`$) in-plane hoppings, nearest-neighbor ($`t_{}`$) out-of-plane hopping, and an in-plane attraction (with strength $`V0`$) between nearest-neighbor sites. This model is believed to capture the essential physics of cuprate superconductors in the nearly optimally doped region.

In the absence of magnetic field, a pair breaking temperature is obtained by supplementing the standard BCS gap equation with the particle-density equation to determine the chemical potential , since its value is no longer pinned at the Fermi level as soon as the attraction is sufficiently strong. When this happens, the above temperature is no longer related to the superconducting critical temperature, but rather signals the formation of (quasi) bound pairs. In this context, the pair breaking temperature is then associated with the crossover temperature $`T^{}`$ identified experimentally. In the following, we extend this identification to the presence of a magnetic field. The coupled equations to be solved are:

$$\frac{1}{|V|}=\frac{d𝐤}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{\gamma (𝐤)^2}{4\xi (𝐤)}\underset{\sigma }{}\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{\xi _\sigma (𝐤)}{2k_BT^{}}\right)$$
(1)
$$n=\frac{d𝐤}{(2\pi )^3}\underset{\sigma }{}\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}(\xi _\sigma (𝐤)/k_BT^{})+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}.$$
(2)
In these expressions, $`n`$ is the site density, $`\xi _\sigma (𝐤)=2t_{}(\mathrm{cos}k_x+\mathrm{cos}k_y)2t_{}\mathrm{cos}k_z+4t_{}^{}\mathrm{cos}k_x\mathrm{cos}k_y\mu +\mu _BH\sigma `$ (where $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential and $`\sigma =\pm 1`$), $`2\xi (𝐤)=\xi _+(𝐤)+\xi _{}(𝐤)`$, $`\gamma (𝐤)=(\mathrm{cos}k_x\mathrm{cos}k_y)`$ for a $`d`$-wave gap, and each component of the wave vector $`𝐤`$ is integrated from $`\pi `$ to $`+\pi `$. To make contact with experimental data, we interpret $`n=1p`$ where $`p`$ is the doping value . Values appropriate to BSCCO are $`t_{}=0.25`$ eV, $`t_{}^{}=0.45t_{}`$, and $`t_{}=0.2t_{}`$ . The value of $`|V|`$ (corresponding to a given sample) is obtained by solving the above equations for $`H=0`$ and setting $`T^{}(H=0)`$ at the experimental value in zero field. These equations are then solved numerically for the unknowns $`(T^{},\mu )`$ with given values of $`(n,|V|,H)`$. In this way, to any given sample (corresponding to a pair of values $`(n,|V|)`$), we associate a curve $`T^{}(H)`$, from which the pseudogap closing field $`H_{\mathrm{pg}}`$ of interest is extracted by extrapolation to $`T^{}(H_{\mathrm{pg}})=0`$ (extrapolation is required to avoid numerical instabilities when $`T^{}(H)`$ approaches zero).

A typical curve $`T^{}(H)`$ obtained by the above procedure is shown in Fig. 1, for the values of $`n`$ and $`|V|`$ corresponding to the sample with $`p=0.21`$ analyzed in Ref. . Note the rather weak initial dependence of $`T^{}(H)`$ for low $`H`$. Typically, $`T^{}(H)`$ decreases only by about $`1\%`$ for values of $`H`$ up to $`25`$ T. This result is consistent with the experimental finding reported by several authors , where a negligibly weak magnetic-field dependence of $`T^{}`$ is noted for various compounds.

Figure 2 shows the results of our calculation corresponding to the three samples reported in the inset of Fig. 4 from Ref. . In that reference, the large ($`100`$ T) values of $`H_{\mathrm{pg}}`$ have been obtained by extrapolation of the data collected up to $`60`$ T. Note that both the experimental and the theoretical points lie on straight lines passing through the origin. This entails a linear proportionality between $`H_{\mathrm{pg}}`$ and $`T^{}(H=0)`$ (of the form $`2\mu _BH_{\mathrm{pg}}=\alpha k_BT^{}(H=0)`$ where $`\alpha `$ is a constant), as pointed out in Ref. . \[This linear proportionality has ben established in Ref.  not only for the three doping values reported in the inset of their Fig. 4, but also for lower doping values (albeit with larger uncertainty), as shown in their Fig. 4. We have also extended our calculation to the value $`p=0.16`$, still obtaining the linear behavior.\]

The experimental data give $`\alpha _{\mathrm{exp}}1`$, while our calculation yields $`\alpha _{\mathrm{theo}}2.4`$. This difference should not be regarded to be too severe. First of all, recall that $`T^{}`$ is, by its own nature, a non-sharply defined crossover temperature, so that there is an intrinsic uncertainty in its identification. Nonetheless, one may attribute the above discrepancy to additional physical effects (such as orbital frustration) not included in Eqs. (1) and (2). We have, however, verified for the continuum model (see below) that orbital frustration contributes only in a marginal way to the suppression of $`T^{}`$ in the intermediate-coupling regime. In addition, one may observe that, while the experimental value $`T_{\mathrm{exp}}^{}`$ (as obtained in Ref. ) identifies directly an energy scale (which, by our interpretation, is associated with the binding energy $`E_b`$ of a pair embedded in the medium ), the theoretical value $`T_{\mathrm{theo}}^{}`$ can be smaller than $`E_b`$. This statement is readily verified in the strong-coupling limit of the continuum model considered below, whereby $`k_BT_{\mathrm{theo}}^{}=(ϵ_o/2)/\mathrm{ln}(ϵ_o/ϵ_F)^{3/2}`$ in zero field , $`ϵ_F`$ being the Fermi energy and $`ϵ_o`$ the binding energy of the associated two-body problem ($`E_b`$ is expected to reduce to $`ϵ_o`$ in this limit). From this relationship, one gets $`T_{\mathrm{theo}}^{}<ϵ_o`$ when $`ϵ_o/ϵ_F>\mathrm{exp}(1/3)1.4`$. At weaker (intermediate) couplings, on the other hand, numerical calculation yields $`T_{\mathrm{theo}}^{}ϵ_o/2`$ when $`ϵ_o/ϵ_F1`$. In this case, the experimental relation $`g\mu _BH_{\mathrm{pg}}=k_BT_{\mathrm{exp}}^{}`$ is thus equivalent to the theoretical relation $`g\mu _BH_{\mathrm{pg}}=\alpha _{\mathrm{theo}}k_BT_{\mathrm{theo}}^{}`$ with $`\alpha _{\mathrm{theo}}2`$ (provided one still identifies $`E_b`$ with $`ϵ_o`$). The difference between the experimental and theoretical identification of $`T^{}`$ may thus account for the difference between $`\alpha _{\mathrm{exp}}`$ and $`\alpha _{\mathrm{theo}}`$.

In any event, the physical point to be emphasized from our calculation is that the energy scales associated with $`H_{\mathrm{pg}}`$ and $`T^{}(H=0)`$ are of the same order, as found experimentally. The experimental result thus finds a natural explanation within our precursor superconductivity scenario, whereby $`T^{}(H=0)`$ is associated with the binding energy of the (quasi) preformed pairs and $`H_{\mathrm{pg}}`$ with the Pauli pair breaking due to Zeeman splitting.

To assess the role of orbital frustration, it is sufficient to analyze the simpler continuum model for which both Zeeman and orbital effects can be readily included. In this way, we avoid facing at this stage the peculiar problems of Bloch electrons in a magnetic field .

In the continuum case, the fermionic attraction can be modeled by a point contact interaction, regularized (in three dimensions) in terms of the scattering length $`a_F`$ . The dimensionless interaction parameter $`(k_Fa_F)^1`$ (where the Fermi wave vector $`k_F`$ is related to the density via $`n=k_F^3/(3\pi ^2)`$) then ranges from $`\mathrm{}`$ in weak coupling to $`+\mathrm{}`$ in strong coupling (the crossover region of interest being bound by $`(k_F|a_F|)^11`$). For this model, the equations identifying $`T^{}`$ within our approach (for an $`s`$-wave pseudogap) and corresponding to Eqs. (1) and (2) are the following:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{4\pi a_F}}+R(T^{},\mu ;H)\omega _cb(T^{},\mu ;H)=0`$ (3)
$`n={\displaystyle \frac{m\omega _c}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{s=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk_z}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}f\left[\left(s+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)\omega _c+{\displaystyle \frac{k_z^2}{2m}}\mu _\sigma \right]`$ (4)
where $`m`$ is the fermion mass, $`\omega _c=eH/(mc)`$ the cyclotron frequency, $`\mu _\sigma =\mu \mu _BH\sigma `$, $`f(x)=[\mathrm{exp}(x/k_BT^{})+1]^1`$ the Fermi function at temperature $`T^{}`$, and

$`R(T^{},\mu ;H)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑ϵN(ϵ)\left[{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{ϵ\mu _\sigma }{2k_BT^{}}\right)}{4(ϵ\mu )}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2ϵ}}\right]`$ (5)
$`b(T^{},\mu ;H)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{N(ϵ)ϵ}{6(\mu ϵ)^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{F(ϵ)}{(\mu ϵ)}}+F^{}(ϵ)\right],`$ (6)
$`N(ϵ)`$ being the independent-particle density of states per spin component and $`F(ϵ)=f(ϵ\mu _+)+f(ϵ\mu _{})1`$. These equations contain both the Zeeman splitting (through the spin dependence of $`\mu _\sigma `$) and the orbital effect (through the presence of $`b(T^{},\mu ;H)`$ in Eq. (3) and of the Landau levels in Eq. (4)). These equations include, however, the effect of the magnetic field on a different footing. Equation (3) (which has been obtained by considering the Thouless instability in the particle-particle channel) bears on the eikonal approximation, whereby the orbital effect of the magnetic field is introduced by multiplying the real-space representation of the independent-particle Green’s function in the absence of the field by a phase factor $`\mathrm{exp}\{i\phi \}`$ . Equation (4), on the other hand, keeps the Landau orbital quantization explicitly, otherwise the eikonal approximation would completely wash out the magnetic orbital effect.

It is relevant to discuss at this point the conditions for the validity of the eikonal approximation in the present context. The domain of validity of the eikonal approximation for the single-particle Green’s function depends on the distance between its two spatial coordinates. For Eq. (3), this domain is delimited by the range $`l`$ of the two-particle propagator in zero field, yielding $`\omega _cp_G/(ml)`$ where $`p_G`$ is largest momentum scale of the independent-particle Green’s function. In addition, by expanding up to second order the phase factor $`\mathrm{exp}\{i\phi \}`$ of the eikonal approximation in Eq. (3), one arrives at the additional condition $`\omega _c(ml^2)^1`$. In weak coupling, $`p_Gk_F`$ and $`l\xi _o`$ where $`\xi _o`$ is the Pippard coherence length. In this case, one obtains $`\omega _c(m\xi _o^2)^1`$ for the validity of the eikonal approximation. In strong coupling, on the other hand, $`p_G^1a_Fl`$, leading to $`\omega _cϵ_o`$ for the validity of the eikonal approximation.

The above estimates lead us to conclude that, strictly speaking, the eikonal approximation holds only for the initial part of the curve $`T^{}(H)`$ close to zero field. Taking $`\omega _cm\xi _o^20.1`$ in weak and $`\omega _c/ϵ_o0.1`$ in strong coupling, one obtains correspondingly $`(T^{}(H=0)T^{}(H))/T^{}(H=0)`$ $`1\%`$ and $`10\%`$. The relative range of validity of the eikonal approximation increases, therefore, when passing from weak to strong coupling. In practice, we shall extrapolate the results for $`T^{}(H)`$ obtained from Eqs. (3) and (4) outside the strict range of validity of the eikonal approximation to obtain the pseudogap closing field $`H_{\mathrm{pg}}`$, since we are interested in obtaining a qualitative estimate of the relative importance of the Zeeman and orbital effects at intermediate coupling. The eikonal approximation, on the other hand, does not affect the equations determining $`T^{}(H)`$ when the Zeeman effect only is included.

Figure 3 shows $`T^{}(H)`$ vs $`H`$ obtained by Eqs. (3) and (4) for the continuum model with the value $`(k_Fa_F)^1=0.5`$ in the intermediate-coupling regime, by including both Zeeman and orbital effects (triangles) or the Zeeman effect only (squares) (the temperature $`T^{}`$ has been conveniently normalized in terms of the Bose-Einstein temperature $`T_{BE}`$ for composite bosons of mass $`2m`$ and density $`n/2`$). Note that $`\alpha _{\mathrm{theo}}2.6`$ with the Zeeman effect only, while $`\alpha _{\mathrm{theo}}2.3`$ when both effects are included (to be compared with the value $`\alpha _{\mathrm{theo}}2.4`$ from Fig. 2). This implies that the calculation with the Zeeman effect only is rather stable against the inclusion of the orbital effect. Note also from this figure that, in the small $`H`$ region, $`T^{}(H)`$ is somewhat sensitive to the inclusion of the orbital effect (albeit the dependence of $`T^{}(H)`$ on $`H`$ is still weak in an absolute sense), in agreement with the experimental result for fields up to $`14`$ T.

In conclusion, we have shown that consideration of the Zeeman splitting within the precursor superconductivity scenario (at intermediate coupling) reproduces the experimental relation $`2\mu _BH_{\mathrm{pg}}=k_BT^{}(H=0)`$ between the pseudogap closing field $`H_{\mathrm{pg}}`$ and the pseudogap temperature $`T^{}(H=0)`$ at zero field . Our results are also fully consistent with the occurrence of a weak initial dependence of $`T^{}(H)`$ on $`H`$ at low fields . As the sensitivity to a magnetic field is believed to be a crucial test for the physical origin of the pseudogap, our results show that the available experimental data are fully compatible with a superconducting origin of the pseudogap.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are indebted to D. Neilson and A. Perali for useful discussions.