text:
# Dark States and Interferences in Cascade Transitions of Ultra-Cold Atoms in a Cavity

## I introduction

The dynamics of atom-field coupling in high quality cavities has been an interesting tool to verify the predictions of quantum electrodynamics (QED) on the radiation-matter interaction . The properties of atoms in cavities can be modified in a controlled way by the proper design of cavity geometry and its quality factors. For example, the spontaneous emission of an atom can be enhanced or inhibited inside a cavity . Cavities with high quality factors are especially attractive for studying the regime of strong interaction between the atoms and the quantized fields. Interesting effects of strong interaction such as collapse and revival of Rabi oscillations, vacuum Rabi splitting, atom-atom and atom-field entanglements have been predicted and observed . The generation of atom-field entangled states in cavity QED finds many applications in quantum information processing, logic gates etc. A very important result of strong interaction was the micromaser where the excited atoms go successively through a high quality cavity in a time much smaller than the characteristic decay times. This leads to build up of a steady state field in the cavity which has properties quite different from laser fields. The theoretical works on micromaser  suggested the sub-Poissonian photon statistics which is purely due to the quantum nature of the field. The operation of the micromaser has been realized  and Weidinger et al verified the existence of trapping states in the micromaser . The two-photon micromaser as well as the microlaser were also realized . The theory of two-mode micromaser operating on three-level systems has been developed .

In all these works, the external motion of the atom is treated classically while its interaction with the field is quantum mechanical. By considering ultra-cold atoms, Scully et al  discovered that the quantum treatment of center-of-mass (c.m.) motion of an atom leads to a completely new kind of induced emission in a cavity. The dressed state analysis shows that the cavity field can act like a quantum mechanical potential for an ultra-cold, incident atom. The nature of the potentials depends on the mode profile of the cavity as well as the atom-field coupling strengths . Thus the atom besides changing its electronic states can be either reflected or transmitted through the cavity. This reflection or transmission of the atoms is very similar to those of a particle interacting with potential barriers or wells. We have recently shown that tunneling of an ultra-cold, two-level atom in the excited state through two successive cavities exhibits transmission resonances similar to those of an electron tunneling through semiconductor double barriers . The reflection and transmission through cavity induced potentials give rise to many interesting features in the photon statistics and the spectrum of the micromaser pumped by ultra-cold atoms . Further, the works on quantum treatment of the atomic motion have been extended to study the interaction of two- and three- level atoms with a single mode field . Considering the quantized motion of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-type three-level atoms, the photon statistics of a two-mode micromaser was discussed . In the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-type scheme, an excited atom can make only one photon transition to either of the two ground levels. In this paper, we examine the photon statistics of a two-mode micromaser pumped by ultra-cold, cascade three-level atoms. The excited atom in the cascade transition emits photons sequentially in each of the two cavity modes. Thus, the field mode which is resonant with the upper transition of the $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$-type atoms, gets populated by both one and two-photon transitions from the excited state. We discuss the effect of two-photon emissions from the excited atoms on the photon statistics of the micromaser. We make use of methods similar to those in Ref. .

The organization of the paper is as follows. In Sec. II, we describe the interaction of ultra-cold, $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$-type three-level atoms with the bimodal field in the cavity. We show that the field can always induce two-photon transition in an excited atom when the corresponding one-photon transition is forbidden. In Sec. III, we study the mazer action and derive the master equation for the reduced density operator of the field in the cavity. In Sec. IV, the numerical results are presented for the steady state photon distribution in each mode of the bimodal field. We find that the photon distribution in each mode exhibits Poissonian statistics if the atom-field coupling strengths of the cavity modes are equal and when the two-photon transitions from the excited atoms are dominant. For different coupling strengths of the cavity modes, the dominant two-photon effects in transitions can also lead to sub- and super-Poissonian statistics of photons in the steady state field. Finally, we consider the mazer action when the pumping atoms have kinetic energies close to the vacuum coupling energy. In this case, one-photon effects also become important and these lead to different photon statistics for the two cavity modes.

## II one and two photon processes in ultracold atoms in a cavity

We consider a bimodal cavity of length $`L`$ pumped steadily by a beam of ultra-cold three-level atoms in the cascade configuration. The scheme of our model is shown in Fig. 1. The transitions $`ab_1`$ and $`b_1b_2`$ are dipole allowed while the direct transition $`ab_2`$ is dipole forbidden. Thus the atom in the excited level $`a`$ can reach the ground level $`b_2`$ only through the two-photon transition $`ab_1b_2`$. The frequencies of the two cavity modes 1 and 2 are tuned to those of atomic transitions $`ab_1`$ and $`b_1b_2`$ respectively. The Hamiltonian describing this resonant atom-field interaction including the quantized motion of center-of-mass of the atoms along the $`z`$ direction is given by

$$H=H_A+H_F+H_{AF},$$
(1)
where $`H_A(H_F)`$ is the Hamiltonian of the free atom (field) and $`H_{AF}`$ is the interaction Hamiltonian describing the atom-field interaction in the dipole and the rotating wave approximations:

$`H_A={\displaystyle \frac{p_z^2}{2m}}+\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_a|aa|+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{2}{}}}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{b_\alpha }|b_\alpha b_\alpha |,`$

$`H_F={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{2}{}}}\mathrm{}\omega _\alpha a_\alpha ^{}a_\alpha ,`$

$$H_{AF}=\mathrm{}g_1(a_1|ab_1|+|b_1a|a_1^{})+\mathrm{}g_2(a_2|b_1b_2|+|b_2b_1|a_2^{}).$$
(2)
The operator $`|jj|(j=a,b_1,b_2)`$ gives the projection on to the state $`|j`$ with energy $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_j`$. The operators $`|ab_1|`$ and $`|b_1b_2|`$ describe the atomic transitions from the upper and lower levels to the middle level. The operators $`a_\alpha `$ ($`a_\alpha ^{}`$) annihilate (create) a photon in the modes $`\alpha =1,2`$ with resonance frequencies $`\omega _1=\mathrm{\Omega }_a\mathrm{\Omega }_{b_1}`$ and $`\omega _2=\mathrm{\Omega }_{b_1}\mathrm{\Omega }_{b_2}`$ respectively. The first and second terms in the interaction operator $`H_{AF}`$ represents the action of fields 1 and 2 of the cavity on the upper $`(ab_1)`$ and the lower $`(b_1b_2)`$ transitions respectively. The parameters $`g_\alpha `$ are the corresponding atom-field coupling constants and $`m`$ is the atomic mass. The parameters $`g_\alpha `$ are dependent on z through the mode function of the cavity.

In the interaction picture, the Hamiltonian $`(\text{1})`$ of the atom-field system reads

$$H_I=\frac{p_z^2}{2m}+H_{AF}.$$
(3)
It is useful to expand the interaction Hamiltonian $`H_{AF}`$ in its diagonal basis. The operator $`H_{AF}`$ has eigenstates $`|\varphi _{n_1+1,n_2+1}^0`$, $`|\varphi _{n_1+1,n_2+1}^\pm `$ with eigenvalues $`0,\pm \mathrm{}\sqrt{g_1^2(z)(n_1+1)+g_2^2(z)(n_2+1)}`$, respectively, where

$`|\varphi _{n_1+1,n_2+1}^0={\displaystyle \frac{g_2\sqrt{n_2+1}}{\sqrt{g_1^2(n_1+1)+g_2^2(n_2+1)}}}|a,n_1,n_2{\displaystyle \frac{g_1\sqrt{n_1+1}}{\sqrt{g_1^2(n_1+1)+g_2^2(n_2+1)}}}|b_2,n_1+1,n_2+1`$

$`|\varphi _{n_1+1,n_2+1}^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}[{\displaystyle \frac{g_1\sqrt{n_1+1}}{\sqrt{g_1^2(n_1+1)+g_2^2(n_2+1)}}}|a,n_1,n_2\pm |b_1,n_1+1,n_2`$ (4)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{g_2\sqrt{n_2+1}}{\sqrt{g_1^2(n_1+1)+g_2^2(n_2+1)}}}|b_2,n_1+1,n_2+1]`$ (5)
The interaction operator $`H_{AF}`$ and its eigenstates $`|\varphi _{n_1+1,n_2+1}^0`$, $`|\varphi _{n_1+1,n_2+1}^\pm `$ depend on the position $`z`$ through the coupling strengths $`g_1(z)`$, $`g_2(z)`$. Thus, it is in general difficult to carry out the time evolution of an atom-field state governed by the Hamiltonian $`(\text{3})`$ for the quantized motion of atoms. So, for simplicity, we work with the mesa mode functions $`g_\alpha (z)=g_\alpha \theta (z)\theta (Lz)`$ which represent the constant field modes in the cavity. In this case, the eigenstates of the interaction are independent of atomic position inside the cavity and the atomic motion sees free particle evolution in the dark state of interaction $`|\varphi _{n_1+1,n_2+1}^0`$. The effect of atom’s interaction with the cavity on its external motion can be realized only in the dressed state $`|\varphi _{n_1+1,n_2+1}^\pm `$ components of the initial atom-field state. We need to consider the initial atom-field state to be $`|a,n_1,n_2`$, i.e., the atom is in the excited state and the cavity contains $`(n_1,n_2)`$ photons in the modes $`(1,2)`$ initially. This initial state can be expanded in the dressed state basis as

$`|a,n_1,n_2`$ $`=`$ $`[{\displaystyle \frac{g_1\sqrt{(n_1+1)/2}}{\sqrt{g_1^2(n_1+1)+g_2^2(n_2+1)}}}(|\varphi _{n_1+1,n_2+1}^++|\varphi _{n_1+1,n_2+1}^{})`$ (6)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{g_2\sqrt{n_2+1}}{\sqrt{g_1^2(n_1+1)+g_2^2(n_2+1)}}}|\varphi _{n_1+1,n_2+1}^0].`$ (7)
The time evolution of this initial state can be found by expanding the combined state of atom-cavity system as

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(z,t)=\chi _+(z,t)|\varphi _{n_1+1,n_2+1}^++\chi _{}(z,t)|\varphi _{n_1+1,n_2+1}^{}+\chi _0|\varphi _{n_1+1,n_2+1}^0,$$
(8)
then the time dependent Schrodinger equation becomes

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\chi _\alpha (z,t)}{t}=h_\alpha \chi _\alpha (z,t),\alpha =\pm ,0.$$
(9)
Here, $`h_\pm =p_z^2/2m\pm \mathrm{}\sqrt{g_1^2(n_1+1)+g_2^2(n_2+1)}`$, $`h_0=p_z^2/2m`$ are operators acting in the space of center of mass variables. Thus, the effect of the cavity with fixed number of photons produces potential terms in $`h_\alpha `$ corresponding to the dressed states $`|\varphi _{n_1+1,n_2+1}^\pm `$ as discussed in Ref. . The barrier and well potentials induced by the interaction for the atomic motion in the states $`|\varphi _{n_1+1,n_2+1}^\pm `$ are then displayed as in Fig. 2. It is also important to note that the external motion of atom experiences free time evolution in the dark state $`|\varphi _{n_1+1,n_2+1}^0`$ for the mesa mode distribution of the cavity fields. Denoting the reflection and transmission amplitudes as $`\rho _{n_1,n_2}^\pm `$, $`\tau _{n_1,n_2}^\pm `$ for the potential barrier-well problem of the dressed states $`|\varphi _{n_1+1,n_2+1}^\pm `$, respectively, we have

$$\rho _{n_1,n_2}^\pm =i\mathrm{\Delta }_{n_1,n_2}^\pm \mathrm{sin}(k_{n_1,n_2}^\pm L)\mathrm{exp}(ikL)\tau _{n_1,n_2}^\pm ,$$
(10)
$$\tau _{n_1,n_2}^\pm =\mathrm{exp}(ikL)\left[\mathrm{cos}(k_{n_1,n_2}^\pm L)i\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n_1,n_2}^\pm \mathrm{sin}(k_{n_1,n_2}^\pm L)\right]^1,$$
(11)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{n_1,n_2}^\pm =\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{k_{n_1,n_2}^\pm }{k}\frac{k}{k_{n_1,n_2}^\pm }\right),$$
(12)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n_1,n_2}^\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_{n_1,n_2}^\pm }{k}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k}{k_{n_1,n_2}^\pm }}\right),`$

$`k_{n_1,n_2}^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\left(k^2{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{\mathrm{}}}\sqrt{g_1^2(n_1+1)+g_2^2(n_2+1)}\right)},`$ (13)
where $`\mathrm{}k`$ is the atomic c.m. momentum and $`L`$ is the length of the cavity. It is to be noted that the strengths of the barrier - well potentials (potential energy term in $`k_{n_1,n_2}^\pm `$) depend on the coupling constants $`g_1`$, $`g_2`$ as well as the occupation numbers $`n_1`$, $`n_2`$ of the photons in the cavity.

We consider the initial wave packet of the moving free atom to be $`\psi (z,t)=\mathrm{exp}\left(ip_z^2t/2m\mathrm{}\right)𝑑kA(k)e^{ikz}=𝑑kA(k)e^{i\left(\mathrm{}k^2/2m\right)t}e^{ikz}`$. The Fourier amplitudes $`A(k)`$ are adjusted such that the peak of the incident wave packet $`|\psi (0,t)|^2`$ at the entry $`(z=0)`$ of the cavity occurs at time $`t=0`$. The combined state of the atom-cavity system at the initial time $`t=0`$ is therefore,

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(z,0)=\psi (z,0)|a,n_1,n_2.$$
(14)
The wave function of the atom-field system at time $`t`$ is found by solving the Eqs. $`(\text{8})`$ and $`(\text{9})`$ subject to the above initial condition :

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }(z,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }dkA(k)e^{i\left(\mathrm{}k^2/2m\right)t}\{[R_{a,n_1,n_2}(k)e^{ikz}\theta (z)+T_{a,n_1,n_2}(k)e^{ikz}\theta (zL)]|a,n_1,n_2`$ (15)
$`+\left[R_{b_1,n_1+1,n_2}(k)e^{ikz}\theta (z)+T_{b_1,n_1+1,n_2}(k)e^{ikz}\theta (zL)\right]|b_1,n_1+1,n_2`$ (16)
$`+[R_{b_2,n_1+1,n_2+1}(k)e^{ikz}\theta (z)+T_{b_2,n_1+1,n_2+1}(k)e^{ikz}\theta (zL)]|b_2,n_1+1,n_2+1\},`$ (17)
where

$`R_{a,n_1,n_2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_1^2(n_1+1)}{2\left(g_1^2(n_1+1)+g_2^2(n_2+1)\right)}}\left(\rho _{n_1,n_2}^++\rho _{n_1,n_2}^{}\right),`$ (18)
$`T_{a,n_1,n_2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_1^2(n_1+1)}{2\left(g_1^2(n_1+1)+g_2^2(n_2+1)\right)}}\left(\tau _{n_1,n_2}^++\tau _{n_1,n_2}^{}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{g_2^2(n_2+1)}{\left(g_1^2(n_1+1)+g_2^2(n_2+1)\right)}},`$ (19)
are the reflection and transmission amplitudes for the excited state of the atom with the initial $`(n_1,n_2)`$ photons remaining in the two cavity modes and

$`R_{b_1,n_1+1,n_2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_1\sqrt{(n_1+1)}}{2\sqrt{\left(g_1^2(n_1+1)+g_2^2(n_2+1)\right)}}}\left(\rho _{n_1,n_2}^+\rho _{n_1,n_2}^{}\right),`$ (20)
$`T_{b_1,n_1+1,n_2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_1\sqrt{(n_1+1)}}{2\sqrt{\left(g_1^2(n_1+1)+g_2^2(n_2+1)\right)}}}\left(\tau _{n_1,n_2}^+\tau _{n_1,n_2}^{}\right),`$ (21)
are the probability amplitudes that the excited atom goes to the state $`|b_1`$ and emits a photon in mode 1 while getting reflected and transmitted respectively. Similarly, the excited atom is reflected or transmitted and emits a photon in both the cavity modes while making a transition to the ground state $`|b_2`$ via the middle state $`|b_1`$ with probability amplitudes

$`R_{b_2,n_1+1,n_2+1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_1g_2\sqrt{(n_1+1)(n_2+1)}}{2\left(g_1^2(n_1+1)+g_2^2(n_2+1)\right)}}\left(\rho _{n_1,n_2}^++\rho _{n_1,n_2}^{}\right),`$ (22)
$`T_{b_2,n_1+1,n_2+1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_1g_2\sqrt{(n_1+1)(n_2+1)}}{2\left(g_1^2(n_1+1)+g_2^2(n_2+1)\right)}}\left(\tau _{n_1,n_2}^++\tau _{n_1,n_2}^{}\right){\displaystyle \frac{g_1g_2\sqrt{(n_1+1)(n_2+1)}}{\left(g_1^2(n_1+1)+g_2^2(n_2+1)\right)}}.`$ (23)
It is clear from the above equations that the effects of the barrier and well potentials induced by the dressed states $`|\varphi _{n_1+1,n_2+1}^\pm `$ add coherently in either the reflection or transmission of the atom. The additive term to the barrier-well amplitudes in Eqs. $`(\text{19})`$ and $`(\text{23})`$ comes from the contribution of the dark state $`|\varphi _{n_1+1,n_2+1}^0`$ in the initial state expansion Eq. $`(\text{7})`$. Since the dark state is orthogonal to the middle state $`|b_1`$, it influences only the two-photon emissions and not the one-photon emissions of the excited atom. An important feature here is that the two-photon transition can always be induced by the field when the one-photon transition is forbidden. This can be seen by examining the probabilities for different states of the atom. When an initially excited atom is incident upon the cavity containing $`(n_1,n_2)`$ photons in the two cavity modes $`(1,2)`$, respectively, then from Eqs. $`(\text{21})`$ and $`(\text{23})`$ the probability that the atom makes a one-photon transition to the state $`|b_1`$ with the emission of a photon in mode 1 is

$$P_{n_1,n_2}(ab_1)=|R_{b_1,n_1+1,n_2}|^2+|T_{b_1,n_1+1,n_2}|^2,$$
(24)
and the probability that the atom makes a two-photon transition to the state $`|b_2`$ with the emission of a photon in each of the modes 1 and 2 of the cavity is

$$P_{n_1,n_2}(ab_2)=|R_{b_2,n_1+1,n_2+1}|^2+|T_{b_2,n_1+1,n_2+1}|^2.$$
(25)
When $`g_2=0`$, the lower transition $`b_1b_2`$ is forbidden and hence the two-photon transition probability $`P_{n_1,n_2}(ab_2)`$ vanishes. Then, the upper transition $`ab_1`$ behaves like a two-level atom interacting with the mode 1 of the cavity field. In Fig. 3, we compare the photon emission probabilities of excited, two-level $`(g_20)`$ and three-level $`(g_20)`$ atoms when the cavity is initially in vacuum state. We scale the parameters in terms of a wave number $`\kappa `$ which is defined by the vacuum coupling energy $`\mathrm{}g_1\mathrm{}^2\kappa ^2/2m`$ of the two-level atom. Note that the coupling strength $`g_1=2\pi \times 10`$ MHz of a 85Rb atom corresponds to $`155\mu `$m length of the cavity for the parameter $`\kappa L=20000\pi `$. The temperature of the atom is of the order of $`10^8`$ K for the mean momentum $`k/\kappa =0.01`$. For ultra-cold, incident atoms $`(k/\kappa <<1)`$, the graph in Fig. 3(a) shows that the one-photon emission probability exhibits resonances as a function of length of the cavity for both two-level and three-level atoms. In the three-level atom, the resonances of the one-photon emission probability occur at values of $`\kappa L`$ different from those of two-level atom. The two-photon emission probability shows maxima and minima at the resonance positions of the one-photon transition. This behavior arises from the interference of the contributions coming from different dressed states in the initial state expansion Eq. $`(\text{7})`$. The transmission probability $`|T_{b_2,n_1+1,n_2+1}|^2`$ obtained from Eq. $`(\text{23})`$ has an interference term proportional to the phase of the amplitude $`\left(\tau _{n_1,n_2}^++\tau _{n_1,n_2}^{}\right)`$. This term can be constructive or destructive which leads to the enhancement or reduction of the two-photon emission probability. From the graph, we also see that $`P_{0,0}(ab_2)0.32`$ when $`P_{0,0}(ab_1)0`$. This implies that the probability of two-photon emission is not the product of the probabilities for single photon emission. This also suggests that both the field modes of the bimodal cavity can be amplified together through the two-photon transition of an excited atom. This feature is absent in the case of two-mode micromaser pumped by ultra-cold, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-type three-level atoms . In the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-scheme micromazer, the excited atom can make only one-photon transition to either of the two ground levels. Therefore, both the cavity modes can not be populated sequentially by the photon emission from the same atom. Next, we compare our results for ultra-cold atoms with that of fast, incident atoms in the $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$\- type configuration. In the case of fast, incident atoms $`(k/\kappa >>1)`$, both one- and two- photon emission probabilities exhibit Rabi oscillations as a function of the length of the cavity as seen from Fig. 3(b). The Rabi frequency of oscillation for one-photon emission is twice that of the two-photon emission. These features resemble exactly the results in the usual Jaynes-Cummings (JC) model where one neglects the quantization of the atomic motion in atom-cavity interaction . Thus, neglecting the kinetic energy operator in the Hamiltonian $`(\text{1})`$, the time evolution of the initial atom-field state $`|a,n_1,n_2`$ gives for the photon emission probabilities in the JC model:

$`P_{n_1,n_2}(ab_1)={\displaystyle \frac{g_1^2(n_1+1)}{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}}\mathrm{sin}^2(\mathrm{\Omega }\tau ),`$

$`P_{n_1,n_2}(ab_2)={\displaystyle \frac{4g_1^2g_2^2(n_1+1)(n_2+1)}{\mathrm{\Omega }^4}}\mathrm{sin}^4(\mathrm{\Omega }\tau /2),`$

where $`\mathrm{\Omega }\sqrt{g_1^2(n_1+1)+g_2^2(n_2+1)}`$ is the Rabi frequency and $`\tau `$ is the interaction time of the atom with the cavity. Note that when $`\mathrm{\Omega }\tau `$ is an odd number multiple of $`\pi `$, the one-photon transition is forbidden and the two-photon transition probability becomes maximum consistent with the results for fast atoms in Fig. 3.

## III mazer action in a bimodal cavity - basic master equation for the cavity field

In this section, we consider the mazer action of ultracold atoms in a bimodal cavity and derive the master equation for the cavity field assuming that excited atoms are pumped steadily into the cavity. We model the random pumping of the atoms into the cavity by a Poissonian process with an average rate of pumping $`r`$. The flux of the incident atoms is adjusted so that only one atom interacts with the cavity field at a time. We neglect the cavity field damping during the time an atom interacts with the field. Since the field in the cavity changes with the passage of each atom, we need to know the time evolution of the atom-field state for a general initial state of the cavity field. The wave function of the initial atom-field system is now given by

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(z,0)=\psi (z,0)\underset{n_1,n_2}{}C_{n_1,n_2}|a,n_1,n_2.$$
(26)
Carrying out the time evolution for this initial state using Eqs. $`(\text{7})`$-$`(\text{9})`$, the state of atom-field system after the interaction is given by

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(z,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑kA(k)e^{i(\mathrm{}k^2/2m)t}}`$ (28)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n_1,n_2=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}[_{a,n_1,n_2}(k)e^{ikz}\theta (z)a,n_1,n_2+𝒯_{a,n_1,n_2}(k)e^{ikz}\theta (zL)a,n_1,n_2`$
$`+`$ $`_{b_1,n_1+1,n_2}(k)e^{ikz}\theta (z)b_1,n_1+1,n_2+𝒯_{b_1,n_1+1,n_2}(k)e^{ikz}\theta (zL)`$ (31)
$`b_1,n_1+1,n_2+_{b_2,n_1+1,n_2+1}(k)e^{ikz}\theta (z)b_2,n_1+1,n_2+1+𝒯_{b_2,n_1+1,n_2+1}(k)`$
$`e^{ikz}\theta (zL)b_2,n_1+1,n_2+1],`$
where

$`_{a,n_1,n_2}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`C_{n_1,n_2}R_{a,n_1,n_2}(k),`$ (32)
$`𝒯_{a,n_1,n_2}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`C_{n_1,n_2}T_{a,n_1,n_2}(k),`$ (33)
are the probability amplitudes for reflection (or) transmission of the atom in the upper state $`|a`$ with $`(n_1,n_2)`$ photons in the cavity field and similarly, the atom is reflected (or) transmitted when the atom-field state is $`|b_1,n_1+1,n_2`$ (or) $`|b_2,n_1+1,n_2+1`$ with amplitudes

$`_{b_1,n_1+1,n_2}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`C_{n_1,n_2}R_{b_1,n_1+1,n_2}(k),`$ (34)
$`𝒯_{b_1,n_1+1,n_2}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`C_{n_1,n_2}T_{b_1,n_1+1,n_2}(k),`$ (35)
$`_{b_2,n_1+1,n_2+1}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`C_{n_1,n_2}R_{b_2,n_1+1,n_2+1}(k),`$ (36)
$`𝒯_{b_2,n_1+1,n_2+1}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`C_{n_1,n_2}T_{b_2,n_1+1,n_2+1}(k).`$ (37)
The time evolution of the reduced density operator of the field in the interaction picture is then given in the coarse graining method  to be

$$\dot{\rho }(t)=r\delta \rho (t)+L\rho (t),$$
(38)
where $`\delta \rho (t)=\rho (t)\rho (0)`$ is the change in the reduced density operator of the field due to the passage of a single atom in the excited state. This can be obtained by forming the atom-field density matrix using Eqs. $`(\text{26})`$ \- $`(\text{35})`$ and tracing over external and internal degrees of freedom of the atom. Field damping and the effect of thermal photons are described by the Liouville operator

$`L\rho `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}C_1(n_{b_1}+1)(2a_1\rho a_1^{}a_1^{}a_1\rho \rho a_1^{}a_1)`$ (39)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}C_1n_{b_1}(2a_1^{}\rho a_1a_1a_1^{}\rho \rho a_1a_1^{})`$ (40)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}C_2(n_{b_2}+1)(2a_2\rho a_2^{}a_2^{}a_2\rho \rho a_2^{}a_2)`$ (41)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}C_2n_{b_2}(2a_2^{}\rho a_2a_2a_2^{}\rho \rho a_2a_2^{}).`$ (42)
Here $`n_{b_\alpha }`$ is the number of thermal photons in mode $`\alpha `$ and $`C_\alpha `$ is the damping rate of this mode. Using Eqs. $`(\text{38})`$ and $`(\text{41})`$ we obtain the equation governing the time evolution of density matrix elements,

$`\dot{\rho }(n_1,n_2;n_1^{},n_2^{})`$ $`=`$ $`r\{(R_{a,n_1,n_2}R_{a,n_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{},n_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}^{}+T_{a,n_1,n_2}T_{a,n_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{},n_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}^{}1)\rho (n_1,n_2;n_1^{},n_2^{})`$ (43)
$`+`$ $`(R_{b_1,n_1,n_2}R_{b_1,n_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{},n_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}^{}+T_{b_1,n_1,n_2}T_{b_1,n_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{},n_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}^{})\rho (n_11,n_2;n_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}1,n_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{})`$ (44)
$`+`$ $`(R_{b_2,n_1,n_2}R_{b_2,n_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{},n_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}^{}+T_{b_2,n_1,n_2}T_{b_2,n_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{},n_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}^{})\rho (n_11,n_21;n_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}1,n_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}1)\}`$ (45)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}C_1(n_{b_1}+1)[2\sqrt{(n_1+1)(n_1^{}+1)}\rho (n_1+1,n_2;n_1^{}+1,n_2^{})`$ (46)
$``$ $`(n_1+n_1^{})\rho (n_1,n_2;n_1^{},n_2^{})]`$ (47)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}C_1n_{b_1}[2\sqrt{n_1n_1^{}}\rho (n_11,n_2;n_1^{}1,n_2^{})`$ (48)
$``$ $`(n_1+n_1^{}+2)\rho (n_1,n_2;n_1^{},n_2^{})]`$ (49)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}C_2(n_{b_2}+1)[2\sqrt{(n_2+1)(n_2^{}+1)}\rho (n_1,n_2+1;n_1^{},n_2^{}+1)`$ (50)
$``$ $`(n_2+n_2^{})\rho (n_1,n_2;n_1^{},n_2^{})]`$ (51)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}C_2n_{b_2}[2\sqrt{n_2n_2^{}}\rho (n_1,n_21;n_1^{},n_2^{}1)`$ (52)
$``$ $`(n_2+n_2^{}+2)\rho (n_1,n_2;n_1^{},n_2^{})].`$ (53)
The diagonal elements of the density matrix $`P(n_1,n_2)=\rho (n_1,n_2;n_1,n_2)`$ which gives the joint distribution of photons in the two cavity modes, obeys the following equation:

$`\dot{P}(n_1,n_2)`$ $`=`$ $`G_{b_1,n_1,n_2}P(n_1,n_2)+G_{b_1,n_11,n_2}P(n_11,n_2)`$ (54)
$``$ $`G_{b_2,n_1,n_2}P(n_1,n_2)+G_{b_2,n_11,n_21}P(n_11,n_21)`$ (55)
$`+`$ $`C_1(n_{b_1}+1)\left[(n_1+1)P(n_1+1,n_2)n_1P(n_1,n_2)\right]`$ (56)
$`+`$ $`C_1n_{b_1}\left[n_1P(n_11,n_2)(n_1+1)P(n_1,n_2)\right]`$ (57)
$`+`$ $`C_2(n_{b_2}+1)\left[(n_2+1)P(n_1,n_2+1)n_2P(n_1,n_2)\right]`$ (58)
$`+`$ $`C_2n_{b_2}\left[n_2P(n_1,n_21)(n_2+1)P(n_1,n_2)\right],`$ (59)
where $`G_{b_1,n_1,n_2}=rP_{n_1,n_2}(ab_1)`$ and $`G_{b_2,n_1,n_2}=rP_{n_1,n_2}(ab_2)`$ are the gain coefficients for the atomic transitions with $`P_{n_1,n_2}(ab_1)`$ and $`P_{n_1,n_2}(ab_2)`$ as defined in Eqs. $`(\text{24})`$ and $`(\text{25})`$. This is the master equation for the two-mode micromaser describing the time evolution of photon distribution in the cavity. This equation behaves similar to a rate equation for the probability and a simple physical meaning can be given to each term on the right hand side in terms of inflow and outflow of probabilities. The first and second terms in the equation gives the effect of one-photon transitions while the third and fourth terms correspond to the two-photon transitions of the excited atoms.

## IV photon statistics of the mazer field

The steady state distribution of photons obeys the equation

$$\dot{P}(n_1,n_2)=0$$
(60)
In the limit $`g_20`$, the two-photon transition probability in Eq. $`(\text{25})`$ tends to zero and therefore we can neglect the third and fourth terms containing $`G_{b_2,n_1,n_2}`$ in the master Eq. $`(\text{56})`$. In this case, the upper transitions $`ab_1`$ behave like two-level atoms interacting with the mode 1 of the cavity. The lower transitions $`b_1b_2`$ and hence the two-photon transitions $`ab_1b_2`$ are forbidden in the interaction. The steady state solution of the Eq. $`(\text{60})`$ can then be obtained in analytical form by using the principle of detailed balance as discussed by Meyer et al . The photon statistics in this two-level problem is a mixture of thermal and shifted thermal distributions. When $`g_20`$, both the one- and two-photon effects of atomic transitions contribute in building up the cavity field. The two-photon terms (third and fourth terms) in the master equation have no counterpart in the decay terms and therefore the equation is not solvable analytically for the steady state distribution by the principle of detailed balance adopted in all the previous works on micromasers. In this general case, we integrate the master equation $`(\text{56})`$ numerically using fourth order Runge kutta method to get the steady state solution. We do not use any decorrelation approximation. The photon distribution $`P_1(n)`$ and $`P_2(n)`$ in the cavity modes 1 and 2 are obtained respectively using

$$P_1(n)=\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}P(n,l),P_2(n)=\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}P(l,n).$$
(61)
The normalized variances of photon distribution in the two cavity modes are defined by

$$\sigma _\alpha ^2=\frac{n_\alpha ^2n_\alpha ^2}{n_\alpha },\alpha =1,2.$$
(62)
In Fig. 4, we present the numerical results of the photon distribution in steady state for ultra-cold, incident atoms $`(k/\kappa <<1)`$ by assuming equal parameters for the decay terms $`C_1=C_2=C`$, $`n_{b_1}=n_{b_2}=n_b`$. The graph shows that for $`g_1<g_2`$, the photon statistics in mode 1 is super-Poissonian $`(\sigma _1^2>1)`$ while that of mode 2 is sub-Poissonian $`(\sigma _2^2<1)`$. The photon distribution for $`g_1>g_2`$ is identical to that of $`g_1<g_2`$ except that modes 1 and 2 are interchanged. When $`g_1=g_2`$, each mode of the cavity field exhibits Poissonian statistics $`(\sigma _\alpha ^21)`$ of mean $`r/2C1`$. To understand these numerical results, we now approximate the master equation $`(\text{56})`$ by dropping the first and second terms corresponding to one-photon transitions. In fact, for the parameters of Fig. 4, the barrier and well amplitudes are $`\rho _{n_1,n_2}^\pm 1`$, $`\tau _{n_1,n_2}^\pm 0`$ for wide range of $`n_1`$ and $`n_2`$ values. Therefore, the one-photon transition probability $`P_{n_1,n_2}(ab_1)`$ in Eq. $`(\text{24})`$ is approximately zero. The two-photon emission probability $`P_{n_1,n_2}(ab_2)`$ in Eq. $`(\text{25})`$ can then be approximated to be $`2g_1^2g_2^2(n_1+1)(n_2+1)/(g_1^2(n_1+1)+g_2^2(n_2+1))^2`$. Note that this approximation is also consistent with the results for ultra-cold atoms in Fig. 3. With these substitutions for the photon emission probabilities in gain coefficients, numerical integration of the master Eq. $`(\text{56})`$ again gives the same results. Moreover, in the absence of one-photon terms, the master equation is symmetric with respect to the labels 1 and 2 of the two cavity modes. Thus, the Poissonian distribution of photons in each cavity mode is purely the effect of two-photon transitions of the excited atoms. It should be emphasized that the transmission of atoms occurs only in the dark eigenstate component of the interaction during the field buildup in the cavity. The atoms interacting with the barrier-well component of the dressed states get reflected always. But both the reflected and the transmitted atoms have equal probability of two-photon emissions into the cavity. Since the one-photon emissions are forbidden in the interaction for ultracold atoms, the photon distribution of both the cavity modes peaks around the same photon number in Fig. 4. In general, the photon distribution for mode 1 peaks at a higher photon number when compared with that of mode 2 . This is because the mode 1 of the cavity can be populated by both one- and two-photon emissions while the mode 2 can be populated by only two-photon emissions from the incident atoms. We have found this behavior of steady state photon distribution in the case of fast, incident atoms. In Fig. 5, we display the steady state photon distribution when the micromaser is pumped by fast, incident atoms $`(k/\kappa >>1)`$ for the same parameters of Fig. 4(a). The graph shows that the field 1 is amplified more than the field 2 by the stimulated, photon emissions from the incident atoms. It is important to note that the field 2 has an influence on the field 1 in the cavity through the interaction with the atoms. The effects of field 2 such as gain enhancement or gain reduction on field 1 have been already discussed in a different context viz in a two-beam laser operating on cascade three-level atoms . Next, we show the effect of thermal photons in the cavity on the steady state photon distribution in Fig. 6. For comparison, we have also plotted the photon distribution for the two-level problem $`(g_20)`$. The length $`\kappa L`$ of the cavity is chosen to be at a resonance of the one-photon emission probability for the initial, excited state of the two-level atom and three photons in mode 1 of the cavity. The photon distribution in the two-level problem then looks similar to a mixture of thermal and shifted thermal distributions as discussed by Meyer et al . For three-level atoms, comparison with Fig. 4(a) shows that the photon distribution broadens because of the presence of thermal photons $`(n_b0)`$ even though qualitative features are very similar. In particular, the two-photon emissions from the pumping atoms are still the dominant contribution to the steady state field for the chosen length of the cavity. The Poissonian-like statistics of photons in the micromaser cavity pumped by cold atoms, resembles closely the behavior of a laser operating at far above threshold . Finally, we note that the two-photon effects are dominant over the one-photon transitions only in the limit $`(k/\kappa <<1)`$ of ultra-slow motion of the incident atoms. The competition of the one-photon with the two-photon processes becomes stronger even for energies of the incident atoms $`(k/\kappa 1)`$ close to the vacuum coupling energy. In Fig. 7, we plot the photon distribution in the cavity for the mean momentum $`k/\kappa =1.1`$ of the incident atoms. The inset of the Fig. 7 shows the photon emission probabilities of an excited atom for an initial, vacuum state of the cavity field. The graph shows that the one-photon effects participate in the field build up of the cavity and these lead to unequal, average number of photons in the two modes of the mazer field.

## V summary

We considered the interaction of mono-energetic beam of ultra-cold, cascade three- level atoms in the excited state with a bimodal cavity. The atom-field interaction is equivalent to reflection and transmission of the atoms through the potentials induced by the dressed states. There is also a reflection-less transmission of the atoms in the dark eigenstate of atom-field interaction. We find that two-photon transition can always be induced in an excited atom when its one-photon transition is forbidden. In general, the two-photon emissions from the excited atoms dominate over the one-photon emissions in building up the steady state field of the cavity. The steady state photon distribution in each mode exhibits sub- and super- Poissonian behaviors depending on the strengths of the atom-field couplings. The photon distribution approaches the Poissonian statistics when the atom-field coupling strengths of the two modes are equal. We have also obtained the photon distribution in steady state when the micromaser is pumped by fast, moving atoms instead of ultracold atoms. In this case, both one- and two- photon emissions from the incident atoms contribute in building up the steady field of the cavity.

FIG. 1. The scheme of the two-mode micromaser cavity pumped by $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$-type three-level atoms in the excited state.

FIG. 2. Schematic representation of the energy E of the excited atoms incident upon a two-mode micromaser cavity with $`(n,m)`$ photons. The atom-field interaction creates a barrier (dashed) and well (dotted) potentials with a potential energy $`V=\mathrm{}\sqrt{g_1^2(n+1)+g_2^2(m+1)}`$ in the dressed states $`|\varphi _{n+1,m+1}^\pm `$. The scattering from these cavity induced potentials leads to reflection or transmission of the atoms through the cavity. The interaction also induces a reflection-less transmission of the atoms in the dark state $`|\varphi _{n+1,m+1}^0`$. However, the reflection or transmission of the atoms can occur only in either of the three states $`|a,n,m`$, $`|b_1,n+1,m`$, and $`|b_2,n+1,m+1`$.

FIG. 3. The probabilities of $`ab_1`$ (solid curve) and $`ab_1b_2`$ (dotted curve) transitions of an excited atom as a function of the length $`\kappa L`$ of the cavity. The cavity is initially in vacuum state and the parameters used are $`g_2/g_1=2`$, $`k/\kappa =0.01`$ \[(a)\], $`k/\kappa =100`$ \[(b)\]. The dashed curve in Fig. 3(a) represents the photon emission probability of an excited two-level atom resonant with the upper transition when $`g_2=0`$. Actual values of the dashed curve are 2.5 times those shown. For clarity, the dotted curve in Fig. 3(a) has been displaced by 0.1 units along the Y axis.

FIG. 4. The steady state distribution of photons in mode 1 (solid curve) and mode 2 (dashed curve). The parameters used are $`C_1=C_2=C`$, $`n_{b_1}=n_{b_2}=n_b`$, $`r/C=50`$, $`n_b=0`$, $`\kappa L=20000\pi `$, $`k/\kappa =0.01`$ and (a) $`g_2/g_1=2`$, (b) $`g_2/g_1=1`$. In the case of $`g_2=g_1`$, the dashed curve is hardly distinguishable from the solid curve. The photon statistics for the parameter $`g_2/g_1=0.5`$ is approximately similar to that of $`g_2/g_1=2`$ except that the solid (dashed) curve corresponds to the photon distribution in mode 2 (1).

FIG. 5. The steady state distribution of photons in mode 1 (solid) and mode 2 (dashed) for the same parameters of Fig. 4(a) with $`k/\kappa =100`$.

FIG. 6. The steady state distribution of photons in mode 1 (solid curve) and mode 2 (dashed curve). The parameters for the calculation are $`C_1=C_2=C`$, $`n_{b_1}=n_{b_2}=n_b`$, $`r/C=50`$, $`k/\kappa =0.01`$, $`g_2/g_1=2`$, $`\kappa L=40000\pi /\sqrt[4]{4}`$ and $`n_b=1`$. The dotted curve represents the photon distribution in mode 1 for the two-level problem when $`g_2=0`$. Actual values of the dotted curve are 5 times those shown.

FIG. 7. The steady state distribution of photons in mode 1 (solid) and mode 2 (dashed) for the same parameters of Fig. 4(a) with $`k/\kappa =1.1`$. The solid (dashed) curves in the inset represents the one-photon (two-photon) transition probabilities of an excited atom for an initial vacuum field in the cavity. The parameters used for the inset are $`g_2/g_1=2`$ and $`k/\kappa =1.1.`$


format: text

text:
# An Analytical Approach to the Spin Distribution of Dark Halos

## 1 INTRODUCTION

N-body simulations have shown that the dark matter halos of the universe have the intrinsic angular momentum, the distribution of which has a broad and ubiquitous shape independent of other halo properties such as the halo mass scale, the halo formation epoch, and so on Barnes & Efstathiou (1987); Heavens & Peacock (1988); Lemson & Kauffmann (1999); Bullock et al. (2001); Chen & Jing (2002). This characteristic distribution of the halo angular momentum is often approximated by the log-normal distribution with ubiquitous mean and variance in the log. Although it has been proved that this characteristic distribution can be produced by the current standard model Maller et al. (2001), the following important questions have yet to be answered: what the physical origin of the characteristic distribution is, and whether it is truly log-normal.

The standard model for the origin and evolution of the halo angular momentum is the tidal torque theory Doroshkevich (1970); White (1984). In this model, the angular momentum of a proto-halo, $`𝐋`$, is generated by the misalignment of the principal axes of the local shear tensor with that of the inertia tensor and grows with time in the Lagrangian coordinate: $`L_i(t)=a^2(t)\dot{D}(t)ϵ_{ijk}T_{jl}I_{lk}`$. Here, $`a(t)`$ is the scaling factor, $`\dot{D}(t)`$ the growing rate of density perturbations, and $`I_{lk}(=\rho _0q_lq_kd^3𝐪`$ with $`\rho _0`$ being the mean density) is the inertia tensor of a proto-halo site in the Lagrangian $`𝐪`$ space, representing the geometrical shape of a proto-halo. In addition, $`T_{jl}(=_j_l\varphi `$ with $`\varphi `$ being the gravitational potential) is the gravitational shear tensor that quantifies the tidal torque from the surrounding matter.

Strictly speaking, the tidal torque theory is a linear theory, and should break down in the non-linear regime since it does not account for the complicated nonlinear process of halo formation after recollapse. To one’s surprise, however, it has been demonstrated by N-body simulations that the linear tidal torque theory works well even in nonlinear regime Frenk et al. (1988); Heavens & Peacock (1988); Catelan & Theuns (1996); Sugerman et al. (2000); Maller et al. (2001). Therefore, we will adopt the tidal torque model, and derive the distribution of the halo angular momentum.

## 2 DERIVATION

### 2.1 SEPARATION OF THE VARIABLES

For the distribution of halo angular momentum, it is more convenient to use a dimensionless quantity than to use $`L`$ itself since $`L`$ scales as $`M^{5/3}`$: $`LIq^2d^3𝐪R^5M^{5/3}`$, with $`R`$ and $`M`$ being the typical size and mass of a proto-halo respectively. We thus define a time-independent specific angular momentum, $`j`$, as $`j_iϵ_{ijk}T_{jl}\overline{I}_{lk}`$ with $`\overline{𝐈}𝐈M^{5/3})`$, since the $`\mathrm{log}(j)`$-distribution is evaluated at the same epoch and has a same shape as the $`\mathrm{log}(L)`$-distribution, except for a constant horizontal shift.

Rotating the coordinates into the local shear principal axis frame, we find that the magnitude of the specific angular momentum is given as

$$j=\{\overline{I}_{23}^2(\lambda _2\lambda _3)^2+\overline{I}_{31}^2(\lambda _1\lambda _3)^2+\overline{I}_{12}^2(\lambda _1\lambda _2)^2\}^{1/2},$$
(1)
where $`\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3`$ are the three eigenvalues of the local shear tensor, and $`\overline{I}_{23},\overline{I}_{31},\overline{I}_{12}`$ are the three off-diagonal components of the dimensionless inertia tensor, $`\overline{𝐈}`$. It is worth noting that only the off-diagonal components of the inertia tensor in the shear principal axes are involved in the generation of the halo angular momentum. The diagonal components of the inertia tensor are involved in the gravitational collapse. Interestingly enough, however, it has been recently found by N-body simulations that the shear and inertia tensors are strongly, but not perfectly, aligned Lee & Pen (2000); Portiani et al. 2001b . In other words, in the shear principal axes, the magnitudes of the inertia off-diagonal components are small relative to the diagonal parts. This numerical evidence for the small off-diagonal components of the inertia tensor prompts us to regard the misalignment to be statistical fluctuation and $`\overline{I}_{23},\overline{I}_{31},\overline{I}_{12}`$ as independent random variables. Now that the three eigevalues of the shear tensor are also random variables, and equation (1) describes how the positive random variable, $`j`$, depends on the random variabes, $`\overline{𝐈}`$ and $`\lambda _i`$’s.

To derive the distribution of $`j`$, we first separate the variables as follows. We view the generation of the halo angular momentum as a $`3\times 3`$ diagonal tidal tensor $`R_{ij}Diag[r_1,r_2,r_3]`$ acting on an inertia-moment vector $`\stackrel{~}{𝐈}`$, i.e., $`j_i=\sqrt{3}R_{ij}\stackrel{~}{I}_j`$, in the frame of local shear-principal-axis, where the components of $`R_{ij}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝐈}`$ are given as $`r_1=(\lambda _2\lambda _3)/\sqrt{3}`$, $`r_2=(\lambda _3\lambda _1)/\sqrt{3}`$ and $`r_3=(\lambda _1\lambda _2)/\sqrt{3}`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{I}_1\overline{I}_{23}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{I}_2\overline{I}_{31}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{I}_2\overline{I}_{12}`$. As the three components of $`\stackrel{~}{𝐈}`$ are independent random variables, we may further express them in spherical-polar coordinates as $`\stackrel{~}{I}_1=\stackrel{~}{I}\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi `$, $`\stackrel{~}{I}_2=\stackrel{~}{I}\mathrm{cos}\theta `$, $`\stackrel{~}{I}_3=\stackrel{~}{I}\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi `$ with $`\stackrel{~}{I}(\stackrel{~}{I}_1^2+\stackrel{~}{I}_2^2+\stackrel{~}{I}_3^2)^{1/2}`$, $`\theta \mathrm{cos}^1(\stackrel{~}{I}_2/\stackrel{~}{I})`$, $`\varphi \mathrm{tan}^1(\stackrel{~}{I}_3/\stackrel{~}{I}_1)`$. On the other hand the diagonal components of $`R_{ij}`$ are not all free but constrained by the condition of $`r_1+r_2+r_3=0`$. One may conveniently regard the diagonal components $`(r_1,r_2,r_3)`$ also as a vector $`𝐫`$; this vector lies in a plane perpendicular to the $`(1,1,1)`$ symmetric axis in the $`\lambda `$ space, or $`𝐫=\lambda \times (1,1,1)/\sqrt{3}`$. Therefore, $`𝐫`$ depends only on one polar angle, say $`\psi `$. To find the polar-coordinate expression for $`𝐫`$, we perform a coordinate transformation from $`\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3`$ into $`x,y,\delta `$, with $`x(\lambda _12\lambda _2+\lambda _3)/\sqrt{6}`$, $`y(\lambda _1\lambda _3)/\sqrt{2}`$, $`\delta \lambda _1+\lambda _2+\lambda _3`$. Under this transformation, $`𝐫`$ has only two components: $`𝐫=(x,y,0)`$. So, we can express $`x=r\mathrm{cos}\psi `$, $`y=r\mathrm{sin}\psi `$. Now, rotating the axes back into the shear principal axes, we have a polar-angle expression for $`𝐫`$ in the shear principal axis frame: $`r_1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}r\mathrm{cos}\psi +\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}r\mathrm{sin}\psi `$, $`r_2=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{3}}r\mathrm{sin}\psi `$, $`r_3=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}r\mathrm{cos}\psi +\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}r\mathrm{sin}\psi `$.

Using these angular variables for $`\stackrel{~}{𝐈}`$ and $`𝐫`$, we find the following expression for $`j`$ with separated variables:

$$j=\stackrel{~}{I}rY(\psi ,\theta ,\varphi ),$$
(2)
where

$$Y(\psi ,\theta ,\varphi )\left\{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cos}^2\psi +\frac{1}{6}\mathrm{sin}^2\psi \frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}\mathrm{cos}2\varphi \mathrm{sin}2\psi )+\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\psi \right\}^{1/2}.$$
(3)
The off-diagonal components of the inertia tensor $`\stackrel{~}{I}_1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{I}_2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{I}_3`$ are further assumed to be Gaussian variables Catelan & Theuns (1996). So, the distribution of $`\stackrel{~}{I}=\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{I}_1^2+\stackrel{~}{I}_2^2+\stackrel{~}{I}_3^2}`$ is a weighted Gaussian given as $`P_{\stackrel{~}{I}}(\stackrel{~}{I})d\stackrel{~}{I}=\sqrt{2/\pi }\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{I}}^3\stackrel{~}{I}^2\mathrm{exp}\left(\stackrel{~}{I}^2/2\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{I}}^2\right)d\stackrel{~}{I}`$, where $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{I}}`$ is the standard deviation of each off-diagonal component. While the solid angles, $`\varphi `$ and $`\theta `$ are uniformly distributed on the sphere.

Though the shear scalar $`r`$ was first pointed out to play an important role for non-spherical halo formation and angular momentum generation by Chiueh & Lee (2001), Sheth & Tormen (2002) recognized that $`r`$ can in fact be conveniently expressed as $`[\frac{2}{15}_{i=1}^5y_i]^{1/2}`$ where $`y_1,\mathrm{},y_5`$ are mutually independent Gaussian variables, having the same standard deviations equal to that of the density field, $`\sigma _\delta `$. Therefore, the distribution of $`r`$ is also a weighted Gaussian: $`P_r(r)=\sqrt{5/\pi }(25/12\sigma _\delta ^5)r^4\mathrm{exp}\left(5r^2/4\sigma _\delta ^2\right)`$. Sheth & Tormen (2002) commented that the broadness of $`P(j)`$ may be attributed to the shape of $`P_r(r)`$. However, $`P(j)`$ is contributed by the conditional distribution of $`r`$ only for those regions out of which dark halos condense, i.e., $`P_r(r|\mathrm{halo})`$, instead of the unconditional $`P_r(r)`$ given above. In the Press-Schechter model of halo formation Press & Schechter (1974) where the collapse threshold depends only on $`\delta `$ and not on $`r`$, $`P_r(r|\mathrm{halo})`$ indeed equals $`P(r)`$. However, the actual halo collapse is generically non-spherical, which leads to higher collapse thresholds depending both on $`\delta `$ and $`r`$ Sheth et al. (2001); Chiueh & Lee (2001). This fact differentiates the actual halo $`r`$-distribution per mass bin, $`P_r(r|\mathrm{halo})`$, from the unconditional $`P_r(r)`$.

To find $`P_r(r|\mathrm{halo})`$, we examine the non-spherical collapse using the collapse condition given by Chiueh & Lee (2001): $`\frac{\delta }{\delta _c}=\left(1+\frac{r^4}{\alpha }\right)^\beta `$. Chiueh & Lee (2001) originally suggested $`\alpha =\beta =0.15`$; later Lin et al. (2001) refined the values as $`\alpha =0.26`$ and $`\beta =0.16`$, which are adopted here. Since the collapse condition depends on $`r`$, $`P_r(r|\mathrm{halo})`$ should no longer equal $`P_r(r)`$. We calculated $`P_r(r|\mathrm{halo})`$ numerically using the random-walk method described in Lin et al. (2001). Two non-trivial results are found. First, $`P_r(r|\mathrm{halo})`$ is independent of mass up to the numerical accuracy, and second, $`P_r(r)`$ turns out to still be a good approximation to $`P_r(r|\mathrm{halo})`$. Figure 1. compares the numerical $`P_r(r|\mathrm{halo})`$ near the characteristic mass $`M_{}`$ with $`P_r(r)`$. The good argreement suggests that the distribution of $`j`$ is not sensitive to the detailed dynamics of halo formation. This feature is the origin of the scale-independent shape of the halo angular momentum distribution to be shown below.

### 2.2 The $`j`$-Distribution

Now, replace $`P_r(r|\mathrm{halo})`$ by the simpler $`P_r(r)`$. By equation (2), the angular distribution $`P(j)`$ can be derived as follows:

$$P(j)=𝑑\lambda _1𝑑\lambda _2𝑑\lambda _3𝑑\stackrel{~}{I}\mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta d\varphi P_\lambda (\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3)P_{\stackrel{~}{I}}\delta _D(j\stackrel{~}{I}rY(\theta ,\varphi ,\psi )),$$
(4)
where

$$P_\lambda (\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3)=\frac{3375}{8\sqrt{5}\pi \sigma _\delta ^6}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\delta ^2}{2\sigma _\delta ^2}\frac{5r^2}{4\sigma _\delta ^2}\right)|(\lambda _1\lambda _2)(\lambda _2\lambda _3)(\lambda _1\lambda _3)|,$$
(5)
and the Dirac $`\delta _D`$-function constrains $`j`$ to other variables through eq.(2). Note that the last factor in eq.(5) is no more than $`|r_1r_2r_3|(J(r,\psi ))`$, arising from the Jacobian of the angular distribution of the shear principal axesDoroshkevich (1970). Thus, $`J(r,\psi )=r^3J(\psi )`$, with $`J(\psi )|(3\mathrm{cos}^2\psi \mathrm{sin}^2\psi )\mathrm{sin}\psi |`$. The angular dependence of $`J(\psi )`$ results in $`P_\lambda `$ to contain three null lines, separated by $`60`$ degrees, on the plane where the $`𝐫`$ vector lies. The null lines correspond to the degeneracies, $`\lambda _1=\lambda _2`$, $`\lambda _2=\lambda _3`$ and $`\lambda _3=\lambda _1`$. This feature renders the random angle $`\psi `$ to distribute non-uniformly with three-fold symmetry.

Upon changing the variables from $`\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3`$ to $`\delta ,r,\psi `$, the $`\delta `$, $`\stackrel{~}{I}`$ and $`r`$ integrals can all be evaluated analytically, and eq.(4) now becomes

$$P(j)=w^1j^3\frac{d^3\mathrm{\Omega }}{Y^4}K_1(\sqrt{\frac{5}{2}}\frac{j}{bY})J(\psi )$$
(6)
where $`d^3\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta d\varphi d\psi `$, $`K_1`$ is the 1st-order modified Bessel function, $`b\sqrt{\sigma _\delta \sigma _{\stackrel{~}{I}}}`$, $`w`$ the normalization factor and $`Y`$ is given in eq.(3). As $`\mathrm{log}(j/b)=\mathrm{log}(j)\mathrm{log}(b)`$, the shape of the $`\mathrm{log}(j)`$-distribution is not affected by the value of the unknown $`b`$ although the peak position is. The angular integration of eq.(6) can only be evaluated numerically and the solid line of Figure 2 presents the resulting $`jP(j)`$. It shows that though the main body of $`P(j)`$ resembles the log-normal distribution (dashed line), the distribution is not exactly log-normal. One may check from eq.(6) by asymptotic expansion that $`P(j)`$ drops off exponentially at the high angular momentum limit (cf. Maller et al. 2001) and behaves as a power law ($`j^2`$) in the lower angular momentum limit. The best-fit log-normal to our distribution has a log-width $`\sigma _{\mathrm{log}j}=0.63`$ (dashed line), which is in fair agreement with the log-width, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{log}j}=0.5`$, obtained from N-body simulations reported by Bullock et al. Bullock et al. (2001). (Their definition of $`\lambda ^{}`$ is equivalent to our $`j`$ modulo a constant factor.)

For comparison, we have also simulated non-spherical halo collapse using the random-walk algorithm. When the collapse condition given in the previous section is satisfied, the shear tensor is diagonalized (Chiueh and Lee, 2001) and the three principal eigenvalues $`\lambda ^{}s`$ are used to evaluate the halo shear vector $`𝐫`$. The angular momentum of the dark halo is then computed according to eq.(1). Figure 2 also plots the resulting $`jP(j)`$ (solid squares). To ensure the accuracy of the our method, we have also repeated the same procedure for the Press-Schechter model and computed its $`jP(j)`$ (solid triangles), to which the solid line should be identical. As one can see, all three results agree with each other, revealing that the angular momentum distribution is insensitive to the detailed dynamics of halo formation.

We would like to stress that the unique shape and $`\mathrm{log}(j)`$ width of the angular-momentum distribution are the direct outcome of our model. It involves no fitting parameter.

## 3 DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

To explain the observed characteristic shape for the angular momentum distribution of dark halos in N-body simulations, we have adopted the standard tidal torque theory to study the proto-halo angular momentum $`j_i`$, which can succinctly be represented by a random shear $`R_{ij}`$ acting upon a random vector $`\stackrel{~}{I}_i`$. The diagonalized $`R_{ij}`$, whose three components are the mutual differences of the three eigenvalues of the local shear tensor, quantifies the non-sphericality of the local gravitational potential, and the vector $`\stackrel{~}{𝐈}`$ characterizes the misalignment between the matter distribution and local gravitational potential. With this picture, we have derived a new expression for the halo angular momentum, which separates the variables into three parts: $`r,\stackrel{~}{I},Y(\psi ,\theta ,\varphi )`$. With $`P_r(r|\mathrm{halo})`$ being shown to be approximately a weighted Gaussian and assuming $`P_{\stackrel{~}{I}}(\stackrel{~}{I})`$ to also be a weighted Gaussian, we have derived the angular-momentum distribution, i.e., $`P(j)`$, to be close to log-normal, with a mass-independent width in fair agreement with that determined from simulations. This ”quasi”-log-normal distribution is simply a consequence of the nonlinear coupling of five random variables, $`r`$, $`\stackrel{~}{I}`$, $`\theta `$, $`\varphi `$ and $`\psi `$.

Though the distribution of $`\mathrm{log}(j)`$ has a mass-independent shape, the mean of $`\mathrm{log}(j)`$ is predicted to depend on $`b`$ $`(\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{I}}\sigma _\delta (M))`$. As our framework does not permit the mass dependence of $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{I}}`$ to be determined, this present work can only account for the ubiquitous shape, but not the peak location, of the angular momentum distribution. Nonetheless, simulations have empirically found that even the mean value of $`\mathrm{log}j`$ is also mass independentBarnes & Efstathiou (1987); Heavens & Peacock (1988); Lemson & Kauffmann (1999); Bullock et al. (2001); Chen & Jing (2002). Incorporating this finding, we thus demand that

$$\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{I}}(M)\sigma _\delta ^1(M).$$
(7)
Such mass dependence of $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{I}}`$ is turned to be the prediction of the present work. That is, the misalignment (per mass) $`\stackrel{~}{I}`$ has a wider distribution for larger halos than for smaller halos at the same epoch, since $`\sigma _\delta `$ is greater for smaller halos than for larger halos. This prediction does make qualitative sense, in that at a given epoch large halos have undergone vigorous growth with mergers of sub-halos; it thus makes the interior matter distribution of large halos less correlated with the surrounding matter from which the gravitational forces are exerted. By contrast, small halos have grown mildly and hence tend to be in a quiescent state, thus keeping themselves well correlated with the surrounding matter. At any rate, this prediction as well as the Gaussianity assumption of $`\stackrel{~}{I}`$ are both testable by cosmological simulations.

This work has been supported by the Taida-ASIAA CosPA Project. T.C. acknowledges the partial support from the National Science Council of Taiwan under the grant: NSC90-2112-M-002-026.


text:
# References

One of the most natural candidates for a symmetry of nature is parity symmetry (also called left-right or mirror symmetry). While it is an established experimental fact that parity symmetry appears broken by the interactions of the known elementary particles, this however does not exclude the possible existence of exact unbroken parity symmetry in nature. This is because parity (and also time reversal) can be exactly conserved if a set of mirror particles exist. The idea is that for each ordinary particle, such as the photon, electron, proton and neutron, there is a corresponding mirror particle, of exactly the same mass as the ordinary particle 111 The mirror particles only have the same mass as their ordinary counterparts provided that the mirror symmetry is unbroken. It is possible to write down gauge models where the mirror symmetry is broken, in some cases allowing the mirror particles to have completely arbitrary masses, however these scenarios tend to be more complicated and much less well motivated in our view.. Furthermore, the mirror particles interact with each other in exactly the same way that the ordinary particles do. It follows that the mirror proton is stable for the same reason that the ordinary proton is stable, and that is, the interactions of the mirror particles conserve a mirror baryon number. The mirror particles are not produced (significantly) in laboratory experiments just because they couple very weakly to the ordinary particles. In the modern language of gauge theories, the mirror particles are all singlets under the standard $`GSU(3)SU(2)_LU(1)_Y`$ gauge interactions. Instead the mirror fermions interact with a set of mirror gauge particles, so that the gauge symmetry of the theory is doubled, i.e. $`GG`$ (the ordinary particles are, of course, singlets under the mirror gauge symmetry). Parity is conserved because the mirror fermions experience $`V+A`$ (right-handed) mirror weak interactions and the ordinary fermions experience the usual $`VA`$ (left-handed) weak interactions. Ordinary and mirror particles interact with each other predominately by gravity only.

At the present time there is a fascinating range of experimental observations supporting the existence of mirror matter, for a review see Ref. (for a more detailed discussion of the case for mirror matter, accessible to the non-specialist, see the recent book). The evidence includes numerous observations suggesting the existence of invisible ‘dark matter’ in galaxies. Mirror matter is stable and dark and provides a natural candidate for this inferred dark matter. The MACHO observations, close-in extrasolar planets, isolated planets and even gamma ray bursts may all be mirror world manifestations. In our solar system, the anomalous slowing down of the Pioneer spacecraft, the Tunguska event and some anomalous low altitude fireball phenomena have also been identified as possible manifestations of the mirror world. On the quantum level, small fundamental interactions connecting ordinary and mirror matter are possible. Theoretical constraints from gauge invariance, renormalizability and mirror symmetry suggest only three possible types of interactions: photon-mirror photon kinetic mixing, neutrino-mirror neutrino mass mixing and Higgs-mirror Higgs interactions. The main experimental implication of photon-mirror photon kinetic mixing is that it modifies the properties of orthopositronium, leading to a shorter effective lifetime in ‘vacuum’ experiments. A shorter lifetime is in fact seen at the 5 sigma level!. Neutrino-mirror neutrino mass mixing implies maximal oscillations for each ordinary neutrino with its mirror partner – a result which may be connected with the neutrino physics anomalies.

Of the few possible ways in which ordinary and mirror matter can interact with each other besides gravity, of most importance for this paper is the photon-mirror photon kinetic mixing interaction. In field theory, photon-mirror photon kinetic mixing is described by the interaction

$$=\frac{ϵ}{2}F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }^{},$$
(1)
where $`F^{\mu \nu }`$ ($`F_{\mu \nu }^{}`$) is the field strength tensor for electromagnetism (mirror electromagnetism). This type of Lagrangian term is gauge invariant and renormalizable and can exist at tree level or may be induced radiatively in models without $`U(1)`$ gauge symmetries (such as grand unified theories). One effect of ordinary photon-mirror photon kinetic mixing is to give the mirror charged particles a small electric charge. That is, they couple to ordinary photons with electric charge $`ϵe`$.

The most important experimental implication of photon-mirror photon kinetic mixing is that it modifies the properties of orthopositronium. This effect arises due to radiative off-diagonal contributions to the orthopositronium, mirror orthopositronium mass matrix. This means that orthopositronium oscillates into its mirror partner. Decays of mirror orthopositronium are not detected experimentally which effectively increases the observed decay rate. Because collisions of orthopositronium destroy the quantum coherence, this mirror world effect is most important for experiments which are designed such that the collision rate of the orthopositronium is low. The only accurate experiment sensitive to the mirror world effect is the Ann Arbour vacuum cavity experiment. This experiment obtained a decay rate of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{oPs}=7.0482\pm 0.0016\mu s^1`$. Normalizing this measured value with the current theoretical value of $`7.0399\mu s^1`$  gives

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{oPs}(exp)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{oPs}(theory)}=1.0012\pm 0.00023$$
(2)
which is a five sigma discrepancy with theory. It suggests a value $`|ϵ|10^6`$ for the photon-mirror photon kinetic mixing. Taken at face value this experiment is strong evidence for the existence of mirror matter and hence parity symmetry. The sign of $`ϵ`$ is not constrained by the orthopositronium experiments and so there are two distinct possibilities depending on whether $`ϵ>0`$ or $`ϵ<0`$.

Perhaps one of the most fascinating implications of the photon \- mirror photon kinetic mixing interaction occurs if there are small mirror matter bodies in our solar system. It has been suggested in Ref. that the collisions of such bodies with the Earth may naturally explain many puzzling features of the 1908 Tunguska event as well as the low altitude anomalous fireball events. An important implication of this explanation is that mirror matter fragments should exist in the ground at these impact sites. Clearly, an important issue is how to search for mirror matter in the ground. One concrete idea was proposed in Ref., where it was suggested that mirror matter in the ground can cool the surrounding ordinary matter by drawing in heat and radiating it away as mirror photons222 Actually, the cooling effect of mirror matter that is vapourized in the atmosphere (from e.g. small mirror matter space-bodies or dust particles colliding with the Earth) might also lead to interesting effects. For example, one might think that rapid cooling of the atmosphere due to mirror matter absorbing heat from the surrounding ordinary atoms (and radiating that heat way as mirror photons) might lead to the formation of clouds and maybe even ice blocks. Perhaps this might be connected with long standing observations of atmospheric holes and observations of falling ice blocks.. In this paper we will discuss a complementary way of searching for mirror matter in the ground.

While the force of gravity can be opposed by electrostatic forces for a solid piece of mirror matter (if $`|ϵ|10^6`$), one might expect mirror matter in gaseous form to eventually diffuse to the center of the Earth. This is only true, though, if the mirror atoms cannot bind with ordinary atoms at ordinary temperatures. If the effective ordinary electric charge of the mirror nuclei is of opposite sign to ordinary nuclei (i.e. $`ϵ<0`$), then ordinary - mirror nuclei can form bound states. Consider the case of a proton and a mirror proton. In this case, the Bohr radius of the proton - mirror proton bound state ($`R_b`$) and its binding energy ($`E_b`$) are given by (we use natural units where $`\mathrm{}=c=1`$ throughout):

$`R_b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_e}{\mu ϵ}}r_{bohr}^H={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu |ϵ|e^2}}10^3\left({\displaystyle \frac{10^6}{|ϵ|}}\right)r_{bohr}^H,`$
$`E_b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^2\mu }{m_e}}E_{bohr}^H={\displaystyle \frac{\mu ϵ^2e^4}{2}}10^8\left({\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{10^6}}\right)^2eV,`$ (3)
where $`\mu =m_p/2`$ is the reduced mass and $`r_{bohr}^H,E_{bohr}^H`$ are the standard Bohr radius and ground state energy for Hydrogen. Clearly, the binding energy is too low to be of much interest if $`|ϵ|10^6`$ as suggested by the orthopositronium experiments. However, the binding energy increases for larger masses and also for larger charges.

Perhaps an interesting observation is that if the Bohr radius of the ordinary - mirror nuclei bound state is less than the Bohr radius of the inner electrons and mirror electrons, then the electric charge of the ordinary nuclei and mirror nuclei are, to a good approximation, not screened by the electrons and mirror electrons. This means that we can, to a good approximation, ignore the electrons and mirror electrons and treat atoms as nuclei. The condition for this to occur is that:

$`R_b\stackrel{<}{}r_b^K`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu |ϵ|Z_1Z_2e^2}}\stackrel{<}{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_ee^2Z_1}}`$ (4)
$`\mathrm{That}\mathrm{is},`$ $`Z_2\stackrel{>}{}{\displaystyle \frac{m_e}{\mu }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|ϵ|}},`$
where we have assumed $`Z_1Z_2`$ and used the notation $`r_b^K`$ for the Bohr radius of the inner K-shell electrons. For light elements, $`Z_1,Z_2<15`$, the above condition is never satisfied; which means that ordinary - mirror atom light element bound states do not exist or have extremely low binding energies (certainly too low to exist on Earth). However, for heavy elements, $`Z_1,Z_2\stackrel{>}{}15`$, the above condition is satisfied. Taking as an example, $`FeFe^{}`$ bound state, then $`R_b=0.7r_b^K`$, verifying that the ordinary and mirror atom are bound so closely that the screening effects of the ordinary and mirror electrons can be approximately ignored. The binding energy of the ground state in the $`FeFe^{}`$ system is approximately:

$`E_{FeFe^{}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^2m_{Fe}Z_{Fe}^4e^4}{4}}`$ (5)
$``$ $`0.3\left({\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{10^6}}\right)^2eV.`$
While this particular bound state could have interesting implications in cold environments such as the ISM, it would not exist indefinitely at ordinary temperatures for single $`Fe^{}`$ atoms. They would occasionally be excited by thermal interactions, eventually diffusing towards the Earth’s center. However, heavier bound states have higher binding energies and can be quite stable at ordinary temperatures. For example, the binding energy of $`PbFe^{}`$ is about 5 eV and $`PbPb^{}`$ is about 120 eV.

The above observations open several new ways to search for mirror matter. For example, if mirror iron meteorites exist, then such bodies can vaporise in the atmosphere. Each iron atom would diffuse towards the ground, where it would only be stopped (permanently) if it encountered an ordinary element heavier than $`Fe`$, e.g. lead (or it encounted some embedded mirror matter fragment). Thus, ordinary samples of lead, may contain a small fraction of $`PbFe^{}`$ bound states which have built up over time. \[Mirror iron may also come from cosmic rays, since we know that ordinary cosmic rays contain $`Fe`$, it is very plausible that they might also contain $`Fe^{}`$.\]

The capture cross section of say, $`Fe^{}`$ on lead can be estimated to be 333 This cross section can be obtained from the standard formula for the capture of a charge electron on a nucleus (see e.g. Ref.), after the replacements $`eZ_{Fe}e`$$`Z_{\text{nucleus}}ϵZ_{Pb}`$ and $`m_em_{Fe}`$.:

$`\sigma _{rc}={\displaystyle \frac{256\pi ^2}{3m_{Fe}^2}}Z_{Fe}^2\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{\xi ^6}{(1+\xi ^2)^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{exp(2\xi \tau )}{1exp(2\pi \xi )}}`$ (6)
where $`\mathrm{sin}\tau =\frac{2\xi }{1+\xi ^2}`$ and $`\xi =ϵ\alpha Z_{Fe}Z_{Pb}/v`$. In order to work out $`\sigma _{rc}`$ for the capture of $`Fe^{}`$ on lead, we need to first estimate the velocity, $`v`$, of the $`Fe^{}`$ atoms. For the interesting case of $`|ϵ|10^6`$, the $`Fe^{}`$ undergoes many elastic collisions with the ordinary nuclei so that by the time it could reach any lead deposit in the ground, an individual $`Fe^{}`$ atom would have thermalized with the surroundings. This means that the mean energy of an individual $`Fe^{}`$ atom would be approximately,

$`E`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}kT,`$ (7)
$``$ $`v/c\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3kT}{m_{Fe}}}}10^6.`$
If $`|ϵ|10^6`$ as suggested by the orthopositronium experiments then $`\xi 13`$ and $`\sigma _{rc}`$ is

$`\sigma _{rc}3\times 10^{30}cm^2`$ (8)
This means that $`Fe^{}`$ must travel an average total length of $`\mathrm{}=1/n_{Lead}\sigma _{rc}3\times 10^7km`$ before being captured by lead (where we have used the mean number density of lead atoms in the Earth’s crust of $`n_{lead}10^{17}/cm^3`$). The average time needed for $`Fe^{}`$ to be captured by lead is thus about $`\mathrm{}/v3`$ years. Because the elastic scattering with nuclei is much larger ($`\sigma 10^{20}cm^2`$), $`Fe^{}`$ will be captured by lead at a distance much smaller than $`\mathrm{}`$. An $`Fe^{}`$ atom has a mean free path in the earth’s crust of about $`\mathrm{}_m=1/n\sigma 10^3cm`$. The $`Fe^{}`$ atom will thus typically perform a random walk of about $`N=\mathrm{}/\mathrm{}_m3\times 10^{15}`$ steps of length $`\mathrm{}_m`$. The typical distance a $`Fe^{}`$ atom will stray before being captured by lead is thus about $`\sqrt{N}\times \mathrm{}_m500`$ meters.

It is also possible for $`Fe^{}`$ (and other potential heavy mirror elements) to be absorbed by colliding with any mirror matter fragments that happen to be embedded in the Earth. The strength of the capture process relative to condensation on mirror matter fragments is of course difficult to quantify. For this reason and because the (time) integrated flux of $`Fe^{}`$ atoms striking the Earth (from e.g. the vapourization of $`Fe^{}`$ meteorites in the atmosphere or from cosmic rays if they contain an $`Fe^{}`$ component) is essentially unknown, it is impossible to give precise predictions for the exotic ordinary - mirror atom bound state abundances in materials containing heavy elements such as lead.

Interestingly, a recent experiment has searched for bound states consisting of strongly interacting massive particles (SIMPS) and iron and gold nuclei . No such bound states were found. Using these results an upper limit of about $`10^{11}`$ can be set for $`AuFe^{}`$ bound states abundances, and an upper limit of $`10^{10}`$ for $`AuPb^{}`$ bound states abundances. Samples near the Earth’s surface were tested, because SIMPS (being strongly interacting) are assumed to have a penetration depth of a few meters or less. Since a mirror atom is expected to penetrate much deeper into the Earth before being captured, it is not necessary to focus on samples near the Earth’s surface. Any sample containing heavy elements such as lead could be used. In particular, a much more senstive search for ordinary-mirror atom bound states could be preformed by working with liquid compounds such as lead tetra chloride ($`PbCl_4`$). Such liquids could be put into a centrifuge, thereby greatly enhancing the concentration of, say, $`PbFe^{}Cl_4`$ (in this example). After this purification procedure the sample could be then put in a mass spectrometer. In this way a very sensitive limit on the abundance of such exotic states could be achieved (perhaps a sensitivity of order $`10^{16}`$ could be expected).

While our discussion has focused on the capture of single $`Fe^{}`$ atoms, interesting effects can also occur for $`Fe^{}`$ fragments (and other heavy mirror elements), including tiny micron-sized mirror iron particles containing e.g. $`10^8Fe^{}`$ atoms. Such fragments would be stopped in the Earth after only a very short distance (typically less than a millimeter). Thus, unlike the case of individual atoms, small fragments and microparticles might be expected to occur only in lead samples exposed to the atmosphere. The binding energy of the fragment depends on several factors including its crystal structure and lattice spacing. At ordinary temperatures lead forms a face-centered cubic structure while iron forms a body-centered cubic structure. Depending on how these lattices are arranged relative to each other, there may be several possible stable configurations. The state that an embedded fragment happens to be in might not be the lowest energy configuration. This point is illustrated in Figure 1, where the system is in the second local minimum. In this case it might be possible to cause a phase transition to a lower energy configuration by irradiating the sample with a laser resulting in emission of UV photons with higher energy than the laser photons if the final configuration involves $`PbFe^{}`$ bound states. Interestingly, there is a recent experiment which has indeed found such a puzzling burst of UV photons from laser irradiated lead targets. Further work needs to be done, both experimentally and theoretically to see if this mirror matter explanation could really be the origin of those observations.

In addition to terrestrial implications, one might also imagine interesting astrophysical implications of ordinary-mirror mixed matter. If, for example, the interstellar medium (ISM) has dust particles containing both ordinary and mirror fragments. The interstellar medium is a very cold environment which means that even relatively light states such as $`FeFe^{}`$ or $`FeMg^{}`$ could exist leading to infra-red emission lines. Also heavier states such as $`PbFe^{}`$ (or $`Pb^{}Fe`$) could also exist but would have absorption in the UV. Interestingly there are many unidentified infra-red, optical and UV lines in the ISM (for example the well known UV absorption feature at $`\lambda =2175A`$), but we postpone a more detailed analysis for the future.

In conclusion, we have pointed out that the small photon - mirror photon kinetic mixing interaction – suggested by orthopositronium experiments – should cause single heavy mirror atoms (such as $`Fe^{}`$) to become bound with heavy ordinary atoms. These bound states could be found if sensitive mass spectroscopy was done on materials such as ordinary lead. The existence of these bound states could also lead to interesting implications if small mirror fragments (such as iron microparticles) are stopped in ordinary materials containing heavy elements such as lead. We have speculated that this might explain a recent laser experiment which has found an unexpected burst of UV light from laser irradiated lead targets. The ordinary - mirror atom bound states may also have interesting astrophysical implications if such mixed matter exists in the ISM.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank A. Pakhomov for useful correspondence regarding his experiment. R.F. wishes to acknowledge very useful and interesting discussions/correspondence with J. Learned, J. Martinez-Frias, S. Pakvasa, R. Volkas, T. L. Yoon and wishes to thank T. Mesirow for bringing the laser experiment to his attention.

Figure Caption

Figure 1: Possible form of the potential energy of a mirror iron fragment embedded in a piece of lead.