text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In the 1930s, Einstein’s mechanism to introduce a maximal velocity in special relativity, the $`\sqrt{1v^2}`$ term, motivated Born and Infeld to try and introduce a maximal field strength in Maxwell’s theory in the same way. The result was what we now call Born-Infeld (BI) theory.
In the 80s, the BI action was shown to arise in open bosonic string theory . After the discovery of D-branes, it was realised that BI theory is a key ingredient in the effective theory of branes . Remarkably, this enables us to understand BI theory as not merely motivated by special relativity, but in fact as T-dual to it : a relativistic point particle is the T-dual description of a brane with a slowly varying electric field E. In a recent work , it was shown that demanding the existence of stable holomorphic vector bundles (corresponding to instantons in Yang-Mills theory) to be solutions of a deformed abelian Yang-Mills theory fixes deformations to be BI theory. Another property of BI theory is that it is unique in its form invariance under the Seiberg-Witten map .
Supersymmetrisation of BI theory began in the later 1980s, when in  a N=1 supersymmetric BI Lagrangian in D=4 was presented. Later, manifest extended supersymmetry was considered (e.g. N=2, D=4 in ). In the later 90s, partially broken global supersymmetries (PBGS) were investigated. For example, in  it was shown that partially breaking N=2 in D=4 can be solved by the Maxwell multiplet, resulting in BI theory, while the breaking of N=2 in D=10 was considered in . A geometric approach to PBGS is the superembedding method, in which one superspace (interpreted as brane world volume) is embedded into another, larger one (target space), using appropriate constraints ( the so called embedding condition and the $``$-constraint). The result is again BI theory. The virtue of the superembedding approach is not only that it gives a geometrical interpretation to the theory and illuminates the nature of $`\kappa `$-symmetry , but also that it leads to a systematic way of determining the effective action for branes in various dimensions 111For an earlier attempt to use source and target superspaces, see, e.g. . . For a review of the superembedding method see . For examples of derivations of D-brane dynamics from superembeddings, see . The equivalence between PBGS and the superembedding approach (for flat target superspace) has been discussed in  and, in particular has been shown for space-filling branes in 3 and 4 dimensions in . More recently it has been shown (for D=3 and D=4) that the constraint used in the nonlinear realisation approach  is equivalent to the $``$-constraint in the superembedding approach and that the resulting actions are identical .
The search for a non-abelian version of super BI (NBI) theory, which would correspond to a theory describing coinciding branes, is an active area of current research. The NBI action had been investigated at order $`\alpha ^2`$ in the mid eighties . Later, symmetrised trace actions were proposed . Recent calculations suggest that these proposals are not valid beyond order 4 in $`F`$ . Other approaches taken towards the higher order terms of NBI are considering non-abelian $`\kappa `$-symmetry  which was used to derive a bosonic and fermionic terms up to order 4 in $`F`$, calculations of correlators for D=4, N=4 quantum Yang-Mills (up to order 5 in $`F`$) , and the deformation of Yang-Mills, given that stable holomorphic bundles still are solutions to the deformed theory . A calculation from string scattering amplitudes which gave the action up to order four in fields can be found in . Apart from these approaches, there have been attempts to work out in how far supersymmetry fixes possible NBI theories .

In this paper we will make use of the (flat) superembedding formalism to determine the superspace form of the effective field theory for an abelian D9-brane. Since the multiplet is on shell and there is no known way to force the theory off-shell, we do not write down a Lagrangian for this theory. Instead, we calculate the odd-odd part of the super field strength, $`f_{\alpha \beta }`$, which is implied by the so called $``$-constraint. We will write $`F`$ for the world volume field strength 2-form, $`F_{AB}`$ for its components in the basis induced by our embedding, and $`f_{AB}`$ for its components in a flat basis. So $`f_{AB}`$ is the normal N=1, D=10 field strength satisfying $`df=0`$ in flat superspace. The constraint on $`f_{AB}`$ which produces super Maxwell theory is $`f_{\alpha \beta }=0`$. The lowest order deformation (order three in fields) of this constraint has been known for a long time () and in conventional fields ($`f_{ab}`$ the spinor $`\lambda `$) on dimensional grounds has to be

$$\left(\gamma ^{edcba}\right)_{\alpha \beta }\left(\lambda \gamma _{abc}\lambda \right)f_{de}$$

In  it is shown that linear supersymmetry leads to this result as well. Once $`f_{\alpha \beta }`$ is known, the Bianchi identities for the field strength determine the equations of motion.

Our approach gives a closed expression for $`f_{\alpha \beta }`$ in fields as they arise in the embedding approach. Redefining these, we expand the answer in conventional fields up to order 5. For consistency checks of proposals of non abelian versions of BI, one can directly compare the abelian limit of $`f_{\alpha \beta }`$, or, in case $`f_{\alpha \beta }`$ is not given (e.g. ), the resulting equations of motion.
Work on the D9-brane has been published before. In , the Wess-Zumino term required to achieve $`\kappa `$-symmetry for Dp-brane actions was calculated. In , the D9-brane was analysed in a superembedding context, but the analysis was performed in a linearised approximation.
We shall consider the embedding $`s`$ of a D=10, N=1 world volume with a gauge field super two form $`F=dA`$ into a flat D=10, N=2 target space with a three form super field strength $`H=dB`$. Treating the world volume as a D-brane, we know from string theory that $`\kappa `$-symmetry has to be preserved, which, as was pointed out in , implies

* the embedding constraint: $`E_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\underset{¯}{a}}=0`$
* the $``$-constraint: $`_{\alpha B}:=F_{\alpha B}s^{}\underset{¯}{B}_{\alpha B}=0`$

where $`s^{}\underset{¯}{B}`$ is the pullback of $`B`$ and $`=Fs^{}B`$. Implementing these will determine the explicit form of $`f_{\alpha \beta }`$ which we then express in the standard fields (in our case, the embedding constraint does not actually constrain $`F`$). As pointed out before ( e.g. ), this determines the equations of motion via the Bianchi identities. Since the embedding brakes half the supersymmetry there is a Goldstone degree of freedom, which is the location of the brane in the transverse odd target space. The resulting theory will then realise one manifest linear (all our fields are N=1 super fields) and one non-linear supersymmetry. The $``$-constraint is the only covariant constraint compatible with the Maxwell multiplet. This means that the theory we derive, with one linear and one non-linear supersymmetry, is unique.
In section 2, we give a very brief review of the formalism of superembeddings. In the following section we then consider the possible flat backgrounds $`H`$, calculate their potentials $`B`$, pull $`B`$ back to the brane, impose the $``$-constraint and so arrive at an expression for $`f_{\alpha \beta }`$ in embedding fields. In the next section we then expand this expression up to order 5 in conventional fields. We conclude with some remarks on our result.

## 2 The Superembedding formalism

A superembedding is a map from the world volume of the brane to the target space: $`s:M\underset{¯}{M}`$. Letters from the middle of the alphabet will be used for coordinate indices, letters from the beginning for tangent space indices. Lower case Latin letters will refer to the even, Greek letters to odd components. Upper case Latin letters include even and odd indices. So we have $`M=(m,\mu )`$ for coordinate indices and $`A=(a,\alpha )`$ for tangent space indices. When referring to the target space, indices will be underlined. Coordinates are denoted as $`z^M=(x^m,\theta ^\mu )`$. The relation between tangent and coordinate bases is given by the super vielbein $`E_M^A`$ and its inverse $`E_A^M`$. Coordinates transverse to the world volume will be primed: $`A^{}`$. The embedding matrix is the derivative of $`s`$ in terms of tangent indices:

$`E_A{}_{}{}^{\underset{¯}{A}}:=E_A{}_{}{}^{M}_{M}^{}z^{\underset{¯}{M}}E_{\underset{¯}{M}}^{\underset{¯}{A}}`$ (1)
As an example we pull back a one form $`Q`$ from the target space to the world volume:

$`\left(s^{}Q\right)_A=E_A{}_{}{}^{\underset{¯}{A}}Q_{\underset{¯}{A}}^{}`$ (2)
The basic embedding condition one imposes is that the (tangent space of the) odd world volume sits in the (tangent space of) odd target space: $`E_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\underset{¯}{a}}=0`$. This is a consequence of demanding $`\kappa `$-symmetry for open strings, ending on the brane, as was shown in , and is, without loss of generality, true for the space filling brane we will consider later. We will denote the standard flat basis of superspace by

$`e^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`d\theta ^\alpha `$ (3)
$`e^a`$ $`=`$ $`dx^a{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}d\theta ^\alpha \left(\gamma ^a\right)_{\alpha \beta }\theta ^\beta `$ (4)
The $`\gamma `$-matrices are 16 by 16 real symmetric. Locally on the brane it is always possible to choose an induced basis defined by

$`E^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`e^\alpha `$ (5)
$`E^a`$ $`=`$ $`(e^be^\beta \psi _\beta {}_{}{}^{b})\left(B^1\right)_b^a`$ (6)
where

$`\psi _\alpha {}_{}{}^{a}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}D_\alpha \theta ^{}\gamma ^b\theta ^{}\left(\delta _b{}_{}{}^{a}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}_b\theta ^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^a\theta ^{}\right)^1`$ (7)
and

$`B_a{}_{}{}^{b}=\left(\delta _a{}_{}{}^{b}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}_a\theta ^{}\gamma \theta ^{}\right)^1`$ (8)
The world volume spinor derivative in the induced basis is

$`𝒟_\alpha :=D_\alpha +\psi _\alpha {}_{}{}^{a}_{a}^{}`$ (9)
Finally we may split up the target space into two parts of same dimension such that

$`E_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}=u_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}+h_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta ^{}}u_{\beta ^{}}^{}^{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}`$ (10)
$`u`$ then is an element of a group $`\underset{¯}{G}`$, which will either be the Spin group, or a product of Spin with some internal symmetry group. The even-even part can then be parametrised by the Lorentz transformation corresponding to the Spin transformation

$`E_a{}_{}{}^{\underset{¯}{a}}=u_a^{\underset{¯}{a}}`$ (11)
A symmetry transformation $`g\underset{¯}{G}`$ will map the frame $`E_\alpha `$ to itself, up to a linear transformation, if we have:

$`ugu`$ (12)
$`hh^{}`$ (13)
for

$`h_\alpha ^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta ^{}}=(g_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\gamma ^{}}+g_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\delta }h_{\delta }^{}{}_{}{}^{\gamma ^{}})(g_\gamma ^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta ^{}}g_\gamma ^{}{}_{}{}^{ϵ}h_{ϵ}^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta ^{}})^1`$ (14)
as a straightforward calculation shows. So the field $`h`$ transforms projectively under $`\underset{¯}{G}`$.
We will choose to align the world volume coordinates with the target space coordinates:

$`x^a`$ $`=`$ $`x^{\underset{¯}{a}}`$ (15)
$`\theta ^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\theta ^{\underset{¯}{\alpha }1}`$ (16)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\alpha (x,\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\theta ^{\underset{¯}{\alpha }2}`$ (17)
This is called static gauge. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ corresponds to the odd transverse location of the brane in target space. Note that this fixing of gauge kills the world volume diffeomorphism invariance which implies the loss of $`\kappa `$-symmetry.
For a more detailed introduction to superembeddings, see, for example, , and for the special case of codimension 0, see, for example, .

## 3 Background fields

We will embed an N=1, D=10 space, our brane’s world volume, in an N=2, D=10 target space. On the world volume there lives a super gauge field strength $`F`$. The embedding condition $`E_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\underset{¯}{a}}=0`$ does not constrain $`F`$, so to fix the multiplet and the dynamics, we need some other constraint. Demanding $`\kappa `$-symmetry for open strings ending on our world volume implies such a constraint for $`F`$, the $``$-constraint. To implement the $``$-constraint, we define a new super fieldstrength $``$ on the brane:

$`=Fs^{}\underset{¯}{B}`$ (18)
and then impose the $``$-constraint

$`_{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (19)
$`_{\alpha b}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (20)
With $`H`$ being the field strength of the super two form field $`B`$, the Bianchi identity for $``$ is:

$`d=H`$ (21)
Rearranging (18) gives

$`F=+s^{}\underset{¯}{B}`$ (22)
which will, once we know $`s^{}\underset{¯}{B}`$, fix the odd-odd and odd-even components of $`F`$, due to the $``$-constraint. The equations of motion are then implied by the Bianchi identity $`d=H`$.
In this section we will now proceed as follows:

* determine possible $`\underset{¯}{H}`$-backgrounds
* calculate the corresponding gauge potential $`\underset{¯}{B}`$
* pull $`\underset{¯}{B}`$ back to the brane in a flat basis
* use (22) to determine the odd-odd and even-odd components of $`F`$ (section 3)

What then remains to be done is to expand the result in the conventional fields, which we do in penultimate section.

### Determining $`H`$

Working with a flat $`H`$ background, $`H`$ has to be built from super invariants, i.e. gamma matrices only:

$`\underset{¯}{H}=\left(i\right)E^{\gamma _j}E^{\beta _i}E^a\left(\gamma _a\right)_{\beta \gamma }M_{ij}`$ (23)
where $`M_{ij}`$ is some symmetric 2x2 matrix. A basis for these is given by the two symmetric Pauli matrices and the identity. The Bianchi-identity

$`0=d\underset{¯}{H}`$ (24)
gives a further restriction. In components it reads

$`0=\left(\gamma _a\right)_{(\alpha _i\beta _j}\left(\gamma ^a\right)_{\gamma _k\delta _k)}`$ (25)
where i and j are restricted by $`M_{ij}`$ as above. Using

$`\left(\gamma _a\right)_{\alpha (\beta }\left(\gamma ^a\right)_{\gamma \delta )}=0`$ (26)
one finds that $`M`$ cannot be the identity. Further, one finds that both, $`\tau _1`$ and $`\tau _3`$ are possible choices for $`M`$.

### Determining $`B`$

The aim is to find a two form $`B`$ on the worldvolume which is only dependent on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The reason for that is, that via the $``$-constraint, $`B`$ enters the brane field strength $`F`$, which contains the physical fields. The only physical degrees of freedom of the brane are its location in the transverse odd dimension, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, (its $`\theta ^2`$ coordinate in target space), and its super partner, the bosonic gauge field on the brane. So, in a physical gauge, $`B`$ should be built only from these and not depend on the brane coordinates $`x`$ and $`\theta ^1`$. Note that this is just a choice of gauge. Since the embedding matrix will not change the $`x`$ or $`\theta ^1`$ dependences, the target space $`B`$ must only depend on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.
Consider $`\underset{¯}{H}`$ to be of $`\tau ^1`$ type first. The equation

$`d\underset{¯}{B}=\underset{¯}{H}`$ (27)
gives eight component equations, and these can be solved by

$`\underset{¯}{B}_{AB}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 3i\mathrm{\Lambda }^ϵ\left(\gamma _a\right)_{ϵ\beta }& 0\\ 3i\mathrm{\Lambda }^ϵ\left(\gamma _b\right)_{ϵ\alpha }& 0& \lambda ^ϵ\left(\gamma ^f\right)_{ϵ\alpha }\left(\gamma _f\right)_{\beta \delta }\mathrm{\Lambda }^\delta \\ 0& \mathrm{\Lambda }^ϵ\left(\gamma ^f\right)_{ϵ\alpha }\left(\gamma _f\right)_{\beta \delta }\mathrm{\Lambda }^\delta & 0\end{array}\right)`$ (31)
Considering $`\underset{¯}{H}`$ in $`\tau _3`$ gauge, we find from the target space component equation

$`D_{(\alpha }B_{\beta c)}+T_{(\alpha \beta }{}_{}{}^{f}B_{fc)}^{}=H_{\left(\alpha \beta c\right)}`$ (32)
that the even-even $`B`$ would have to be proportional to the unit-matrix which is not antisymmetric. So there are no solutions independent of $`\theta ^2`$ for the $`\tau _3`$ case. Using the embedding matrix to pull $`\underset{¯}{B}`$ back to the world volume, and switching to a flat basis using (5), (6) we find

$`b_{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}D_{(\alpha }\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma ^b\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(\gamma _b\right)_{\beta )\gamma }\mathrm{\Lambda }^\gamma `$ (33)
$`b_{\alpha b}`$ $`=`$ $`i\left(\gamma _b\right)_{\alpha \gamma }\mathrm{\Lambda }^\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma ^c\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(\gamma _c\right)_{\alpha \gamma }\mathrm{\Lambda }^\gamma `$ (34)
$`b_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (35)
where $`b`$ denotes the pullback of $`\underset{¯}{B}`$ in a flat basis.

### Calculating $`F`$

Using (22) and the just derived components of $`B`$, we find for the components of $`F`$ in a flat basis:

$`f_{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}D_{(\alpha }\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma ^b\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(\gamma _b\right)_{\beta )\mu }\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu +\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}D_\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma ^c\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}D_\beta \mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma ^d\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)_{cd}`$ (36)
$`f_{\alpha b}`$ $`=`$ $`i\gamma _{b\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Lambda }^\beta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}_b\mathrm{\Lambda }.\gamma ^c.\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma _{c\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Lambda }^\beta D_\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma ^c\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(\delta _b{}_{}{}^{d}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma ^d\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)_{cd}`$ (37)
$`f_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\delta _a{}_{}{}^{c}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}_a\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma ^c\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)\left(\delta _b{}_{}{}^{d}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma ^d\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)_{cd}`$ (38)
The first of these equations is, in closed form, the constraint that determines the full super Born-Infeld theory. Note that the conventional constraint, i.e. $`f_{\alpha \beta }`$ be gamma traceless, has not yet been imposed on $`f`$.

## 4 Redefining the fields

After having obtained the constraint on $`f_{AB}`$ in terms of $`_{ab}`$, which is in the induced basis, and the spinor field $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, we now want to express it in conventional fields. These are contained in the flat world volume field strength $`\widehat{f}`$ which is $`F`$ in the flat basis with the conventional constraint imposed:

$`\left(\gamma ^a\right)^{\beta \alpha }\widehat{f}_{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (39)
$`\left(\gamma ^b\right)^{\alpha \beta }\widehat{f}_{b\beta }`$ $`=`$ $`10\lambda ^\alpha `$ (40)
To perform the necessary field redefinitions, we will proceed as follows

* express spinor derivatives of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in terms of the embedding field h
* express the embedding field h in terms of $``$
* express $``$ in the flat basis to get $`f_{AB}`$
* determine the shift in the gauge potential $`A\widehat{A}`$, such that its fieldstrength $`\widehat{f}_{AB}`$ satisfies the conventional constraint (39)
* using (40), express the spinor field $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in terms $``$ and the conventional spinor $`\lambda `$
* use these relations in the expression for $`f_{\alpha \beta }`$
* in the resulting equation, $`f_{\alpha \beta }`$ will appear on the rhs in a higher order expression. Substitute the lowest order term of the rhs for it, to eliminate (at this order) all $`f_{\alpha \beta }`$ on the rhs
* impose the conventional constraint on the equation
* simplify the result

First consider the relation between $`D_\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^\beta `$ and $`h_\alpha ^\beta `$. We know that

$`𝒟_\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^\beta =h_\alpha ^\beta `$ (41)
and since $`𝒟_\alpha =D_\alpha +\psi _\alpha {}_{}{}^{c}_{c}^{}`$ we know that

$`D_\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^\beta `$ $`=`$ $`𝒟_\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^\beta \psi _\alpha {}_{}{}^{c}_{c}^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^\beta `$ (42)
$`=`$ $`h_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}D_\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma \mathrm{\Lambda }(\delta {\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma \mathrm{\Lambda })^1\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (43)
$`=`$ $`h_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(h_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}D_\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma \mathrm{\Lambda }(\delta {\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma \mathrm{\Lambda })^1\mathrm{\Lambda })\gamma \mathrm{\Lambda }(\delta {\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma \mathrm{\Lambda })^1\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (44)
The recursion will terminate after 16 steps, since in each recursion the term with the spinor derivative gets one additional spinor. It turns out that, for $`f`$ up to order 5 in fields, we need to determine $`D_\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^\beta `$ up to order three in fields, and up to order three we find

$`D_\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^\beta \stackrel{}{=}h_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(h\gamma \mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda })_\alpha ^\beta `$ (45)
where $`\stackrel{}{=}`$ indicates that the expression on the rhs is only correct up to order three in fields.

#### Relation between $`F`$ and $`h`$

In  a relation between $`F`$ and $`h`$ was derived. Since $`h`$ is part of the pullback matrix, one may hope to find this relation when analysing the odd-odd-even component of the deformed Bianchi identity $`d=H`$ on the world volume. Working in the $`\tau _1`$-gauge (recall that we chose this gauge since the alternative $`\tau _3`$-gauge does not allow pure $`\theta ^2`$ dependence of our fields), one easily sees that this will not work out. Since we know how $`h`$ transforms (14), however, we may work in the the alternative $`\tau _3`$-gauge and then transform the result back into $`\tau _1`$-gauge. So first we write down the odd-odd-even part of the pullback of the deformed Bianchi identity in induced basis:

$`h_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\gamma }h_{\beta }^{}{}_{}{}^{\delta }\left(\gamma ^a\right)_{\gamma \delta }^{}_{ab}+\left(\gamma ^a\right)_{\alpha \beta }_{ab}=\left(\gamma _b\right)_{\alpha \beta }h_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\gamma }h_{\beta }^{}{}_{}{}^{\delta }\left(\gamma _b\right)_{\gamma \delta }^{}`$ (46)
Multiply with $`\left(\gamma ^{\left(5\right)}\right)^{\alpha \beta }`$:

$`\left(\gamma ^{\left(5\right)}\right)^{\alpha \beta }h_{\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }h_{\beta }^{}{}_{}{}^{\delta }\left(\gamma ^b\right)_{\delta \gamma }\left(_{ba}+\eta _{ba}\right)=0`$ (47)
If $`+\eta `$ is invertible, then this implies

$`\left(\gamma ^{\left(5\right)}\right)^{\alpha \beta }h_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\gamma }h_{\beta }^{}{}_{}{}^{\delta }\left(\gamma ^b\right)_{\gamma \delta }^{}=0`$ (48)
Since $`\gamma `$ and $`\gamma ^{\left(5\right)}`$ form a basis for the symmetric 16 by 16 matrices, (48) implies that we can write $`hh\gamma `$ as:

$`h_{\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }h_{\beta }^{}{}_{}{}^{\delta }\left(\gamma ^b\right)_{\delta \gamma }=\left(\gamma ^f\right)_{\alpha \beta }n_{f}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}`$ (49)
This tells us that $`h`$ is in the spinor representation of the Lorentz group (plus additional scaling), and $`n`$ is in the vector representation of the Lorentz-Group (plus scaling). Plugging the last equation into (46) gives

$`\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^b\left(_{ba}+n_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{c}_{ca}\right)=\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^b\left(\eta _{ba}n_{ba}\right)`$ (50)
$``$ $`\eta =n\left(\eta +\right)`$ (51)
$``$ $`n^tn=\eta `$ (52)
$``$ $`nO(1,9)`$ (53)
Moreover

$`det\left(\left(\delta \right)\left(\delta +\right)^1\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{det\left(\delta \right)}{det\left(\delta +\right)}}`$ (54)
$`=`$ $`1`$ (55)
so we have

$`nSO(1,9)`$ (56)
Note that this result agrees with that in , as in the induced basis we have $`B_{ab}=0`$, so $`_{ab}=F_{ab}`$. Now we may write $`n`$ in terms of the generators $`M`$ of the Lie algebra:

$`n_a{}_{}{}^{b}=\mathrm{exp}\left(c_{mn}M^{mn}\right)_a^b`$ (57)
$``$ $`\left(\mathrm{ln}n\right)_a{}_{}{}^{b}=c_{mn}\left(M^{mn}\right)_a^b`$ (58)
$``$ $`c_{rs}=c_{mn}M^{mn}..M_{rs}=\mathrm{ln}\left(n\right)..M_{rs}`$ (59)
where $`..`$ indicates a suitable inner matrix product, such that the generators $`M`$ form an orthogonal basis. For the standard Lorentz generators we are using, the trace over the dot product is a suitable inner product.
Since we know that the same transformation is realised in $`h`$ as a spinor representation, the generators of which are $`\frac{1}{2}i\gamma ^{\left(2\right)}`$, we get in $`\tau ^3`$ gauge

$`\widehat{h}_\alpha ^\beta `$ $`=`$ $`\left(\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}c_{rs}\gamma ^{rs}\right)\right)_\alpha ^\beta `$ (60)
$`=`$ $`\left(\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\mathrm{ln}\left(n\right)M_{rs}\gamma ^{rs}\right)\right)_\alpha ^\beta `$ (61)
$`=`$ $`\left(\mathrm{exp}\left(\left(2{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{^{2i+1}}{2i+1}}\right)_{rs}\gamma ^{rs}\right)\right)_\alpha ^\beta `$ (62)
By suitable Lorentz transformations one can always block-diagonalise $`_{ab}`$, and therefore we do not have to worry about the non-commutativity of the $`\gamma ^{\left(2\right)}`$.
Remember that the analysis of the embedding field $`h`$ started using the background field $`H`$ in the $`\tau ^3`$ gauge. As stated in section 3, we want to work in $`\tau ^1`$ gauge, though. The transformation relating $`H_{\tau ^3}`$ and $`H_{\tau ^1}`$ is a rotation between $`\theta ^1`$ and $`\theta ^2`$ by $`\frac{\pi }{4}`$. We observe that this rotation is an element of the group $`G`$ (see section 2), and we therefore can use equation (14) to determine the embedding field $`h`$ in $`\tau ^1`$ gauge:

$`h_\alpha ^\beta `$ $`=`$ $`\left((1\widehat{h})(1+\widehat{h})^1\right)_\alpha ^\beta `$ (63)
$`\stackrel{}{=}`$ $`\gamma ^{\left(2\right)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\gamma ^{\left(2\right)}\gamma ^{\left(2\right)}\gamma ^{\left(2\right)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}^3\gamma ^{\left(2\right)}`$ (64)
where $`\stackrel{}{=}`$,as before, indicates that terms of order greater than three in fields are truncated on the rhs.

### $`_{ab}`$ in terms of $`\widehat{f}_{ab}`$

For the even-even part, the pullback of $``$ is rather simple:

$`_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`B_a^cB_b^df_{cd}`$ (65)
$`=`$ $`\left(\delta _a^c{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}_a\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma ^c\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)^1\left(\delta _b^d{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma ^d\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)^1f_{cd}`$ (66)
To impose the conventional constraint, i.e. make $`f_{\alpha \beta }`$ $`\gamma `$-traceless, we shift the gauge potential

$`f_{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`D_\alpha A_\beta +D_\beta A_\alpha i\left(\gamma ^a\right)_{\alpha \beta }A_a`$ (67)
$`A_a`$ $``$ $`\widehat{A}_a=A_a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16i}}\left(\gamma _a\right)^{\alpha \beta }f_{\alpha \beta }`$ (68)
$`\widehat{f}_{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`f_{\alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}\left(\gamma ^a\right)_{\alpha \beta }\left(\gamma _a\right)^{\gamma \delta }f_{\gamma \delta }`$ (69)
and so

$`\widehat{f}_{\alpha b}`$ $`=`$ $`f_{\alpha b}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16i}}D_\alpha \left(\gamma _b\right)^{\gamma \delta }f_{\gamma \delta }`$ (70)
$`\widehat{f}_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`f_{ab}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16i}}D_a\left(\gamma _b\right)^{\gamma \delta }f_{\gamma \delta }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16i}}D_b\left(\gamma _b\right)^{\gamma \delta }f_{\gamma \delta }`$ (71)
We note that, using the fact that $`\widehat{f}_{\alpha \beta }`$ is symmetric and gamma trace free, it can be written as $`\widehat{f}_{\alpha \beta }=\left(\gamma _{edcba}\right)_{\alpha \beta }J^{abcde}`$, which we will later use.

### The relation between $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\lambda `$

We now would like to make the transition to the standard fields $`\lambda `$ and $`\widehat{f}`$. The conventional spinor $`\lambda `$ is defined as the $`\gamma `$-trace of $`\widehat{f}_{\alpha b}`$:

$`\lambda ^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\left(\gamma ^c\right)^{\alpha \beta }\widehat{f}_{\beta c}`$ (72)
To analyse $`\widehat{f}_{\alpha \beta }`$ up to order 5 in fields, we will need to evaluate $`\lambda `$ up to order three in fields. Using the definition of the conventional spinor and some gamma matrix algebra we find

$`\lambda ^\beta `$ $`=`$ $`\left(\gamma ^b\right)^{\alpha \beta }\widehat{f}_{\alpha b}`$ (73)
$`\stackrel{}{=}`$ $`10i\mathrm{\Lambda }^\beta +{\displaystyle \frac{14i}{3}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^\beta \text{tr}\left(\right){\displaystyle \frac{i}{3}}\left(\gamma ^{turs}\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)^\beta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma ^c\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(\gamma ^b\gamma _c\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)^\beta `$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{12}}\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma _b{}_{}{}^{rs}\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(\gamma ^b\right)^{\alpha \beta }D_\alpha _{rs}`$
Note that, up to this order, we may substitute $`f_{ab}`$ for $`_{ab}`$. We solve for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in terms of $`\lambda `$ by recursion, dropping terms of order greater than three in fields. We also use the super Maxwell Bianchi identities to simplify the $`D_\alpha _{rs}`$ term (the physical field strength, i.e. the one with the shifted potential, is identical to $`f_{rs}`$ at this order).

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`\stackrel{}{=}`$ $`i[\lambda ^\beta +{\displaystyle \frac{14}{30}}\lambda ^\beta \text{tr}\left(\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{30}}\left(\gamma ^{turs}\lambda \right)^\beta +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{60}}_b\lambda \gamma ^c\lambda \left(\gamma ^b\gamma _c\lambda \right)^\beta `$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{60}}\lambda \gamma _b{}_{}{}^{rs}\lambda \gamma _r_s\lambda ]`$
As with the recursion to obtain $`h`$, here again one can derive the exact result by recursively substituting $`\lambda `$ for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ since the recursion terminates due to the vanishing of the product of 16 spinors.

### $`\widehat{f}_{\alpha \beta }`$ in conventional fields

After having derived the necessary relations, we can now proceed as described earlier: plug the expressions for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $``$ and $`D_\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^\beta `$ into (36), the expression for $`f_{\alpha \beta }`$. Then $`f_{\alpha \beta }`$ will appear on the rhs and lhs of the equation. Substitute the rhs for $`f_{\alpha \beta }`$ on the rhs, and then impose the conventional constraint. The result may then be simplified. To do so, one utilises the fact that $`\gamma ^{\left(3\right)}`$ and $`\gamma ^{\left(7\right)}`$ (a basis for the antisymmetric 16 by 16 matrices) are dual to each other. So any antisymmetric expression may be written in terms of $`\gamma ^3`$ only. The result is:

$`\widehat{f}_{\alpha \beta }\stackrel{}{=}\left(\gamma ^{abcde}\right)_{\alpha \beta }`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{160}{3}}\lambda \gamma _{edc}\lambda \widehat{f}_{ba}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{7544}{9}}\lambda \gamma _{edc}\lambda \widehat{f}_{ba}\text{tr}\left(\widehat{f}\widehat{f}\right)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3508}{9}}\lambda \gamma _{edc}\lambda \left(\widehat{f}\widehat{f}\widehat{f}\right)_{ba}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{208}{9}}\lambda \gamma _{ed}{}_{}{}^{f}\lambda \left(\widehat{f}\widehat{f}\right)_{fc}\widehat{f}_{ba}`$
$``$ $`4\lambda \gamma _e{}_{}{}^{gf}\lambda \widehat{f}_{fg}\widehat{f}_{dc}\widehat{f}_{ba}`$
$`+`$ $`736\lambda \gamma _e{}_{}{}^{gf}\lambda \widehat{f}_{fd}\widehat{f}_{gc}\widehat{f}_{ba}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{20i}{3}}\lambda \gamma _{ed}{}_{}{}^{f}\lambda \widehat{f}_{fc}_b\lambda \gamma ^a\lambda `$
$`+`$ $`56i\lambda \gamma _{edc}\lambda \widehat{f}_b{}_{}{}^{f}_{[f}^{}\lambda \gamma _{a]}\lambda `$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{80i}{9}}\lambda \gamma _{edc}\lambda _{[b}\left[\lambda \gamma _{a]}{}_{}{}^{gf}\lambda \widehat{f}_{fg}\right]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{90}}\lambda \gamma _f\gamma _{edcba}\gamma ^{gh}\gamma ^f\gamma ^i{}_{j}{}^{}\left(_k\lambda \right)\lambda \gamma _i{}_{}{}^{jk}\lambda \widehat{f}_{hg})`$
where $`\stackrel{}{=}`$ indicates truncation on the rhs after order 5 in fields.

## 5 Conclusion

We have obtained the N=1, D=10 flat supersymmetric field strength constraint for abelian BI theory up to order five in fields, which corresponds to order six in an action. This theory with one linearly and one non-linearly realised supersymmetry is unique, as the only covariant constraint compatible with the Maxwell multiplet is the $``$-constraint. Only the order three term

$`\lambda \left(\gamma ^3\right)\lambda f`$ (77)
had been known previously. In fact, at this order the constraint is fixed on dimensional grounds. The lowest order corrections to the equations of motion and the associated Lagrangian terms were calculated in . The equations of motion to next order may be calculated from our result using the Bianchi identities. This calculation seems rather long and simplifying the resulting expressions is not an easy task.
It is tempting to try to generalise our approach to the non-abelian case. To that end, one might try to make the fields $`\lambda `$ and $`\widehat{f}_{ab}`$ U(N) valued and use the techniques developed in  and , where the lowest order correction was considered. That way one would of course not produce any commutator terms, so this approach would presumably be incomplete.
Another possibility might be to write down a non-abelian version of the $``$-constraint. However, this would require the target space field $`H`$ to be group valued, the interpretation of which remains unclear. To circumvent this problem, one might then try to consider splitting up the U(N) into a trace and a SU(N) part, where one might hope to use the approach described in this paper for the U(1) part. One would expect a deformation of the $``$-constraint in this case, however.
This splitting of the gauge group has also been considered in , where a $`\kappa `$-invariant action for coincident D0-branes was constructed.

## Acknowledgments

I thank Paul Howe and James Drummond for many useful discussions.


format: text

text:
# In-plane Magnetoconductivity of Si-MOSFET’s: A Quantitative Comparison between Theory and Experiment.

## Abstract

For densities above $`n=1.6\times 10^{11}`$ cm-2 in the strongly interacting system of electrons in two-dimensional silicon inversion layers, excellent agreement between experiment and the theory of Zala, Narozhny and Aleiner is obtained for the response of the conductivity to a magnetic field applied parallel to the plane of the electrons. However, the Fermi liquid parameter $`F_0^\sigma (n)`$ and the valley splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }_V(n)`$ obtained from fits to the magnetoconductivity, although providing qualitatively correct behavior (including sign), do not yield quantitative agreement with the temperature dependence of the conductivity in zero magnetic field. Our results suggest the existence of additional scattering processes not included in the theory in its present form.

Two-dimensional systems of electrons  and holes  have been the focus of a great deal of attention during the last few years . Their resistance exhibits metallic temperature dependence above a critical electron density $`n_c`$, and a strong dependence on in-plane magnetic field . Recent theory of Zala, Narozhny and Aleiner (ZNA)  attempts to account for the behavior of the conductivity of these strongly interacting electron systems using a Fermi liquid approach. Within this theory, the temperature and field dependence of the correction to the conductivity due to electron-electron interaction arises from the suppression of quantum interference between different electron trajectories (i.e. coherent scattering off Friedel oscillations). In this paper we present a detailed quantitative comparison of the ZNA theory  with the in-plane magnetoconductivity of the 2D electron system in Si-MOSFET’s measured at different temperatures and different electrons densities. Excellent agreement between theory and experiment is obtained for the magnetic field dependence, allowing the determination of the Fermi liquid constant $`F_0^\sigma `$ and valley splitting energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }_V`$. However, the temperature dependence of the conductivity at zero magnetic field is considerably stronger than predicted theoretically (for the same values of $`F_0^\sigma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_V`$). Our results suggest the presence of additional scattering processes not included in the theory .

We begin with a very brief review of the theory. The conductivity of a disordered electron system (characterized by the large dimensionless conductance $`g=2\pi \mathrm{}/e^2R_{\mathrm{}}1`$; $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the sheet resistance) can be expressed as follows:

$$\sigma =\sigma _D+\delta \sigma _{WL}+\delta \sigma _{ee}+𝒪\left(\frac{1}{g}\right).$$
(1)
Here the Drude conductivity is $`\sigma _D=ne^2\tau /m^{}`$, $`n`$ is the electron density, $`\tau `$ is the elastic mean free time and $`m^{}`$ is the effective mass. The weak localization correction

$$\delta \sigma _{WL}=\frac{e^2}{2\pi ^2\mathrm{}}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\tau _\phi }{\tau }$$
(2)
depends on external parameters through the dephasing time $`\tau _\phi `$ (see Refs.  for details). In zero magnetic field the resulting temperature dependence is logarithmic, unlike the correction due to electron-electron interaction $`\delta \sigma _{ee}`$, which is linear in temperature in the intermediate temperature regime (see Ref.  and below). Based on Eq. (2) and the available experimental data , one can estimate the value of the weak localization correction (2). For electron density $`n=2.47\times 10^{11}`$ cm-2 used in this work (see below), Eq. (2) yields $`\delta \sigma _{WL}=0.42\times e^2/h`$ at $`T=0.25`$ K and $`\delta \sigma _{WL}=0.22\times e^2/h`$ at $`T=1`$ K. These values are much smaller than typical variations of the conductivity with in-plane magnetic field $`H`$ (see Fig. 1). We therefore neglect the weak localization correction in the present paper.

The correction term due to interactions, $`\delta \sigma _{ee}`$ , was recently calculated by ZNA  for all temperatures smaller than the Fermi energy. Physically, this correction arises due to coherent scattering off Friedel oscillations. For $`H=0`$ the result of Ref.  consists of the charge (singlet) channel contribution

$$\delta \sigma _C=\frac{e^2}{\pi \mathrm{}}\frac{T\tau }{\mathrm{}}\left[1\frac{3}{8}f(T\tau )\right]\frac{e^2}{2\pi ^2\mathrm{}}\mathrm{ln}\frac{E_F}{T},$$
(4)
and the triplet channel contribution (i.e. the contribution of spin-exchange processes)

$`\delta \sigma _T=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{F_0^\sigma }{(1+F_0^\sigma )}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{\pi \mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{T\tau }{\mathrm{}}}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}t(T\tau ;F_0^\sigma )\right]`$ (7)
$`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F_0^\sigma }}\mathrm{ln}(1+F_0^\sigma )\right){\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{2\pi ^2\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{E_F}{T}}.`$
Note that the latter must be multiplied by the number of channels ($`3`$ in the absence of valley degeneracy and the Zeeman splitting $`E_z=\mu g_0H`$; the Lande $`g`$-factor $`g_0=2`$);

$`\delta \sigma _{ee}=\delta \sigma _C+3\delta \sigma _T.`$

Magnetic field freezes those channels that correspond to non-zero total spin components, giving rise to a dependence of the conductivity on magnetic field :

$`\delta \sigma (E_z)=\delta \sigma _{ee}(E_z)\delta \sigma _{ee}(0)={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{\pi \mathrm{}}}[{\displaystyle \frac{2F_0^\sigma }{(1+F_0^\sigma )}}{\displaystyle \frac{T\tau }{\mathrm{}}}`$ (8)
(9)
$`\times K_b({\displaystyle \frac{E_z}{2T}},F_0^\sigma )+K_d({\displaystyle \frac{E_z}{2\pi T}},F_0^\sigma )+m(E_z\tau ,T\tau ;F_0^\sigma )].`$ (10)
Here the ballistic (i.e. dominant for $`T\tau 1`$) contribution to Eq. (8) is

$`K_b(x,F_0^\sigma )=x\mathrm{coth}x1+K_2(x,F_0^\sigma ),`$ (11)
In the above expressions the dimensionless functions $`f(x)`$, $`t(x,F_0^\sigma )`$, and $`m(y,x;F_0^\sigma )`$ describe the crossover between the diffusive ($`T\tau 1`$) and ballistic regimes. These functions decay smoothly from unity to zero and change the value of $`\delta \sigma _{ee}`$ by only few per cent outside the crossover region. The details regarding these functions, as well as explicit expressions for $`K_2(x,F_0^\sigma )`$ and the diffusive part of the magnetoconductivity $`K_d(E_z/2\pi T,F_0^\sigma )`$, can be found in Refs. .

The purpose of this paper is to present a detailed quantitative comparison of the ZNA theory  with the results of transport measurements in Si-MOSFET’s. Note that this theory (as described in Refs.  and above) considers an idealized 2DEG without taking into account material-dependent details. For 2D electron systems in Si-MOSFET’s an important additional feature is the valley degeneracy . If we neglect inter-valley scattering (in other words, assume that the valley index is a good quantum number) and assume that the two valleys are degenerate, then we observe that the valley index can be treated as an pseudo-spin. In this case electrons have not one but two “spin” indices, and the total number of scattering channels is thus $`16`$ (as opposed to $`4`$ in the usual case considered in Ref. ). In reality, the valleys are split  with an energy splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }_V`$. This splitting is similar to the effect of the Zeeman field, since it only shifts energies of the electronic states without affecting the corresponding wave functions.

Taking into account the valley degeneracy, we can write the interaction correction to the conductivity in the following form:

$`\delta \sigma _{ee}`$ $`=\delta \sigma _C+15\delta \sigma _T+2\delta \sigma (E_z)`$ (14)
$`+2\delta \sigma (\mathrm{\Delta }_V)+\delta \sigma (E_z+\mathrm{\Delta }_V)+\delta \sigma (E_z\mathrm{\Delta }_V),`$
where all the terms in the second line are defined by Eq. (8). Equation (14) is the main theoretical result which we intend to test against the data. Our strategy is the following. The theoretical expressions Eqs. (In-plane Magnetoconductivity of Si-MOSFET’s: A Quantitative Comparison between Theory and Experiment.), (14) contain three phenomenological parameters: the Fermi liquid constant $`F_0^\sigma `$, the elastic mean-free time $`\tau `$, and the valley splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }_V`$. For purposes of comparison with experiment, the parameters $`F_0^\sigma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_v`$ are free fitting parameters. Both will be determined below from the magnetic field dependence of the conductivity. On the other hand, one has much less freedom in the determination of the parameter $`\tau `$. Since the theory calculates temperature corrections to the impurity scattering time, the value of $`\tau `$ in all theoretical expressions is the scattering time that the system would have at $`T=0`$ in the absence of quantum corrections. Therefore $`\tau `$ must be determined from the temperature dependence of the conductivity: one has to extrapolate the linear temperature dependence from intermediate temperatures to $`T=0`$ and use the $`y`$-intercept as the zero temperature value of the Drude conductivity (thus neglecting the logarithmic corrections; therefore this value does not coincide with the actual measured residual conductivity of the system).

The theory described above is valid  when the dimensionless conductance of the system is large $`g1`$ and the system is not too close to the Stoner instability $`T<(1+F_0^\sigma )^2E_F`$. Also, the magnetic field dependence Eq. (14) is valid for relatively weak fields, well below the full polarization of the electron system. The comparison between experiment and theory presented in this paper is restricted to a range of densities and temperatures well within these limits (see below and Figs. 12).

The remainder of the paper is devoted to a direct comparison of the data with Eq. (14). Measurements were taken on two Si-MOSFET’s with mobility $`\mu 25,000`$V/(cm2s) at $`0.3`$ K. Data were obtained using standard four-terminal AC techniques on samples with split-gate geometry to $`12`$ T at City College and in fields up to $`20`$ T at the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory . The dimensions of the measured portion of the 2DEG are $`120\times 50`$ $`\mu `$m2. Measurements were taken at temperatures down to $`0.25`$ K in the linear regime using small currents of about $`12`$ nA to prevent overheating the electrons.

We first consider a comparison of the magnetoconductivity data with the ZNA theory. In Fig. 1 we show the longitudinal conductivity $`\sigma _{xx}`$ as a function of magnetic field $`H_{||}`$ applied parallel to the plane of the Si-MOSFET for electron density $`n=2.47\times 10^{11}`$ cm-2 at different temperatures. In agreement with earlier results , there is a substantial decrease of the conductivity with increasing magnetic field. The grey lines are obtained by direct evaluation of Eq. (14) using $`F_0^\sigma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_V`$ as fitting parameters; the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_V`$ was constrained to be approximately independent of temperature, as expected within the theory. The theoretical results are shifted vertically to match the experimental values of the conductivities. The resulting values of $`F_0^\sigma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_V`$ are shown in the inset to Fig. 1. The determination of the value of $`\tau `$ used in this calculation is more subtle. As pointed out earlier, the Drude conductivity was determined from the temperature dependence shown in Fig. 3 by extrapolating the linear part of the curves to zero temperature. In order to extract the value of $`\tau `$ one needs to know the effective mass of the electrons. One can measure the product $`m^{}g^{}`$  experimentally (by analyzing Shubnikov-de Haas data, for instance). The renormalized value of the Lande $`g`$-factor is related to the same  Fermi liquid constant $`g^{}=g_0/(1+F_0^\sigma )`$. Using these relations self-consistently, we obtain the value of $`\tau `$ for each electron density (with $`F_0^\sigma `$ taken at $`T=0.25`$ K). Once determined, $`\tau `$ was assumed to be independent of temperature. For the density $`n=2.47\times 10^{11}`$ we find $`\tau =5.28`$ ps.

The data in Fig. 1 demonstrate that there is very good agreement between experiment and theory. For electron density $`n=2.47\times 10^{11}`$ cm-2 a fit to the theory Eq. (14) of the magnetoconductivity data taken at temperatures below $`2`$ K yields $`F_0^\sigma =0.15`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_V=1`$ K. At temperatures above $`2`$ K we found an appreciable dependence of the parameter $`F_0^\sigma `$ on temperature; all other electron densities show similar behavior.

In Fig. 2 we show the in-plane magnetoconductivity for different densities at a fixed temperature $`T=1`$ K. This temperature corresponds to the linear portion of the conductivity vs. temperature curve in zero magnetic field (see Fig. 3), i.e. to the ballistic regime $`T\tau >0.1`$ of the theory . The comparison was done for magnetic field below $`6`$ T, where variations of the magnetoconductivity are relatively small (well within the range of applicability of the calculations). Again, the agreement between theory and experiment is impressive. In the inset to Fig. 2 we show the evolution of the fitting parameters $`F_0^\sigma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_V`$ with electron density. The Fermi liquid parameter $`F_0^\sigma `$ is nearly independent of density, while the valley splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }_V`$ fluctuates between $`0.5`$ and $`1.2`$ K.

We now compare the measured temperature dependence of the conductivity in zero magnetic field with that predicted by the theory . In Fig. 3 we show the data together with the predictions of the theory Eq. (14) obtained using the values of $`F_0^\sigma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_V`$ determined from the magnetic field dependence of the conductivity; see Fig. 2. The variations of the fitting parameters $`F_0^\sigma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_V`$ with temperature (see Fig. 1), which were not taken into account in this calculation, may change the high temperature tails of the calculated curves at $`T>2`$ K in Fig. 3. However, it is clear from Fig. 3 that even for $`T<2`$ K, the temperature dependence of the conductivity observed experimentally is considerably stronger than that calculated from the theory . Thus, the parameters deduced from fitting the field dependence of the conductivity do not yield quantitative agreement with the observed temperature dependence.

We have attempted to fit the temperature dependence and the magnetic field dependence simultaneously by allowing $`F_0^\sigma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_V`$ to vary freely with temperature. Although a moderately good fit can be obtained, the resulting variation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_V`$ with temperature, although similar for different densities, is unacceptably large (with variations up to a factor of $`20`$). Another possible approach is to keep $`\mathrm{\Delta }_V`$ small (as in Fig. 2), to allow $`F_0^\sigma `$ to assume the values needed to produce a good fit for the temperature dependence of the conductivity, and to compare these values with those in Fig. 2. Clearly, the steeper experimental curves in Fig. 3 correspond to larger absolute values of $`F_0^\sigma `$, similar to those obtained in Ref. . Such disagreement between the values of $`F_0^\sigma `$ obtained from two separate measurements illustrates once more that the theory in its current form does not provide a consistent description of all measurements in Si-MOSFET’s. A possible explanation of the above discrepancy is the neglect of inter-valley scattering in the theory in its present form, or perhaps the presence of some other source of scattering that has not been identified.

In summary, for the strongly interacting two dimensional system of electrons in silicon MOSFET’s, excellent agreement between experiment and the theory of Zala, Narozhny and Aleiner  was obtained for the response of the conductivity to a magnetic field applied parallel to the plane of the electrons. The Fermi liquid parameter $`F_0^\sigma (n)`$ and the valley splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }_V(n)`$ obtained from fits to the magnetoconductivity, although providing qualitatively correct behavior (including sign), do not yield quantitative agreement with the temperature dependence of the conductivity in zero magnetic field. Our results suggest the existence of additional scattering processes not considered by the theory in its present form.

We are grateful to I.L. Aleiner, D. L. Maslov and B. Spivak for helpful discussions. This work was supported by the U. S. Department of Energy at City College under grant number DE-FG02-84ER45153 and at Brookhaven under contract number DE-AC02-98 CH 10886.


text:
# Complicated nature of the gap in MgB2: magnetic field-dependent optical studies

\[

## Abstract

We investigated the magnetic field ($`H`$)-dependent optical conductivity spectra of MgB2 thin film in the far-infrared region. The $`H`$-dependences can be explained by the increase of normal metallic regions embedded in the superconducting background. The area fraction of the normal metallic region increases rather quickly at low field, but slowly at high field. It follows neither $`H`$\- nor $`H^{1/2}`$-dependences. The results suggest the complicated nature of the superconducting gap in MgB2.

\]

The recent discovery of superconductivity in MgB2 with $`T_C=`$ 39 K  has generated a tremendous amount of attention among condensed matter researchers. Many theoretical and experimental efforts have been conducted to understand its superconductivity and the phonon-mediated BCS mechanism was suggested as being responsible. However, there have been reports of distinctly different values of the superconducting gap $`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$, i.e., from 3 to 16 meV, which makes understanding its physical properties rather problematic. Also, the experimental evidences for the deviation from an isotropic s-wave gap symmetry have been accumulating and an anisotropic s-wave gap symmetry or a multiple gap have been suggested.

Optical measurements are known to be a powerful tool for investigating important physical quantities, such as $`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the scattering rate $`1/\tau `$, penetration depth $`\lambda `$, and plasma frequency. Since the skin depth of light is about 1000 Å in the far-infrared region, optical measurements have an important advantage for obtaining bulk properties compared to other surface sensitive techniques, such as tunneling measurements. Also, optical measurements at high magnetic field ($`H`$) can provide fruitful information, such as vortex dynamics, quasi-particle excitation, and gap symmetry. There have been only a few reports on the temperature-dependent optical properties of MgB2. Earlier, we reported the value of $`2\mathrm{\Delta }(0)`$ 5.2 meV and $`2\mathrm{\Delta }(0)/k_BT_C`$ $``$ 1.8 for a $`c`$-axis oriented MgB2 thin film . Although our value of $`2\mathrm{\Delta }(0)/k_BT_C`$ was half that of the BCS prediction, we found that $`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ seemed to follow the temperature dependences of the BCS formula. To obtain further information on the gap nature of MgB2, we have performed $`H`$-dependent optical studies. \[As far as we know, this is the first investigation on the optical properties of MgB2 under high $`H`$.\]

In this paper, we report $`H`$-dependent complex optical conductivity spectra $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(\omega )`$ of MgB2 thin film. In the superconducting state, the superconductivity became suppressed under the external $`H`$. The $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(\omega )`$ of this mixed state can be modeled with the Maxwell-Garnett theory, which assumes that the normal metallic regions are embedded in a superconducting background. Using the composite medium theory, the $`H`$-dependent $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(\omega )`$ could be explained quite well. Interestingly, the area fraction of the normal metallic region showed neither an $`H`$ dependent characteristic of an $`s`$-wave superconductor (i.e., a linear dependence) nor that of a $`d`$-wave superconductor (i.e., $`H^{1/2}`$ dependence). It increased rapidly at low field, but rather slowly at high field. This intriguing result suggests the existence of a complicated gap nature for MgB2.

We measured far-infrared transmission $`T(\omega )`$ and reflectivity $`R(\omega )`$ spectra of a MgB2 thin film (thickness $`200`$ Å) at various $`H`$ from 0 to 17 T. A high quality $`c`$-axis oriented MgB2 film was grown on an Al2O3 substrate by the pulsed laser deposition technique. The $`dc`$ resistivity measurement showed a sharp $`T_C`$ near 33 K. For optical measurements, the sample was cooled down to 4.2 K at zero field and then $`H`$ was applied along the $`c`$-axis. Using the Bruker spectrophotometer, $`T(\omega )`$ and $`R(\omega )`$ were carefully measured over the range 30 $``$ 200 cm-1. For $`T(\omega )`$ mode, we measured center area and for $`R(\omega )`$, whole area of the film.

Figure 1(a) shows the $`H`$-dependent $`T(\omega )`$ at 4.2 K. At 0 T, $`T(\omega )`$ show a peak structure near 50 cm-1, which is closely related to $`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$. With increasing $`H`$, the peak structure becomes suppressed and the peak position moves to higher frequencies. At 17 T, the peak disappears and $`T(\omega )`$ show a flat response, i.e., normal metallic behavior. The corresponding $`H`$-dependent $`R(\omega )`$ are shown in Fig. 1(b). At 0 T, $`R(\omega )`$ show a deep structure near 60 cm-1. With increasing $`H`$, the deep structure in $`R(\omega )`$ becomes broader and finally flattens at 17 T. It is interesting to note that significant changes in $`T(\omega )`$ and $`R(\omega )`$ occur below 2 T.

We obtained $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(\omega )`$ $`(=\sigma _1(\omega )+i\sigma _2(\omega ))`$ from $`T(\omega )`$ and $`R(\omega )`$ in Fig. 1 by solving the appropriate Fresnel equations for a film geometry. The light reflects multiply both inside the film and the substrate. The multiple reflections inside the film should be added coherently. However, because the thickness of the substrate was much larger than the wavelength of the incident light, the phase coherence can easily be lost due to surface imperfections such as roughness, which will lead to the decrease of the Fabry-Pérot fringes. To avoid such a problem, the optical measurements were conducted with a low resolution (i.e., 4.0 cm-1) and the multiple reflections inside the substrate were added incoherently in the calculation.

Figure 2(a) shows the $`H`$-dependent $`\sigma _1(\omega )`$. At 0 T, $`\sigma _1(\omega )`$ show a deep structure around 44 cm-1 related with $`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and a sharply increasing behavior above $`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$. With increasing $`H`$, the deep structure becomes smooth and $`\sigma _1(\omega )`$ at 17 T slowly decrease with increasing frequency. It should be noted that the position of the deep structure increases as $`H`$ increases, which is opposite to the temperature dependence of $`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Figure 2(b) shows the $`H`$-dependent $`\sigma _2(\omega )`$. At 0 T, $`\sigma _2(\omega )`$ show a $`1/\omega `$-dependence due to the delta-function of $`\sigma _1(0)`$. $`\sigma _2(\omega )`$ at 4 T show a peak-like feature around 50 cm-1 and $`\sigma _2(\omega )`$ at 17 T slowly increase with increasing frequency. Note that the $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(\omega )`$ at 0 T and 17 T are similar to the reported behavior of the superconducting (i.e., 5 K) and the normal metallic (i.e., 40 K) states, respectively. From Fig. 2, we obtained $`\sigma _1(0)20000`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1`$cm-1 and $`1/\tau `$ $``$ 800 cm-1 in the normal state, and $`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ 44 cm-1 and $`\lambda `$ $``$ 2000 Å in the superconducting state.

Such strong $`H`$-dependent $`\sigma _1(\omega )`$ and $`\sigma _2(\omega )`$ should be related to the evolution of a vortex in a type-II superconductor. Below $`H_{c1}`$, the magnetic flux cannot penetrate into the superconductor, which is the Meissner effect. Above $`H_{c1}`$, the magnetic flux starts to penetrate into the superconductor, forming a vortex. Inside the vortex, the superconducting regions become suppressed and turn into normal metallic regions. With increasing $`H`$, the number of vortexes increases. Above $`H_{c2}`$, the superconducting properties are totally destroyed. The values of $`H_{c1}`$ and $`H_{c2}`$ for MgB2 were reported to be around 450 Oe and 20 T, respectively.

Optical responses of a type-II superconductor under high $`H`$ have been rarely investigated and there has not been much systematic analysis. To explain the optical responses shown in Figs. 2(a) and 2(b), we used the composite medium theory, called the Maxwell Garnett theory (MGT). In the long wavelength limit, the physical properties of the composite can be described in terms of an effective dielectric constant, $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}^{eff}`$. Since the vortexes are well isolated from each other due to the inter-vortex Coulomb repulsion, as an approximation, we can consider our film as a composite system composed of normal metal disks embedded in a superconductor. Then, such a geometry can be approximated quite well by the two-dimensional MGT : $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}^{eff}(=4\pi i\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^{eff}/\omega )`$ can be written as,

$$\stackrel{~}{ϵ}^{eff}=\stackrel{~}{ϵ}^s\frac{(1f_n)\stackrel{~}{ϵ}^s+(1+f_n)\stackrel{~}{ϵ}^n}{(1+f_n)\stackrel{~}{ϵ}^s+(1f_n)\stackrel{~}{ϵ}^n},$$
(1)
where $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}^s`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}^n`$ represent the complex dielectric constants of the superconducting and normal metallic regions, respectively, and $`f_n`$ represents the area fraction of the metallic regions. For $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}^s`$, we used the Zimmerman formula, i.e., the optical response of the BCS superconductor, with $`2\mathrm{\Delta }=44`$ cm-1 and $`1/\tau =`$ 800 cm-1. For $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}^n`$, we used the simple Drude model with $`\sigma _1(0)=20000`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1`$cm-1 and $`1/\tau =`$ 800 cm-1.

In Figs. 2(c) and 2(d), we show the calculated $`\sigma _1^{eff}(\omega )`$ and $`\sigma _2^{eff}(\omega )`$, respectively. It is clear that the calculated $`\sigma _1^{eff}(\omega )`$ and $`\sigma _2^{eff}(\omega )`$ are quite similar to the measured spectra. As shown in Figs. 1(a) and 1(b), the calculated $`T^{eff}(\omega )`$ and $`R^{eff}(\omega )`$ from $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^{eff}(\omega )`$ can also fit the experimental data quite well. These results show that the MGT can describe the electrodynamic responses of a type-II superconductor under high $`H`$ quite well.

The area fraction of the normal metallic regions for the MgB2 film shows quite an unusual $`H`$-dependent behavior. In Fig. 3(a), we plotted the $`H`$-dependent $`f_n`$, estimated by comparing the experimental data with the calculated values, with error bars. $`f_n`$ increases sharply at low field and slowly at high field; for example, more than half of the film becomes metallic below $``$ 2 T $`H_{c2}`$. It is known that the values of $`f_n`$ can be obtained from a heat capacity study by measuring the coefficient $`\gamma `$. For an $`s`$-wave superconductor, $`\gamma `$ is known to be proportional to $`H`$. On the other hand, for a superconductor with a node on the gap, for example, a $`d`$-wave symmetry, $`\gamma `$ should be proportional to $`H^{1/2}`$. The dashed and solid lines in Fig. 3 (a) show the $`H`$-dependent $`f_n`$ for $`s`$\- and $`d`$-waves, respectively. Neither of these $`H`$-dependencies can explain our experimental data. Fig. 3(b) shows the plot of log($`f_n`$) vs. log($`H`$). \[The error bars are smaller than the size of the symbols.\] The two $`H`$ regions with different slopes are clearly seen. Interestingly, $`f_n`$ below and above 2 T seems to follow the power law dependences of $`H^{0.75}`$ and $`H^{0.33}`$, respectively.

Recently, Bouquet et al. observed a rapid increase of $`\gamma `$ at low $`H`$ and a saturation behavior at high $`H`$, which are in qualitative agreement with our observed behavior of $`f_n`$. To explain this behavior, they suggested the existence of two gaps. Szabo et al. also reported the existence of two superconducting energy gaps using point-contact spectroscopy measurements. Values of the small gap $`2\mathrm{\Delta }_S`$ and large gap $`2\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$ were reported to be 5.6 meV and 14 meV, respectively. Both superconducting gaps were shown to follow the temperature dependence of the BCS formula. However, $`2\mathrm{\Delta }_S`$ becomes strongly suppressed with $`H`$ below 1.0 T.

There is some consistency between our observations and earlier works proposing the two gap scenario. Our observed value of $`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ 5.4 meV $`(2\mathrm{\Delta }/k_BT_C`$ $``$ 1.9$`)`$ in the $`ab`$-plane and its BCS temperature dependence seem to be consistent with the characteristics of the small gap in the two gap scenario. Moreover, its strong $`H`$-dependence at low field seems to agree with the results of Szabo et al. As shown in Fig. 3(b), the $`H`$-dependence of $`f_n`$ seems to have a crossover near 2 T. To explain this behavior in the two gap scenario, we assumed that the reported value of $`H_{c2}`$, i.e., about 20 T, corresponds to the large superconducting gap. With a crude approximation of $`H_{c2}1/\xi ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$, the corresponding $`H_{c2}`$ value for the small superconducting gap, if it exists, will be around 2 T since $`2\mathrm{\Delta }_S`$ 5.4 meV. Then, the crossover behavior in Fig. 3(b) could be explained in terms of a more rapid suppression of $`2\mathrm{\Delta }_S`$ under $`H`$ in the two gap scenario.

However, a simple two gap scenario based on two independent BCS-like carriers with different gap values cannot explain our optical data. To clarify this statement, we simulated $`T(\omega )`$ and $`R(\omega )`$ using the two-fluid model, where the total optical conductivity spectra $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_t(\omega )`$ can be written as

$$\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_t(\omega )=f_S\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_S(2\mathrm{\Delta }_S,\omega )+(1f_S)\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_L(2\mathrm{\Delta }_L,\omega ),$$
(2)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_S(2\mathrm{\Delta }_S,\omega )`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_L(2\mathrm{\Delta }_L,\omega )`$ represent the optical conductivity spectra with the small and large gaps, respectively, and $`f_S`$ represents the fraction of the superconducting carriers with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S`$. As shown in Figs. 4(a) and 4(b), the experimental $`T(\omega )`$ and $`R(\omega )`$ at $`H=0`$ T can be explained rather well only with $`f_S1.0`$. Note that all of the earlier optical works on MgB2 reports a small size gap only.

The apparent emergence of only the small gap feature in the optical spectra as well as the unusual $`H`$-dependence of $`f_n`$ put new constraints on understanding the MgB2 superconducting gap in the two gap scenario. Although the $`H`$-dependence of $`f_n`$ seems to be consistent with the two gap picture, any two gap model does not explain why only the small gap can be observed in the optical spectra of the $`ab`$-plane at $`H=0`$ T yet. The seemingly contradictory experimental facts suggest that the nature of the superconducting gaps in MgB2 should be related, which will provide a complicated nature of the gap in the MgB2. To clarify the complicated gap nature of MgB2, further studies are needed.

In summary, we have investigated the magnetic field-dependent optical conductivity spectra of the MgB2 thin film. The magnetic field-dependent optical conductivity spectra could be explained by the Maxwell Garnett theory, which assumes an increase of normal metallic regions embedded in a superconducting background. The area fraction of the normal metallic state was estimated and found to increase rather rapidly at low field but slowly at high field. This magnetic field dependence provides a new constraint to understand the multigap behavior of MgB2.

We thank H. K. Lee, Prof. J. Yu, and Y.-W. Son for useful discussions and help in performing the experiments. This work at SNU and POSTECH was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of Korea through the Creative Research Initiative Program. This research was conducted at the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory, which is supported by NSF Cooperative Agreement No. DMR-0084173 and by the State of Florida.


text:
# Simulating decoherence behavior of a system in entangled state using nuclear magnetic resonance

Abstract

By choosing $`{}_{}{}^{1}H`$ nucleus in Carbon-13 labelled trichloroethylene as one qubit environment, and two $`{}_{}{}^{13}C`$ nuclei as a two-qubit system, we have simulated quantum decoherence when the system lies in an entangled state using nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR). Decoupling technique is used to trace over the environment degrees of freedom. Experimental results show agreements with the theoretical predictions. Our experiment scheme can be generalized to the case that environment is composed of multiple qubits.

PACS number(s):03.67

Quantum decoherence is a purely quantum-mechanical effect through which a system loses its coherence behavior by getting entangled with its environment degrees of freedom . A real quantum system always interacts with its surrounding environment. The time evolution induced by the interaction introduces entanglement between the system and environment when the system initially lies in a superposition of states. When the state of the system is described by a reduced density matrix through tracing over the environment degrees of freedom, decoherence makes the off-diagonal matrix elements approach 0, and leaves diagonal ones unaltered. Quantum decoherence is thought as a main obstacle for experimental implementations of quantum computation and has been widely studied in theory -. Some theoretical and experimental schemes have also been proposed to solve the problem of decoherence in order to fully use coherence in quantum information-. C.J. Myatt. et al observed and studied decoherence by coupling an ion in a Paul trap to a reservoir that can be controlled. D. G. Cory et al simulated decoherence by magnetic field gradients . In this paper, we will simulate decoherence when the system lies in an entangled state. Although we choose one qubit to simulate the environment, our scheme can be generalized to the case that the environment is composed of multiple qubits.

We choose carbon 13-labelled trichloroethylene (TCE) dissolved in d-chloroform as a sample. TCE’s structure is shown in Fig.1. The two 13C nuclei constitute the system, and the 1H nucleus is viewed as environment. They represent qubits 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The influence of the other nuclei can be ignored. The Hamitonian of the system and environment is represented as

$$H_{s+e}=\omega _1I_z^1\omega _2I_z^2\omega _3I_z^3+2\pi J_{12}I_z^1I_z^2+2\pi J_{23}I_z^2I_z^3+2\pi J_{13}I_z^1I_z^3,$$
(1)
where $`\omega _k/2\pi (k=1,2,3)`$ are the resonance frequencies of the 3 spins, $`I_z^k`$ are the matrices for the z-components of the angular momentum, and $`\mathrm{}`$ is set to 1. $`J_{12}`$, for example, denotes the coupling constant between spins 1 and 2. Before the system lies in an entangled state, $`{}_{}{}^{1}H`$ nucleus is decoupled. $`J_{23}`$ and $`J_{13}`$ are averaged to zero. The system becomes a closed system whose Hamitonian is represented as

$$H_s=\omega _1I_z^1\omega _2I_z^2+2\pi J_{12}I_z^1I_z^2.$$
(2)
According to Ref. and the experimental technique we used for heteronuclear system , the pulse sequence $`[\alpha ]_x^2[grad]_z[\pi /4]_x^{1,2}1/4J_{12}[\pi ]_y^{1,2}1/4J_{12}[5\pi /6]_y^{1,2}[grad]_z`$ transforms the system from equilibrium state to the pseudo-pure state $`|>_1|>_2`$ represented as $`\rho _{ef}=I_z^1+I_z^22I_z^1I_z^2`$. Here $`[\alpha ]_x^2`$, for example, refers to a radio-frequency(rf) pulse on spin 2, oriented along x-axis. The evolution caused by the pulse is denoted as $`e^{i\alpha I_x^2}`$. $`[grad]_z`$ denotes a gradient pulse along z-axis. $`1/4J_{12}`$ denotes the evolution caused by $`H_s`$ for $`1/4J_{12}`$ without pulses. Because of the difference of abundance of $`{}_{}{}^{13}C1`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{13}C2`$ in the sample and the effects caused by decoupling, the equilibrium state of the system is represented as $`\gamma _C^1I_z^1+\gamma _C^2I_z^2`$, instead of $`\gamma _C(I_z^1+I_z^2)`$, where $`\gamma _C`$ is the gyromagnetic ratio of $`{}_{}{}^{13}C`$ nucleus. We call $`\gamma _C^1`$ and $`\gamma _C^2`$ ”effective gyromagnetic ratios” for $`{}_{}{}^{13}C1`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{13}C2`$, respectively. $`\alpha =arccos(\gamma _C^1/\gamma _C^2)`$, where $`\gamma _C^1/\gamma _C^2`$ can be measured by experiment.

The pulse sequence $`[\frac{\pi }{2}]_x^{1,2}\frac{1}{4J_{12}}[\pi ]_x^{1,2}\frac{1}{4J_{12}}[\frac{\pi }{2}]_y^2`$ transforms $`|>_1|>_2`$ into an entangled basis state

$$\rho _s(0)=I_x^1I_x^2I_z^1I_z^2I_y^1I_y^2,$$
(3)
As soon as the system lies in the entangled state, the decoupling pulses are closed. The system and environment evolute under $`H_{s+e}`$. By applying a hard (nonselective) pulse $`[\pi ]_x^{1,2,3}`$ in the middle of a period of evolution time t ( shown in Fig.2 ), the effect of chemical shift evolution during this period can be cancelled . The system evolutes under $`H_{ef}`$ represented as

$$H_{ef}=2\pi J_{12}I_z^1I_z^2+2\pi J_{23}I_z^2I_z^3+2\pi J_{13}I_z^1I_z^3,$$
(4)
where the last two terms describe the interaction between the system and environment. Only these two terms cause the system to evolute, because entangled basis states are the eigenstates of $`I_z^1I_z^2`$ . After t, the environment degrees of freedom are introduced into the density matrix of the system described as

$$\rho _s(t,I_z^3)=cos(\phi _{13}+\phi _{23})(I_x^1I_x^2I_y^1I_y^2)I_z^1I_z^2+2sin(\phi _{13}+\phi _{23})(I_x^1I_y^2+I_y^1I_x^2)I_z^3,$$
(5)
where $`\phi _{13}=\pi J_{13}t`$, and $`\phi _{23}=\pi J_{23}t`$. By tracing over the environment degrees of freedom, the density matrix of the system is obtained, which is represented as

$$\rho _s(t)=_3<|\rho _s(t,I_z^3)|>_3+_3<|\rho _s(t,I_z^3)|>_3=cos(\phi _{13}+\phi _{23})(I_x^1I_x^2I_y^1I_y^2)I_z^1I_z^2,$$
(6)
using $`I_z^3|>_3=\frac{1}{2}|>_3`$, and $`I_z^3|>_3=\frac{1}{2}|>_3`$. In NMR experiments, Eq.(6) is equivalent to the deviation density matrix  represented as

$$\rho _s(t)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& cos(\phi _{13}+\phi _{23})\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ cos(\phi _{13}+\phi _{23})& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right),$$
(7)
where basis states are arrayed as $`|>_1|>_2`$, $`|>_1|>_2`$, $`|>_1|>_2`$, $`|>_1|>_2`$. For convenience, we also use $`\rho _s(t)`$ in Eq.(7). The function $`cos(\phi _{13}+\phi _{23})`$ describes the decoherence behavior which can be observed in the NMR spectrum through a readout pulse $`[\frac{\pi }{2}]_x^2`$ which transforms the system into the state represented as

$$\rho _{sr}(t)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& i& icos(\phi _{13}+\phi _{23})& cos(\phi _{13}+\phi _{23})\\ i& 0& cos(\phi _{13}+\phi _{23})& icos(\phi _{13}+\phi _{23})\\ icos(\phi _{13}+\phi _{23})& cos(\phi _{13}+\phi _{23})& 0& i\\ cos(\phi _{13}+\phi _{23})& icos(\phi _{13}+\phi _{23})& i& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(8)
Experimental data are taken at controlled temperature (22$`{}_{}{}^{0}C`$) with a Bruker DRX 500 MHz spectrometer. The coupling constants $`J_{12}=103.1`$Hz, $`J_{23}=201.3`$Hz, and $`J_{13}=9.23`$Hz. 1H nucleus is again decoupled during recording the FID signal. In our experiments, decoupling is the process of tracing over the environment degrees of freedom to get the reduced density matrix of the system, i.e., Eq.(6) is obtained from Eq.(5). Fig.3a is the carbon spectrum through the readout pulse $`[\frac{\pi }{2}]_x^2`$ when $`t=3.50`$ms. The center frequencies of $`{}_{}{}^{13}C1`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{13}C2`$ are 124.16 ppm and 117.00 ppm, respectively. Fig.3b shows that the amplitude of the left peak of $`{}_{}{}^{13}C1`$ varies as $`t`$. The experimental data points can be fitted as function $`5.8cos(2\pi t/T)`$, where $`T=8.72ms`$. In theory, $`T=9.50`$ms. The error is about $`8.2\%`$. It mainly results from the imperfection of pulses, and the effect of decoherence which cannot be controlled.

If environment is composed of multiple qubits, the interaction between the system and environment is represented as

$$H_i=\underset{k=3}{\overset{N+2}{}}(2\pi J_{1k}I_z^1I_z^k+2\pi J_{2k}I_z^2I_z^k).$$
(9)
Under the evolution induced by $`H_i`$, the system is described as

$$\rho _s(t)=I_x^1I_x^2\underset{k=3}{\overset{N+2}{}}cos(\phi _{1k}+\phi _{2k})I_z^1I_z^2I_y^1I_y^2\underset{k=3}{\overset{N+2}{}}cos(\phi _{1k}+\phi _{2k}),$$
(10)
through tracing over environment degrees of freedom, where $`\phi _{1k}=\pi J_{1k}t`$, and $`\phi _{2k}=\pi J_{2k}t`$. If $`N\mathrm{}`$, the coherence usually approaches to 0 very fast,if $`t0`$.

In our experiments, we examine quantum decoherence of a system in an entangled state. It is unnecessary to consider the state of environment. In fact, we usually cannot describe the state of environment clearly. The interaction between the system and environment introduces the environment degrees of freedom into the state of the system. Decoherence is the result of tracing over such degrees of freedom.

This work was partly supported by the National Nature Science Foundation of China. We are also grateful to Professor Shouyong Pei of Beijing Normal University for his helpful discussions on the theories in quantum mechanics and Miss Jinna Pan for her help during experiments.

Figure Captions

1. The structure of trichloroethylene. The two $`{}_{}{}^{13}C`$ nuclei and one $`{}_{}{}^{1}H`$ nucleus represent qubits 1, 2, and 3, respectively.
2. The scheme used to cancel the chemical shift evolution. $`t`$ denotes the evolution time. Nonselective $`\pi `$ pulses are applied in the middle of $`t`$.
3. The experimental results when the two 13C nuclei in an entangled state evolute under $`H_{ef}`$(see the text). 1H nucleus is decoupled during recording the FID signal. Fig.3a is the carbon spectrum through a readout pulse $`[\frac{\pi }{2}]_x^2`$ when $`t=3.50`$ ms. The center frequencies of $`{}_{}{}^{13}C1`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{13}C2`$ are 124.16 ppm and 117.00 ppm, respectively. Fig.3b shows that the amplitude of the left peak of $`{}_{}{}^{13}C1`$ varies as t. The experimental data points can be fitted as function $`5.8cos(2\pi t/T)`$, where $`T=8.72ms`$.


text:
# Crossover from one to three dimensions for a gas of hard-core bosons

## Abstract

We develop a variational theory of the crossover from the one-dimensional (1D) regime to the 3D regime for ultra-cold Bose gases in thin waveguides. Within the 1D regime we map out the parameter space for fermionization, which may span the full 1D regime for suitable transverse confinement.

It has recently been proved by Lieb and Seiringer LS  that in a suitably-defined dilute limit, the many-body ground state of a trapped ultra-cold gas of bosons in two or three dimensions exhibits Bose-Einstein condensation into that orbital which minimizes the Gross-Pitaevskii (GP) energy functional, and in fact that the condensation is *complete* in the sense that the condensed fraction is unity. Their work should be consulted for precise definitions and hypotheses required for the proof; here we reiterate only a few points relevant here. In the 3D case the dilute limit is defined as $`a0`$ and $`N\mathrm{}`$ with both the trap potential and $`Na`$ fixed where $`a`$ is the s-wave scattering length and $`N`$ the number of particles, and in the 2D case it is defined as $`a0`$ and $`N\mathrm{}`$ with the trap potential and $`N/|\mathrm{ln}(a^2N)|`$ fixed. They point out that in 1D their proof fails, where there is presumably no Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) even at zero temperature (many-body ground state). In fact, the exact many-body ground state of a *spatially uniform* (untrapped) 1D Bose gas with repulsive zero-range (delta function) interaction was found long ago by Lieb and Liniger (LL) LL  for all values of a 1D coupling constant $`g_{1D}`$, and was shown by them to reduce for $`g_{1D}\mathrm{}`$ to the exact many-body ground state of the impenetrable point Bose gas (“Tonks gas”) found previously by one of us map , for which Lenard proved rigorously Lenard  that the occupation of the lowest orbital is bounded above by $`const.\sqrt{N}`$, ruling out BEC (occupation proportional to $`N`$). In the case of a *trapped* Tonks gas no such rigorous bound is known, but our numerical evaluation of the largest eigenvalue of the reduced single-particle density matrix of our exact many-body ground state GW3  suggests strongly that the most highly occupied orbital has occupation behaving like $`N^p`$ with $`0<p<1`$, again indicating absence of true BEC. In what follows we will use the term 1D condensate to describe the ground state of the trapped gas when the the system is still 1D, in that it has the transverse profile of the trap ground state, but the energy has deviated below that for an impenetrable Tonks gas.

It is clear from the above discussion that for real atom waveguides, for which the idealized limits $`a0`$ and $`N\mathrm{}`$ do not strictly apply, a crossover must occur from a effectively 1D system, applicable when the waveguide is so long and narrow (high transverse frequency) that transverse excitations are frozen, to a 3D system with BEC accurately treated by the GP equation (weaker transverse binding), the basis of most theoretical work on trapped BECs. Detailed analysis of this crossover is important for comparison with experiments, since the 1D regime has already been achieved experimentally DePMcCWin99 ; BonBurDet01 ; GorVogLea01 ; Greiner  and the Tonks regime (1D *and* sufficiently large $`g_{1D}`$) is being approached Greiner . The dynamical reduction from 3D to 1D and precise conditions on parameters necessary for achievement of both the 1D limit and the Tonks-gas limit of the 1D regime have been discussed in detail by Olshanii Olshanii  and by Petrov et al. Petrov . In addition, Dunjko et al. crossover2  have investigated the crossover between the Thomas-Fermi and Tonks-Girardeau regimes in a 1D trap. Here we note only that the 1D regime occurs when the waveguide is so thin (transverse frequency so high) and density and temperature so low that the longitudinal thermal and zero-point energies are both low compared with the lowest transverse excitation energy, resulting in “freezing out” all transverse excitations. Achievement of the Tonks limit requires, in addition, that the scattering length $`a`$ is large enough and/or 1D density $`n`$ low enough that $`\mathrm{}^2n/mg_{1D}1`$ where the effective 1D coupling constant is $`g_{1D}=2\mathrm{}^2a/m\mathrm{}_0^2`$ and $`\mathrm{}_0=\sqrt{\mathrm{}/m\omega _0}`$ is the transverse oscillator length.

Trap geometry: A particularly convenient geometry for discussing the crossover is a toroidal trap of high aspect ratio $`R=L/\mathrm{}_0`$. The transverse trap potential is symmetric about an axis consisting of a circle on which the trap potential is minimum, and harmonic with respect to a coordinate $`\rho `$ measured transversely with respect to this circle. This geometry can equally well be interpreted as an infinitely long, straight cylindrical waveguide with periodic boundary conditions in the longitudinal direction. Toroidal traps of this form have been experimentally produced and loaded WAD ; Sauer .

Hamiltonian: We use a many-body Hamiltonian with harmonic transverse binding and the usual Fermi pseudopotential interaction $`v(𝐫_{ij})=4\pi a\delta (𝐫_{ij})`$ with a positive s-wave scattering length $`a`$. This leads to a well-defined problem in 1D, the LL model LL . Our toroidal system is “almost 1D” since the transverse dimensions are confined, and we find that the variational problem with the Fermi pseudopotential does not encounter the difficulties (divergences and poorly-posed variational problem) Huang1 ; Huang2  found in the 3D case. The Hamiltonian is then

$$\widehat{H}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}_j^2+\frac{1}{2}m\omega _0^2\rho _j^2\right)+g_{3D}\underset{1j<\mathrm{}N}{}\delta (𝐫_j𝐫_{\mathrm{}})$$
(1)
where $`g_{3D}=4\pi a\mathrm{}^2/m`$ is the 3D coupling constant. The Laplacian is to be expressed in cylindrical coordinates $`𝐫_j=(z_j,\rho _j,\theta _j)`$ where $`z_j`$, with $`0z_jL`$, is a 1D coordinate measured around the torus circumference, $`\rho _j`$ is a transverse radial coordinate measured from the central circular torus axis, and $`\theta _j`$ is the azimuthal angle about this axis.

Variational ground state: We use a trial variational ground state which assumes factorization of longitudinal and transverse parts, with the transverse part depending on a single transverse orbital $`\varphi _{tr}`$ independent of azimuthal angle:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_0(𝐫_1,\mathrm{},𝐫_N)=\mathrm{\Phi }_{long}(z_1,\mathrm{},z_N)\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\varphi _{tr}(\rho _j).$$
(2)
Use of a single transverse orbital is justified in two different limits: (a) tight transverse confinement, transverse excitations frozen, $`\varphi _{tr}`$ is the unperturbed transverse oscillator ground state; (b) weak transverse confinement and low density, $`\varphi _{tr}`$ is the transverse part of GP orbital, assuming factorization of longitudinal and transverse parts of this GP orbital. Note, in connection with case (b), that a GP orbital well approximated by a Gaussian with respect to both $`z`$ and $`\rho `$ factorizes automatically, as does any Gaussian. More generally, we leave the functional form of $`\varphi _{tr}`$ free, to be determined as part of the minimization of the variational ground state energy $`E_0=\mathrm{\Phi }_0|\widehat{H}|\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$. Assuming $`\varphi _{tr}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{long}`$ normalized according to

$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}2\pi \rho 𝑑\rho |\varphi _{tr}(\rho )|^2=1`$
$`{\displaystyle _0^L}𝑑z_1\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _0^L}𝑑z_N|\mathrm{\Phi }_{long}(z_1,\mathrm{},z_N)|^2=1`$ (3)
one finds that the energy expectation value of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ decomposes as $`E_0=Nϵ_{tr}+E_{long}`$ with

$`ϵ_{tr}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}2\pi \rho 𝑑\rho \varphi _{tr}^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m\rho }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\rho }}\rho {\displaystyle \frac{}{\rho }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m\omega _0^2\rho ^2\right)\varphi _{tr}`$
$`E_{long}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^L}𝑑z_1\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _0^L}𝑑z_N\mathrm{\Phi }_{long}^{}\widehat{H}_{long}\mathrm{\Phi }_{long}`$ (4)
where $`\widehat{H}_{long}`$ is an effective longitudinal Hamiltonian

$$\widehat{H}_{long}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m\rho }\frac{^2}{z_j^2}+g_{1D}\underset{1j<\mathrm{}N}{}\delta (z_jz_{\mathrm{}})$$
(5)
and $`g_{1D}`$ is an effective 1D coupling constant

$$g_{1D}[\varphi _{tr}]=g_{3D}_0^{\mathrm{}}2\pi \rho 𝑑\rho |\varphi _{tr}(\rho )|^4.$$
(6)
Note that the separation of transverse and longitudinal energies is only partial, since $`g_{1D}`$ depends on $`\varphi _{tr}`$. We take the value of the $`g_{1D}`$ corresponding to the transverse ground state, with oscillator length $`\mathrm{}_0`$, as a reference

$`g=g_{1D}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{}_0}}e^{\rho ^2/2\mathrm{}_0^2}\right]={\displaystyle \frac{g_{3D}}{2\pi \mathrm{}_0^2}}`$ (7)
and define the fractional 1D coupling constant $`\overline{g}_{1D}=g_{1D}/g`$. For a 1D system $`\overline{g}_{1D}=1`$ whereas it decreases as the system crosses over to 3D. The relevant dimensionless intensive variable of a 1D system $`\gamma =(mg_{1D})/(\mathrm{}^2n)`$ LL  suggests a dimensionless measure $`\overline{n}=(\mathrm{}^2n)/(mg)`$ of the linear density $`n=N/L`$. We should keep in mind that $`g\omega _0`$ and will vary as the transverse confinement changes.

The total energy $`E_0`$ is to be minimized with respect to variation of both $`\varphi _{tr}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{long}`$ subject to the normalization constraints. We imagine this done in two steps, first holding $`\varphi _{tr}`$ constant and minimizing $`E_{long}`$ with respect to $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{long}(z_1,\mathrm{},z_N)`$, then minimizing the resultant $`E_0`$ with respect to $`\varphi _{tr}(\rho )`$. For fixed $`\varphi _{tr}`$, hence fixed $`g_{1D}`$, the global minimum of $`E_{long}`$ is realized by the exact ground state of $`\widehat{H}_{long}`$, which is the well-known LL Bethe Ansatz solution LL . One may instead use some simpler variational trial state for $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{long}`$, obtaining an upper bound to the longitudinal energy $`E_{long}=Nϵ_{long}`$. This has then to be minimized with respect to variation of $`\varphi _{tr}`$ subject to the normalization constraint:

$$\frac{\delta ϵ_{tr}}{\delta \varphi _{tr}^{}(\rho )}+\frac{ϵ_{long}}{g_{1D}}\frac{\delta g_{1D}}{\delta \varphi _{tr}^{}(\rho )}\mu _{tr}2\pi \rho \varphi _{tr}(\rho )=0$$
(8)
where the transverse chemical potential $`\mu _{tr}`$ is the Lagrange multiplier for the transverse normalization constraint. Evaluation of the functional derivatives leads to the following generalized transverse GP equation:

$`\mu _{tr}\varphi _{tr}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\rho ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\rho }}\right)\varphi _{tr}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m\omega _0^2\rho ^2\varphi _{tr}`$ (9)
$`+`$ $`2g_{3D}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_{long}}{g_{1D}}}|\varphi _{tr}|^2\varphi _{tr},`$
where $`\mu _{tr}`$ is to be adjusted so that $`\varphi _{tr}`$ satisfies the normalization constraint. The solution depends on $`g_{1D}`$ which in turn depends on $`\varphi _{tr}`$, so the solution has to be determined by a self-consistent iterative procedure, by making an initial guess for $`g_{1D}`$, evaluating $`ϵ_{long}/g_{1D}`$ at this value of $`g_{1D}`$, solving Eq. (8) for $`\varphi _{tr}`$, determining a new $`g_{1D}`$ from Eq. (6), and iterating to convergence.

Two of us have previously developed a variational theory crossover1  assuming the same toroidal geometry and using a variational trial state for $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{long}`$ based on the variational pair theory of many-boson systems GA . In that case the transverse GP equation (8) reduces to the previous one, Eq. (16) of crossover1 , after correction of a typo therein typo . That work was devoted to investigation of the BEC-Tonks crossover in the 1D regime where the transverse orbital is frozen in the unperturbed transverse oscillator state, and no transverse GP equation was solved. Here we are concerned with a different crossover, namely the 1D-3D crossover, which depends crucially on the solution of the transverse GP equation. In the following two sections we shall separately consider first the case where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{long}`$ is approximated by the GA variational pair theory GA  as in crossover1 , which gives accurate results except in the Tonks gas regime (1D limit *and* very large scattering length). Then we shall work out the solution using the LL theory LL , the exact ground state of $`\widehat{H}_{long}`$. This latter is accurate even in the Tonks regime, but is more complicated to work out since the LL energy per particle $`ϵ_{LL}`$ is known only from numerical solutions of the nonlinear LL integral equation.

Pair theory solution: Approximating the longitudinal energy by the 1D GA pair theory energy, we will first set $`ϵ_{long}=ϵ_P`$, the expression for which we derived in Ref. crossover1  and can be written as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_P}{g^2}}=\overline{g}_{1D}^2[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\gamma }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3\pi }}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{f^3}{\gamma }}}[(2\lambda )E\lambda K]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{f}{8\pi ^2}}[(1\lambda )^2K^2+[(1+\lambda )K2E]^2]].`$ (10)
Here $`K(1\lambda )`$ and $`E(1\lambda )`$ are complete elliptic integrals abramowitz  and $`f`$ is the Bose-condensed fraction related to the dimensionless pair theory parameter $`\lambda `$ through the coupled equations

$`\lambda =\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{f}}}{\displaystyle \frac{[(1\lambda )K]}{2\pi }};{\displaystyle \frac{1f}{f}}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{f}}}{\displaystyle \frac{[(1+\lambda )K2E]}{2\pi }}.`$ (11)
The partial derivative of the pair theory energy has to be taken *before minimization* crossover1  rather than that of the expression in Eq. (Crossover from one to three dimensions for a gas of hard-core bosons) which is true only at the minimum

$`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_P}{g_{1D}}}={\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}\left[2f^22\lambda f^2+\lambda ^2f^2\right].`$ (12)
LL solution: Next we shall use the LL energy $`ϵ_{LL}`$ LL , which is the global minimum of $`ϵ_{long}`$ with respect to unrestricted functional variation of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{long}`$. It yields, together with Eq. (8), the best possible variational solution obtainable with a trial state of form (2):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_{LL}}{g^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{\overline{g}_{1D}^2}{2\gamma ^2}}e(\gamma ),`$ (13)
where $`e(\gamma )`$ is obtained by solving the Lieb-Liniger system of integral equations LL . The partial derivative

$`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_{LL}}{g_{1D}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}n^2e^{}(\gamma ){\displaystyle \frac{m}{\mathrm{}^2n}}={\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}e^{}(\gamma )`$ (14)
is the same regardless of the order in which the expectation and the derivative are evaluated, unlike in pair theory since the LL solution is an exact eigenstate of $`\widehat{H}_{long}`$ and thus obeys the Hellmann-Feynman theorem.

Numerical results and discussion: For both pair theory and Lieb-Liniger theory, the transverse GP equation was solved numerically using the method of discrete variable representation BayeHeenan , a method based on Gauss quadrature with a well-defined discrete normalization. Iterating the solution of the GP equation alternately with the evaluation of the longitudinal energies lead to self-consistent values for $`g_{1D}`$ and $`ϵ_{long}`$ in both theories. In using LL theory we used the tabulated values of $`e(\gamma )`$ in OlshaniiData  for intermediate values of $`\gamma `$ and the limiting expressions in LL  for high and low values of $`\gamma `$. For low $`\gamma `$, i.e. for high linear densities, the energies in both pair theory and LL theory coincide with the Bogoliubov energy $`ng_{1D}/2`$.

In the Tonks limit of completely impenetrable bosons, all of the atoms are “fermionized” and the energy per atom is simply the energy of free fermions

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_F}{g^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2\overline{n}^2}{6}}.`$ (15)
We can get a sense of the degree of “fermionization” of the system by evaluating the ratio $`ϵ_{LL}/ϵ_F`$. In the Tonks limit this would be unity, but as the atoms become penetrable the energy approaches a linear dependence on the density so that the ratio will approach zero. In Fig. 1 we plot this ratio (for LL theory) as a function of the density $`\overline{n}`$ for different values of the dimensionless quantity $`mg^2/(\mathrm{}^3\omega _0)`$ proportional to the transverse trapping frequency $`\omega _0`$. In the same figure we also plot $`\overline{g}_{1D}=g_{1D}/g`$ as function of $`\overline{n}`$. While the plot of $`ϵ_{long}/ϵ_F`$ gives a measure of the impenetrability of the atoms, the plot of $`\overline{g}_{1D}`$ provides a measure of the dimensionality, since $`\overline{g}_{1D}=1`$ in 1D and decreases as the system crosses over to 3D. Since $`g`$ itself depends linearly on $`\omega _0`$ the actual magnitudes of the densities are different in the three plots shown in Fig. 1. Along the right axis in Fig. 1 we plot the scaled longitudinal energies computed from pair theory and LL theory. We see that the density range where the pair theory energies breaks away from the LL energies corresponds closely to the region where $`ϵ_{long}/ϵ_F`$ starts to deviate from unity. This is as we would expect since pair theory cannot describe the Tonks regime.

We see that for low values of the transverse trapping potential as in Fig. 1(a) there is a regime of density where the gas is one dimensional but not yet a Tonks gas. Pair theory is valid in this region and it intrinsically allows for a “Bose-condensed” fraction $`f`$ which has the more general interpretation as the non-trivial fraction of atoms in the ground state. Thus in this regime we should see a 1D condensate, in the sense defined earlier.

However, as we increase the transverse trapping potential we see that the region where such a 1D condensate can exist gets narrower as the curve for $`\overline{g}_{1D}`$ approaches the curve for $`ϵ_{long}/ϵ_F`$ until the former is on the left of the latter as we see in Fig. 1(c); this means that for large transverse trapping potentials there will be never be a 1D condensate and the system will pass directly from 3D to the impenetrable Tonks gas regime. This is clearly illustrated in Fig. 2; using $`\overline{g}_{1D}=0.5`$ as the criterion for crossover from 1D to 3D and $`ϵ_{long}/ϵ_F=0.5`$ as the criterion for crossover to the Tonks gas, we plot the scaled densities at the crossover points as a function of the transverse confinement strength measured by $`mg^2/(\mathrm{}^3\omega _0)`$. The triangular region between the two curves on the left of their point of intersection roughly defines the range of scaled densities and transverse trap frequencies over which a 1D condensate can exist. On the right of the point of intersection the trap strength is too high.

In conclusion, we have used Lieb-Liniger theory as well as pair theory to study the crossover of an axially homogeneous 3D Bose condensed system to effective 1D and eventually to an impenetrable regime. We have evaluated the densities at which the system crosses over from 3D to 1D and then to a Tonks gas for different transverse trap frequencies. We have demonstrated that for weak transverse confinement there is a physically allowed regime where a 1D axially homogeneous condensate can exist while for sufficiently high transverse confinement the only possiblities are a 3D condensate or a Tonks gas.

KKD thanks T. Bergeman for useful discussions. This work was supported by Office of Naval Research grant N00014-99-1-0806 and by the US Army Research office.