text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Gravity is an attractive force. This is the basic reason for the presence, in the standard cosmological models, of a space–like big–bang singularity in the past. The existence of an initial singularity is, to a large extent, independent of the model, and in fact one can show that, under general assumptions, a singularity in the cosmological past is inevitable . Despite these problems, the standard cosmological models (far) below the Planck scale are extremely successful in explaining the present experimental data.

Attempts to solve the cosmological singularity problem lead to the pre big–bang scenario conjecture , motivated by the existence of a minimum distance in string theory. However, either the exact string backgrounds are not realistic , or they show time–like singularities whose nature has remained unclear . More recently, the big–bang singularity was investigated in the framework of brane cosmology as collision of branes . However, in these scenarios the cosmological singularity is space–like and does not have a clear interpretation as a brane.

The simplest way to avoid the cosmological singularity is to introduce a bulk positive cosmological constant, which introduces a uniform negative pressure. In the absence of other contributions to the stress–energy tensor one obtains a de Sitter space–time. A de Sitter cosmology is problematic both from the string theory point of view and from a phenomenological view–point. In string theory it has not been possible, up to now, to construct a (meta)–stable string background with a de Sitter geometry. From the cosmological point of view it is difficult to connect a de Sitter phase to the usual matter dominated universes which describe present day evolution of the universe, and at the same time retain a singularity–free space–time.

Although problematic, de Sitter space avoids the cosmological singularity by introducing an effectively repulsive part to the gravitational interaction due to the negative pressure induced by the positive cosmological constant. Another natural way to avoid the big–bang singularity is the introduction of a negative cosmological constant localized on hyperplanes of lower dimension. These lower dimensional branes have negative tension and therefore will fill a repulsive gravitational force induced by standard matter in the bulk. Even though it is problematic in pure gravity to consider objects with negative mass, they appear quite naturally in string theory. Orientifold planes are, for example, hypersurfaces of arbitrary dimension, charged under the Ramond–Ramond fields, with negative tension and no localized dynamical degrees of freedom . From the point of view of gravity, O–planes act as sources of matter and gravity fields by adding a local term in the supergravity action

$$|T|_\mathrm{\Gamma }d^dxe^\varphi \sqrt{detG}\pm Q_\mathrm{\Gamma }A_d,$$

on the $`d`$–dimensional hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, where $`T`$ and $`Q`$ are the tension and the charge respectively. This acts as a negative cosmological term localized on the surface $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, together with the coupling to the other supergravity fields. The geometry which corresponds, in supergravity, to O–planes is similar to the one describing D–branes, but has negative mass and develops a naked time–like singularity.

In this paper we will show that it is possible to resolve the conventional cosmological singularity problem using orientifolds, i.e. by introducing a negative cosmological constant localized on domain walls at the boundary of space–time. The basic idea is to replace the big–bang singularity at $`t=0`$ by a cosmological horizon and to continue space–time across this horizon. Examples of such space–time causal structure were presented in  for a spatially flat cosmology that becomes isotropic at late times and in  for isotropic open cosmologies (with hyperbolic spatial sections). Other examples were given in . To understand the existence of this horizon it is convenient to consider the description of $`(d+1)`$–dimensional flat space–time using the Milne and Rindler ‘polar’ coordinates. Along the ‘cosmological’ Milne wedge the metric depends on the cosmological coordinate $`t`$, however, as one crosses the horizon the metric dependents on a space–like coordinate $`x`$, and it is foliated by $`d`$–dimensional de Sitter slices. The idea proposed in , is that one may start integrating the classical equations of motion starting from this horizon regardless of the theory under consideration, imposing the existence of a cosmological horizon. In some cases this space–time causal structure arises as a Kałuża–Klein compactification of flat space–time, which can be described by a string theory orbifold construction, following the earlier work of  (see also ).

In the specific model we shall consider, which can be embedded in Type II string theory, the geometry in the Rindler patch develops a time–like naked singularity, where the metric has the correct form to be interpreted as an orientifold plane with a de Sitter world–volume (see figure 1). This geometry describes an open universe with contracting and expanding regions, together with an intermediate region bounded by an orientifold plane. The latter region smoothly connects the would be ‘big–crunch’ and ‘big–bang’ of conventional cosmological models. This resolution of the cosmological singularity allows the calculation of transition amplitudes from the contracting to the expanding phases. In particular, we shall calculate the past/future vacuum to vacuum amplitude for a free field propagating in the cosmological background. Assuming a trivial vacuum at the asymptotic past, we obtain a thermal spectrum in the far future. This analysis is similar to that of Hawking in the derivation of black hole radiation , but applied to our cosmology.

To describe dynamically the phases of the universe, we can think of a large spherical charged brane as the boundary of the universe, which is contracting due to the brane’s tension. During the collapse, the brane will back–react on the geometry and it will create, in the center of the sphere, a positive energy density. If the brane has positive tension, it will eventually collapse due to its own gravitational and electric forces. On the other hand, if the brane has negative tension, it will interact with its own gravitational and electric fields with opposite sign, and this will invert the contraction to an expanding phase. In this sense, localized negative tension objects can be used to avoid the big–bang singularity.

One may ask at this point why the choice of orientifolds is justified in cosmology. In our point of view this choice has a natural explanation in string theory. Indeed, to create a non–trivial gravitation background with broken supersymmetry one has to start with non–BPS configuration of branes. If not, the vacuum solution will be stable and stationary due to the supersymmetry. One possibility is to construct type II models where the RR charge is canceled only with orientifold planes $`O\overline{O}`$ localized in two different points, and without any $`D`$ or $`\overline{D}`$ branes. Models of this kind are constructed in the literature . This configuration breaks supersymmetry, and it is incompatible with a flat space–time and constant dilaton. The induced geometry in the presence of $`O\overline{O}`$ orientifolds is precisely our cosmological solution. As we shall show in section 3, the $`O\overline{O}`$ configuration is stable. There is an attractive electric force which is balanced by an effective repulsive force created by the gravitational back–reaction of the orientifolds. Thus, localized negative tension objects can be used to avoid the conventional big–bang singularity.

Another starting point, is to dress the orientifolds with branes and to consider the configuration $`OD\overline{OD}`$. This configuration is consistent classically with a flat space–time and constant dilaton. However, at the quantum level it is unstable due to the lack of supersymmetry. An effective potential is created bringing the branes and anti–branes together which annihilate each other. After this annihilation, we are left with the $`O\overline{O}`$ orientifolds, the background fields are no longer flat and give rise to the cosmological scenario described above. We shall confirm the structure of the effective potential among branes and orientifolds by probing the geometry with D–branes. Since orientifolds are a source of the gravitational and RR fields but do not have local degrees of freedom, the acceleration of the universe can be seen effectively from the condensation of the tachyon field associated to the above process. Indeed, tachyon driven time–dependent string backgrounds have been the subject of recent investigation  (see  for related work).

## 2 A Simple Cosmological Solution

We start quite generally by considering $`\left(d+1\right)`$–dimensional gravity coupled to a scalar field $`\psi `$

$$S=\frac{1}{2\kappa ^2^{d1}}d^{d+1}x\sqrt{|g|}\left[R\frac{\beta }{2}\left(\psi \right)^2V\left(\psi \right)\right],$$
(1)
where $``$ is an energy scale. In this equation, $`V\left(\psi \right)`$ is the potential for the scalar field, $`\beta `$ is a dimensionless constant and the coordinates are dimensionless in units of $`1/`$. Following , we are interested in cosmological solutions to the equations of motion of (1) with a contracting and an expanding phase (which we call region $`I`$), together with an intermediate region (denoted by region $`II`$). The expanding phase is the standard Robertson–Walker geometry for an open universe

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill ds_{d+1}^{2}& =& dt^2+a_I^{2}\left(t\right)ds^2\left(H_d\right),\hfill \\ \hfill \psi & =& \psi _I\left(t\right),\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
where $`H_d`$ is the $`d`$–dimensional hyperbolic space with unit radius. Therefore, the dynamics of the system is described by the scalar and Friedman equations

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \ddot{\psi }_I+d\dot{\psi }_I\frac{\dot{a}_I}{a_I}& =& \frac{1}{\beta }\frac{V}{\psi _I},\hfill \\ \hfill \left(\frac{\dot{a}_I}{a_I}\right)^2\frac{1}{a_I^{2}}& =& \frac{1}{d\left(d1\right)}\left[\frac{\beta }{2}\dot{\psi }_I^2+V\left(\psi _I\right)\right],\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
where dots denote derivatives with respect to the cosmological time $`t`$. The contracting phase is nothing but the time–reversed solution, where we replace in (2) $`t`$ by $`t`$.

In order to have an intermediate region, we are interested in solutions of (2) where $`a_I(t)`$ and $`\psi _I(t)`$ are, respectively, odd and even functions of $`t`$ with initial conditions

$$a_I\left(t\right)=t+𝒪\left(t^3\right),\psi _I\left(t\right)=\psi _0+𝒪\left(t^2\right),$$
(4)
for small cosmological time $`t`$. This implies that the $`t=0`$ surface does not correspond to a big–bang singularity, but represents a null cosmological horizon, as described in . In this case, the space–time can be extended across the horizon to an intermediate region $`II`$, where the solution takes the form

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill ds_{d+1}^{2}& =& a_{II}^{2}\left(x\right)ds^2\left(dS_d\right)+dx^2,\hfill \\ \hfill \psi & =& \psi _{II}\left(x\right),\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
with $`dS_d`$ the $`d`$–dimensional de Sitter space. The equations of motion which determine $`a_{II}`$ and $`\psi _{II}`$ are again the equations (3), with the potential $`V`$ replaced by $`V`$. To extend the solution from region $`I`$ to region $`II`$ it is convenient to write the hyperboloid and de Sitter metrics in conformal coordinates $`(i=1,\mathrm{},d1)`$

$$ds^2\left(H_d\right)=\frac{dy^idy_i+dy_d^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{y_d^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}},ds^2\left(dS_d\right)=\frac{dy_0^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+dy^idy_i}{y_0^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}.$$

Then, if we consider $`a_I`$ and $`\psi _I`$ as complex functions, the solution can be extended by analytic continuing $`tix`$, $`y_diy_0`$, together with

$$a_{II}\left(x\right)=ia_I\left(ix\right),\psi _{II}\left(x\right)=\psi _I\left(ix\right).$$

Equivalently, given the boundary conditions (4), regions $`I`$ and $`II`$ can be connected along the null cosmological horizon, just as a Milne universe can be glued to a Rindler edge to form flat Minkowski space. Moreover, it is clear that the solution possesses a global $`SO(1,d)`$ symmetry, which acts both on $`H_d`$ and on $`dS_d`$.

The existence of an intermediate region demands generically a field theory effective potential whose form is highly restrictive due to the unnatural (fine–tuned) boundary conditions. In the next section we see that string effective supergravity theories provide a Liouville–Toda like potential  which naturally respects the boundary conditions at the horizon.

## 3 Embedding in String Theory

Now let us consider a particular case of the construction of the previous section which can be embedded in Type II string theory. For simplicity we consider backgrounds with a non–trivial RR field. The corresponding ten–dimensional Type II effective action has the form ($`l_s=2\pi \sqrt{\alpha ^{}}`$)

$$S=\frac{2\pi }{l_s^{8}}\left[d^{10}x\sqrt{|g|}e^{2\varphi }\left(R+4\left(\varphi \right)^2\right)\frac{1}{2}F\stackrel{~}{F}\right],$$

where $`F`$ is the RR $`\left(d+1\right)`$–form field strength and $`\stackrel{~}{F}=F`$ is the dual $`\stackrel{~}{d}`$–form field strength, with $`\stackrel{~}{d}=9d`$. A family of solutions, parameterized by an arbitrary constant $`g_s`$, can be constructed by considering the following ansatz333The constant $`g_s`$ is related to the constant decoupled scalar field $`\rho `$ in  by
$$g_s=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{d}{8}\frac{9d}{3d2}\rho \right].$$
Moreover, $``$ is related to $`E`$ of  by $`E^d=g_s^d`$.

$$\begin{array}{c}^2ds^2=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{d+1}{d1}}ds_{d+1}^{2}+\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\frac{1}{2}}ds^2(𝔼^{\stackrel{~}{d}}),\\ e^\varphi =g_s\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\frac{4d}{4}},\stackrel{~}{F}=\frac{1}{g_s^{\stackrel{~}{d}1}}ϵ(𝔼^{\stackrel{~}{d}}),\end{array}$$
(6)
where we have defined

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=e^{2\beta \psi },$$

and the line element $`ds_{d+1}`$ is defined in the previous section. The physical interpretation of the constants $``$ and $`g_s`$ will become clear below. Following , the equations of motion for the scale factor and scalar field are those presented in the previous section with

$$V=\frac{1}{2}e^\psi ,$$

and

$$\beta =\frac{1}{2}\frac{d1}{3d2}.$$

In  it was shown that, in the intermediate region $`II`$, the geometry develops a time–like curvature singularity. The behavior of the scalar field and scale factor near the singularity was seen to be

$`a_{II}\left(x\right)`$ $`=`$ $`a_s\left(x_sx\right)^\gamma ,`$ (7)
$`\psi _{II}\left(x\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{log}\left[\eta (x_sx)\right]^2,`$ (8)
where the constants $`\gamma `$ and $`\eta `$ read

$$\gamma =\frac{2\beta }{d1},\eta ^2=4\beta \left(1d\gamma \right).$$

The dimensionless constant $`a_s`$ depends on the boundary conditions imposed at the horizon; we shall come back to this issue later. The value of $`x_s`$, where $`a0`$ and $`\psi \mathrm{}`$, can be written as

$$x_s=e^{\frac{1}{2}\psi _0}c_s,$$

where $`\psi _0`$ is the value of the scalar field at the horizon. The constant $`c_s`$ depends only on the dimension $`d`$ of space and is given numerically by

From the behavior of the scalar field at the singularity $`(\psi \mathrm{})`$, at the horizon $`(\psi =\psi _0)`$ and at the asymptotic future $`(\psi +\mathrm{})`$, and from the fact that the scalar field is a growing function as one moves from the singularity to the horizon and from there to the asymptotic future, it is natural to use $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as a radial variable instead of $`x`$. At the singularity we have $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ and at the lightcone $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_0e^{2\beta \psi _0}`$. Then near the singularity, in the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$, we obtain the following ten–dimensional background fields

$$\begin{array}{c}^2ds^2=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\frac{1}{2}}\mu ds^2(dS_d)+\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[d\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+ds^2(𝔼^{\stackrel{~}{d}})\right],\\ e^\varphi =g_s\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\frac{4d}{4}},F=\frac{1}{g_s^d}d\mathrm{\Lambda }^1\left[\sqrt{\mu ^d}ϵ(dS_d)\right],\end{array}$$

where $`\mu `$ is a constant determined from the constant $`a_s`$ in the expansion (8). If we substitute the de Sitter space $`dS_d`$ by the Minkowski space $`𝕄^d`$ we obtain naively the solution for D$`p`$–branes $`(p=d1)`$ localized at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ and uniformly smeared along $`𝔼^{\stackrel{~}{d}}`$. The usual harmonic function $`H`$ is simply $`H=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ because there a unique transverse direction. However, the tension associated with the harmonic function proportional to $`H`$ is negative. Therefore the singularity is correctly interpreted as non–dynamical orientifold $`(d1)`$–planes smeared along the $`𝔼^{\stackrel{~}{d}}`$. When $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ the radius of the de Sitter slice $`\sqrt{\mu }\mathrm{\Lambda }^{1/4}`$ diverges, the orientifold looks flat and one approaches the usual supersymmetric solution. This solution is interpreted as the geometry of a de Sitter O$`p`$–plane ($`p=d1`$) with radius $`R_{dS}1/`$ and delocalized along $`𝔼^{\stackrel{~}{d}}`$. Below we shall compute the number of orientifold planes in terms of the parameters of the solution.

To understand the behavior of the geometry away from the orientifold planes it is useful to keep using the function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as the radial coordinate. Then the solution (6) becomes

$$\begin{array}{c}^2ds^2=\frac{G}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\frac{1}{2}}}\mu ds^2\left(dS_d\right)+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\frac{1}{2}}}{H}d\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\frac{1}{2}}ds^2(𝔼^{\stackrel{~}{d}}),\\ e^\varphi =g_s\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\frac{4d}{4}},F=\frac{1}{g_s^d}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\sqrt{\frac{G^d}{H}}d\mathrm{\Lambda }\left[\sqrt{\mu ^d}ϵ(dS_d)\right],\end{array}$$
(9)
where $`G(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ and $`H(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ are dimensionless functions defined by

$$\mu G=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\frac{1}{d1}}a_{II}^{2}(\mathrm{\Lambda }),H=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\frac{d}{d1}}\left(\frac{d\mathrm{\Lambda }}{dx}\right)^2.$$

Notice that, to match the near singularity behavior, the function G satisfies $`G(0)=1`$. Naively the solution is parameterized by $`g_s`$, $``$ and the position of the horizon $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$. However, we can set

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_0=1,$$

using the rescaling of the coordinates $`\mathrm{\Lambda }c\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`𝔼^{\stackrel{~}{d}}c𝔼^{\stackrel{~}{d}}`$, which leaves the form of the solution invariant if we also redefine $`g_sc^{(d4)/4}g_s`$, $`c^{5/4}`$ and $`G(\mathrm{\Lambda })c^3G(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, $`H(\mathrm{\Lambda })H(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$.

With this rescaling the parameters $`g_s`$ and $``$ are the string coupling $`e^\varphi `$ and the electric field $`g_s\sqrt{F^2}`$ at the core of the solution, i.e. at the cosmological horizon. In terms of these parameters we can compute the number of orientifold planes. To this end we compactify the transverse space on a torus $`𝕋^{\stackrel{~}{d}}`$ with proper volume at the horizon

$$V=^{\stackrel{~}{d}}_{𝕋^{\stackrel{~}{d}}}ϵ(𝔼^{\stackrel{~}{d}}).$$

Then the number of O–planes is given by

$$N=\frac{2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}d}}{l_s^{8d}}_{𝕋^{\stackrel{~}{d}}}\stackrel{~}{F}=2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}d}\frac{l_s}{g_s}\frac{V}{l_s^{\stackrel{~}{d}}}.$$

Now let us analyze the behavior of the solution near $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$ and near $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$. It is easy to show, from the boundary conditions (4) on the cosmological horizon, that

$$G\left(1\right)=H\left(1\right)=0.$$
(10)
To analyze analytically the behavior close to the singularity, we need to rewrite the scalar and Friedman equations in terms of $`G`$ and $`H`$ as functions of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. It is tedious but not difficult to show that equations (3) are equivalent to

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \left(\frac{G^{}}{G}\right)^2+\frac{2}{(d1)\mathrm{\Lambda }}\frac{G^{}}{G}& =& \frac{4\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mu GH}+\frac{2}{d(d1)\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\left(1\frac{1}{H}\right),\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{H^{}}{H}+d\frac{G^{}}{G}& =& \frac{2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\left(1\frac{1}{H}\right),\hfill \end{array}$$
(11)
where  denotes derivative with respect to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Then we see that, to keep the behavior of the solution near the orientifold at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$, we must have

$$H\left(0\right)=1.$$

On the other hand, when solving the equations starting from the singularity, we are free to choose the initial condition

$$G^{}\left(0\right)=\sigma ,$$

for arbitrary $`\sigma `$. Then, equations (11) can be solved in power series in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to give

$$\begin{array}{c}G=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\frac{\sigma }{\mu }\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{\sigma ^2}{\mu ^2}\frac{d1}{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+\mathrm{},\hfill \\ H=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\frac{\sigma }{\mu }d\mathrm{\Lambda }+\frac{\sigma ^2}{\mu ^2}\frac{d\left(d1\right)}{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+\mathrm{}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(12)
Notice that for $`d=1`$ the solution can be found exactly  because the geometry arises as a quotient of flat space and the functions $`G`$ and $`H`$ are linear in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

We have seen that, starting from the orientifold singularity at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ we have two degrees of freedom $`\mu `$ and $`\sigma `$ in the solution of (11). On the other hand, starting from the light–cone we do not have any freedom. Therefore the solutions that develop a cosmological horizon (10) correspond to a special value of $`\mu `$ and $`\sigma `$. For the cosmological solutions we are analyzing, these constants depend only on the spatial dimension $`d`$ and are given numerically by

For large cosmological times in region $`I`$ the geometry is that of a curvature dominated universe.

### 3.1 Probing the Geometry with Branes

Now that we have seen the string theoretic origin of the cosmological singularity and how the geometry behaves as we move away from the orientifolds, we would like to study the motion of D–branes in this geometry. We are going to consider a spherical brane on the de Sitter slices $`dS_d`$, positioned in region $`II`$ at some fixed value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$, and we are going to compute the static potential $`𝒱\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)`$ seen by the brane. Notice that by static potential we mean the potential as seen by an observer on the brane, i.e. an observer placed at constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

It is well known that, in the case of flat branes, there is a brane/anti–orientifold repulsion, whereas there is no force between parallel branes and orientifolds (of opposite charge), due to the BPS nature of the configuration. In the present case, we will see that the presence of a de Sitter world volume of both the source and the probe brane induces a repulsive force also on the probe branes with charge opposite to that of the orientifold singularity. The force, when the probe is placed close to the source, is repulsive and tends to move the probe brane away from the singularity. Bellow we shall argue that the force inducing the brane probe to collapse is partially gravitational in character and arises from the energy density of the fields generated by the de Sitter orientifolds. This same energy density will act as an anti–gravitational force on the orientifolds preventing them from collapse. This mechanism provides a smooth transition from a big–crunch to a big–bang phase, which is regular in string theory and should allow the computation of transition amplitudes from the contracting to the expanding region. Section four gives the simplest example of such computation.

The static potential for a spherical D$`p`$–brane ($`p=d1`$) in the cosmological background can be deduced starting from the metric (9). An easy calculation shows that the Born–Infeld and the Wess–Zumino pieces give a total action

$$𝒱_\pm \left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\sqrt{G^d}\frac{d\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\sqrt{\frac{G^d}{H}}.$$

The potential $`𝒱_+`$ ($`𝒱_{}`$) is the potential seen by a probe with charge equal (opposite) to those of the orientifolds forming the singularity. Using the solution (12) we easily see that

$$𝒱_+\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)=\frac{2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}+\mathrm{},$$

and therefore $`𝒱_+`$ represents, as expected, a strongly repulsive potential. As we discussed above, the potential $`𝒱_{}`$ is more interesting physically, and vanishes for the case of parallel flat branes and orientifolds. Again using (12) one can show that

$$𝒱_{}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)=\frac{d}{2}\frac{\sigma }{\mu }\frac{d\left(3d2\right)}{8}\frac{\sigma ^2}{\mu ^2}\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{}.$$

Note that, as long as $`\sigma 0`$ (as it is the case for the cosmological solutions), the potential decreases as a function of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ for any value of $`d1`$, and therefore there is a repulsive force which moves the probe away from the singularity at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$. One could think that this repulsive force is only due to the tension of the spherical brane probe. On the other hand, the analysis of the $`d=1`$ case, where the tension is absent, shows that this intuition is not entirely correct.

Let us consider a $`O\overline{O}`$ pair in flat space at some large distance and a $`D`$ particle near the $`O`$ plane. The only force on the $`D`$ particle is the gravitational and electric repulsive force due to the $`\overline{O}`$ plane, since a $`OD`$ pair is a BPS configuration. Now let us turn on gravity and consider the back–reaction on the geometry due to the presence of the orientifolds. For this case we can define a coordinate $`y`$ by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1y^4`$, such that $`y]1,0[`$ corresponds to the part of region $`II`$ with the $`O`$ plane, and $`y]0,1[`$ corresponds to the part with the $`\overline{O}`$ plane. We recall that $`y=0`$ is the horizon where this coordinate system becomes singular. Then, recalling that $`G=H=1\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the potential in the whole of region $`II`$ is given by (see figure 2)

$$𝒱_D(y)=\frac{y^2}{1y^2\mathrm{s}ign(y)}.$$

The fields generated by the orientifolds induce an energy density between them, which interacts gravitationally with the $`D`$–particle. Indeed, this computation shows that the latter gravitational attraction wins over the $`D\overline{O}`$ repulsion. We conclude that the force that brings the $`D`$ particle away from the $`O`$–plane is due to the back–reaction on the geometry, which is creating an extra energy density that interacts gravitationally with the probe.

This energy density induced by the orientifolds is also responsible for the repulsion between the O–planes, explaining the structure of the geometry against the naive expectation that the $`O\overline{O}`$ system is unstable under collapse and annihilation. To confirm this interpretation let us show that the electric field at the center of the exact solution is larger than the electric field generated by the $`O\overline{O}`$ system if we had neglected back–reaction. This shows that the extra energy density is concentrated at the center of the geometry. At the center, which is at a proper distance $`L`$ from the orientifolds given by

$$L=_0^1\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\frac{1}{4}}}{\sqrt{1\mathrm{\Lambda }}}𝑑\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{21\sqrt{\pi }}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}/4\right]^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.75},$$

the electric field of the exact solution couples to gravity with strength $``$. On the other hand, in flat space–time and assuming linear superposition, the electric field of a $`O\overline{O}`$ system at distance $`2L`$ is given in the intermediate point by

$$\frac{8}{5L}<,$$

thus confirming our claim.

In the general case, the $`O\overline{O}`$ pair is really a spherical orientifold and the energy density around the center of the geometry gravitationally attracts the brane probes. Moreover, the same energy density prevents the orientifold sphere from collapsing, and is actually the cause of the transition from the contracting to the expanding phases.

## 4 Thermal Radiation from the Past Cosmological Vacuum

We wish to analyze the propagation of matter in the cosmological backgrounds studied in the previous sections. For simplicity, we shall consider the case $`d=1`$ which arises  as an orbifold of Minkowski space under a combined boost and translation.

Let us consider a scalar field $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ of mass $`m`$ in three–dimensional Minkowski space $`𝕄^3`$ with coordinates $`X^\pm =T\pm X`$ and $`Y`$, which satisfies the usual Klein–Gordon equation

$$\left(^2+m^2\right)\mathrm{\Xi }=\left(4_+_{}_Y^{2}+m^2\right)\mathrm{\Xi }=0.$$

We want to consider solutions of this equation which are invariant under the identification $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ defined by $`X^\pm e^{\pm 2\pi \mathrm{\Delta }}X^\pm `$ and $`YY+2\pi R`$. We conveniently define the energy scale $`E`$ to be $`E=\mathrm{\Delta }/R`$. These identifications are trivially satisfied with the separation of variables

$$\mathrm{\Xi }(X^+,X^{},Y)=\chi (X^+,X^{})e^{ipEY},$$

where $`\chi `$ satisfies

$$\chi (e^\sigma X^+,e^\sigma X^{})=e^{iJ\sigma }\chi (X^+,X^{}),$$
(13)
for any $`\sigma `$ and where

$$J=p+\frac{n}{\mathrm{\Delta }}.$$

The integer $`n`$ is the Kałuża–Klein charge, and from now on we shall consider the uncharged $`n=0`$ case. In this case the Klein–Gordon equation becomes

$$\left(4_+_{}+(\omega E)^2\right)\chi =0,$$
(14)
where

$$\omega ^2=\left(\frac{m}{E}\right)^2+p^2.$$

It is clear that $`\chi `$ satisfies the Klein–Gordon equation in two–dimensional flat space for a particle of effective mass $`\omega E`$ and lorentzian spin $`J`$. Such equation is naturally solved by introducing lorentzian polar coordinates in the Milne and Rindler edges of the two–dimensional flat space–time, which correspond respectively to regions $`I`$ and $`II`$ of the cosmological solution. The polar coordinates read

$$\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{R}egionI:\hfill & EX^\pm =te^{\pm z}\hfill \\ \mathrm{R}egionII:\hfill & EX^\pm =\pm xe^{\pm s}\hfill \end{array}$$
(15)
and the boost (13) acts as spatial translation along $`z`$ and time translation along $`s`$ in the two regions, respectively. Therefore the linearly independent solutions to (14) are (see  and references therein)

$$\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{R}egionI:\hfill & e^{ipz}_p(\omega t),e^{ipz}_p(\omega t)\hfill \\ \mathrm{R}egionII:\hfill & e^{ips}_p(i\omega |x|),e^{ips}_p(i\omega |x|)\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`_p`$ is a properly normalized Hankel function

$$_p(v)=\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{2}}e^{\frac{\pi }{2}|p|}H_{i|p|}^{(1)}(v),$$

with the property that

$$\overline{_p(v)}=\pm _p(\overline{v}),\pm \mathrm{I}m(v)<0,$$

and with asymptotic behavior

$$_p(v)\frac{1}{\sqrt{v}}e^{ivi\frac{\pi }{4}},|v|1.$$

To solve for the scalar field $`\chi `$ it remains to fix the boundary condition at the singularity at $`E^2X^+X^{}=x^2=1`$. At the end of this section we will embed this three–dimensional model $`𝕄^3/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in M–theory, and the compactification on $`𝕄^3/\mathrm{\Gamma }\times 𝔼^8`$ will yield the $`d=1`$ cosmology of the previous sections. With this in mind we can fix the behavior of the field $`\chi `$ at the singularity. From the orientifold construction there are two possible boundary conditions. Either the field $`\chi `$ vanishes at the singularity, or its normal derivative $`_x\chi `$ does. This depends on which Type II particle the field $`\chi `$ describes. For simplicity of exposition we will explicitly consider only the Dirichlet boundary condition. The other possibility is similar.

It is convenient to expand the quantum field $`\chi `$ starting from region $`II`$ and to write

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \chi & =& e^{ips+i\frac{\pi }{4}}\left[iA_p(i\omega |x|)+B_p(i\omega |x|)\right]a(p)\hfill \\ & & +e^{ipsi\frac{\pi }{4}}\left[iA_p(i\omega |x|)+B_p(i\omega |x|)\right]a^{}(p),\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`a(p)`$ and $`a^{}(p)`$ are annihilation and creation operators. The constants $`A`$ and $`B`$ are chosen real and positive and are normalized so that

$$A^2B^2=1.$$

Moreover, the Dirichlet boundary condition gives

$$\frac{B}{A}=\left|\frac{_p(i\omega )}{_p(i\omega )}\right|.$$

We need to continue the quantum field above to the contracting and expanding regions $`I`$. This involves an analytic continuation of $`i|x|`$ to $`\pm t`$. In particular, we will choose the continuation $`i|x|t+iϵ`$ for the function multiplying the annihilation operator $`a(p)`$ and the opposite continuation $`i|x|tiϵ`$ for the function associated with $`a^{}(p)`$ . Note that we must introduce an infinitesimal parameter $`ϵ>0`$ to correctly define the function near the branch cut of $`_p(v)`$ on the negative real axis. With such prescription the field in region $`I`$ has the form

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \chi & =& e^{ipz+i\frac{\pi }{4}}\left[iA_p(\omega t+iϵ)+B_p(\omega tiϵ)\right]a(p)\hfill \\ & & +e^{ipzi\frac{\pi }{4}}\left[iA_p(\omega t+iϵ)+B_p(\omega tiϵ)\right]a^{}(p).\hfill \end{array}$$

The above choice of creation and annihilation operators defines the quantum field starting from the singularity, and defines what we call the intermediate vacuum, i.e. the natural vacuum for a static observer in region $`II`$.

We will now show that the constants $`A`$ and $`B`$ are the Bogolubov coefficients which relate the intermediate vacuum to the natural vacua of the contracting and expanding phases in region $`I`$. Firstly consider the contracting region in the far past $`t1`$, where the field $`\chi `$ becomes

$$\chi \frac{1}{\sqrt{|\omega t|}}\left[e^{i(\omega t+pz)}a_{\mathrm{i}n}(p)+e^{i(\omega t+pz)}a_{\mathrm{i}n}^{}(p)\right],$$
(16)
with

$$\begin{array}{c}a_{\mathrm{i}n}(p)=Aa(p)+Ba^{}(p),\\ a_{\mathrm{i}n}^{}(p)=Ba(p)+Aa^{}(p).\end{array}$$

Similarly, in the expanding region for $`t1`$ the field is given by

$$\chi \frac{1}{\sqrt{\omega t}}\left[ie^{i(\omega t+pz)}a_{\mathrm{o}ut}(p)ie^{i(\omega t+pz)}a_{\mathrm{o}ut}^{}(p)\right],$$
(17)
where the creation and annihilation operators read

$$\begin{array}{c}a_{\mathrm{o}ut}(p)=Aa(p)Ba^{}(p),\\ a_{\mathrm{o}ut}^{}(p)=Ba(p)+Aa^{}(p).\end{array}$$

Therefore we conclude that

$$\begin{array}{c}a_{\mathrm{o}ut}(p)=\alpha a_{\mathrm{i}n}(p)\beta a_{\mathrm{i}n}^{}(p),\\ a_{\mathrm{o}ut}^{}(p)=\beta a_{\mathrm{i}n}(p)+\alpha a_{\mathrm{i}n}^{}(p),\end{array}$$

where

$$\alpha =A^2+B^2,\beta =2AB.$$

The natural choice for the cosmological vacuum is the past vacuum $`|0`$ defined by $`a_{\mathrm{i}n}(p)|0=0`$. Hence, the observer in the expanding universe will detect an average number $`N(p)`$ of particles of momentum $`p`$ given by

$$N(p)=|\beta |^2.$$

Notice that these particles arise from the reflection on the orientifold singularity. Indeed the non–trivial coefficient $`\beta `$ in the Bogolubov transformation relates states with equal and opposite momentum. Moreover, we can define an effective dimensionless temperature

$$\frac{1}{𝒯(\omega )}=\frac{1}{\omega }\mathrm{ln}\left|\frac{\alpha }{\beta }\right|^2=\frac{2}{\omega }\mathrm{ln}\frac{1}{2}\left(\left|\frac{_p(i\omega )}{_p(i\omega )}\right|+\left|\frac{_p(i\omega )}{_p(i\omega )}\right|\right).$$

For $`\omega 1,m/E`$ the effective temperature approaches a constant

$$𝒯\frac{1}{2\pi }.$$

In this limit $`𝒯`$ has the standard form $`\kappa /2\pi `$, where $`\kappa =1`$ is either the surface gravity of the horizon with respect to the killing vector field $`_s`$ or the acceleration of the orientifold mirror in the dimensionless coordinates $`EX^\pm `$.

As we already mentioned, to embed this construction in the $`d=1`$ string theory cosmological model of the previous sections we need only to add eight spectator flat directions and consider the M–theory compactification on $`(𝕄^3/\mathrm{\Gamma })\times 𝔼^8`$. We concentrate on the massless M–theory fields and therefore we set $`m=0`$. Then the Einstein metric and the other fields are

$$\begin{array}{c}E^2ds^2=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\frac{1}{8}}\left[dt^2+ds^2(𝔼^8)\right]+\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\frac{7}{8}}t^2dz^2,\\ e^\varphi =g_s\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\frac{3}{4}}=g_s\left(1+t^2\right)^{\frac{3}{4}},F=\frac{2}{g_sE}d\mathrm{\Lambda }^1dz.\end{array}$$

The eleven–dimensional Klein–Gordon equation for the massless scalar field $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ reduces to

$$^2\chi =0,$$

which is equation (14) in the lorentzian polar coordinates (15) for $`m=0`$.

The comoving cosmological observer will measure a red–shifted local energy given by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{\omega }{\sqrt{g_{tt}}}=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\frac{1}{16}}E\omega ,$$

and a physical temperature

$$T=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\frac{1}{16}}E𝒯(\omega ).$$

For fixed $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ at large cosmological times, the associated dimensionless frequency $`\omega `$ is blue shifted and we obtain an exact thermal spectrum with temperature

$$T=\frac{E}{2\pi a(\tau )},$$

where $`a(\tau )`$ is the scale factor and $`\tau `$ the proper cosmological time.

We can extend this result to the $`(d+1)`$–dimensional cosmological solutions of the previous sections. To do this one just needs to compute the surface gravity of the cosmological horizon with respect to the appropriate Killing vector field. The natural Killing vector fields to use are the generators of the $`SO(1,d)`$ isometries. One has to be careful with the normalization of the vector field which is space–like in region $`I`$. With this in mind, one arrives at the general result

$$T=\frac{}{2\pi a(\tau )}.$$
(18)
This is expected for radiation in a $`(d+1)`$–dimensional cosmology, since from Boltzmann law $`\rho T^{d+1}`$ we obtain $`\rho 1/a^{d+1}(\tau )`$, which follows from the radiation equation of state $`\rho =dp`$.

## 5 Conclusion

In this work we show that the presence of a localized negative cosmological constant on a time–like lower dimensional hypersurface avoids the conventional space–like singularity of the big–crunch/big–bang scenarios. This localized energy density arises naturally in string theory as branes with negative tension like orientifolds. The resulting non–trivial cosmological background has a horizon, which is created naturally in orientifold models with broken supersymmetry. Space–time is divided in three regions. Firstly, there is a collapsing region with a future cosmological horizon. As we pass this horizon, we enter a ‘static’ region with the localized orientifolds. This region has a future horizon. Crossing this horizon we enter the expanding phase. The key idea is that the existence of the horizon flips the would be space–like singularity to a time–like singularity leading to a brane resolution of the singularity.

To study the generic properties of the proposed cosmological scenario we consider a specific model in string theory. The interpretation of the singularity as an orientifold was justified by analyzing the geometry near the singularity and by probing it with D–branes. The analysis of this effective potential showed that there is an energy density at the core of the geometry, which prevents the orientifolds to collapse due to the gravitational repulsion. Also, the resolution of the singularity provides well defined boundary conditions, which are necessary to determine past/future transition amplitudes. In particular, we considered the vacuum to vacuum amplitude. Assuming the trivial vacuum in the past, we derived a thermal spectrum for radiation in the far future with temperature given by equation (18).

## Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Carlo Angelantonj, Carlos Herdeiro, Elias Kiritsis and Rodolfo Russo for fruitful discussions. L.C. would like to thank the Ecole Normale Supérieure and M.S.C. the Instituto Superior Técnico in Lisbon for hospitality. This work was partially supported by European Union under the RTN contracts HPRN–CT–2000–00122 and –00131. The work of M.S.C. is supported by a Marie Curie Fellowship under the European Commission’s Improving Human Potential programme (HPMFCT–2000–00508).


format: text

text:
# Essential Role of the Cooperative Lattice Distortion in the Charge, Orbital and Spin Ordering in doped Manganites

\[

## Abstract

The role of lattice distortion in the charge, orbital and spin ordering in half doped manganites has been investigated. For fixed magnetic ordering, we show that the cooperative lattice distortion stabilize the experimentally observed ordering even when the strong on-site electronic correlation is taken into account. Furthermore, without invoking the magnetic interactions, the cooperative lattice distortion alone may lead to the correct charge and orbital ordering including the charge stacking effect, and the magnetic ordering can be the consequence of such a charge and orbital ordering. We propose that the cooperative nature of the lattice distortion is essential to understand the complicated charge, orbital and spin ordering observed in doped manganites.

\]

The unusual charge, orbital and spin ordering (COSO) in manganites have recently attracted much attention . In some of these materials such as Pr1/2Ca1/2MnO3 , La1/2Sr3/2MnO4  and La1/3Ca2/3MnO3 , below a certain temperatures $`T_{CO}`$, electronic carriers become localized onto specific sites, which display long-range order throughout the crystal structure (charge ordering). Meanwhile the filled Mn3+ $`e_g`$ orbitals also develop long-range order (orbital ordering). When the temperature is further decreased to a much lower temperature $`T_N`$, an antiferromagnetic (AF) magnetic ordering with a zigzag pattern sets in (Fig. 1(a)). In some others like La1/2Ca1/2MnO3  and Nd1/2Sr1/2MnO3 , the system first undergoes a ferromagnetic (FM) transition at the Curie temperature $`T_C`$, then enters into the CE-type charge, orbital and spin ordering (COSO) state at a lower temperature $`T_{CO}=T_N`$. Theoretically, it has been proposed that the charge and orbital ordering (COO) in half-doped manganites has a magnetic spin origin . However, such a theory can not be applied to those materials with $`T_{CO}>T_N`$, where the COO is established before the spin ordering. Even for those whose $`T_{CO}=T_N`$, it has been shown that in a pure electronic model, the on-site repulsion $`U`$ destabilizes the CE structure towards the rod-type (C-type) AF state (Fig. 1(b)) in realistic parameter regime of $`U`$ . Yunoki et al.  considered the effects of lattice distortions (LD), and found that both the noncooperative LD (NLD) and cooperative LD (CLD) can lead to the CE-type COSO. In their work $`U`$ is neglected and the calculation was performed on a $`4\times 4\times 2`$ lattice where the size effect is prominent. Since in the absence of $`U`$ the CE state can be obtained without LD , the role of LD seems not very clear there. It is desirable to clarify what the LD results for the CE state would be destabilized by $`U`$.

In this work, we investigate the role of LD and large $`U`$ in the COSO in half doped manganites. For fixed magnetic ordering, by studying the competition between the CE and C states, we found that only CLD can stabilize the CE state in the presence of large $`U`$. Furthermore, without invoking the magnetic interactions, the CLD alone can lead to the experimentally observed COO, including the charge stacking effect. The magnetic ordering is the consequence of such a COO.

The interaction concerning the lattice freedom includes two parts: $`H_{lat}=H_{ep}+H_{ela}`$. $`H_{ep}`$ is the coupling between lattice distortion and $`e_g`$ electrons, given by

$$H_{ep}=\frac{3\lambda }{\sqrt{6}}\underset{i\gamma \gamma ^{}}{}c_i^\gamma (\sqrt{2}\beta Q_{1i}\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}+Q_{2i}\sigma _x+Q_{3i}\sigma _z)_{\gamma \gamma ^{}}c_i^\gamma ^{},$$
(1)
where $`\sigma _x,\sigma _z`$ are Pauli matrices, $`c_i^\gamma `$ is electron operator of orbital $`\gamma `$ ($`z=d_{3z^2r^2},\overline{z}=d_{x^2y^2}`$), and $`Q_{1i}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(v_i^x+v_i^y+v_i^z),Q_{2i}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(v_i^yv_i^x),Q_{3i}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}(2v_i^zv_i^xv_i^y)`$ are the breathing ($`Q_{1i}`$) and Jahn-Teller ($`Q_{2i}`$, $`Q_{3i}`$) modes of the LD. Here $`v_i^\alpha =u_{i+\widehat{\alpha }}^\alpha u_{i\widehat{\alpha }}^\alpha `$, with $`u_{i\pm \widehat{\alpha }}^\alpha `$ being the $`\alpha `$-component of the displacements from the equilibrium position of the neighboring oxygen ion in the $`\pm \alpha `$ direction. The parameter $`\beta `$ is expected close to 1/2 . The index of spin has been omitted, which is always parallel to the local spin due to the strong Hund’s coupling. Throughout the paper, we use $`\alpha =x,y`$ or $`z`$ to denote either the direction or the orbital state, in the latter case it refers to the orbital $`d_{3\alpha ^2r^2}`$, whose orthogonal state is denoted as $`\overline{\alpha }`$. There are relationships $`c_i^{x,y}=c_i^z/2\sqrt{3}c_i^{\overline{z}}/2`$ and $`c_i^{\overline{x},\overline{y}}=\pm \sqrt{3}c_i^z/2+c_i^{\overline{z}}/2`$. $`H_{ela}`$ is the elastic energy and depends on the relative displacements of neighboring atoms with respect to the ideal perovskite lattice. In a unit cell of the perovskite A1-xA$`{}_{x}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$MnO3, there are three kinds of atoms: Mn, O and Z(=A or A). The main contribution to $`H_{ela}`$ may include the elastic energies of the neighboring Mn-O, O-Z and Mn-Z atoms. Up to now no studies concerning the elastic energy of Z atoms has been made, however, this energy should be important, as without it the Z atoms can have arbitrary displacement instead of sitting in the center of the cubic cell cornered by eight Mn ions, and experimental observations indicate that the Z atoms also participate in the LD . In harmonic approximation, the elastic energy of the CLD may be written as

$`H_{ela}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{K_1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,\kappa }{}}[(𝜹_i𝐮_{i,\kappa })𝐞_\kappa ]^2+{\displaystyle \frac{K_2}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,\xi }{}}[(𝚫_i𝐮_{i,\xi })𝐞_\xi ]^2`$ (2)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{K_3}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,\eta }{}}[(𝚫_i𝜹_{i,\eta })𝐞_\eta ]^2,`$ (3)
where $`𝜹,𝐮`$ and $`𝚫`$ are the dimensionless displacements of the Mn, O and Z ions with reference to the ideal perovskite lattice, $`𝐞_\kappa `$, $`𝐞_\xi `$ and $`𝐞_\eta `$ are unit vectors along the directions of neighboring Mn-O, Z-O and Z-Mn, respectively, with $`\kappa ,\xi `$ and $`\eta `$ the indices of neighbors. In principle, the spring constants between Z-O and Z-Mn depend on whether Z=A or A, here to simplify our study we replace them by the averaged $`K_2`$ and $`K_3`$. Since the distance between these neighboring atoms are $`L_{\text{Mn-O}}<L_{\text{O-Z}}<L_{\text{Z-Mn}}`$, one expects that the spring constants $`K_1>K_2>K_3`$.

In the classical treatment of the LD , the displacements of various sites are determined by minimizing the total energy of the system, $`H_{lat}/w_i^\alpha =0`$, where $`w_i^\alpha `$ ($`w=\delta ,\mathrm{\Delta }`$ or $`u`$) is the $`\alpha `$-component of the displacement. For harmonic $`H_{ela}`$, such a calculation can be easily performed in the momentum space to get the optimized values of the displacements. Then after substituting these displacements into Eqs.(1) and (3), $`H_{lat}`$ reduces to

$$H_{lat}^{eff}=ϵ_l\underset{𝐪,\alpha \alpha ^{}}{}f_𝐪^\alpha G_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}(𝐪)f_𝐪^\alpha ^{},$$
(4)
where $`ϵ_l=\lambda ^2/K_1`$, $`f_𝐪^\alpha `$ is the Fourier transform of $`f_i^\alpha =\beta n_i+m_i^\alpha `$, with $`n_i=n_i^\alpha +n_i^{\overline{\alpha }}`$ and $`m_i^\alpha =n_i^\alpha n_i^{\overline{\alpha }}`$, and $`n_i^{\alpha (\overline{\alpha })}=c_i^{\alpha (\overline{\alpha })}c_i^{\alpha (\overline{\alpha })}`$. The tensor $`G=P+DR^1W`$, where $`P,D,R`$ and $`W`$ are $`3\times 3`$ matrices, with $`P_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}=\delta _{\alpha \alpha ^{}}(3K_1+4K_3)S_\alpha ^2/(3K_1S_\alpha ^2+4K_3)`$, $`D_{xx}=h_xC,D_{xy}=S_{xy}h_xC_z,W_{xx}=3K_1h_xC,W_{xy}=3K_1S_xS_y^2C_{yz},R_{xx}=4K_3(1C^2H_xC_z^2S_{xy}^2H_yC_y^2S_{xz}^2H_z)+3K_2(2C_{xy}^2S_{xy}^2C_{xz}^2S_{xz}^2),R_{xy}=C_{xy}S_{xy}[4K_3(C_z^2H_x+C_z^2H_yS_z^2H_z)+6K_2]`$, where $`S_\alpha =\mathrm{sin}(q_\alpha /2)`$ and $`C_\alpha =\mathrm{cos}(q_\alpha /2)`$, $`S_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}=S_\alpha S_\alpha ^{}`$ and $`C_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}=C_\alpha C_\alpha ^{}`$, $`C=C_xC_yC_z`$, $`H_\alpha =4K_3/(3K_1S_\alpha ^2+4K_3)`$ and $`h_\alpha =H_\alpha S_\alpha C_\alpha `$. The other elements of $`D,R`$ and $`W`$ can be obtained by exchanging the indices, e.g., $`D_{yy}=h_yC`$ and $`D_{yx}=S_{xy}h_yC_z`$, etc. The displacements are connected to $`G`$ through $`u_{𝐪,\alpha }^\alpha =i\lambda _\alpha ^{}G_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}(𝐪)f_𝐪^\alpha ^{}/S_\alpha `$ and $`\delta _𝐪^\alpha =u_{𝐪,\alpha }^\alpha i\lambda \mathrm{tan}(q_\alpha /2)f_𝐪^\alpha /K_1`$, with $`𝐮_{𝐪,\alpha }`$ being the Fourier transform of $`𝐮_{i+\widehat{\alpha }}`$, and $`𝚫_𝐪`$ is a function of $`𝐮_{𝐪,\alpha }`$ and $`𝜹_𝐪`$. It should be pointed out that the form of Eq.(4) is actually general for $`H_{lat}`$ with any harmonic $`H_{ela}`$, and different choice of $`H_{ela}`$ leads to different $`G`$. For example, the $`H_{ela}`$ in Ref. REFERENCES includes $`K_1`$ and $`K_1^{}`$ (the spring constant between neighboring Mn sites) terms, where the $`G`$ tensor is $`G_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}^{(1)}(𝐪)=\delta _{\alpha \alpha ^{}}(K_1+2K_1^{}S_\alpha ^2)/(K_1+2K_1^{})`$. While in Refs. REFERENCES and REFERENCES, NLD and CLD yield $`G_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}^{(2)}=\delta _{\alpha \alpha ^{}}`$ and $`G_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}^{(3)}(𝐪)=S_\alpha ^2\delta _{\alpha \alpha ^{}}`$, respectively. Here the difference between CLD and NLD is whether the $`G`$ tensor depends on $`𝐪`$ or not.

Eq.(4) indicates that LD results in an effective electronic interaction. In real space, it is

$`H_{lat}^{eff}=`$ $``$ $`ϵ_l\{{\displaystyle \underset{i,\alpha }{}}[g_0f_i^\alpha f_i^\alpha g_1f_i^\alpha f_{i+\widehat{\alpha }}^\alpha g_2f_i^\alpha f_{i+2\widehat{\alpha }}^\alpha `$ (5)
$`+`$ $`g_1^{}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ^{}(\alpha )}{}}f_i^\alpha ^{}f_{i+\widehat{\alpha }}^\alpha ^{}]+{\displaystyle \underset{ij,\alpha \alpha ^{}}{}^{}}G_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}^{ij}f_i^\alpha f_j^\alpha ^{}\},`$ (6)
where the sum $`^{}`$ includes all the other terms. $`g_1^{}`$ is found to be smaller than the coupling coefficients of the first several $`f_i^\alpha f_{i+n\widehat{\alpha }}^\alpha `$ terms, but larger than any other coefficients $`G_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}^{ij}`$. Fig. 2 shows the calculated values of $`g_0,g_1,g_2`$ and $`g_1^{}`$. From Eq.(6), the main effects of the CLD corresponds to an effective short-range orbital-dependent coupling between occupied Mn sites. If $`G`$ is replaced by $`G^{(i)}`$ (i=1,2,3), then in the CLD cases of $`G^{(1)}`$ and $`G^{(3)}`$, there are only the $`g_0`$ and $`g_1`$ terms, while in the NLD case of $`G^{(2)}`$, there is only the $`g_0`$ term.

Now let us investigate the effect of LD to the COSO at half doping. First we see the case with fixed CE-type spin ordering. In the one-dimensional zigzag FM chain (see Fig. 1(a)), the double-exchange (DE) Hamiltonian reduces to

$`H_{DE}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=\text{even}}{}}[d_{Bi}^{}(t_1c_{C,i+1}+t_2c_{C,i1})+\text{H.c.}]`$ (7)
$`+U(n_{Bi}n_{Bi}^{}+n_{C,i+1}^zn_{C,i+1}^{\overline{z}}),`$ (8)
where $`d_{Bi}=c_i^x`$ and $`c_i^y`$ for $`i=4j`$ and $`4j+2`$ (j is an integer), $`c_{Ci}=(c_i^z,\pm c_i^{\overline{z}})^T`$ for i=$`4j+1`$ and $`4j+3`$, and $`i=`$even and odd corresponds to the bridge (Mn3+) and corner (Mn4+) sites, respectively, $`t_{1,2}=(t/2,\pm \sqrt{3}t/2)`$, $`n_{Bi}=d_{Bi}^{}d_{Bi}`$ and $`n_{Bi}^{}=d_{Bi}^{}d_{Bi}^{}`$, with $`d_{Bi}^{}`$ being the orthogonal state of orbital $`d_{Bi}`$, and $`n_{Ci}^\gamma =c_{Ci}^\gamma c_{Ci}^\gamma `$. In realistic manganites, the parameter regime of the on-site repulsion $`U=1020t`$, so that the system is strong correlated. In this regime double occupancy of electrons at a site is almost forbidden, and it is appropriate to use the Gutzwiller projection (GP) method, valid for $`U\mathrm{}`$ , to take into account such a strong correlation effect. In GP we introduce constrained electrons at each site. Each electron operator in Eq.(8) is replaced by the corresponding projected operator to eliminate the double occupancy, $`d_{Bi}(1n_{Bi}^{})d_{Bi}`$ and $`c_{Ci}^\gamma (1n_i^{\overline{\gamma }})c_{Ci}^\gamma `$ ($`\overline{\gamma }=\overline{z}(z)`$ when $`\gamma =z(\overline{z})`$). Then we use a mean-field approximation by decoupling the high order terms such as $`c_{Bi}^xc_{C,i+1}^zn_{i+1}^{\overline{z}}c_{Bi}^xc_{C,i+1}^zn_{i+1}^{\overline{z}}+c_{Bi}^xc_{C,i+1}^zn_{i+1}^{\overline{z}}`$. After a Fourier transform, we have

$`H_{DE}^{MF}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k\gamma }{}}(d_{Bk}^{}\stackrel{~}{t}_k^\gamma c_{Ck}^\gamma +c_{Ck}^\gamma \stackrel{~}{t}_k^\gamma d_{Bk}+ϵ_\gamma c_{Ck}^\gamma c_{Ck}^\gamma )`$ (9)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}ϵ^{}d_{Bk}^{}d_{Bk}^{}+E_{DE}^0,`$ (10)
where $`\stackrel{~}{t}_k^\gamma =1n_B^{}1n_C^{\overline{\gamma }}t_k^\gamma `$ with $`t_k^z=t\mathrm{cos}k`$ and $`t_k^{\overline{z}}=t\sqrt{3}i\mathrm{sin}k`$, $`ϵ_\gamma =21n_B^{}\text{Re}_kd_{Bk}^{}t_k^{\overline{\gamma }}c_{Ck}^{\overline{\gamma }}`$, $`ϵ^{}=2\text{Re}_{k\gamma }1n_C^{\overline{\gamma }}d_{Bk}^{}t_k^\gamma c_{Ck}^\gamma `$, and $`E_{DE}^0`$ is the MF energy constant.

For $`H_{lat}`$ of Eq.(4), in the case of CE type spin ordering the sum over $`𝐪`$ includes $`𝐪=(0,0,0),\pm (\pi /2,\pi /2,0)`$ and $`(\pi ,\pi ,0)`$, and can be denoted as $`q=0,\pm \pi /2`$ and $`\pi `$ in the 1D FM chain. By decoupling the quartic term $`f_q^\alpha f_q^\alpha ^{}f_q^\alpha f_q^\alpha ^{}+f_q^\alpha f_q^\alpha ^{}`$, Eq.(4) reduces to

$$H_{lat}^{MF}=\underset{k,q}{}(c_{kq}^{}D_qc_k+\text{H.c.})+E_{lat}^0,$$
(11)
where $`c_k`$ is the Fourier transform of $`c_i=(c_i^z,c_i^{\overline{z}})^T`$ and $`D_q=ϵ_l_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}G_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}(q)f_q^\alpha ^{}F^\alpha `$, with $`F^\alpha =\beta +\mathrm{cos}\varphi _\alpha \sigma _z+\mathrm{sin}\varphi _\alpha \sigma _x`$ and $`f_q^\alpha =_kc_{k+q}^{}F^\alpha c_k`$.

The full Hamiltonian $`H=H_{DE}^{MF}+H_{lat}^{MF}`$ can be solved by iteration. In the next we will make a comparison of the magnetic CE and C states. These two states have the same magnetic energy $`J_{AF}`$ per site, where $`J_{AF}`$ is the AF magnetic superexchange between neighboring local spins, so that the relative stability of them is independent of the parameter $`J_{AF}`$. While other magnetic states, say, the FM and layered (A)-type AF states, have different magnetic energies so that their stabilities depend on $`J_{AF}`$, and become less stable with respect to the CE and C state when $`J_{AF}`$ increases. In the C state there is only one effective orbital in each site so that $`U`$ has no effect and $`H_{DE}=t_kc_k^xc_k^x`$ in the x-orientated FM chain. Such a property make the competition between the C and CE states alone very interesting. In the absence of the electron-lattice interaction, without $`U`$ the energy per site is $`E^{CE}=0.693t`$ and $`E^C=0.637t`$, when $`U`$ increases $`E^C`$ keeps unchanged while $`E^{CE}`$ increases and becomes higher than $`E^C`$ at about $`U=5t`$ , indicating that the strong electronic correlation would destabilize the CE phase towards the C state. When the electron-lattice interaction is taken into account, Fig. 3 shows the energy per site and the charge disproportionation $`d_c=n_{2j}n_{2j+1}`$ as a function of $`ϵ_l/t`$ in the CE and C states. Fig. 3 (a-d) corresponds to the tensor $`G^{(1)},G^{(2)}`$, $`G^{(3)}`$ and the present $`G`$, respectively. At $`ϵ_l=0`$ the energy $`E^{CE}>E^C`$, the CE state is unstable. When the electron-lattice interaction increases, it is found that in the NLD case of $`G^{(2)}`$, the CE phase always has higher energy than C, while in all the CLD cases of $`G^{(1)}`$, $`G^{(3)}`$ and $`G`$, there is a crossover from C to CE state with the increasing $`ϵ_l`$. So here NLD is not enough to stabilize the observed CE state, to obtain the CE state the cooperative nature of the LD must be taken into account. The different results in the NLD and CLD cases can be understood from Eq.(6). In the CLD cases, when a pair of neighboring sites are both occupied, the additional $`g_1`$ coupling favors different orbitals on the two sites. Since the orbitals on neighboring sites are the same in the C state but are different in the CE state, the latter is more favored. At large charge dispropornation, one of the neighboring sites is almost empty and the $`g_1`$ coupling makes no difference between C and CE states, so in Fig. 3 (a) and (c) the energy difference $`\delta E`$ of the two states no longer increases with further increasing $`ϵ_l`$. On the other hand, $`\delta E`$ keeps increasing in (d), which is related to the $`g_2`$ coupling in Eq.(6), and its effect will be discussed later. In the calculation with $`G`$, it is also found that with different values of $`K_2`$ and $`K_3>0`$ we get qualitatively the same results. The calculated relative displacements of the Z, O and Mn sites $`|𝚫_𝐪|/|𝜹_𝐪|`$ and $`|𝜹_𝐪|/`$$`|u_{𝐪,x}^x|`$ is independent of $`ϵ_l`$, the former actually depends only on $`K_3/K_2`$, and the latter decreases with increasing $`K_2/K_1`$ or decreasing $`K_3/K_1`$. In Ref. REFERENCES the ratios $`|𝚫_𝐪|/|𝜹_𝐪`$$`|0.56`$ and $`|𝜹_𝐪|`$$`/|u_{𝐪,x}^x|`$$`0.93`$ were measured at $`𝐪=(\pi /2,\pi /2,0)`$. In the present calculation with $`K_2=2K_3=0.4K_1`$ the two ratios are 0.57 and 0.90, quite close to that in Ref. REFERENCES.

At strong electron-phonon interaction ($`ϵ_lt`$), the charge disproportionation tends to 1, the electrons become localized and can be treated as classical objects. A classical treatment of electrons can simplify the study considerably and show clearly the effect of CLD, and in fact should be appropriate in some manganites in which the charge difference between neighboring Mn sites is close to 1 . In the classical case, $`n_𝐪=(\delta _{𝐪,0}+\delta _{𝐪,𝐐_{}})\sqrt{N}/2`$ in both the C and CE states, where $`𝐐_{}=(\pi ,\pi ,0)`$ and $`N`$ is the total number of Mn sites, and $`m_𝐪^x=n_𝐪`$, $`m_𝐪^y=m_𝐪^z=n_𝐪/2`$ in the C state, $`m_𝐪^{x,y}=n_𝐪/4\pm 3(\delta _{𝐪,𝐐_{}/2}+\delta _{𝐪,𝐐_{}/2})\sqrt{N}/8,m_𝐪^z=n_𝐪/2`$ in the CE state. For $`G^{(i)}(i=1,2,3)`$, the energies obtained from $`f_𝐪^\alpha =\beta n_𝐪+m_𝐪^\alpha `$ and Eq.(4) are the same in C and CE states. If we further take the Wigner crystal (WC) state into account, which has the same COSO as that of CE in the xy plane, but along the z direction the charge density is altering instead of stacking, and $`f_𝐪^{\alpha ,\text{WC}}=[f_𝐪^{\alpha ,\text{CE}}(1+e^{iq_x})+f_{𝐪𝐐_z}^{\alpha ,\text{CE}}(1e^{iq_x})]/2`$ with $`𝐐_z=(0,0,\pi )`$, then the energy difference between CE (or C) and WC states are $`ϵ_l(\beta 1/2)^2K_1^{}/(2K_1+4K_1^{})J_{AF}`$, $`J_{AF}`$ and $`ϵ_l(\beta 1/2)^2/4J_{AF}`$ for $`G^{(1)}`$, $`G^{(2)}`$ and $`G^{(3)}`$. So that in the cases of $`G^{(i)}`$ ($`i=1,2,3`$), without $`J_{AF}`$ WC should be more stable than CE state, and for $`\beta =1/2`$ a finite $`J_{AF}`$ would yield stable degenerate CE- and C- stacking states. On the other hand, Fig. 4(a) shows the energy of the C, CE, WC and stripe phase (SP) states with $`G`$ at $`\beta =1/2`$ and $`J_{AF}=0`$, in which CE state has the lowest energy. A Monte Carlo (MC) simulation on $`8\times 8\times 8`$ lattice with periodic boundary conditions, in which we consider three possible electronic states on a Mn site including occupied by elongated orbitals $`d_{3x^2r^2}`$, $`d_{3y^2r^2}`$ and unoccupied, is performed in real space to find the charge and orbital configuration with the lowest energy. The compressed orbitals such as $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ are not taken into account due to the anharmonic effects . For a given configuration, we calculate its $`f_𝐪^\alpha `$ in momentum space and get the energy through Eq.(4). Fig. 4(b) is the calculated phase diagram. Note that phase diagram is obtained not by comparing the several states in Fig. 4(a), instead, each state here has the lowest energy among all the possible charge and orbital configurations within the range of consideration. For $`\beta `$ close to $`1/2`$, the obtained COO is the same as that under CE-type spin environment shown in Fig. 1(a). The striking feature of charge stacking (CS) along the z direction is reproduced. Such a stacking is usually attributed to $`J_{AF}`$ , yet here our calculated results provides another possible explanation, that the CLD may also lead to the CS. It is worth mentioning that the above simulation can be easily generalized to $`2/3`$ doping, where the obtained COO for $`\beta `$ close to $`1/2`$ is a CS state same as that observed in Ref. REFERENCES, and such a CS can not be explained by $`J_{AF}`$. The COO at half-doping may be interpreted by the effective interaction shown in Eq.(6). The COO in the xy plane can be explained by the $`g_1`$ and $`g_2`$ terms. The $`g_1`$ term favors the charge ordering peaked at $`(\pi ,\pi )`$. In such an ordering, if site $`i`$ is occupied, then $`i+\widehat{\alpha }`$ ($`\alpha =x`$ or $`y`$) is empty and $`i+2\widehat{\alpha }`$ is occupied. The $`g_2`$ coupling between the occupied sites $`i`$ and $`i+2\widehat{\alpha }`$ then prefers the orbitals in the two sites to be different, thus the desired in-plane COO is formed. The stacking in the z-direction is related to the $`g_1^{}`$ coupling which favors neighboring sites occupied by the same orbitals. When $`\beta `$ is close to $`1/2`$, along the z direction the $`g_1`$ and $`g_2`$ coupling is effectively very weak as at an occupied site $`f_i^z=\beta 1/2`$ is small, then the $`g_1^{}`$ term is dominant. Note that here the COO is obtained without invoking magnetic interactions, so that the COO transition temperature $`T_{CO}`$ can be higher than the magnetic transition temperature $`T_N`$, in agreement with the experiments in some doped manganites . Since the effect discussed above exists beyond the classical limit, in more general cases the CLD should also favor such a COO. Once this COO is built, the CE-type zigzag magnetic ordering below $`T_N`$ can be understood from the competition between the anisotropic electronic hopping and $`J_{AF}`$. For an occupied site $`i`$ of orbital $`d_{3x^2r^2}`$ ($`d_{3y^2r^2}`$), the electronic hopping between sites $`i`$ and $`i+\widehat{x}`$ ($`i+\widehat{y}`$) leads the spins of these two sites to be parallel. On the other hand, the spins of $`i`$ and its neighbors in the other two directions are antiparallel as the electronic hopping integrals in these two directions are much smaller and not enough to overcome $`J_{AF}`$. In this way naturally the CE-type zigzag magnetic ordering shown in Fig. 1 (a) is obtained. In this picture of the COSO, appropriate at least for those whose $`T_{CO}>T_N`$, COO has its origin of the cooperative nature of the lattice distortion, and the spin ordering is the consequence of such a COO.

This work is supported by a grant from Texas ARP grant (ARP-003652-0241-1999), the Robert A. Welch Foundation and the Texas Center for Superconductivity at the University of Houston.


text:
# Hydrogen column density evaluations toward Capella: consequences on the interstellar deuterium abundance

## 1 Introduction

Deuterium is understood to be only produced in significant amount during primordial Big Bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) and thoroughly destroyed in stellar interiors. Deuterium is thus a key element in cosmology and in galactic chemical evolution (see e.g. Audouze & Tinsley 1976). Indeed, its primordial abundance is the best tracer of the baryonic density parameter of the Universe $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B`$, and the decrease of its abundance during the galactic evolution should trace the amount of star formation (among other astrophysical interests).

In the Galactic ISM, D/H measurements made toward hot stars have suggested variations : IMAPS observations toward $`\delta `$ Ori led to a low value (Jenkins et al. 1999), confirming the previous analysis by Laurent et al. (1979) from Copernicus observations, while toward $`\gamma ^2`$ Vel they led to a high value (Sonneborn et al. 2000). This seems to indicate that in the ISM, within few hundred parsecs, D/H may vary by more than a factor $`3`$.

In the nearby ISM, the case of G191–B2B was studied in detail (see the most recent analysis by Lemoine et al. 2002) and the evaluation toward Capella (Linsky et al. 1995) taken as a reference. Their comparison provided, for a while, a possible case for D/H variations within the local ISM.

Concerning G191–B2B, Lemoine et al. (2002) have shown that the total $`N_{\mathrm{tot}}`$(H i) column density evaluation was greatly perturbed by the possible addition of two broad and weak H i components. Such components, able to mimic the shape of the Lyman $`\alpha `$ damping wings, can induce an important decrease of the evaluated $`N_{\mathrm{tot}}`$(H i). To illustrate this point, the error bar estimation on $`N_{\mathrm{tot}}`$(H i) from all previously published studies considered as the extremes of a 2$`\sigma `$ limit was of the order of dex 0.07, while including the Lemoine et al. (2002) analysis enlarged the error bar to about dex 0.37. This huge change has, of course, a considerable impact on any D/H evaluation.

This raises two crucial questions. First, is that situation typical of G191–B2B alone and possibly due to an unexpected shape of the core of the stellar Lyman $`\alpha `$ profile improperly described by the theoretical models? Second, if weak H i features are present in the ISM, to what extent are evaluations toward other targets affected?

## 2 Summary of the G191–B2B case

From the combination of STIS echelle observations (spectrograph on board the Hubble Space Telescope, HST) and FUSE ones (the Far Ultraviolet Spectroscopic Explorer, Moos et al., 2000), Lemoine et al. (2002) have found through iterative fitting process (with the Owens.f fitting program developed by Martin Lemoine and the French FUSE team) that three interstellar absorption components are present along the line of sight and that two additional broad and weak H i components could be added, detected only over the Lyman $`\alpha `$ line (negligible over the Lyman $`\beta `$ line) but important enough to strongly perturb the total H i column density evaluation.

Within the local ISM, it has been shown that such additional Hi absorptions are often present ; they have been interpreted either as cloud interfaces with the hot gas within the local ISM (Bertin et al 1995) or as “hydrogen walls”, signature of the shock interaction between the solar wind (or stellar wind) and the surrounding ISM (Linsky, 1998). This latter heliospheric absorption has been modeled by Wood et al. (2000) and a prediction derived in the direction of G191–B2B (see Figure 9 of Lemoine et al. 2002). Most of the predicted absorption is expected in the saturated core of the observed interstellar line but some weak absorption ($`5\%`$ of the continuum) might extend over several tenths of angstroms on the red side of the line, due to the neutral hydrogen atoms seen behind the shock in the downwind direction where G191–B2B is located. It was found that the combination of two broad and weak Hi components can easily reproduce the model prediction. If real, besides the three interstellar absorptions, a fourth component representing the bulk of the predicted absorption and a fifth one for the broad and shallow extended red wing are needed. This is exactly what Lemoine et al. (2002) have found.

In the course of determining the minimum number of components (each defined by its Hi column density $`N`$, its velocity $`v`$, its temperature $`T`$ and turbulence broadening $`\xi `$) needed to fit the data, Lemoine et al. (2002) completed the $`F`$test which uses the Fisher-Snedecor law describing the probability distribution of $`\chi ^2`$ ratio. What is tested is the probability that the decrease of the $`\chi ^2`$ with additional components is not simply due to the increase of free parameters. The result gives a probability $`10^4`$ and $`510^3`$ that a fourth and a fifth Hi component are respectively not required by the data. These low probabilities of non occurence strongly suggest that Lemoine et al. (2002) have indeed detected the heliospheric absorption downwind in the direction of G191–B2B.

Note however that this heliospheric complex absorption profile is simulated by two components whose physical meaning in terms of hydrogen content and/or temperature is not clear. Furthermore, the photospheric Lyman $`\alpha `$ stellar core is difficult to evaluate (see discussion in e.g. Lemoine et al. 2002) and is slightly red-shifted relative to the ISM absorptions ; this result may very well be simply related to the use of a white dwarf as background target star. The detailed analysis of the Capella line of sight could directly test the heliospheric hypothesis.

## 3 The case of Capella

If the two additional components present along the G191–B2B line of sight are as a matter of fact due to an heliospheric phenomenon, it is an extremely local signature (within few hundreds of astronomical units to be compared to the few tens of parsecs lines of sight lengths) which should be also present along the Capella sight-line, both stars being separated by only $`7^{}`$ on the sky, and similar in shape to the structure predicted and observed in the direction of G191–B2B. If that description is correct, we are expecting an extra absorption reasonably represented by two additional components, a main one mostly lost within the ISM absorption core and a weak one extending over several tenths of angstroms on the red side of the line, again due to the neutral hydrogen atoms seen behind the shock in the downwind direction where both G191–B2B and Capella are located.

Recently, Young et al. (2002) analysed new obervations obtained at Lyman $`\beta `$, Lyman $`\gamma `$ and the whole Lyman series with FUSE. The precise Lyman $`\alpha `$ stellar profile compatible with all Lyman lines and with the data sets obtained at different phases of the Capella binary system (see also Linsky et al. 1995) was reevaluated (Wood, 2001) and is used here as a reference profile, SR.

We thus revisited the fits completed over the Lyman $`\alpha `$ line as observed toward Capella with the best available data set, i.e. the one obtained with the GHRS (the Goddard High Resolution Spectrograph on board HST). The study by Linsky et al. (1995), essentially confirmed by Vidal–Madjar et al. (1998), shows that only one interstellar component (the Local Interstellar Cloud, LIC, also seen toward G191–B2B) is needed on that line of sight. This very simple structure strengthens the Capella case as the simplest one where D/H can be very well evaluated. However, Vidal–Madjar et al. (1998) have already noted that an additional weak and broad Hi component was required to better reproduce the profile ; this was a first indication of the presence of an heliospheric absorption toward Capella. In fact, we were able to show that, as in the case of G191–B2B, the addition of one or two weak and broad Hi components (together with the very weak geocoronal component present at a known velocity but not shown on Figure 1 for clarity) improves the $`\chi ^2`$. More precisely we fitted the GHRS data assuming that the stellar continuum was SR. Adding successively to the fit one then two free Hi components (the added Hi components have only three free parameters, velocity $`v`$, column density $`N`$ and width T, since the thermal $`T`$ or turbulent broadening $`\xi `$ act in an undifferentiated manner when only one species is observed) we obtained the following $`\chi ^2`$/degree of freedom(d.o.f.) values : for only the LIC component and the geocorona, 844.89/716 ; for one additional component, 831.17/713 ; for two additional components, 822.68/710. The $`F`$test probabilities that these two additional components are not required by the data are respectively $`8.510^3`$ and $`6.310^2`$. The first one is clearly needed here (its correlated parameter ranges according to different possible solutions similar in terms of $`\chi ^2`$ are : $`12`$ $`v`$ (km s-1$`22`$ ; $`1.410^{14}`$ $`N`$ (cm-2$`4.410^{15}`$ ; $`10000`$ T (K) $`32000`$) but unlike in the case of G191–B2B, the second one corresponding to the weaker and broader one (parameter ranges are : $`24`$ $`v`$ (km s-1$`40`$ ; $`3.610^{12}`$ $`N`$ (cm-2$`8.510^{13}`$ ; $`120000`$ T (K) $`300000`$) is less strongly needed. These ranges are certainly compatible with the corresponding estimated values in the direction of G191–B2B (see Figure 10 of Lemoine et al. 2002).

To search for the possible impact of the choice of the continuum on the evaluation of $`N`$(Hi), we fixed this value and looked for the best fitted solutions while the stellar continuum we used SR was allowed for some variations by multiplying it by a low order polynomial (8th order) which coefficients were free to vary along with all components parameters. Results are shown in Figure 1. Slight changes of the continuum shape by no more than $`\pm 10\%`$ lead to nearly identical $`\chi ^2`$ values, with $`N`$(Hi) varying from $`2.0\times 10^{18}cm^2`$ to $`1.4\times 10^{18}cm^2`$ which corresponds to a change in D/H from $`1.37\times 10^5`$ to $`1.96\times 10^5`$. This is clearly a larger range ($`\pm 0.3\times 10^5`$) than the one previously claimed ($`\pm 0.2\times 10^5`$, Linsky et al. 1995).

The situation could be even worse since we do not know how far the Capella continuum could be away from SR. The question is thus to evaluate if the Capella Lyman $`\alpha `$ stellar continuum shape is estimated to better than $`\pm 10\%`$ or not ? It is true that having a binary system can help constraining the continuum shape as Linsky et al. (1995) did, but their whole approach requires that the Lyman $`\alpha `$ stellar profiles of both G1 III and G8 III stars are invariant with phase and time. In fact, from the study of 120 IUE echelle spectra, Ayres et al. (1993) have shown on one hand that the line fluxes were surprisingly stable, but on the other hand that whichever way they process the data, obvious variations were seen. These seem to be related to variations of the blue peak of the G1 III dominant stellar Lyman $`\alpha `$ line. They found that in the 1981–1986 interval, the line shape at phase 0.25 of the system was quite stable and similar to the one recorded with the GHRS in 1991 (at a $`\pm 10\%`$ level). Earlier spectra taken in 1980 or later ones observed after 1986 look quite different. This very careful study shows that with the IUE sensitivity level of $`\pm 5\%`$, variations are clearly detected. Since Linsky et al. (1995) used GHRS observations at two different phases of the system (0.26 and 0.80) taken respectively in April 1991 and in September 1993, i.e. two and a half year apart, it is difficult to ascertain that the Lyman $`\alpha `$ profile evaluated for each stellar component is well controlled. Because of the very careful analysis made by Linsky et al. (1995), it may be possible that the stellar Lyman $`\alpha `$ profiles are relatively well evaluated but certainly not at a level better than $`\pm 10\%`$ as previously mentioned.

Thus, an heliospheric absorption is also detected on the Capella sight–line ; furthermore, even in such a simple ISM configuration (a unique component), it appears impossible to tightly constrain the total Hi column density in that direction.

## 4 Discussion

We have shown that, for two lines of sight, $`N`$(Hi) cannot be evaluated with a high accuracy. Column densities on both sight–lines are very similar, of the order of few times $`10^{18}cm^2`$. For lower column densities, the situation should be worse since then the possible absorption signature of the weak components is becoming relatively more and more important and the Lyman $`\alpha `$ line is getting closer to the flat part of the curve of growth where column densities are indeed difficult to evaluate.

Note however that the HST/EUVE comparison completed by Linsky et al. (2000) shows that often $`N`$(Hi) values derived from the GHRS and EUVE data (not sensitive to weak Hi) are in good agreement, implying that heliospheric absorption (or other hot components) don’t necessarily ruin Lyman-alpha analyses in a dramatic way. But clearly counter examples leave that question open due to possible systematics related to the evaluation of total Hi below the Lyman limit in the EUVE domain.

On the contrary, one could guess that for larger column densities the situation should improve since the Lyman $`\alpha `$ damping wings are becoming broader and the signature of the weak features may disapear in the line core. Just above $`10^{19}cm^2`$, the reliability of the D/H values is greatly enhanced if the studied gas is demonstrably warm (6000 K ; for a thorough discussion see York, 2001) ; as one goes above $`10^{20}cm^2`$, credibility increases unless either cold gas components are hidden in the warm Di but still affect the Hi damping wings or weak Hi features at high velocity are present.

The unknown referee further stressed this point through an impressive report. He mentionned that at $`N`$(Hi)=$`2.\times 10^{19}cm^2`$, the half-intensity point of pure damping Lyman $`\alpha `$ and Lyman $`\beta `$ profiles, located respectively at velocity shifts of 274 km s-1 and 55 km s-1, should be the place where a putative high-velocity feature could have a strong perturbing influence on the damping profile. However only very few high velocity ISM components were detected above 120 km s-1. This could lead to the inverse impression that for larger column densities, the estimation through the Lyman $`\beta `$ line should be more questionable than the one made at Lyman $`\alpha `$. As a matter of fact, in both the $`\gamma `$ Cas and $`\zeta `$ Pup lines of sight, the Hi column density was discrepant when derived through the Lyman $`\alpha `$ or the Lyman $`\beta `$ line (see below). However in both cases the Lyman $`\beta `$ estimations of $`N`$(Hi) are smaller, in contradiction with the formerly suggested cause since the most perturbed evaluation by additional absorptions should lead instead to larger column densities.

High velocity ISM components essentially observed below 120 km s-1were only searched for through other lines and species than Hi at Lyman $`\alpha `$ the strongest transition of the most abundant element. For instance, Cowie et al. (1979) reported Lyman $`\delta `$ and Lyman $`ϵ`$ Hi ISM absorptions up to about 105 km/s for $`\iota `$ Ori. From their study, the referee evaluated that a shock at 274 km s-1 should produce either a very broad ($`175`$ km s-1) and undetectable (maximum depth of $`5.9\times 10^3`$) post-shock absorption signature or should originate in a region far downstream from the front where the gas has cooled and compressed enough to allow recombination of the H atoms, i.e. a shock from a supernova explosion entering the radiative phase. In this second case however, he estimated from Cowie and York (1978) and Spitzer (1978) that such signatures should occur only very near a known supernova event, i.e. within about 30 to 60 pc for standard ISM and SN values. Thus, that looks unlikely too.

On the other hand, high-velocity gas could be generated by the target stars. While Gry, Lamers and Vidal–Madjar (1984) seem to detect most of the activity at velocities below 100 km/s, they nevertheless identified a transient component at -150 km/s toward $`\gamma ^2`$ Vel through Lyman $`\delta `$ and another one at -220 km/s toward $`\iota `$ Ori, through Lyman $`ϵ`$. Note also that this survey was completed over a limited spectral domain scanned with the Copernicus instrument, and not at Lyman $`\alpha `$, i.e. with a relatively limited sensitivity.

One might argue that there are some risks that stellar ejecta could influence the Lyman $`\alpha `$ measurements ; but the observers have a good defense : multiple observations at very different epochs. This strategy was invoked by Jenkins et al. (1999) and Sonneborn et al. (2000) in their studies of D/H toward $`\delta `$ Ori, $`\zeta `$ Pup and $`\gamma ^2`$ Vel. Their findings are thus pretty convincing in this regard.

All the above stated arguments should mitigate our concern that small amounts of Hi at high velocities are a likely source of confusion for the flanks of the damping profiles for $`N`$(Hi) of the order of or greater than $`2.\times 10^{19}`$ cm-2.

One however should recall the two lines of sight for which the Hi column density was discrepant when derived through the Lyman $`\alpha `$ or the Lyman $`\beta `$ line :

* $`\gamma `$ Cas

in Bohlin, Savage and Drake (1978), Lyman $`\alpha `$ only (Copernicus) $`N`$(Hi) = $`1.45(\pm 0.29)\times 10^{20}cm^2`$

in Ferlet et al. (1980), core of Lyman $`\beta `$ only (Copernicus) $`N`$(Hi) = $`1.10(\pm 0.10)\times 10^{20}cm^2`$

in Diplas and Savage (1994), from Lyman $`\alpha `$ only (IUE) $`N`$(Hi) = $`1.48(\pm 0.31)\times 10^{20}cm^2`$
* $`\zeta `$ Pup

in Bohlin (1975) from Lyman $`\alpha `$ only (Copernicus) $`N`$(Hi) = $`0.97(\pm 0.05)\times 10^{20}cm^2`$

in Vidal–Madjar et al. (1977), from Lyman $`\beta `$ only (Copernicus) $`N`$(Hi) = $`0.80(_{0.2}^{+0.1})\times 10^{20}cm^2`$

in Diplas and Savage (1994), from Lyman $`\alpha `$ only (IUE) $`N`$(Hi) = $`0.89(\pm 0.17)\times 10^{20}cm^2`$

in Sonneborn et al. (2000), from Lyman $`\alpha `$ only (IUE) $`N`$(Hi) = $`0.92(\pm 0.01)\times 10^{20}cm^2`$

Since Lyman $`\beta `$ is less sensitive to weak Hi features, it is interesting to note that in both cases the Lyman $`\beta `$ evaluation is slightly below the Lyman $`\alpha `$ one, a possible indication of a similar effect for column densities of the order of $`10^{20}cm^2`$. Note however that these two cases are marginally convincing since the different evaluations are still compatible within the error bars.

Therefore, if this effect is indeed real for relatively large column densities, it means that some of the D/H values may be underestimated and thus the higher D/H ratios may be favoured. This further shows the importance of the $`\gamma ^2`$ Vel estimation (Sonneborn et al. 2000).

## 5 Conclusion

According to our conclusion that there is lower precision for $`N`$(Hi) measurements within the local ISM, i.e. at low column densities, which induces large error bars on the corresponding D/H estimations:

* the $`N`$(Hi) evaluation in the direction of Capella is relatively less accurate than previously claimed and is of the order of log $`N`$(Hi$`=18.22(\pm 0.08)`$ leading to D/H $`=1.67(\pm 0.3)\times 10^5`$ ;
* an average D/H ratio may exist in the local ISM but should be larger than previously evaluated since locally $`N`$(Hi) could be overestimated by as much as about 20% ; this does affect arguments about local variability ;
* D/O should be a better tracer of D variations as originally suggested by Timmes et al. (1997), and directly verified in the LISM (Moos et al. 2002 ; Hébrard et al. 2002a, 2002b) and further confirmed by the stability of O/H over longer path length (Meyer et al. 1998 ; André et al. 2002), provided all sources of errors related to the oxygen measurements are well understood.

Finally, we note also that a similar systematic effect has been pointed out by Pettini and Bowen (2001) for the evaluation of D/H in quasars absorption line systems. Again as in our study, the systems presenting the highest values of $`N`$(Hi) are derived from the damping wings of the Lyman $`\alpha `$ line, which also includes all Hi in close proximity of the hydrogen at the line center of deuterium (Burles, 2001), while those for which $`N`$(Hi) is evaluated from the discontinuity at the Lyman limit present smaller column densities and larger D/H evaluations.

Clearly, many more lines of sights should be analysed to resolve this issue.

Acknowledgments. We would like to thank Brian Wood who kindly provided to us the Capella Lyman $`\alpha `$ stellar profile he has evaluated for his own study of that line of sight as well as Jeff Linsky and Jeff Kruk for constructive comments. We are also pleased to warmly thank Don York for about twenty seven years of exciting collaboration and Martin Lemoine for the last decade of common enlightening work. We deeply thank our unknown referee whose report was nearly as long as this letter and briefly summarized here.


text:
# Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay of ¹³⁴𝑋𝑒

## Abstract

In view of recent great progress achieved in the experimental study of the neutrinoless double beta decay ($`0\nu \beta \beta `$-decay) of $`{}_{}{}^{134}Xe`$ we discuss theoretical aspects of this process. The light and heavy Majorana neutrino exchange as well as the trilinear R-parity breaking contributions to $`0\nu \beta \beta `$-decay are considered. We show that the sensitivity of the studied process to the signal of lepton number violation is only by factor 2-3 weaker in comparison with the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$-decay of $`{}_{}{}^{136}Xe`$. The current limits on effective neutrino mass (light and heavy) and trilinear R-parity violating parameter $`\stackrel{´}{\lambda }_{111}`$ deduced from lower limits on the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$-decay half-lifes of various nuclei are reviewed and perspectives of the experimental verification of recently announced evidence of the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$-decay of $`{}_{}{}^{76}Ge`$ are discussed.

PACS numbers:23.40.BW,23.40.HC

The neutrinoless double beta decay ($`0\nu \beta \beta `$-decay) does exist if the neutrino is a Majorana particle with non-zero mass . Many extensions of the Standard model (SM) breaks lepton number (LN), i.e., generate Majorana neutrino masses, and offer a plethora of $`0\nu \beta \beta `$-decay mechanisms mediated by a variety of virtual particles, in particular by exchange of light and heavy neutrinos, supersymmteric (SUSY) particles, leptoquarks etc (for a review see Refs. ). In connection with the observation of oscillations of solar and atmospheric neutrinos most attention is concentrated to the neutrino mass mechanism of the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$-decay due to possibility to predict the mass spectrum of the neutrinos . However, the observed absence of the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$-decay allows to put stringent constraints also on many other parameters of modern extensions of the SM like Grand unified models and their SUSY versions.

There are more than 50 even-even nuclei for which both $`\beta ^{}`$ and $`\beta ^+`$ decays are forbidden energetically, i.e., can be used for experimental investigation of the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$-decay . Between them one can find twin isotopes $`{}_{}{}^{128,130}Te`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{134,136}Xe`$, which merely differ by two neutrons and are of comparable abundance in the nature. The first pair of isotopes has been discussed often in the literature because of geochemical measurements and the Pontecorvo argument that the ratio of corresponding half-lifes is essentially independent of nuclear physics. A small difference of the corresponding $`0\nu \beta \beta `$-decay nuclear matrix elements of the order of 10-20% has been found in nuclear structure studies . If the situation would be similar also in the case of xenon isotopes, the importance of the experimental study of the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$-decay for $`{}_{}{}^{134}Xe`$ would be minor due to a significantly smaller Q-value in comparison with that for $`{}_{}{}^{136}Xe`$, as it implies weaker bounds on the LN violating parameters. A detail theoretical study of this $`0\nu \beta \beta `$-decay channel is missing. There is only one prediction for the light neutrino mass mechanism of this process .

Recently, a new limit on the half-life of the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$-decay of $`{}_{}{}^{134}Xe`$ to the ground state with $`T_{1/2}^{0\nu exp}5.8\times 10^{25}`$ has been obtained at Gran Sasso by means of the 6.5 kg liquid xenon setup of the DAMA experiment , which is more stringent in comparison with the previous one by about three orders of magnitude . The aim of this contribution is to analyze the light and heavy Majorana exchange and the trilinear R-parity breaking ($`R_p/`$) mechanisms for this rare process. A realistic calculation of nuclear matrix elements will be performed within the renormalized Quasiparticle Random Phase Approximation (RQRPA) . A comparison with the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$-decay of $`{}_{}{}^{136}Xe`$ will be presented. The sensitivity of different $`0\nu \beta \beta `$-decay experiments looking for signal of LN violation will be compared. In addition, a possible experimental verification of the evidence for the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$-decay of $`{}_{}{}^{76}Ge`$ will be discussed.

The half-life of the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$-decay associated with light and heavy Majorana neutrino mass mechanism is given as

$$[T_{1/2}^{0\nu }]^1=G_{01}|\frac{<m_\nu >}{m_e}M_{<m_\nu >}^{light}+\eta __NM_{\eta __N}^{heavy}|^2.$$
(1)
The effective light and inverse heavy Majorana masses are

$`<m_\nu >`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{\overset{light}{}}}(U_{ek}^L)^2\xi _km_k,`$ (2)
$`\eta __N`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{\overset{heavy}{}}}(U_{ek}^L)^2\widehat{\xi }_k{\displaystyle \frac{m_p}{M_k}}.`$ (3)
Here, $`m_p`$ ($`m_e`$) is the proton (electron) mass, $`U_{ek}^L`$ mixing matrix elements and $`\xi _k,\widehat{\xi _k}`$ phases associated with the charge conjugation of the Majorana neutrino field. $`G_{01}`$ denotes the phase space factor given in . The nuclear matrix elements $`M_{<m_{ee}>}`$ and $`M_{\eta __N}`$ can be written as a sum of Fermi, Gamow-Teller and tensor contributions

$$M_{}=\frac{M_F^{}}{g_A^2}+M_{GT}^{}+M_T^{}$$
(4)
with $`=<m_{ee}>,\eta __N`$ and $`g_A=1.25`$. It is worthwhile to notice that the above matrix elements include contribution from induced nucleon currents. Recently, it has been found that it is significant and leads to a modification of Gamow-Teller and to new tensor contributions .

The $`0\nu \beta \beta `$-decay half-life associated with $`R_p/`$ SUSY mechanism mediated by exchange of gluinos  takes the form

$$\left[T_{1/2}(0^+0^+)\right]^1=G_{01}\left[\frac{\pi \alpha _s}{6}\frac{\lambda _{111}^{}_{}{}^{}2}{G_F^2m_{\stackrel{~}{d}_R}^4}\frac{m_p}{m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}\left(1+\left(\frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{d}_R}}{m_{\stackrel{~}{u}_L}}\right)^2\right)^2\right]^2|_{\stackrel{´}{\lambda }_{111}}|^2.$$
(5)
Here, $`G_F`$ is the Fermi constant and $`\alpha _s=g_3^2/(4\pi )`$ denotes $`\mathrm{SU}(3)_\mathrm{c}`$ gauge coupling constant. $`m_{\stackrel{~}{u}_L}`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{d}_R}`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ are masses of the u-squark, d-squark and gluino, respectively. The nuclear matrix element $`_{\stackrel{´}{\lambda }_{111}}`$ can be written as sum of one- and two- pion exchange contributions:

$$_{\stackrel{´}{\lambda }_{111}}=c_A\left[\frac{4}{3}\alpha ^{1\pi }\left(M_{GT}^{1\pi }+M_T^{1\pi }\right)+\alpha ^{2\pi }\left(M_{GT}^{2\pi }+M_T^{2\pi }\right)\right]$$
(6)
with $`c__A=m__A^2/(m_pm_e)`$ ($`m_A=850`$ MeV). The structure coefficients $`\alpha ^{1\pi ,2\pi }`$ for the one-pion and two-pion exchange contributions are given in .

The nuclear matrix elements for light and heavy Majorana neutrino exchange and $`R_p/`$ gluino exchange in the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$-decay of $`{}_{}{}^{134}Xe`$ are given in Table I. They have been obtained within the proton-neutron RQRPA  for a model space comprising the full $`25\mathrm{}\omega `$ major shells like in previous studies of the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$-decay of $`{}_{}{}^{136}Xe`$. The details of the nuclear structure approach and the evaluation of the matrix elements can be found in Refs. . By glancing to Table I we see that values of matrix elements for A=134 are considerably larger (by factor 2-3) in comparison with those for A=136. Thus a pair of xenon isotopes offers a different scenario from the pair of tellurium nuclei. As it was discussed in previous publications  the reason of the suppression of the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$-decay transition $`{}_{}{}^{136}Xe{}_{}{}^{136}Ba`$ is that the parent nucleus is a closed shell nucleus for neutrons (N=82). The Pauli blocking effect is strongly suppressing some of the proton-particle neutron-hole Gamow-Teller configurations, in particular $`(0g_{7/2,9/2},0g_{7/2,9/2})`$ and $`(1d_{3/2,5/2},0g_{7/2,9/2})`$.

In order to compare the sensitivities to the signal of LN violation of the considered $`0\nu \beta \beta `$-decays for xenon isotopes the corresponding kinematical factors $`G_{01}`$ have to be known. Their values are determined by the mass difference between the mother and daughter nuclei. They are $`3.479MeV`$ and $`1.841MeV`$ for A = 136 and 134, respectively. One finds (assuming $`r_0=1.1fm`$): $`G_{01}=5.91\times 10^{14}(A=136)`$, $`2.30\times 10^{15}(A=134)`$. The sensitivity parameters with respect to different LN violating scenarios have been introduced in previous works  and are given by

$`\zeta _{<m_\nu >}(Y)`$ $`=`$ $`10^7|_{<m_\nu >}|\sqrt{G_{01}year},`$ (7)
$`\zeta _{\eta __N}(Y)`$ $`=`$ $`10^6|_{\eta __N}|\sqrt{G_{01}year},`$ (8)
$`\zeta _{\lambda _{111}^{}}(Y)`$ $`=`$ $`10^5|_{\lambda _{111}^{}}|\sqrt{G_{01}year}.`$ (9)
For nuclei of experimental interest their values are presented in Table II. We see that the sensitivity of $`0\nu \beta \beta `$-decays of $`{}_{}{}^{134}Xe`$ to the effective light Majorana mass $`<m_\nu >`$ is only by factor 2 smaller in comparison with that for $`{}_{}{}^{136}Xe`$. An interesting moment is that in the case of heavy Majorana neutrino and $`R_p/`$ SUSY modes the corresponding ratio of the sensitivity parameters is larger by about a factor 3. So, if in the xenon $`0\nu \beta \beta `$-decay experiment half-lifes for both isotopes will be measured, one can draw conclusions about the dominance of one of the mechanisms of this process. A necessary condition for it is that the nuclear matrix elements governing this process are calculated correctly.

Knowing the values of sensitivity parameters it is straightforward to deduce upper bounds on the effective LN violating parameters from the experimental lower limits on the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$-decay half-life $`T_{1/2}^{0\nu exp}`$ for a given nucleus:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{<m_\nu >}{m_e}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{10^5}{\zeta _{<m_\nu >}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{10^{24}years}{T_{1/2}^{0\nu exp}}}},\eta __N{\displaystyle \frac{10^6}{\zeta _{\eta __N}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{10^{24}years}{T_{1/2}^{0\nu exp}}}},`$ (10)
$`(\lambda _{111}^{})^2`$ $``$ $`\kappa ^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}}{100GeV}}\right)^4\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}{100GeV}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{10^7}{\zeta _{\lambda _{111}^{}}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{10^{24}years}{T_{1/2}^{0\nu exp}}}}.`$ (11)
$`\kappa `$ is equal to 1.8 (gluino phenomenological scenario ).

The current experimental upper bounds on the considered effective LN violating parameters for different nuclei are shown in Table II. We see that the Heidelberg-Moscow  and IGEX  experiments offer the most restrictive limit for $`<m_\nu >`$, $`\eta __N`$ and $`\lambda _{111}^{}`$, namely $`0.51eV`$, $`8.6\times 10^8`$ and $`1.2\times 10^4`$ (assuming 100 GeV masses of SUSY particles), respectively. It is interesting to note that upper bounds on these parameters from the search for $`0\nu \beta \beta `$-decay in $`{}_{}{}^{134}Xe`$ are already stronger or comparable with those for $`{}_{}{}^{48}Ca`$.

Recently, evidence for the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$-decay of $`{}_{}{}^{76}Ge`$ with half-life $`(0.818.3)\times 10^{25}`$ years (with best value of $`1.5\times 10^{25}`$ years) has been reported by the Heidelberg group . This work has attracted a lot of attention of both experimentalists and theoreticians due to important consequences for the particle physics and astrophysics. The positive signal implies neutrino is a Majorana particle and allows to derive patterns of neutrino mass matrix from the observed data, if the light neutrino exchange is the dominant mechanism of this process. By considering matrix elements of Ref. , which include contributions from higher order terms of the nucleon current, one finds for $`<m_\nu >`$ the value $`0.52eV`$. This is partially surprising as the most favored scenarios of neutrino mixing are preferring $`<m_\nu ><0.01eV`$ . It could be that another mechanism is responsible for this process. However, before making some strict theoretical conclusions it is important to clarify some experimental aspects.

The main problem is that the claimed significance of experimental evidence of the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$-decay is not high, around 2 $`\sigma `$ and that there is not a consensus among various experimental groups . It seems that we must wait to see what other experiments find. The problem can be solved, if an evidence of the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$-decay will be confirmed or ruled out by another experiment. For that purpose we present the calculated half-lifes for nuclei of experimental interest by assuming the above considered LN violating mechanisms and that the measurement of ref.  is correct. They are listed in Table III. In the near future the required half-life value can be achieved within the NEMO III experiment searching for the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$-decay in $`{}_{}{}^{100}Mo`$, which has the chance to reach the level of the half-life up to $`1.\times 10^{25}`$ years.

There are some other ambitious project in preparation, in particular CAMEO, CUORE, COBRA, ECHO, GENIUS, MAJORANA, MOON, XMASS etc . The next generation of the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$-decay detectors will consist of few tons of the radioactive $`0\nu \beta \beta `$-decay material. This is a great improvement as the current experiments use only few tens of kg’s for the source. The above mentioned $`0\nu \beta \beta `$-decay experiments are expected to shed more light on the problem of Majorana neutrinos within the coming decade. Perhaps, there will be a clean evidence of this exotic nuclear transition, which will be generally accepted by the physical community. If it will be the case, the issue of nuclear matrix elements will become crucial. We note that by knowing nuclear matrix elements with high reliability and the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$-decay half-lifes for transitions to $`0^+`$ excited and ground states, it is possible to determine the dominant mechanism .

In summary, we have shown that $`{}_{}{}^{134}Xe`$ is a promising nucleus for examing the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$-decay. The nuclear matrix elements governing this process have been found considerably larger in comparison with those for $`{}_{}{}^{136}Xe`$. Thus the sensitivities of both isotopes to the signal of effective light Majorana neutrino are close each to other. By keeping in mind a comparable abundance of both xenon isotopes the results obtained give a strong motivation to search simultaneously for the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$-decay of $`{}_{}{}^{134}Xe`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{136}Xe`$. Finally, the present status of searches for the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$-decay was reviewed. Perspectives of confirming or ruling out the evidence for the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$-decay of $`{}_{}{}^{76}Ge`$ were discussed.

This work was supported in part by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (436 SLK 17/298) and by the Grant agency of the Czech Republic under contract No. 202/02/0157.