text:
# Wormholes supported by the kink-like configuration of a scalar field

## I Introduction

One of the most central feature of wormhole physics is the fact that traversable wormholes as solutions to the Einstein equations are accompanied by unavoidable violations of many of the energy conditions, i.e., the matter threading the wormhole’s throat has to be possessed of “exotic” properties MT  (see also Ref. HV ). The known classical matter does satisfy the usual energy conditions, hence wormholes, if they exist, should arise as solutions of general relativity and “unusal” and/or quantum matter. One approach is to regard wormholes as semiclassical in nature Su92 ; HPS ; PS ; Pop01 ; THS ; Od ; Kha . In particular, self-consistent semiclassical wormhole solutions have been found numerically in Refs. Su92 ; HPS . Another way is to consider “exotic” field theories or theories based on various modifications of general relativity. For example, wormholes supported by ghost fields or fields with a negative sign kinetic term was discussed in Refs. Bron73 ; Kodama ; HKL ; Hayward ; Armen , and wormhole solutions in the Brans-Dicke theory was studied in Refs. Agnese ; Nandi ; Anch ; HK . It is worth to note that most of these works can be considered with the unified point of view as dealing with the scalar-tensor theory (STT) of gravity Bron73 ; Bron1 ; BS ; Bron-CC1 ; Bron-CC2 . The general STT action is given by111Throughout this paper we use units such that $`G=c=1`$. The metric signature is $`(+++)`$ and the conventions for curvature tensors are $`R_{\beta \gamma \delta }^\alpha =\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \delta ,\gamma }^\alpha \mathrm{}`$ and $`R_{\mu \nu }=R_{\mu \alpha \nu }^\alpha `$.

$$S=d^4x\sqrt{g}\left\{\frac{1}{8\pi }f(\varphi )Rh(\varphi )g^{\mu \nu }\varphi _{,\mu }\varphi _{,\nu }2V(\varphi )\right\},$$
(1.1)
where $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ is a metric, $`g=det(g_{\mu \nu })`$, $`R`$ is the scalar curvature, $`\varphi `$ is a scalar field, $`f`$ and $`h`$ are certain functions of $`\varphi `$, varying from theory to theory, and $`V(\varphi )`$ is a potential. The particular choice $`h(\varphi )1`$ in the action 1.1 leads to the class of theories with the negative kinetic term. The Brans-Dicke theory BD , described in the Jordan frame, corresponds to the following case:

$$f(\varphi )=\varphi ,h(\varphi )=\frac{\omega }{\varphi };\omega =\mathrm{const}\frac{3}{2}.$$
(1.2)
A “less exotic” theory is represented by the nonminimally coupled scalar field in general relativity with the functions

$$f(\varphi )=18\pi \xi \varphi ^2,h(\varphi )1;\xi =\mathrm{const}.$$
(1.3)
It turns out that such the theory also admits wormhole solutions. For the case $`V=0`$ (massless scalar field) the static spherically symmetric wormhole solutions was found in Ref. Bron73  (and recently discussed in Ref. BV1 ) for conformal coupling, $`\xi =1/6`$, and in Ref. BV2  for any $`\xi >0`$. It is important that more recent investigation BG  has shown that such the solutions, obtained for the theory 1.1, 1.3 with $`V=0`$, are unstable under spherically symmetric perturbations.

In this paper we study the problem of existence of wormhole solutions in the theory 1.1, 1.3 with the symmetry-breaking potential $`V(\varphi )`$ possessing two minima. The motivation for such the consideration is at least twofold. First, there exists a common opinion that the spacetime of the early Universe may have the nontrivial topological structure called the spacetime foam. Such the “foamy” structure consists of objects like primordial wormholes which can survive in the course of cosmological evolution.222In the framework of the effective action approach primordial wormholes, which induced from GUTs in the early Universe, have been studied in Refs. Od . As is well known the evolution of the early Universe is accompanied by symmetry-breaking phase transitions which may have generated nontrivial topologically stable field configurations (topological defects) such as domain walls, strings, or monopoles Kibble ; VSh . The interplay of gravity and nonlinear field matter leads to a wealth of interesting phenomena remark . In particular, a static spherically symmetric wormhole solution was found in the framework of the so-called $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$ model with the “abnormal” negative-sign kinetic term Kodama . Also, the properties of spherical domain walls in a wormhole spacetime have been studied in Ref. Su01 . The second important reason, justifying our interest in this problem, is the following: A scalar field theory with the symmetry-breaking potential with two minima admits the existence of topologically stable kink-like configurations (domain walls or interfaces), such that the scalar field $`\varphi `$ varies from $`\varphi _1`$ to $`\varphi _2`$, where $`\varphi _{1,2}`$ are vacuum states corresponding to the minima of potential. Suppose that there exists a static spherically symmetric wormhole solution supported by the kink-like configuration of the scalar field, i.e., the spacetime geometry represents two asymptotically flat regions (universies) connected by a throat, and the scalar field $`\varphi `$ is equal to $`\varphi _1`$ in one asymptotically flat region and $`\varphi _2`$ in the other one, varying substantially within a region near the throat. Such the configuration, if it exists, should be topologically stable, and so one may expect that it would also be stable under spherically symmetric perturbations.

This article is organized as follows: In the section II we derive the basic field equations. In the section III we, analyzing the field equations, represent some general analytical results and theorems and classify all possible field configurations ruling out that of them for which wormhole solutions are impossible. The particular model of the scalar field with the symmetry-breaking potential is considered in the section IV. We analyze this model numerically and obtain solutions describing wormholes supported by the kink-like configuration of the scalar field. Some discussion is given in the section V.

## II Field equations

Consider a real scalar field $`\varphi `$ nonminimally coupled to general relativity. Its action is given by Eqs. 1.1, 1.3. Varying the action 1.1 gives the equation of motion of the scalar field

$$^\alpha _\alpha \varphi V_\varphi \xi R\varphi =0,$$
(2.4)
and the Einstein equations

$$G_{\mu \nu }=8\pi T_{\mu \nu },$$
(2.5)
where $`V_\varphi dV/d\varphi `$, $`G_{\mu \nu }`$ is the Einstein tensor, and the stress-energy tensor is given by

$`T_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\mu \nu }(\varphi )^2g_{\mu \nu }V(\varphi )`$
$`+\xi \varphi ^2G_{\mu \nu }2\xi \left[_\mu (\varphi _\nu \varphi )g_{\mu \nu }^\lambda (\varphi _\lambda \varphi )\right].`$
By grouping all the dependence on $`G_{\mu \nu }`$ on the left-hand side of the Einstein equations we can rewrite them in the equivalent form

$$G_{\mu \nu }=8\pi T_{\mu \nu }^{(\mathrm{eff})}$$
(2.7)
where

$`T_{\mu \nu }^{(\mathrm{eff})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{18\pi \xi \varphi ^2}}\left[_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\mu \nu }(\varphi )^2g_{\mu \nu }V(\varphi )2\xi \left(_\mu (\varphi _\nu \varphi )g_{\mu \nu }^\lambda (\varphi _\lambda \varphi )\right)\right].`$
is an effective stress-energy tensor. $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`T_{\mu \nu }^{(\mathrm{eff})}`$ are related as

$$T_{\mu \nu }^{(\mathrm{eff})}=\frac{T_{\mu \nu }\xi \varphi ^2G_{\mu \nu }}{18\pi \xi \varphi ^2}.$$
(2.9)
For a static, spherically symmetric configuration, the metric can be taken in the form Bron1 ; BS

$$ds^2=A(\rho )dt^2+\frac{d\rho ^2}{A(\rho )}+r^2(\rho )(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2),$$
(2.10)
and $`\varphi =\varphi (\rho )`$. The nontrivial equations of the system 2.7 are

$`2A{\displaystyle \frac{r^{\prime \prime }}{r}}+A^{}{\displaystyle \frac{r^{}}{r}}+A{\displaystyle \frac{r_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`8\pi \epsilon ^{(\mathrm{eff})},`$ (2.11a)
$`A^{}{\displaystyle \frac{r^{}}{r}}+A{\displaystyle \frac{r_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`8\pi \sigma ^{(\mathrm{eff})},`$ (2.11b)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A^{\prime \prime }+A^{}{\displaystyle \frac{r^{}}{r}}+A{\displaystyle \frac{r^{\prime \prime }}{r}}`$ $`=`$ $`8\pi p^{(\mathrm{eff})},`$ (2.11c)
where the prime denotes $`d/d\rho `$, and $`\epsilon ^{(\mathrm{eff})}=T_{0}^{0}{}_{}{}^{(\mathrm{eff})}`$ is the effective energy density, $`\sigma ^{(\mathrm{eff})}=T_{1}^{1}{}_{}{}^{(\mathrm{eff})}`$ is the effective radial pressure, and $`p^{(\mathrm{eff})}=T_{2}^{2}{}_{}{}^{(\mathrm{eff})}=T_{3}^{3}{}_{}{}^{(\mathrm{eff})}`$ is the effective transverse pressure. Using Eq. II we find

$`\epsilon ^{(\mathrm{eff})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{18\pi \xi \varphi ^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A\varphi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+V(\varphi )\xi A(\varphi ^2)^{\prime \prime }\xi (\varphi ^2)^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A^{}+2A{\displaystyle \frac{r^{}}{r}}\right)\right],`$ (2.12)
$`\sigma ^{(\mathrm{eff})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{18\pi \xi \varphi ^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A\varphi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}V(\varphi )+\xi (\varphi ^2)^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A^{}+2A{\displaystyle \frac{r^{}}{r}}\right)\right],`$ (2.13)
$`p^{(\mathrm{eff})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{18\pi \xi \varphi ^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A\varphi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}V(\varphi )+\xi A(\varphi ^2)^{\prime \prime }+\xi (\varphi ^2)^{}\left(A^{}+A{\displaystyle \frac{r^{}}{r}}\right)\right].`$ (2.14)
Only two of three equations of the system 2.11 are independent: Eq. 2.11b is a first integral of the others. Certain combinations of Eqs. 2.11 give two independent equations in the following form: 333Eq. 2.15 can be obtained as the combination $`A^1[\text{2.11a}\text{2.11b}]`$. To get Eq. 2.16 one should construct the following combination: $`r^2[\text{2.11a}+\text{2.11b}2\text{2.11c}]`$, and then take into account Eq. 2.15.

$`2{\displaystyle \frac{r^{\prime \prime }}{r}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi }{18\pi \xi \varphi ^2}}\left[\varphi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\xi (\varphi ^2)^{\prime \prime }\right],`$ (2.15)
$`A(r^2)^{\prime \prime }A^{\prime \prime }r^22`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi \xi (\varphi ^2)^{}}{18\pi \xi \varphi ^2}}r^4\left({\displaystyle \frac{A}{r^2}}\right)^{}.`$ (2.16)
Note that the potential $`V(\varphi )`$ does not enter into the above expressions. The equation of motion of the scalar field, Eq. 2.4, in the metric 2.10 reads

$$(r^2A\varphi ^{})^{}r^2V_\varphi \xi r^2R\varphi =0,$$
(2.17)
with

$$R=A^{\prime \prime }4A^{}\frac{r^{}}{r}4A\frac{r^{\prime \prime }}{r}2A\frac{r_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{r^2}+\frac{2}{r^2}.$$
(2.18)
Given the potential $`V(\varphi )`$ Eqs. 2.17, 2.15, and 2.16 are a determined set of equations for the unknowns $`r`$, $`A`$, and $`\varphi `$. Note that in the case $`\xi =0`$ this system reproduces the equations given in Ref. Bron1 .

It is worth to emphasize that the choice of a general spherically symmetric metric in the form 2.10 is convenient for a number of reasons Bron1 ; BS . In particular, as was shown in Refs. Bron1 ; BS  for the minimal coupled scalar field, the equation 2.16 can be integrated. Fortunately, in the general case with arbitrary $`\xi `$ one can integrate Eq. 2.16 as well. Really, using a new denotation

$$B=r^4\left(\frac{A}{r^2}\right)^{},$$
(2.19)
we can rewrite Eq. 2.16 as follows

$$(fB)^{}=2f.$$
(2.20)
Integrating the last equation gives

$$B=\frac{2}{f}\left(^\rho f(\zeta )𝑑\zeta c_1\right),$$
(2.21)
where $`c_1`$ is an integration constant. Taking into account Eq. 2.19 and integrating once more we obtain

$$A=r^2\left(c_2+^\rho \frac{B(\zeta )}{r^4(\zeta )}𝑑\zeta \right),$$
(2.22)
where $`c_2`$ is another integration constant.

## III Wormholes and the kink-like configuration of a scalar field: Some general results

Consider a symmetry-breaking potential $`V(\varphi )`$ with two minima at $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$, respectively (see Fig.1a). We will assume that the potential is positively definite, $`V(\varphi )0`$, and $`V(\varphi _1)=V(\varphi _2)=0`$, so that the values $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ correspond to the real vacuum of the scalar field.

We will search such solutions of Eqs. 2.17, 2.15, 2.16 which describe a static spherically symmetric traversable wormhole. This means that the metric functions $`r(\rho )`$ and $`A(\rho )`$ should possess the following properties (for details, see Ref. VisserBook ):

* $`r(\rho )`$ has a global minimum, say $`r_{}=r(\rho _{})`$, such that $`r_{}>0`$; the point $`\rho _{}`$ is the wormhole’s throat, and $`r_{}`$ is the throat’s radius;
* $`A(\rho )`$ is everywhere positive, i.e. no event horizons exist in the spacetime;
* the spacetime geometry is regular, i.e. no singularities exist;
* $`r(\rho )|\rho |`$ and $`A(\rho )\mathrm{const}`$ at $`|\rho |\mathrm{}`$; this guarantees an existence of two asymptotically flat regions $`_\pm :\rho \pm \mathrm{}`$ connected by the throat.

As for the scalar field, we will suppose that it has a kink-like configuration with nontrivial topological boundary conditions, i.e., the scalar field is in one of the vacuum states, say $`\varphi =\varphi _1`$, in the asymptotically flat region $`_{}`$, and it is in the other vacuum state, $`\varphi =\varphi _2`$, in $`_+`$; in the intermediate region $`\mathrm{}<\rho <\mathrm{}`$ the field smoothly varies from $`\varphi _1`$ to $`\varphi _2`$ (see Fig.1b). Such the field configuration represents a spherical domain wall (interface) localized near the wormhole throat.

The theory described by the set of nonlinear second-order differential equations 2.15, 2.16 and 2.17 is rather complicated and it is necessary to use numerical methods for its complete study. Until numerical calculations we will analyze some general properties of the theory. The crucial role in our analysis will play the function $`f(\varphi )=18\pi \xi \varphi ^2`$ whose behavior is determined by the values $`\xi `$, $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$. Let us consider various cases:

1. $`\xi =0`$. In this case the action 1.1 describes the theory of a scalar field minimally coupled to general relativity. No-go theorems proven in Refs. Bron1 ; BS  state, in particular, that wormhole solutions are not admitted in this case. It will be useful to reproduce here the proof of this statement: For $`\xi =0`$ Eq. 2.15 reduces to

$$2\frac{r^{\prime \prime }}{r}=8\pi \varphi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}.$$
(3.23)
Since $`r(\rho )0`$ by its geometric meaning, the last equation gives $`r^{\prime \prime }0`$, which rules out an existence of regular minima of $`r(\rho )`$, and hence an existence of wormhole solutions.

2. $`\xi <0`$. In this case the function $`f^1=(18\pi \xi \varphi ^2)^1`$ is regular (i.e., finite, smooth, and positive) in the whole range of $`\rho `$, and so we can assert that a wormhole solution is impossible. The proof of this assertion is given in Refs. Bron-CC1 ; Bron-CC2 , where the reader can find details. Here we shortly reproduce main points of that proof. With this purpose we introduce a new metric $`\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }`$ and a new scalar field $`\psi `$ using Wagoner’s Wagoner  conformal transformation

$`g_{\mu \nu }=F(\psi )\overline{g}_{\mu \nu },F={\displaystyle \frac{1}{f}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\psi }{d\varphi }}=\pm {\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{|l(\varphi )|}}{f(\varphi )}},l(\varphi )=f+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{df}{d\varphi }}\right)^2.`$ (3.24)
Now one can write the action 1.1 as follows:

$$S=d^4x\sqrt{\overline{g}}\left[\frac{1}{8\pi }\overline{R}(\psi )^22\overline{V}(\psi )\right],$$
(3.25)
where

$$\overline{V}(\psi )=\frac{1}{f^2}V(\varphi ).$$
(3.26)
One can see that the transformation 3.24 removes the nonminimal coupling expressed in the $`\varphi `$-dependent coefficient before $`R`$ in Eq. 1.1, so that Eq. 3.25 represents the action of the scalar field $`\psi `$ minimally coupled to general relativity. Because the conformal factor $`F=f^1`$ is regular the theories 1.1 and 3.25 are conformally equivalent, in particular, the global structure of spacetimes $`M[g]`$ and $`\overline{M}[\overline{g}]`$ is the same. No-go theorems proven in Refs. Bron1 ; BS  state that the theory 3.25 does not admit wormhole solutions. Hence we should conclude that wormholes are also impossible in the theory 3.25 with $`\xi <0`$.

3. $`\xi >0`$.

3a: $`|\varphi _1|<(8\pi \xi )^{1/2}`$ and $`|\varphi _2|<(8\pi \xi )^{1/2}`$ (i.e., $`|\varphi |`$ is small);

3b: $`|\varphi _1|>(8\pi \xi )^{1/2}`$, $`|\varphi _2|>(8\pi \xi )^{1/2}`$ (i.e., $`|\varphi |`$ is large), and $`\varphi _1`$, $`\varphi _2`$ have the same sign (both $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ are positive or negative).

Since, for the cases 3a and 3b, the conformal factor $`F=f^1=(18\pi \xi \varphi ^2)^1`$ is regular in the whole range of $`\rho `$, we can again assert that a wormhole solution is impossible.

3c: $`|\varphi _1|>(8\pi \xi )^{1/2}`$, $`|\varphi _2|>(8\pi \xi )^{1/2}`$, and $`\varphi _1`$, $`\varphi _2`$ have opposite signs (say $`\varphi _1<(8\pi \xi )^{1/2}`$ and $`\varphi _2>(8\pi \xi )^{1/2}`$).

The case 3c represents the kink-like configuration such that the scalar field smoothly interpolates between two super-Planckian values $`\varphi _1<(8\pi \xi )^{1/2}`$ and $`\varphi _2>(8\pi \xi )^{1/2}`$. In this case the function $`f=18\pi \xi \varphi ^2`$ becomes to be equal to zero at two points $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$, where $`|\varphi (\rho _1)|=|\varphi (\rho _2)|=\varphi _0=(8\pi \xi )^{1/2}`$, and hence the conformal factor $`F=f^1=(18\pi \xi \varphi ^2)^1`$ turns out to be singular at these points. Referring to Bron-CC2 , we say that the spheres $`\rho =\rho _1`$ and $`\rho =\rho _2`$ are transition surfaces, $`S_{\mathrm{trans}}`$. Note that, though $`F`$ is singular on $`S_{\mathrm{trans}}`$, the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ can still be regular if the metric $`\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }`$ specified by the conformal transformation 3.24 has an appropriate behavior on $`S_{\mathrm{trans}}`$. Bronnikov Bron-CC1 ; Bron-CC2  called such the situation a conformal continuation from $`\overline{M}[\overline{g}]`$ into $`M[g]`$ and obtained some of properties of conformally continued solutions. In particular, he pointed out that the no-go theorems Bron1 ; BS  forbidding wormhole solutions in the theory 3.25 cannot be directly transferred to the theory 1.1 if the conformal factor $`F`$ vanishes or has a singular behavior at some values of $`\rho `$. However, there are still no general results allowing to assert without specifying $`F`$ either wormholes are admitted in the theory 1.1 or not. To solve this problem in the case 3c we prove the following theorem.

Theorem 1. The field equations 2.15, 2.16, and 2.17 of the theory 1.1 do not admit regular solutions where $`\varphi `$ has the kink-like configuration such that $`\varphi (\rho )`$ is at least a $`C^2`$-smooth function monotonically increasing from $`\varphi _1<(8\pi \xi )^{1/2}`$ to $`\varphi _2>(8\pi \xi )^{1/2}`$ while $`\rho `$ runs from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$.

Proof. Due to the theorem’s formulation the function $`f(\rho )=18\pi \xi \varphi ^2(\rho )`$ turns into zero only at two points, say $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$, so that $`f(\rho _1)=f(\rho _2)=0`$, and otherwise $`f(\rho )0`$. Consider Eq. 2.16. One can write it in the form 2.20 and then, integrating, in the form 2.21. Rewrite Eq. 2.21 as follows:

$$r^4\left(\frac{A}{r^2}\right)^{}=2\frac{h}{h^{}},$$
(3.27)
where $`h(\rho )`$ is a primitive function for $`f(\rho )`$, so that $`h^{}=f`$. Note that the denominator in the right-hand side of Eq. 3.27 is equal to zero at the points $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$, $`h^{}(\rho _1)=h^{}(\rho _2)=0`$. Suppose that the nominator becomes also to be equal to zero at these points, $`h(\rho _1)=h(\rho _2)=0`$, so that the ratio $`h/h^{}`$ remains to be regular. Because $`h`$ is a smooth function being equal to zero at the boundaries of the interval $`(\rho _1,\rho _2)`$, there exists a point within the interval, $`\rho _1<\rho _{}<\rho _2`$, where $`h`$ has an extremum, so that $`h^{}(\rho _{})=0`$. Hence $`f(\rho _{})=0`$. We have obtained a contradiction which proves the theorem.

An immediate corollary of the theorem 1 is that the theory 1.1 does not admit wormholes supported by the field configuration 3c. Note also that the proof of the theorem rests actually on a feature of the function $`f(\rho )`$ possessing exactly two zeros. It is obvious that the theorem can be extended to cases when $`f(\rho )`$ has an even number of zeros.

3d: $`|\varphi _1|<(8\pi \xi )^{1/2}`$, $`|\varphi _2|>(8\pi \xi )^{1/2}`$.

The case 3d represents the kink-like configuration such that the scalar field varies from a small value $`|\varphi _1|<(8\pi \xi )^{1/2}`$ to a large value $`\varphi _2>(8\pi \xi )^{1/2}`$. In this case there is just one and only point, say $`\rho _0`$, where $`|\varphi (\rho _0)|=\varphi _0=(8\pi \xi )^{1/2}`$, and hence the conformal factor $`F=f^1=(18\pi \xi \varphi ^2)^1`$ turns out to be singular at this point. The theorem 1 proven for the configuration 3c does not work now, and one may suppose that wormhole solutions supported by the field configuration 3d could exist in the theory 1.1. Indeed, for the potential $`V(\varphi )`$ being equal to zero, such the solutions was found for the first time by Bronnikov Bron73  (see also Ref. BV1 ) for conformal coupling, $`\xi =1/6`$, and more recently by Barceló and Visser BV2  for any $`\xi >0`$.

In the next section we will obtain a wormhole solution for the symmetry-breaking potential $`V(\varphi )`$.

## IV Wormhole solution

### IV.1 Model and analysis of boundary conditions

Consider a ‘toy’ symmetry-breaking potential

$$V(\varphi )=\frac{\lambda }{4}\left[(\varphi \overline{\varphi })^2\frac{m^2}{\lambda }\right]^2,$$
(4.28)
where $`\lambda >0`$, $`m>0`$, and $`\overline{\varphi }`$ are some constants. The minima of the potential 4.28 correspond to

$$\varphi _1=\frac{m}{\sqrt{\lambda }}+\overline{\varphi },\varphi _2=\frac{m}{\sqrt{\lambda }}+\overline{\varphi }.$$
(4.29)
Note that the configuration 3d is only possible provided $`\overline{\varphi }0`$.

At present it will be convenient to introduce new dimensionless variables and quantities

$`x=m\rho ,\stackrel{~}{r}(x)=mr(\rho ),\eta (x)={\displaystyle \frac{\varphi (\rho )}{\kappa }},`$
$`\overline{\eta }={\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\varphi }}{\kappa }},\overline{\eta }_1=1+\overline{\eta },\overline{\eta }_2=1+\overline{\eta },\kappa ={\displaystyle \frac{m}{\sqrt{\lambda }}}.`$ (4.30)
Taking into account Eq. 4.28 we rewrite the field equations 2.15, 2.16 and 2.17 in the dimensionless form:

$`2{\displaystyle \frac{r^{\prime \prime }}{r}}={\displaystyle \frac{8\pi \kappa ^2}{18\pi \xi \kappa ^2\eta ^2}}\left[\eta _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\xi (\eta ^2)^{\prime \prime }\right],`$ (4.31)
$`A(r^2)^{\prime \prime }A^{\prime \prime }r^22={\displaystyle \frac{8\pi \xi \kappa ^2(\eta ^2)^{}}{18\pi \xi \kappa ^2\eta ^2}}r^4\left({\displaystyle \frac{A}{r^2}}\right)^{},`$ (4.32)
$`(r^2A\eta ^{})^{}\xi r^2R(x)\eta r^2(\eta \overline{\eta })\left[(\eta \overline{\eta })^21\right]=0,`$ (4.33)
with

$$R(x)=A^{\prime \prime }4A^{}\frac{r^{}}{r}4A\frac{r^{\prime \prime }}{r}2A\frac{r_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{r^2}+\frac{2}{r^2},$$

where the prime denotes $`d/dx`$. (Notice: For short hereafter we drop a tilde over $`\stackrel{~}{r}(x)`$.) Resolve the last system in terms of the second derivatives $`r^{\prime \prime }`$, $`A^{\prime \prime }`$, and $`\eta ^{\prime \prime }`$:

$`r^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r}{6\xi ^2\eta ^2+f}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(12\xi )\xi \eta \eta ^{}(2{\displaystyle \frac{r^{}}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{A^{}}{A}})+\xi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}\eta \mathrm{\Delta }\eta (\mathrm{\Delta }\eta ^21)`$ (4.34)
$`4\xi ^2\eta ^2({\displaystyle \frac{r_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{r^{}A^{}}{rA}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2A}})+2{\displaystyle \frac{\xi ^3\eta ^3\eta ^{}}{f}}(2{\displaystyle \frac{r^{}}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{A^{}}{A}})],`$
$`A^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A}{6\xi ^2\eta ^2+f}}[\eta _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(12\xi )+2f({\displaystyle \frac{r_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2A}})8\xi \eta \eta ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{r^{}}{r}}+2\xi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}\eta \mathrm{\Delta }\eta (\mathrm{\Delta }\eta ^21)`$ (4.35)
$`+4\xi ^2\eta ^2({\displaystyle \frac{r_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{r^2}}2{\displaystyle \frac{r^{}A^{}}{rA}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2A}})8{\displaystyle \frac{\xi ^3\eta ^3\eta ^{}}{f}}(2{\displaystyle \frac{r^{}}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{A^{}}{A}})],`$
$`\eta ^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6\xi ^2\eta ^2+f}}[\eta ^{}f(2{\displaystyle \frac{r^{}}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{A^{}}{A}})+{\displaystyle \frac{f}{A}}\mathrm{\Delta }\eta (\mathrm{\Delta }\eta ^21)+3\xi \eta \eta _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(12\xi )`$ (4.36)
$`4\xi f\eta ({\displaystyle \frac{r_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{r^{}A^{}}{rA}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2A}})+2\xi ^2\eta ^2\eta ^{}(2{\displaystyle \frac{r^{}}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{A^{}}{A}})].`$
where

$$f=(8\pi \kappa )^2(18\pi \xi \kappa ^2\eta ^2),\mathrm{\Delta }\eta \eta \overline{\eta }.$$
(4.37)
Eqs. 4.34, 4.35 and 4.36 represent a system of three ordinary second-order differential equations which has a general solution depending, generally speaking, on six parameters.

Let us discuss the case of our interest. Suppose that there exists a point $`x=x_0`$ where $`\eta (x_0)=(8\pi \xi \kappa ^2)^{1/2}`$, so that $`f(x_0)=0`$; without loss of generality we can assume that $`x_0=0`$. To ensure a regular behavior of the right-hand sides of Eqs. 4.34, 4.35 we should provide regularity of the term $`\frac{1}{f}\left(2\frac{r^{}}{r}\frac{A^{}}{A}\right)`$ at $`x=0`$. Hence we obtain

$$2\frac{r_0^{}}{r_0}\frac{A_0^{}}{A_0}=0,$$
(4.38)
where $`r_0=r(0)`$ and so forth. This formula determines a relation between the values of the functions $`r(x)`$ and $`A(x)`$ and their first derivatives at the point $`x=0`$. An additional relation can be obtained by using Eq. 2.11b which is the first-order differential equation and plays a role of the constraint for boundary conditions. At the point $`x=0`$ it gives

$$\frac{r_0^{}}{r_0}=\frac{\sqrt{8\pi }\kappa }{12\sqrt{\xi }\eta _0^{}A_0}\left(A_0\eta _{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Delta }\eta ^21)^2\right).$$
(4.39)
Now the solution for $`r(x)`$, $`A(x)`$ and $`\eta (x)`$ being regular in the vicinity of $`x=0`$ can be expanded in the series: 444Note that $`r(x)`$, $`A(x)`$ and $`\eta (x)`$ are not only regular in the vicinity of $`x=0`$ but also analytic, i.e., they are infinitely differentiable at the point $`x=0`$. To prove this one may differentiate Eqs. 4.34, 4.35, 4.36 together with the condition 4.38.

$`r(x)`$ $`=`$ $`r_0+r_0^{}x+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}r_0^{\prime \prime }x^2+\mathrm{},`$
$`A(x)`$ $`=`$ $`A_0+A_0^{}x+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A_0^{\prime \prime }x^2+\mathrm{},`$
$`\eta (x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa \sqrt{8\pi \xi }}}+\eta _0^{}x+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta _0^{\prime \prime }x^2+\mathrm{},`$ (4.40)
where only three coefficients, say $`r_0`$, $`A_0`$ and $`\eta _0^{}`$, are independent parameters; the others can be found by using the relations 4.38 and 4.39 and Eqs. 4.34, 4.35 and 4.36.

It is necessary to stress that our analysis of boundary conditions is local and based on the demand of regularity of a solution at the critical point $`x=0`$ where the function $`f(x)`$ becomes to be equal to zero. However this analysis does not answer the question about an existence of a wormhole solution with the kink-like configuration of the scalar field. In the next subsection we will show that such the solutions do really exist.

### IV.2 Numerical results

Taking into account the above analysis of boundary conditions we can solve the system of equations 4.34, 4.35 and 4.36 numerically. To perform this in practice we must specify the six parameters, where $`\xi `$, $`\kappa `$ and $`\overline{\eta }`$ are parameters of the model, and $`r_0`$, $`A_0`$ and $`\eta _0^{}`$ are determining boundary conditions. Note that $`\xi >0`$ because the configuration 3d is of our interest, $`\kappa >0`$ by definition, and $`r_0>0`$ and $`A_0>0`$ by their geometric meaning. Though the local boundary condition analysis did not reveal any restrictions for $`r_0`$, $`A_0`$ and $`\eta _0^{}`$, we may however suppose that topologically nontrivial solutions describing the kink-like configuration of the scalar field could only exist for some definite boundary conditions.555Analogously, the well-known kink solution $`y=\mathrm{tanh}[(xx_0)/\sqrt{2}]`$ of the nonlinear differential equation $`y^{\prime \prime }y^3+y=0`$ corresponds to the special choice of boundary conditions with $`y_0^{}=1/\sqrt{2}`$. In practical calculations we will fix two of three parameters $`r_0`$, $`A_0`$, $`\eta _0^{}`$, tuning then a value of third parameter in order to obtain a solution with the kink-like field configuration. Some of numerical results are shown in Figs. 2-4 for the following set of parameters:

$`\xi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}},\kappa ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{8\pi }}},\overline{\eta }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{8\pi \xi \kappa ^2}}},`$
$`r_0=1,A_0=36.321278,\eta _0^{}=0.2.`$ (4.41)
Let us discuss the obtained results in details.

Graphs in Figs. 2-4 represent a numerical solution for the functions $`r(x)`$, $`A(x)`$ and $`\eta (x)`$, respectively. The form of graphs is nonsymmetric.666This dissymmetry of the solutions just reflects the dissymmetry of the potential $`V(\varphi )`$. The critical point $`x=0`$ separates two regions, $`x<0`$ and $`x>0`$, where behavior of the solutions is qualitatively different. In the region $`x<0`$ the functions $`r(x)`$, $`A(x)`$ and $`\eta (x)`$ are monotonic and have the following asymptotical behavior at $`|x|\mathrm{}`$:

$$r(x)k_1|x|,A(x)a_1\frac{b_1}{|x|},\eta (x)\eta _1.$$
(4.42)
where $`k_10.129`$, $`a_170`$, $`b_1440`$, and $`\eta _1=1+(8\pi \xi \kappa ^2)^{1/2}1.4495`$. While in the region $`x>0`$ they have an oscillating component superposed on a monotonic one, so that their asymptotics at $`x\mathrm{}`$ are

$$r(x)k_2x+p\mathrm{sin}\omega x,A(x)a_2\frac{b_2}{x}+q\mathrm{sin}\omega x,\eta (x)\eta _2+s\mathrm{sin}\omega x$$
(4.43)
where $`k_20.04`$, $`a_2770`$, $`b_2470000`$, and $`\eta _2=1+(8\pi \xi \kappa ^2)^{1/2}3.4495`$. Note that the amplitudes $`p`$, $`q`$, $`s`$ and the frequency $`\omega `$ are actually not constant, they depend on $`x`$ and are slowly decreasing while $`x`$ increases; within the interval from 0 to 1000 their values can be approximated as $`p0.8`$, $`q10`$, $`\omega 0.0769`$.

It is necessary to emphasize that the solution obtained describes a wormhole with the kink-like configuration of the scalar field. Really, (i) the metric function $`r(x)`$ has the global minimum $`r_{}0.9484`$ at the point $`x_{}3.52`$, which is the wormhole’s throat; (ii) $`r(x)`$ approaches to $`k|x|`$ and $`A(x)`$ approaches to a constant in the asymptotical regions $`|x|\mathrm{}`$; this guarantees an existence of two asymptotically flat regions of the spacetime; (iii) the scalar field $`\eta `$ varies from one vacuum state $`\eta _1`$ at $`x=\mathrm{}`$ to the other one $`\eta _2`$ at $`x=\mathrm{}`$; this represents the kink-like configuration. The distribution of the scalar field energy density $`\epsilon (x)`$ is shown in Fig. 5. It is seen that it has a narrow peak at $`x6.6`$ near the throat; on the left of the peak the energy density is very fast decreasing; on the right the energy density is also fast decreasing making small oscillations around zero. Thus, the main part of the scalar field energy turns out to be concentrated in the narrow spherical region near the throat, and so we will call this region a spherical domain wall.

As is well known, traversable wormholes as solutions to the Einstein equations can only exist with exotic matter, for which many of the energy conditions should be violated MT  (for details, see also Refs. BV2 ; HV ). Let us discuss our solution with this point of view. Consider the weak energy condition (WEC) which reads

$$G_{\mu \nu }v^\mu v^\nu =8\pi T_{\mu \nu }^{(\mathrm{eff})}v^\mu v^\nu 0,$$
(4.44)
where $`v^\mu `$ is properly normalized timelike vector, $`v^2=1`$. For the static spherically symmetric configuration the WEC is equivalent to the positivity of the effective energy density,

$$\epsilon ^{(\mathrm{eff})}0.$$
(4.45)
The graph for $`\epsilon ^{(\mathrm{eff})}`$ is given in Fig. 6. It shows, as was expected, that the condition 4.45 is violated.

## V Concluding remarks

So, we have obtained that the theory 1.1, 1.3 with the potential $`V`$ given by Eq. 4.28 admits solutions describing a wormhole supported by the kink-like configuration of the scalar field. Note that though the wormhole solution found numerically in the previous section was only given for particular values of parameters (see Eq. IV.2), our calculations have demonstrated that such solutions exist for a large scale of parameter’s values. Unfortunately, we have no reasonable analytical estimations allowing to impose more exact restrictions for a domain of admissible parameter’s values. Some rough restrictions for the parameters are dictated by the results of the section III, where it was shown that a wormhole solution can only exist for the configuration 3d. In particular, we have $`\xi >0`$. Note that there are no restrictions for the parameter $`r_0`$ which determines the throat’s radius. In our consideration we have specified $`r_0=1`$ and obtained the throat’s radius $`r_{}0.9484`$. In practice of numerical calculations we have also used $`r_0=10`$ and $`r_0=100`$ with $`r_{}10`$ and $`r_{}100`$, respectively.

The important problem which needs to be discussed is the stability of solutions obtained. Recently, Bronnikov and Grinyok BG  have shown that static spherically symmetric wormholes with the nonminimally coupled scalar field with $`V=0`$ are unstable under spherically symmetric perturbations. On the contrary, one may expect that wormholes supported by the scalar field with the symmetry-breaking potential $`V`$ would be stable because of the topological stability of the kink-like field configuration. Of course, this problem needs more serious consideration, and we intend to discuss it in a following publication.

## Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Kirill Bronnikov for helpful discussions. S.S. acknowledge kind hospitality of the Ewha Womans University. S.S. was also supported in part by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research grant No 99-02-17941. S.-W.K. was supported in part by grant No. R01-2000-00015 from the Korea Science & Engineering Foundation.


format: text

text:
# The Spectrum of the Mass Donor Star in SS 433

## 1 Introduction

SS 433 is still one of the most mysterious of the X-ray binaries even after some 25 years of observation (Margon, 1984; Zwitter et al., 1989; Gies et al., 2002). We know that the mass donor feeds an enlarged accretion disk surrounding a neutron star or black hole companion, and a small portion of this inflow is ejected into relativistic jets that are observed in optical and X-ray emission lines and in high resolution radio maps. There are two basic timescales that control the spectral appearance and system dynamics, a 162 d disk and jet precessional cycle and a 13 d orbital period. The mass function derived from the He II $`\lambda 4686`$ emission line indicates that the donor star mass is in excess of $`8M_{}`$ (Fabrika & Bychkova, 1990), and the donor is probably a Roche-filling, evolved star (King et al., 2000). However, the spectral signature of this star has eluded detection. This is probably because the binary is embedded in an expanding thick disk that is fed by the wind from the super-Eddington accretion disk (Zwitter et al., 1991). The outer regions of this equatorial thick disk have been detected in high resolution radio measurements by Paragi et al. (1999) and Blundell et al. (2001). We recently showed how many of the properties of the “stationary” emission lines can be explained in terms of a disk wind (Gies et al., 2002).

The task of finding the spectrum of the donor is crucial because without a measurement of its orbital motion, the mass of the relativistic star is unknown. The best opportunity to observe the flux from the donor occurs at the precessional phase when the disk normal is closest to our line of sight and the donor star appears well above the disk plane near the donor inferior conjunction orbital phase (Gies et al., 2002). This configuration occurs only a few nights each year for ground-based observers. The choice of spectral region is also important. Goranskii et al. (1998a) found that the regular eclipse and precessional variations seen clearly in the blue are lost in the red due to an erratically variable flux component. Thus, we need to search for the donor spectrum blueward of the $`R`$-band in order to avoid this variable component. On the other hand, the color variations observed during eclipses suggest that the donor is cooler than the central portions of the disk (Antokhina & Cherepashchuk, 1987; Goranskii et al., 1997). Thus, the disk will tend to contribute a greater fraction of the total flux at lower wavelengths. The best compromise is in the blue where there are a number of strong absorption lines in B- and later-type stars.

Here we present the results of a blue spectral search for the donor’s spectrum made during an optimal disk and orbital configuration in 2002 June (§2). We first discuss the dominant emission features formed in the jets and disk wind (§3). We then focus on a much weaker set of absorption lines (§4), and we present arguments linking these to the photosphere of the donor star.

## 2 Observations

The blue spectra of SS 433 were obtained on three consecutive nights, 2002 June 5 – 7, with the Large Cassegrain Spectrograph (LCS) on the 2.7-m Harlan J. Smith Telescope at the University of Texas McDonald Observatory (Cochran, 2002). These dates correspond to precessional phases between $`\mathrm{\Psi }=0.998`$ and 0.011 (where $`\mathrm{\Psi }=0.0`$ corresponds to the time when the jets are closest to our line of sight and their emission lines attain their extremum radial velocities) and to orbital phases between $`\varphi =0.012`$ and 0.178 (where mid-eclipse and donor inferior conjunction occur at $`\varphi =0.0`$) according to the phase relations adopted in Gies et al. (2002). The spectra were made in first order with the #46 grating (1200 grooves mm-1, blazed at 4000 Å), and they cover the wavelength range between 4060 and 4750 Å. We used a long slit configuration with a slit width of $`2\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}0`$, which corresponds to a projected width of 2 pixels FWHM on the detector, a $`800\times 800`$ format TI CCD with 15$`\mu `$m square pixels. The reciprocal dispersion is 0.889 Å pixel-1 and the spectral resolving power is $`\lambda /\mathrm{}\lambda =2500`$. Unfortunately, the weather was partially cloudy throughout the run, and we were only able to obtain a few consecutive, 20 minute exposures on each night. We also obtained a full suite of calibration bias, dome flat field, and argon comparison frames throughout the run.

The spectra were extracted and calibrated using standard routines in IRAF111IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.. We co-added all the consecutive spectra from a given night to increase the signal-to-noise ratio (S/N). The co-added spectra were then rectified to a unit continuum by the fitting of line-free regions. Note that this rectification process arbitrarily removes the continuum flux variations that occurred in SS 433 during the eclipse. All the spectra were then transformed to a common heliocentric wavelength grid for ease of comparison. The final S/N ratios in the continuum at the long-wavelength end of the spectra are 31, 16, and 40 pixel-1 for the three consecutive nights, respectively.

## 3 Emission Line Spectrum

Our three spectra are shown in chronological sequence in Figure 1. This part of the spectrum is dominated by the familiar strong emission lines of H$`\delta `$, H$`\gamma `$, and He II $`\lambda 4686`$ (Murdin et al., 1980; Panferov & Fabrika, 1997; Fabrika et al., 1997a). Most of these lines appear stronger in the first, mid-eclipse spectrum made when the continuum flux was low. We begin by examining the radial velocity and intensity variations of the emission lines before turning to the weaker absorption features in the next section.

The only strong jet emission feature in this spectral range at this time is the blueshifted H$`\beta `$ line (formed in the approaching jet), which is found just longward of H$`\gamma `$. This spectral range should also contain redshifted jet components from the upper Balmer sequence (from the Balmer limit at $`4267`$ Å to H$`ϵ`$ at $`4645`$ Å), but, if present, they are too weak to detect in our spectra. We measured the radial velocity of the H$`\beta `$ emission feature by fitting a single Gaussian in each case. These measurements are partially compromised by the appearance of multiple sub-peaks in some cases (see the final profile that contains a redshifted, sub-peak corresponding in radial velocity to the “bullet” that appeared on the previous night) and by the possible existence of very weak He I $`\lambda 4387`$ emission. Nevertheless, these measurements show the familiar oscillations in the jet velocities due to the tidal “nodding” of the accretion disk (Vermeulen et al., 1993; Gies et al., 2002). Table 1 lists the heliocentric Julian date for the mid-time of each observation, the observed H$`\beta `$ radial velocity as $`z=V_r/c`$ (estimated errors $`\pm 0.001`$), and the predicted $`z`$ value based upon the extrapolation of the fit to the H$`\alpha `$ jet velocities observed between 1998 and 1999 (Gies et al., 2002). The good agreement between the observed and predicted motions suggests that our jet precessional velocity fit is still reliable 3 years after the last H$`\alpha `$ observations.

The stationary emission lines generally fall into two categories: lines like He II $`\lambda 4686`$ that form in a region symmetric about the center of the accretion disk and that show orbital radial velocity curves of the form $`K_1\mathrm{sin}(2\pi \varphi )+V_1`$, and features like the hydrogen Balmer lines that probably form in a large volume in the disk’s wind and have a radial velocity variation of the form $`K_2\mathrm{cos}(2\pi \varphi )+V_2`$ (Gies et al., 2002). We measured the radial velocities of the stationary lines in our spectra to confirm their radial velocity behavior. The profiles were obtained by Gaussian fitting in all cases except for the N III + C III complex near 4644 Å, where we measured relative shifts by cross-correlating the profiles for the second and third nights against that from the first night. Our results are listed in Table 2 (errors are $`\pm 30`$ km s-1). All the lines showed the blueward motion expected in this phase interval, but with a larger amplitude than predicted. The largest decline was found in N III + C III and He II $`\lambda 4686`$, which decreased in radial velocity by $`214`$ km s-1 over the duration of observations. Fabrika & Bychkova (1990) estimate that the disk semiamplitude is $`K_1175`$ km s-1, much smaller than we observed. The same situation occurred in lines of the other group, H$`\delta `$, H$`\gamma `$, and He I $`\lambda 4471`$ which declined by some 108 km s-1 (compared to the expected $`K_264`$ km s-1; Gies et al. (2002)). We speculate that this difference is due to the emergence of the approaching portion of the disk after the eclipse, which biases the radial velocities to more negative values.

The other clue about the origin of the stationary lines comes from their intensity variations during the eclipse. If the emission source has a constant flux, then during eclipse the line will appear proportionally stronger relative to the lower continuum flux. However, if the emission source is also (partially) eclipsed, then the relative strength in rectified intensity remains approximately constant in eclipse. We show in Table 3 the rectified intensities of the emission lines for the first two nights relative to that on the final night. The final column gives the predicted constant emission flux variation relative to the last night based upon the $`V`$-band light curve (Goranskii et al. (1998b); see their Fig. 7b) and the $`BV`$ color variations (Goranskii et al. (1997); see their Fig. 3). We find that most of the line intensities decreased by a factor of $`2.4\times `$ between the first (mid-eclipse) and last (out-of-eclipse) observations, compared to an expected decrease of $`1.9\times `$ for a constant emission flux source. This difference is probably not significant since the intrinsic system flux does vary on short timescales, but the result does suggest that most of the lines form in regions large compared to the continuum-forming part of the accretion disk (so that the continuum-forming inner disk is eclipsed while the much larger line forming region suffers only minor occultation). The main exception is the N III + C III line which varies little in rectified intensity and must therefore form co-spatially with the continuum in the inner, hot part of the accretion disk. The other possible exception is the He II $`\lambda 4686`$ line. Goranskii et al. (1997) and Fabrika et al. (1997b) observed profile shape variations during the eclipse that we also find (for example, from single- to double-peaked with egress from the eclipse), and they argue that the feature has two components, one formed in gas close to the disk center (eclipsed) and one formed in a larger volume (not eclipsed). This assessment agrees with the fact that, after the N III + C III line, the He II $`\lambda 4686`$ feature shows the second smallest decrease in rectified flux, suggesting that its line forming region is more occulted during the eclipse than is the case for the H and He I lines (formed in the larger disk wind).

## 4 Absorption Line Spectrum

We were struck in comparing the individual spectra by the similarity of patterns of what might first be considered “noise” in the continuum between the strong emission lines. We formed a global average spectrum with each spectrum weighted by the square of its S/N ratio, and an expanded version of this average spectrum is shown in Figures 2 and 3. We show below the average SS 433 plot examples of stellar spectra that could correspond to the spectral type of the donor star. The two B-star spectra were obtained from the atlas of Walborn & Fitzpatrick (1990), and we obtained the spectrum of the A-supergiant, HD 148743, with the LCS. All these spectra were Gaussian smoothed to an effective 2 pixel resolution of 1.78 Å FWHM in order to compare them at the same instrumental resolution. We see that there is a significant (and largely unresolved) system of absorption lines in SS 433 that has eluded detection in earlier work. The line patterns bear little resemblance to those in B-supergiants but there are a number of features in common with the A-supergiant ($`T_{\mathrm{eff}}=7800`$ K; Venn (1995)). We show some preliminary identifications of the absorption lines based upon lists in Ballereau (1980) and Venn (1995).

We measured the radial velocity of the absorption system by cross-correlating sub-sections of the spectrum containing the deepest features with the same in the first spectrum of the set. These relative velocities are listed in the final column of Table 2. (We found that the absorption lines in the first spectrum had a cross-correlation velocity of $`39\pm 20`$ km s-1 compared to the rest frame spectrum of HD 148743, so adding this value to the velocities in Table 2 gives an estimate of the absolute velocities.) Unlike the emission lines, the absorption lines moved significantly redward during the run, as expected for the donor star.

Direct inspection of Figure 1 suggests that the absorption line spectrum grew fainter with egress from the eclipse, as predicted for the donor’s spectrum. It is difficult to measure the change in individual lines, so we measured the strength of the cross-correlation of the absorption lines with those in HD 148743. The relative cross-correlation intensities are listed in the second last column of Table 3 (errors of $`\pm 0.5`$). The absorption depths weakened in the same way as the emission intensities, suggesting that both became diluted by the emerging flux of the disk.

Both the radial velocity and intensity variations indicate that the absorption lines form in the long-sought donor star. If they were formed in the interstellar medium (the case of the absorptions at 4428, 4501, and 4726 Å), then we would observe no velocity or intensity variations through these eclipse phases. Similar arguments rule out formation in an extended “shell” surrounding the binary system.

The absorption line velocities are insufficient for a general orbital solution, but we can make a restricted solution if we assume that the orbit is circular and we adopt the orbital period and epoch of mid-eclipse from Goranskii et al. (1998b). Then we can solve for two parameters, the systemic velocity, $`V_0`$, and orbital semiamplitude, $`K_O`$, from our 3 radial velocity measurements of the optical star. We used the orbital fitting code of Morbey & Brosterhus (1974) to find $`V_0=(44\pm 9)`$ km s-1 and $`K_O=(100\pm 15)`$ km s-1 with residual errors of 9 km s-1. Fabrika & Bychkova (1990) find the semi-amplitude of the disk is $`K_X=(175\pm 20)`$ km s-1 based upon the He II $`\lambda 4686`$ radial velocity curve. They adopt the system inclination from the “kinematical” model of the jets to arrive at a mass relation, $`M_O/(1+q)^2=(7.7\pm 2.7)M_{}`$ where the mass ratio is $`q=M_X/M_O`$. We can now combine the semiamplitudes to estimate the mass ratio, $`q=K_O/K_X=0.57\pm 0.11`$, and the resulting masses are $`M_O=(19\pm 7)M_{}`$ and $`M_X=(11\pm 5)M_{}`$. Thus, our results suggest that the companion is a black hole.

The absorption line depths strengthen from main sequence to supergiant in the A stars, and they appear sufficiently strong in the first eclipse spectrum to rule out a main sequence class. The donor star probably fills the critical Roche surface, and our estimate of the mass ratio indicates a Roche volume radius of $`(31\pm 3)R_{}`$, consistent with a supergiant class. Thus, our results for SS 433 support the evolutionary scenario described by King et al. (2000) in which mass transfer is occurring on a thermal timescale as the donor crosses the Hertzsprung gap.

We can estimate the magnitude difference between the star and disk, $`\mathrm{}B`$, based upon the apparent line depths. Suppose that during the central eclipse a disk flux of $`F_1`$ is occulted while a disk flux of $`F_2`$ and donor star flux $`F_{}`$ remain visible. The stellar line depths will then appear diluted by a factor $`F_{}/(F_2+F_{})`$. The observed line depths during eclipse (relative to the spectrum of the A-supergiant) suggest that the dilution is minimal, so $`F_2/F_{}=0`$ to 1. Based upon the line intensity variations we observed (Table 3), the ratio of out-of-eclipse to mid-eclipse flux is $`2.38\pm 0.15`$, and thus, the disk to star flux ratio is $`(F_1+F_2)/F_{}=1.4`$ to 2.8 (or $`\mathrm{}B=0.3`$ to 1.4 mag). A donor star this bright may appear to be in conflict with earlier results (Antokhina & Cherepashchuk, 1987; Gies et al., 2002), but we suspect that the star is heavily obscured at other precessional and orbital phases so that the line spectrum is difficult to find (and thus the estimate of the donor star’s flux based on the absence of the lines will to be too low).

Clearly our results should be regarded as preliminary since we have only observed the absorption spectrum during this one eclipse event, and SS 433 is known to display spectroscopic variations on timescales unrelated to the orbit. Nevertheless, confirmation of our results (especially in spectra of higher S/N and resolution) would be of particular importance in determining the stellar parameters of the donor ($`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, $`\mathrm{log}g`$, and abundance) and in refining the mass estimates. We emphasize again that the successful detection of the donor spectrum is probably limited to times near $`\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$ and $`\varphi =0`$. The next opportunities will occur near 2003 April 28 and 2003 October 2.

We are grateful to the staff of McDonald Observatory and especially Dr. Anita Cochran for their help. Support for this work was provided by NASA through grant number GO-8308 from the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS5-26555. Institutional support has been provided from the GSU College of Arts and Sciences and from the Research Program Enhancement fund of the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, administered through the GSU Office of the Vice President for Research. We gratefully acknowledge all this support.


text:
# 1 Two anomalously enhanced 𝐷⁺ decays to strange meson pairs

## 1 Two anomalously enhanced $`D^+`$ decays to strange meson pairs

Two Cabibbo suppressed $`D^+`$ decay modes have anomalously high branching ratios:

$$BR[D^+K^{}(892)^+\overline{K}^o]=3.2\pm 1.5\%$$
(1)
$$BR[D^+K^{}(892)^+\overline{K}^{}(892)^o]=2.6\pm 1.1\%$$
(2)
These are the same order as their corresponding Cabibbo allowed branching ratios

$$BR[D^+\rho ^+\overline{K}^o]=6.6\pm 2.5\%$$
(3)
$$BR[D^+\rho ^+\overline{K}^{}(892)^o]=2.1\pm 1.3\%$$
(4)
In this letter we show that the high branching ratios for these Cabibbo suppressed $`D^+`$ decay modes are not simply explained by any model; specifically, all standard model diagrams that can contribute to these decays are related by symmetries to diagrams for other decays that do not show any such enhancement. If these high branching ratios are confirmed by more precise experiments, they may require new physics to explain them.

We first note that the dominant tree diagrams for the corresponding allowed and suppressed decays differ only in the weak vertices $`cW^++s\rho ^++s`$ and $`cW^++sK^{}(892)^++s`$: the hadronization of the strange quark $`s`$ and spectator $`\overline{d}`$ is common to both decays. These diagrams should show the expected Cabibbo suppression which is not observed.

The possibility that $`W^+K^{}(892)^+`$ is somehow similar in strength to $`W^+\rho ^+`$ can be discounted. First, the topologically similar tau decays $`BR[\tau ^+K^{}(892)^+\nu ]1.3\%`$ and $`BR[\tau ^+\rho ^+\nu ]25\%`$ exhibit the expected suppression of the former, as do the corresponding $`D^o`$ decays

$$BR[D^oK^{}(892)^+\overline{K}^{}]=0.35\pm 0.08\%$$
(5)
$$BR[D^o\rho ^+\overline{K}^{}]=10.8\pm 0.9\%.$$
(6)
Indeed, any model of $`D^+`$ where the charm quark decays as $`cK^+s`$ with the $`s`$ and the spectator $`\overline{d}`$ combining to make $`K^+\overline{K}^o`$ and $`K^+\overline{K}^o`$, will also say that for the $`D^o`$ the charmed quark decays as $`cK^+s`$ and the $`s`$ and the spectator $`\overline{u}`$ combine to make $`K^+K^{}`$ and $`K^+K^{}`$. However, the corresponding charged and neutral decays are empirically very different. This is independent of the particular model used for the charmed quark decay.

Thus we need something to explain why changing the spectator makes a big difference.

The above remarks focussed on the dominant tree diagrams. More generally we now note that when we consider all diagrams contributing to the anomalously enhanced decays (1-2), each diagram is related by symmetries to a very similar diagram for one of the following decay modes which show the expected Cabibbo suppression

$$BR[D^+K^+\overline{K}^{}(892)^o]=0.42\pm 0.05\%$$
(7)
$$BR[D^oK^{}(892)^+K^{}]=0.35\pm 0.08\%$$
(8)
$$BR[D^oK^{}(892)^{}K^+]=0.18\pm 0.01\%$$
(9)
$$BR[D^oK^{}(892)^o\overline{K}^o]<0.08\%$$
(10)
$$BR[D^o\overline{K}^{}(892)^oK^o]<0.16\%$$
(11)
$$BR[D^oK^{}(892)^o\overline{K}^{}(892)^o]=0.14\pm 0.05\%$$
(12)
Our conclusion will be that there is no simple diagram that enhances the suppressed modes (1-2) without also enhancing others that show no experimental enhancement.

## 2 Analysis of contributing diagrams and comparison with related decays

The diagrams contributing to the $`D^+`$ decays (1-2) can be classified into two types:

1. Those in which the spectator antiquark $`\overline{d}`$ appears in the final state and is connected topologically on the same quark line as the initial $`\overline{d}`$; e.g. the tree diagram and the penguin. Diagrams of this type are shown in Figs. 1 and 2.

2. Those in which the spectator antiquark is annihilated and then recreated in a weak annihilation vertex. If no gluons are created from the initial state before the weak vertex, these diagrams go via an intermediate $`u\overline{d}`$ state which is an eigenstate of G-parity if it has the spin and parity $`0^{}`$ needed to produce the $`K^{}(892)^+\overline{K}^o`$ final state. Diagrams of this typr are shown in Figs. 3 and 4.

We now examine these in turn.

Diagrams of type 1 for $`D^+`$ decay - see Figs. 1 and 2:

These can go into the $`K^{}(892)^+K^{}`$ and $`K^{}(892)^+\overline{K}^{}(892)^{}`$ decays of the $`D^o`$ by flipping the isospin of the spectator $`\overline{d}`$ antiquark into a $`\overline{u}`$. Since all interactions of the spectator antiquark in the diagram involve only isoscalar gluons, except for the case of the electroweak penguin, the two diagrams have the same contribution. These diagrams cannot produce an enhancement of the $`D^+`$ decay without giving a similar enhancement of the related $`D^o`$ decays.

Note that this relates diagrams for $`D^+`$ decays which lead to a pure I=1 state and $`D^o`$ decays which lead to a well-defined isospin mixture of I=0 and I=1 states. Our essential assumption is that the spectator quark in both flavor states interacts only with gluons which are isoscalar, and that there are no isovector gluons. This is clearly good QCD. But many standard isospin relations used in weak decay analyses may hold even if the strong interactions included isovector “gluon” exchanges. If this is the case, an important QCD constraint on the decay amplitudes is missing in their analysis.

Another way to view this possible missing constraint in conventional analyses is to write the decays $`DK^{}\overline{K}`$ as

$$c+\overline{q}(s\overline{s}+u)+\overline{q}$$
(13)
and look at the exchange in the t-channel between the $`\overline{q}`$ and the rest of the system. While isospin invariance allows both isoscalar and isovector t-channel exchanges, QCD says that only isoscalar t-channel exchange is allowed. This of course relates by crossing the I=0 and I=1 states in the s channel.

There are two caveats here. One is the electroweak penguin. Since the photon couples more strongly to a spectator $`\overline{u}`$ than to a spectator $`\overline{d}`$ it is difficult to see how such a diagram can enhance the $`D^+`$ decay relative to the $`D^o`$ decay. Furthermore, replacing $`\overline{d}`$ by $`\overline{s}`$ would give as the nearest analogue for this electroweak penguin the decays $`D_sK^+\varphi `$ and $`D_sK^+\eta _s`$. There are no observations of modes containing either one or three $`K`$ that could be consistent with either of these, which suggests that they are not enhanced. The other caveat is the presence of additional diagrams in the neutral $`D^o`$ decays which have no counterpart in the charged decays; we must consider the possibility that the tree diagrams for $`D^o`$ are enhanced but that these extra diagrams might reduce or cancel the contribution of the enhanced diagrams. This possibility is discussed later.

Diagrams of type 2 for $`D^+`$ decays - see Figs. 3 and 4:

If no gluons are emitted from the initial state, these produce a $`u\overline{d}`$ state (such as the $`\pi (1800)`$) which decays conserving G-parity. As the $`K^{}(892)^+\overline{K}^o`$ and $`K^+\overline{K}^{}(892)^o`$ states are G-conjugates of one another, the G-parity eigenstates are $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[K^{}(892)^+\overline{K}^o\pm K^+\overline{K}^{}(892)^o]`$ and hence a state of a given G-parity will contribute equally to the $`K^{}(892)^+\overline{K}^o`$ and $`K^+\overline{K}^{}(892)^o`$ states. However, the observed branching ratios (eqs. 1 and 7) differ by almost an order of magnitude. Although the presence of diagrams with initial gluons can produce states of opposite G-parity, the two types of diagrams must be fine tuned so that they nearly cancel for the $`K^+\overline{K}^{}(892)^o`$ states and strongly enhance the $`K^{}(892)^+\overline{K}^o`$. This seems highly unlikely. This possibility could be eliminated by precision data on $`D_s`$ decays where the Cabibbo dominant modes

$$BR[D_sK^+\overline{K}^o]=4.3\pm 1.4\%;BR[D_sK^+\overline{K}^o]=3.3\pm 0.9\%;$$
(14)
are consistent with being the same. There is however the possiblility of producing these modes by the color-suppressed topology and a final assessment requires careful determination of the relative importance of these decay mechanisms. There are, however problems with $`D_s`$ decays that defy conventional explanations and may also indicate the presence of new physics contributions. We discuss these later.

So there seems to be no simple way to explain the large enhancement of these $`D^+`$ decays without also implying enhancements for other modes that do not exhibit such effects empirically. If the experimental enhancement holds up this may be a key to new physics.

## 3 Effects of $`D^o`$ final state interactions

We now examine possible effects of flavor-changing final state interactions that exist for the $`D^o`$ decays but not for the $`D^+`$, in order to eliminate the possibility that tree diagrams are enhanced for $`D^o`$ but are being suppressed by destructive interference with these extra diagrams.

Flipping the isospin of the spectator antiquark in a diagram of type 1 for $`D^+`$ decay produces a diagram for $`D^o`$ decay containing a $`u\overline{u}`$ pair. The $`u\overline{u}`$ can be annihilated and changed into a $`d\overline{d}`$ or $`s\overline{s}`$ by a final state interaction, which has no counterpart in the diagrams for $`D^+`$ decay. To take this into account we first note that the diagram for $`D^o`$ decay obtained by flipping the isospin of the spectator quark is a mixture of isopins $`I=1`$ and $`I=0`$.

Thus, while $`D^+\pi ^+(1800)`$, the $`D^o`$ could couple via $`\pi ^0(1800)`$ and $`\eta (1760)`$ say. It is then a priori possible that the combination led to a reduction of the charged kaons and an enhancement of their neutral counterparts (or vice versa). The following isospin sum rule relates the amplitudes for the decay diagrams of type 1, denoted by $`A_s`$, to the physical final states and those to the isospin eigenstates:

$`|A_s[D^oK^{}(892)^+K^{}]|^2+|A_s[D^oK^{}(892)^o\overline{K}^o]|^2=`$
$`=|A_s[D^o\{K^{}(892)\overline{K}\}_{I=0}]|^2+|A_s[D^o\{K^{}(892)\overline{K}\}_{I=1}]|^2`$ (15)
and analogously for the $`K^{}\overline{K}^{}`$ modes.

We now note that the final state in the $`D^+`$ decay is a pure isospin eigenstate with $`I=1`$. The final state interactions for the $`I=1`$ states in the two decays must be the same since the strong final state interactions are isospin invariant. Thus isospin relates the $`I=1`$ amplitudes for $`D^+`$ and $`D^o`$ decays

$$A_s[D^o\{K^{}(892)\overline{K}\}_{I=1}]|^2=(1/2)|A_s[D^+K^{}(892)^+\overline{K}^o]|^2$$
(16)
and so

$`|A_s[D^oK^{}(892)^+K^{}]|^2+|A_s[D^oK^{}(892)^o\overline{K}^o]|^2\kappa `$
$`=|A_s[D^o\{K^{}(892)\overline{K}\}_{I=0}]|^2+(1/2)|A_s[D^+K^{}(892)^+\overline{K}^o]|^2`$
$`(1/2)|A_s[D^+K^{}(892)^+\overline{K}^o]|^2`$ (17)
Upon allowing for the different life times, this can be rewritten

$`BR[D^oK^{}(892)^+K^{}]+BR[D^oK^{}(892)^o\overline{K}^o]`$
$`(1/2)BR[D^+K^{}(892)^+\overline{K}^o]{\displaystyle \frac{\tau (D^o)}{\tau (D^+)}}`$ (18)
The left hand side is $`<0.6\%`$ while the right hand side is $`0.36\pm 0.39\%`$..

A similar analysis can be applied to the $`K^{}\overline{K}^{}`$ decays. Here there is no datum for $`BR[D^oK^{}(892)^+\overline{K}^{}(892)^{}]`$ and so one cannot definitively rule out such a conspiracy. To satisfy the inequality would require $`BR[D^oK^{}(892)^+\overline{K}^{}(892)^{}]0.38\pm 0.23\%`$. The neutral modes have $`BR[D^oK^{}(892)^o\overline{K}^{}(892)^o]=0.14\pm 0.05\%`$, Thus an improvement in data is needed to definitively rule out the fine tuning conspiracy for the $`\overline{K}K^{}`$ decays.

We do not consider here additional diagrams arising from the singly-suppressed $`c`$-quark decay $`cdu\overline{d}`$ which can contribute to $`D^o`$ and not to $`D^+`$ decays via final state interactions creating an $`s\overline{s}`$ pair. A highly unreasonable conspiracy with fine tuning would be needed to produce a cancellation of the anomalously large diagram of type 1.

It is therefore of interest to check the branching ratios for the transitions (1-2) and reduce the errors. Using the present data we find:

$$BR[D^+K^{}(892)^+\overline{K}^o]+BR[D^+K^{}(892)^+\overline{K}^{}(892)^o]=5.8\pm 1.9\%$$
(19)
This is still large at three standard deviations.

Established physics seems only able to explain these data by appeal to fine tuning, which may already be threatened by other data.

The present data on these anomalous rates come from single experiments . If subsequent experiments show these large branching ratios to be in error, then one may need to reconsider the other branching ratios extracted from the same analyses, (in particular the $`D^oK^+K^{}`$ which also appears to be rather larger than expected: compared with the $`D^o\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$). Conversely, if the large branching ratios are confirmed with smaller errors, there may be good reason to look for a new physics explanation. Thus we urge high statistics study of these decays in dedicated charm production experiments, such as may be feasible at CLEO-c, Fermilab or GSI.

## 4 $`D_s`$ decay puzzles, annihilation and G-parity tests

We now recall some unresolved puzzles in $`D_s`$ decays. These may require new physics contributions related to those required by the anomalously enhanced singly forbidden decays discusseed above.

The $`D_s`$ decay modes $`D_s`$ VP and VV show no significant suppression of “color-suppressed” $`KK^{}`$ and $`K^{}K^{}`$ relative to “color-favoured” $`\varphi \pi `$ and $`\varphi \rho `$. Contrast this with $`D^o`$ decays: the $`D^o`$ and $`D_s`$ differ only by spectator quark flavor, but definite color suppression is seen in VP and VV $`D^o`$ decays and not in $`D_s`$. How can changing the flavor of a spectator quark drastically change the degree of color suppression in tree diagrams where the spectator quark does not play an active role?

The simplest explanation would be that these $`D_s`$ decays are driven by annihilation. If this is the case, then it adds weight to our argument at eq. (14). Establishing the pattern and strengths of the annihilation modes is another critical piece in solving these enigmas.

The observation of the purely leptonic annihilation decay $`D_sW^+\mu ^+\nu _\mu `$ implies the existence of the hadronic annihilation without gluons $`D_sW^+u\overline{d}(2n+1)\pi `$ where the G parity of a J=0 $`u\overline{d}`$ state without additional gluons forbids the decay into an even number of pions.

We have assumed that G-parity is a good quantum number in our analysis. It is in principle possible that this is a weak link. It is therefore of interest to look for:

a. The forbidden $`D_s2n\pi `$ decays. Even upper limits are of interest. Definite evidence would ndicate some contribution other than the simple annihilation. Note that this goes beyond the search for the forbidden $`\omega \pi `$ mode. Any state which ends up as an even number of pions is forbidden and its observation gives information about the existence of other annihilation-type diagrams including gluons or final-state rescattering.

b. The allowed $`D_s`$ decays into states containing an odd number of pions. These decays must be there somewhere to be consistent with the observed leptonic decay.

c. Decays into states with several neutral pions may be difficult to detect. States with a single neutral pion can come from allowed odd-G decays into an $`\eta `$ and an even number of charged pions. Thus it might be useful to examine all multipion decays with no more than one neutral and classify them as follows:

(i) All $`D_s`$ decays into an odd number of charged pions and nothing else.

(ii) All $`D_s`$ decays into an odd number of charged pions and an $`\eta `$.

(iii) All $`D_s`$ decays where no $`\eta `$ is present into an odd number of charged pions and a single $`\pi ^o`$.

The relative numbers of these three inclusive final states might give information on the validity of the G-parity selection rule that we have assumed in our analysis.

There are hints of anomalies already, especially in the $`D_s\eta \rho `$ and $`\eta ^{}\rho `$ modes.

The $`\eta ^{}\rho /\eta \rho `$ ratio $`=0.9\pm 0.3`$ appears to be anomalously large if it is due to a spectator tree diagram, where the p-wave phase space should favour the $`\eta `$ significantly and the amplitude ratio is is of order unity with a value depending in the mixing angle, For example, we note that

$`BR(D_s\eta ł^+\nu )=3.5\pm 0.07\%`$
$`BR(D_s\eta ^{}ł^+\nu )=0.88\pm 0.03\%.`$ (20)
However, there is no clear indication of the nature of the additional contribution needed. Standard model physics implies that different parities and G-parities are not mixed by final state interactions. Positive G-parity is exotic for both parities and cannot have contributions that go via an intermediate state of a single quark-antiquark pair. The $`\rho \eta `$ and $`\rho \eta ^{}`$ channels are exotic while $`\pi \eta `$ and $`\pi \eta ^{}`$ are not. Yet all states seem to have anomalously large branching ratios and favor the $`\eta ^{}`$. There seems to be a common mechanism independent of the quantum number of the final state. The required additional contribution cannot be a simple annihilation without additional gluons emitted before annihilation since this produces a G-parity eigenstate which is right for $`\eta ^{}\pi `$, but wrong for $`\eta ^{}\rho `$.

Annihilation with at least two gluons emitted from the initial state and interaction between these gluons and the $`u\overline{d}`$ state produced by an annihilation diagram could give a small amplitude which might interfere constructively with the $`\eta ^{}`$ amplitudes and destructively with $`\eta `$. This diagram must also show up in other G-forbidden even-$`\pi `$ amplitudes. Stringent upper limits on this diagram would exclude this mechanism.

Annihilation with two gluons emitted from the initial state which then turn into an $`\eta ^{}`$ via a hairpin diagram will produce the $`\eta ^{}`$ rather than the $`\eta `$. This mechanism can be compared with $`J/\psi \eta ^{}\gamma `$ which is also dominated by a two-gluon hairpin diagram. However, one would also expect to see this diagram in the semileptonic decay $`D_s\eta ^{}\mu ^+\nu _\mu `$, in contradiction to data where the $`\eta ^{}/\eta `$ ratio does not seem to be enhanced.

In summary, we advocate a systematic study of Cabibbo suppressed $`D`$ decays and of specific $`D_s`$ channels to test the validity of G-parity and other generally accepted selection rules in the heavy flavor sector.

It is a pleasure to thank J. Cumalat, D. Hitlin, V. Sharma and D. Williams for helpful discussions and comments. FEC acknowledges support from EU-TMR program “EURODAFNE”, contract CT98-0169. HJL acknowledges support from the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of High Energy Physics, Contract W-31-109-ENG-38, the United States-Israel Binational Science Foundation (BSF), Jerusalem, Israel and the Basic Research Foundation administered by the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.

$`BR[D^+K^{}(892)^+\overline{K}^o]=3.2\pm 1.5\%`$

$`BR[D^oK^{}(892)^+K^{}]=0.35\pm 0.08\%`$

The two diagrams differ only by isospin flip of spectator quark

.

$`BR[D^+K^{}(892)^+\overline{K}^o]=3.2\pm 1.5\%`$

$`BR[D^+K^+\overline{K}^{}(892)^o]=0.42\pm 0.05\%`$

Two final states are $`G`$-conjugate

.

Any G-conserving strong interaction must fine-tune

G-even and G-odd amplitudes to interfere

constructively for $`D^+K^{}(892)^+\overline{K}^o`$

destructively for $`D^+K^+\overline{K}^{}(892)^o`$

.


text:
# Electron transport in interacting hybrid mesoscopic systems

## Abstract

A unified theory for the current through a mesoscopic region of interacting electrons connected to two leads which can be either ferromagnet or superconductor is presented, yielding Meir-Wingreen-type formulas when applied to specific circumstances. In such a formulation, the requirement of gauge invariance is satisfied automatically. Moreover, one can judge unambiguously what quantities can be measured in the transport experiment.

Mesoscopic electron transport has received an increasing attention both theoretically and experimentally in last decadeKouwenhoven . In mesoscopic or nanoscale systems the wave nature of electrons becomes apparent and the transport process is coherent. The Landauer-Büttiker formulaLandauer , which encodes the current in the local properties of the interacting mesoscopic region and the equilibrium distribution functions of the noninteracting electron reservoirs, enhances our understanding of mesoscopic electron transport and has been applied successful in many fieldsDatta . In 1992 Meir and Wingreen Meir  presented a formulation for electron transporting through a small confined region (quantum dot, QD) where the electron-electron interaction is important, and recovered the form of Landauer-Büttiker formula in the noninteracting case.

Recent advances in nanofabrication and material growth technologies make it possible to realize various kinds of hybrid mesoscopic structuresPoirier ; Post ; Morpurgo ; Tuominen ; Eiles ; Upadhyay ; Lawrence ; Gueron , of which the building blocks are normal metals (N), ferromagnets (F) and superconductors (S). It is known that transport in the presence of a ferromagnet and a superconductor will be strongly related to the spin polarization of the ferromagnet and the Andreev reflection at the boundary of the superconductor Jong ; Prinz . The co-existence of two ferromagnets or two superconductors is revealed to display spin-valve effect Slonczewski  or Josephson effectTinkham . When an interacting normal metal is connected with bulk ferromagnet(s) and/or superconductor(s), it is expected that the interplay among the electron-electron interaction, spin imbalance, Andreev reflection would induce more interesting or even more surprising features in mesoscopic electronic transport. Previous theoretical investigations on the transport properties of specific mesoscopic hybrid structures, such as N-QD-SFazio , S-QD-SYeyati , F-QD-FSergueev , F-QD-S Zhu  etc., make some intuitive presumptions and hence lack mathematical rigidity, which will be discussed below in detail .

In this paper, we provide a scheme to treat the transport problem in an interacting hybrid mesoscopic structure in a unified way by using the Keldysh formalismMeir ; Jauho . It is shown that gauge invariance can be satisfied automatically. It is also shown that what physical quantities can be measured in experiment.

We start with the Hamiltonian

$$=_{}+_{}+_𝒞+_𝒯,$$

where $`_𝒞=_{n\sigma }(\epsilon _{n\sigma }\mu _𝒞)\psi _{dn\sigma }^{}\psi _{dn\sigma }+_{int}(\{\psi _{dn\sigma }^{}\},\{\psi _{dn\sigma }\})`$ is the Hamiltonian for the central interaction region, $`_{}`$ ($`_{}`$) for the left (right) lead can be either the Stoner model Slonczewski  characterized by an exchange magnetization $`h`$ with polar angle $`\theta `$ or the BCS Hamiltonian Tinkham  with order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }=|\mathrm{\Delta }|e^{i\phi }`$: $`_\gamma ^{(F)}=_{k\sigma }[\epsilon _{\gamma k\sigma }+sign(\sigma )h_\gamma \mathrm{cos}\theta _{\gamma f}\mu _\gamma ]f_{\gamma k\sigma }^{}f_{\gamma k\sigma }+_{k\sigma }h_\gamma \mathrm{sin}\theta _{\gamma f}f_{\gamma k\sigma }^{}f_{\gamma k\stackrel{}{\sigma }},`$ or $`_\gamma ^{(S)}=_{k\sigma }(\epsilon _{\gamma k\sigma }\mu _\gamma )s_{\gamma k\sigma }^{}s_{\gamma k\sigma }+_k\left[\mathrm{\Delta }_\gamma ^{}s_{\gamma k}^{}s_{\gamma k}^{}+\mathrm{\Delta }_\gamma s_{\gamma k}s_{\gamma k}\right]`$, tunneling Hamiltonian can be written as $`_𝒯^{\gamma (F)}=_{kn;\sigma }[V_{kn;\sigma }^{\gamma f}f_{\gamma k\sigma }^{}\psi _{dn\sigma }+H.c.]`$ or $`_𝒯^{\gamma (S)}=_{kn;\sigma }[V_{kn;\sigma }^{\gamma s}s_{\gamma k\sigma }^{}\psi _{dn\sigma }+H.c.].`$ Here $`\gamma =,`$, $`\mu _{\gamma /𝒞}`$ is the chemical potential of the corresponding part, and hereafter the notations $`\sigma =,`$ and $`\sigma =\pm `$ are used interchangeably.

To see the tunneling processes more clearly, and even more importantly, to facilitate the analysis of the gauge invariance, and the simplification of the general current formula (Electron transport in interacting hybrid mesoscopic systems) to the form of specific systems, we first transform the Stoner and BCS Hamiltonian and the tunneling Hamiltonian by the following Bogoliubov transformations

$`f_{\gamma k\sigma }=\mathrm{cos}(\theta _{\gamma f}/2)\psi _{\gamma fk\sigma }sgn(\sigma )\mathrm{sin}(\theta _{\gamma f}/2)\psi _{\gamma fk\stackrel{}{\sigma }},`$
$`e^{i\phi _\gamma /2}s_{\gamma k\sigma }=\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\gamma sk^{}}\psi _{\gamma sk^{}\sigma }+sgn(\sigma )\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\gamma s}𝒫\psi _{\gamma sk^{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }}^{},`$
where $`\theta _{\gamma sk^{}}=\mathrm{arctan}[(\epsilon _{\gamma k\sigma }+\sqrt{\epsilon _{\gamma k\sigma }^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_\gamma ^2})/(\epsilon _{\gamma k\sigma }\sqrt{\epsilon _{\gamma k\sigma }^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_\gamma ^2})]^{1/2}`$ and $`𝒫`$ ($`𝒫^{}`$) is the pair destruction (creation) operator guaranteeing the particle conservation, transforming a state of a given $`N`$ particles into that with $`(N+2)`$/$`(N2)`$ particles, i.e., $`𝒫^{}/𝒫|N=|N+2/|N2`$ , thus make sense the abnormal off-diagonal Green’s functions consists of two creation or destruction particle operators. One finds that the lead Hamiltonian is diagonalized after the above Bogoliubov transformations.

In order to treat the ferromagnet and superconductor on the same footing, we introduce a 4-dimensional Nambu-spinor space, denoted by $`𝚿_\alpha =\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\psi _\alpha ^{}& \psi _\alpha & \psi _\alpha ^{}& \psi _\alpha \end{array}\right)^{}`$ and the Green’s function in the Keldysh formalism Jauho  $`𝐆_{\alpha ,\beta }(t_1,t_2)=iT_C(𝚿_\alpha (t_1)𝚿_\beta ^{}(t_2))`$, where $`T_c`$ is the contour-order operator, including $`𝐆_{\alpha ,\beta }^{r/a}(t_1,t_2)=i\vartheta (\pm t_1t_2)\{𝚿_\alpha (t_1),𝚿_\beta ^{}(t_2)\}_+`$, and $`𝐆_{\alpha ,\beta }^{</>}(t_1,t_2)=\pm i𝚿_\beta ^{}(t_2)/𝚿_\alpha (t_1)𝚿_\alpha (t_1)/𝚿_\beta ^{}(t_2)`$. The tunneling Hamiltonian in such a representation takes the form

$`_𝒯^{\gamma (F)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{kn}{}}(𝚿_{\gamma fk}^{}𝐕_{kn}^{\gamma f}(t)𝚿_{dn}+H.c.),`$ (1)
$`_𝒯^{\gamma (S)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{kn}{}}(𝚿_{\gamma sk^{}}^{}𝐕_{kn}^{\gamma s}(t)𝚿_{dn}+H.c.),`$ (2)
where $`𝐕_{kn}^{\gamma f}(t)=𝐑^f(\frac{\theta _{\gamma f}}{2})𝐕_{kn}^{\gamma f}𝐏(\mu _{\gamma 𝒞}t)`$, $`𝐕_{kn}^{\gamma s}(t)=𝐑^s(\theta _{\gamma sk^{}})𝐕_{kn}^{\gamma s}𝐏(\mu _{\gamma 𝒞}t+\frac{\phi _\gamma }{2})`$, with $`\mu _{\gamma 𝒞}=\mu _\gamma \mu _𝒞`$,

$`𝐕_{kn}^{\gamma f/s}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}V_{kn}^{\gamma f/s}& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& V_{kn}^{\gamma f/s}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& V_{kn}^{\gamma f/s}& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& V_{kn}^{\gamma f/s}\end{array}\right),`$
and the unitary rotation and phase operators(matrices) are given by

$`𝐑^f(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\mathrm{cos}x& 0& \mathrm{sin}x& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{cos}x& 0& \mathrm{sin}x\\ \mathrm{sin}x& 0& \mathrm{cos}x& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{sin}x& 0& \mathrm{cos}x\end{array}\right),`$
$`𝐑^s(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\mathrm{cos}x& 𝒫\mathrm{sin}x& 0& 0\\ 𝒫^{}\mathrm{sin}x& \mathrm{cos}x& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{cos}x& 𝒫\mathrm{sin}x\\ 0& 0& 𝒫^{}\mathrm{sin}x& \mathrm{cos}x\end{array}\right),`$
$`𝐏(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}e^{ix/\mathrm{}}& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& e^{ix/\mathrm{}}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& e^{ix/\mathrm{}}& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& e^{ix/\mathrm{}}\end{array}\right).`$
The chemical potential $`\mu _{\gamma /𝒞}`$ is incorporated into the phase matrix $`𝐏`$ and the ferromagnetism and superconductivity are reflected in the corresponding rotation matrices $`𝐑^f`$ and $`𝐑^s`$. The tunneling Hamiltonian now represents the explicit physical processes in the semiconductor modelTinkham : an electron of spin $`\sigma `$ in the central regime can tunnel into either the spin $`\sigma `$ band or $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ band of the ferromagnetic lead, or tunnel into a spin $`\sigma `$ state or condensate into an electron pair with a hole state of opposite spin being created; and vice versa. The total probability of the two tunneling processes into the same lead is $`\mathrm{cos}^2x+\mathrm{sin}^2x=1`$. As shown below, these rotation and phase matrices are very useful in our analysis of gauge invariance, and even more importantly, the simplification of the formulas.

The current from the left lead into the interacting region isMeir

$`_{}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`e\dot{N}_{}`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2e}{\mathrm{}}}Re{\displaystyle \underset{nk}{\overset{i=1,3}{}}}\left(𝐕_{kn}^{\gamma f/s}(t)𝐆_{\gamma f/sk,dn}^<(t,t)\right)_{ii}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2e}{\mathrm{}}}Re{\displaystyle \underset{nm}{\overset{i=1,3}{}}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^t}dt_1(𝚺_{f/s;nm}^r(t,t_1)𝐆_{dm,dn}^<(t_1,t)`$
$`+𝚺_{f/s;nm}^<(t,t_1)𝐆_{dm,dn}^a(t_1,t))_{ii},`$
where the self-energy matrices after converting the sum $`_k`$ into an integral $`𝑑\epsilon _k\rho _{\sigma /N}^{\gamma f/s}(\epsilon _k)`$(where $`\rho _{\sigma /N}^{\gamma f/s}`$ is the spin-dependent/normal density of states of the feromagnet/superconductor) are

$`𝚺_{\gamma f;mn}^{r/a}(t_1,t_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\epsilon }{2\pi }e^{i\epsilon (t_1t_2)/\mathrm{}}𝐑^f(\frac{\theta _{\gamma f}}{2})}`$ (4)
$`𝚪_{mn}^{\gamma f}(\epsilon \mu _{\gamma 𝒞})𝐑^f({\displaystyle \frac{\theta _{\gamma f}}{2}}),`$
$`𝚺_{\gamma s;mn}^{r/a}(t_1,t_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\epsilon }{2\pi }e^{i\epsilon (t_1t_2)/\mathrm{}}𝐏^{}(\mu _{\gamma 𝒞}t_1+\frac{\phi _\gamma }{2})}`$ (5)
$`𝚪_{\varrho /\varrho ^{};mn}^{\gamma s}(\epsilon \mu _{\gamma 𝒞})𝐏(\mu _{\gamma 𝒞}t_1+{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _\gamma }{2}}),`$
$`𝚺_{\gamma f;nm}^{</>}(t_1,t_2)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{d\epsilon }{2\pi }e^{i\epsilon (t_1t_2)/\mathrm{}}𝐑^f(\frac{\theta _{\gamma f}}{2})}`$ (6)
$`𝚪_{nm}^{\gamma f}(\epsilon \mu _{\gamma 𝒞})𝐑^f({\displaystyle \frac{\theta _{\gamma f}}{2}})[𝐟_\gamma (\epsilon \mu _{\gamma 𝒞}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{𝟏}\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{𝟏}],`$
$`𝚺_{\gamma s;nm}^{</>}(t_1,t_2)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{d\epsilon }{2\pi }e^{i\epsilon (t_1t_2)/\mathrm{}}𝐏^{}(\mu _{\gamma 𝒞}t_1+\frac{\phi _\gamma }{2})}`$ (7)
$`𝚪_{\rho ;nm}^{\gamma s}(\epsilon \mu _{\gamma 𝒞})[𝐟_\gamma (\epsilon \mu _{\gamma 𝒞}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{𝟏}\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{𝟏}]`$
$`𝐏(\mu _{\gamma 𝒞}t_1+{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _\gamma }{2}}),`$
with (subscripts $`mn`$ is omitted in the matrices)

$`𝐟_\gamma (\epsilon c)=`$
$`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}f(\epsilon c)& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& f(\epsilon +c)& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& f(\epsilon c)& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& f(\epsilon +c)\end{array}\right),`$
$`𝚪^{\gamma f}(\epsilon c)`$ $`=`$
$`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{\gamma f}(\epsilon c)& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{\gamma f}(\epsilon +c)& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{\gamma f}(\epsilon c)& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{\gamma f}(\epsilon +c)\end{array}\right),`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma ;mn}^{\gamma f}(\epsilon )=2\pi \rho _\sigma ^{\gamma f}(\epsilon )V_{km}^{\gamma f}V_{kn}^{\gamma f},`$
and ($`x=\varrho ,\varrho ^{},\rho `$)

$`𝚪_x^{\gamma s}(\epsilon c)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\gamma s}`$
$`(\begin{array}{cc}x^{\gamma s}(\epsilon c)& \frac{|\mathrm{\Delta }_\gamma |}{\epsilon +c}x^{\gamma s}(\epsilon +c)\\ \frac{|\mathrm{\Delta }_\gamma |}{\epsilon c}x^{\gamma s}(\epsilon c)& x^{\gamma s}(\epsilon +c)\\ 0& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}`$
$`\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& 0\\ x^{\gamma s}(\epsilon c)& \frac{|\mathrm{\Delta }_\gamma |}{\epsilon +c}x^{\gamma s}(\epsilon +c)\\ \frac{|\mathrm{\Delta }_\gamma |}{\epsilon c}x^{\gamma s}(\epsilon c)& x^{\gamma s}(\epsilon +c)\end{array}),`$
$`\varrho ^{\gamma s}(\epsilon )`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon \vartheta (|\mathrm{\Delta }_\gamma ||\epsilon |)}{\sqrt{|\mathrm{\Delta }_\gamma |^2\epsilon ^2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{|\epsilon |\vartheta (|\epsilon ||\mathrm{\Delta }_\gamma |)}{\sqrt{\epsilon ^2|\mathrm{\Delta }_\gamma |^2}}},`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{mn}^{\gamma s}`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi \rho _N^{\gamma s}(0)V_{km}^{\gamma f}V_{kn}^{\gamma f}.`$
Here $`f(x)=1/(1+e^x/k_BT)`$ is the Fermi distribution function. The quasi-particle density of states of the BCS superconductor is $`\rho ^{\gamma s}(\epsilon )=Re\{\varrho ^{\gamma s}(\epsilon )\}`$.

The current flowing from the right lead $`_{}`$ can be obtained in a similar way. In the steady transport problem, the current is uniform if no charge piles up in the central region, that is, $`_{}=_{}`$. Symmetrizing Eq. (3) one finds

$`(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{\mathrm{}}}Re{\displaystyle \stackrel{i=1,3}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{t}{}}}dt_1Tr\{[𝚺_{f/s}^r(t,t_1)𝚺_{f/s}^r(t,t_1)]`$
$`𝐆_{d,d}^<(t_1,t)+[𝚺_{f/s}^<(t,t_1)𝚺_{f/s}^<(t,t_1)]𝐆_{d,d}^a(t_1,t)\}_{ii},`$
where the trace is over the level indices in the central region. Eq. (Electron transport in interacting hybrid mesoscopic systems) with the self-energy matrices (4,5,6,7) is the central result of this work, it expresses the current through an interacting region in terms of the local properties of such region ($`𝐆_{d,d}^{r,a/<}`$) and the equilibrium distribution functions ($`𝚺_{\gamma f/s}^{r,a/<}`$) of the attached leads, as in the work of Meir and Wingreen Meir . It can be applied to many types of hybrid mesoscopic structures even in the non-equilibrium situation, allowing various kinds of interactions in the central region. Notice that, the current is generally time-independent, except the case of two superconducting leads with nonzero bias, and that the full Green’s functions $`𝐆_{d,d}^{r,a/<}`$ should be evaluated with the consideration of the tunnelling between the interacting region and the leads. The retarded/advanced Green’s functions $`𝐆_{d,d}^{r,a}`$ can be calculated in several approaches, such as the equation of motion formalismWingreen , interpolative methodRodero  and the NCA techniqueBickers . While the lesser one $`𝐆_{d,d}^<`$ can be obtained from the Keldysh’s equation based on Ng’s AnsatzNg . With the help of the unitary property of the phase operator $`𝐏`$, it is not difficult to find that Eq. (Electron transport in interacting hybrid mesoscopic systems) is gauge invariant, namely, $`(t)`$ remains unchanged under a global energy shift. When the bias $`V=(\mu _{}\mu _{})/e`$ becomes zero, one can readily find that $`(t)=0`$ except the case of two superconducting leads with different superconducting phases, due to the coherent transport of quasi-particle pairsZeng .

In the following, we apply this generalized result Eq. (Electron transport in interacting hybrid mesoscopic systems) to the specific structures we are interested in. When the two leads are both ferromagnetic, after a phase and a rotation transformation, Eq. (Electron transport in interacting hybrid mesoscopic systems) reduces to

$`_{fnf}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ie}{2\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \stackrel{i=1,3}{}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d\epsilon }{2\pi }}Tr\{([\widehat{𝚪}^f(\epsilon eV)𝚪^f(\epsilon )]`$ (9)
$`\widehat{𝐆}_{d,d}^<(\epsilon )+[\widehat{𝚪}^f(\epsilon eV)𝐟_{}(\epsilon eV)`$
$`𝚪^f(\epsilon )𝐟_{}(\epsilon )][\widehat{𝐆}_{d,d}^r(\epsilon )\widehat{𝐆}_{d,d}^a(\epsilon )])_{ii}\},`$
where $`\widehat{𝚪}^f=𝐑^f(\frac{\theta _f}{2})𝚪^f𝐑^f(\frac{\theta _f}{2})`$, $`\theta _f=\theta _f\theta _f`$, and

$`\widehat{𝐆}_{d,d}^{r,a/<}(\epsilon )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d(tt^{})e^{i\epsilon (tt^{})/\mathrm{}}𝐏(\mu _𝒞t)𝐑^f(\frac{\theta _f}{2})}`$
$`𝐆_{d,d}^{r,a/<}(t,t^{})𝐑^f({\displaystyle \frac{\theta _f}{2}})𝐏^{}(\mu _𝒞t^{}).`$
One sees that Eq. (9) is formally the same as the Meir-Wingree formula Meir  in the normal lead case. The current is time-independent as one might expect, and just depends on the relative angle $`\theta _f`$ between two magnetization orientations and the bias $`V`$, the difference between the chemical potential of the two leads.

The current through an interaction region with a ferromagnetic and a superconducting lead can be derived similarly

$`_{fns}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ie}{2\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \stackrel{i=1,3}{}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d\epsilon }{2\pi }}Tr\{([𝚪^f(\epsilon eV)𝚪_\rho ^s(\epsilon )]`$ (10)
$`\overline{𝐆}_{d,d}^<(\epsilon )+[𝚪^f(\epsilon eV)𝐟_{}(\epsilon eV)`$
$`𝚪_\rho ^s(\epsilon )𝐟_{}(\epsilon )][\overline{𝐆}_{d,d}^r(\epsilon )\overline{𝐆}_{d,d}^a(\epsilon )])_{ii}\},`$
in which the full Green’s functions are

$`\overline{𝐆}_{d,d}^{r,a/<}(\epsilon )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d(tt^{})e^{i\epsilon (tt^{})/\mathrm{}}𝐏(\mu _𝒞t+\frac{\phi _{}}{2})}`$
$`𝐑^f({\displaystyle \frac{\theta _f}{2}})𝐆_{d,d}^{r,a/<}(t,t^{})𝐑^f({\displaystyle \frac{\theta _f}{2}})𝐏^{}(\mu _𝒞t^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _{}}{2}}).`$
The current through a generic hybrid mesoscopic structure also depends on just the bias $`V`$. The dependence on the magnetization orientation of the ferromagnetic lead and the phase of the order parameter of the superconductor lead is absent after the rotation and phase operations, which are just presumptions in previous investigationsFazio ; Yeyati ; Sergueev ; Zhu .

When the two leads are both superconductors, the situation becomes complicated. However, we still obtain an elegant formula in this case following the same procedure as in the above derivation

$`_{sns}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \stackrel{i=1,3}{}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d\epsilon }{2\pi }}ImTr\{({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\stackrel{~}{𝚪}_\varrho ^s(\epsilon eV;t)`$ (11)
$`𝚪_\varrho ^s(\epsilon )]\stackrel{~}{𝐆}_{d,d}^<(\epsilon ;t)[\stackrel{~}{𝚪}_\rho ^s(\epsilon eV;t)`$
$`𝐟_{}(\epsilon eV)𝚪_\rho ^s(\epsilon )𝐟_{}(\epsilon )]\stackrel{~}{𝐆}_{d,d}^a(\epsilon ;t))_{ii}\},`$
where

$`\stackrel{~}{𝚪}_{\varrho /\rho }^s(\epsilon eV;t)`$ $`=`$ $`𝐏^{}(eVt+{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _s}{2}})𝚪_{\varrho /\rho }^s(\epsilon eV)`$
$`𝐏(eVt+{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _s}{2}}),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{𝐆}_{d,d}^{r,a/<}(\epsilon ;t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d(tt^{})e^{i\epsilon (tt^{})/\mathrm{}}𝐏(\mu _𝒞t+\frac{\phi _{}}{2})}`$
$`𝐆^{r,a/<}(t,t^{})𝐏^{}(\mu _𝒞t^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _{}}{2}}),`$
with $`\phi _s=\phi _{}\phi _{}`$. Here we have added the time variable $`t`$ into the full Green’s function $`\stackrel{~}{𝐆}_{d,d}^{r,a/<}(\epsilon ;t)`$, other than $`\widehat{𝐆}_{d,d}^{r,a/<}(\epsilon )`$. The reason is that the full Green’s functions should be calculated in the presence of tunneling as well as interactions in the central region. In the present case, the $`t`$-dependence can not be avoided in the self-energy matrices (5,7), while it can be removed by a unitary phase operation in the case of only one superconductor lead. The current through an interacting mesoscopic region with two superconductor leads, is generally time dependent, as in the case of weak Josephson linksTinkham . However, in the limiting case of zero bias, the current is a time-independent nonzero quantity, as can be found from Eq. (11).

The time-dependence of $`\stackrel{~}{𝐆}_{d,d}^{r,a/<}`$ arises from the couplings to the voltage biased two superconducting leads. One can show that $`\stackrel{~}{𝐆}_{d,d}^{r,a/<}`$ depends only on the single time variable $`t`$ at least within perturbative analysis. In fact the Green’s function $`\stackrel{~}{𝐆}_{d,d}^{r,a/<}`$ can be expanded in powers of the fundamental frequency $`\omega _0=2eV/\mathrm{}`$, i.e., $`\stackrel{~}{𝐆}_{d,d}^{r,a/<}(\epsilon ,t)=_m\stackrel{~}{𝐆}_{d,d}^{r,a/<}(\epsilon ,\epsilon +m\omega _0/2)e^{im\omega _0t/2}`$, which with the expression for the Green’s function $`\stackrel{~}{𝐆}_{d,d}^{r,a/<}`$ below Eq.(11) is exactly the form of the double-energy transformationArnold . And the current can be generally expressed as $`(t)=_nI_ne^{in\omega _0t}`$.

The ferromagnetic or superconductor lead will be in a normal state, when the magnetization $`h`$ or the order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ becomes zero. Such an observation allows us to study a more broad category of the hybrid structures using the above formalism. By defining the unitary operators, we prove rigorously that the relative value between some quantities, such as chemical potential, magnetization orientation, and order parameter phase etc. can be measured. All these quantities can be expressed as the energy-independent arguments of the exponential functions or the triangle functions in a unitary matrix, reflecting some kind of requirement of the symmetrical invariance. As a further example, we recover all the known formulas obtained in the absence of interactionsFazio ; Yeyati ; Sergueev ; Zhu ; Zeng . This proves the validity and generality of our formalism in other respects. Taking into consideration the electron-electron interactions, one expect rich physics to show up, especially in the Kondo regime.

In summary, we have given a unified formula for the current through an interacting region with either superconducting or ferromagnetic leads. The current formula derived satisfies gauge invariance automatically. Such a current formula can be applied to an appreciable class of hybrid mesoscopic systems, allowing arbitrary interactions within the central nanoscale region.

ZZ and BL have been supported in part by the Academic Research Fund of the National University of Singapore and DSTA of Singapore. FC has been supported by Cátedra Presidencial en Ciencias of Chile and FONDECYT 1020829 of Chile.