text:
# A scheme with two large extra dimensions confronted with neutrino physics

## 1 Introduction

The idea that the physical spacetime might have more than three spatial dimensions dates back to the beginning of the 20th century and to the attempts of Nordström, Kaluza and Klein to unify gravity and electromagnetism . These early ideas have been resurrected in the present-day string theories which unify gauge theories and gravity in a ten or eleven dimensional spacetime. Extra dimensions were originally thought to be compactified to extremely short distances. However, according to some new ideas developed within the string theories some of them could be relatively large and could have phenomenological consequences testable in physics experiments.

It has been realized that the presence of large extra compact spatial dimensions could make the fundamental Planck scale $`M_{}`$, that is the Planck scale associated with the higher-dimensional spacetime, much smaller than it is in the ordinary four-dimensional world . This would offer an attractive solution to the hierarchy problem, i.e. the disparity of the fundamental energy scales of weak interactions and gravity. The weakness of the gravity as seen in our visible four-dimensional spacetime, or in other words the largeness of the effective four-dimensional Planck scale $`M_{Pl}10^{19}`$ GeV, could be understood to follow from the spreading of the gravity force lines into the extra dimensions. Gravitational interactions have not yet been tested at short distances, and at present experiments still allow some of these extra dimensions to be as large as tenths of a millimeter . In order to have the Planck scale $`M_{}`$ at the TeV range, as the solution of the hierarchy problem requires, at least two extra dimensions are necessarily needed .

The basic assumption of the extra dimension scenario is that all the fields charged under the Standard Model (SM) gauge group are localized on a brane, the familiar 3+1-dimensional space-time, embedded in the 4+$`n`$-dimensional space, called the bulk . This is not only true for the SM non-singlet fermions and scalars, but also for the SM gauge bosons, which are attached to the branes e.g. due to a gauge trapping mechanism . In string theory the SM particles correspond to open strings whose ends are stuck to the branes, while gravitons and other particles that do not carry SM charges correspond to closed strings free to propagate in the extra dimensions (see e.g. Refs. ).

The possible unlocalizability of right-handed neutrinos ($`\nu _R`$) in extra-dimension scenarios was emphasized in . This feature may turn out to be of crucial importance from the neutrino physics point of view. The Yukawa coupling between the left-handed neutrino $`\nu _L`$, residing on the brane, and the right-handed neutrino $`\nu _R`$, residing wherever in the spacetime, is suppressed by a factor of the order of $`M_{}/M_{Pl}`$ due to the scarce overlapping of the corresponding wave functions. This would offer a new and elegant explanation for the lightness of neutrinos. Perhaps the most popular conventional explanation for the lightness of neutrinos is given by the seesaw mechanism, which requires the existence of a new mass scale around $`10^{12}`$ GeV or higher. In the extra-dimension scheme such a high mass scale is neither needed nor naturally appears but small neutrino masses follow from the suppression of the Yukawa couplings due to the large bulk volume.

The possible existence of bulk neutrinos implies another novel feature. The momenta of bulk fields are quantized in the compactified extra dimensions, and each of these quantum states corresponds to a massive state, a Kaluza-Klein excitation, at the brane world. Hence a bulk neutrino would appear as an infinite tower of massive Dirac neutrinos in our four-dimensional spacetime. These new degrees of freedom would hugely enrich the neutrino mass spectrum and neutrino oscillation patterns, as discussed in many recent papers, see e.g. .

In our previous work  we investigated a model with one large extra dimension paying a particular attention to the effects of the extra dimension in neutrino physics. The localization of the SM fermions in the four-dimensional space was achieved by introducing a five-dimensional scalar field with position dependent expectation value having a domain-wall profile in the extra dimension . Due to the periodicity of the scalar field in the compactified fifth dimension, there necessarily exists, in addition to the ordinary SM brane, another brane, a mirror brane, in the bulk. We constructed a concrete mathematical framework that appropriately described this two-brane scheme. We extracted a finite neutrino mass matrix, of which the massive Kaluza-Klein modes were integrated out, and studied neutrino masses and mixing from phenomenological point of view. It was found out that both the neutrino properties and the size of the extra dimension, $`R`$, are in this scheme severely constrained by experimental data. Especially, $`R`$ turned out to be bounded from below due to the upper limit of the electron neutrino mass set by the tritium beta decay experiments. The mixing between the ordinary left-handed neutrino and the inert left-handed bulk neutrino is fairly small if R

<

103

<

𝑅superscript103R\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$<$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}10^{-3} mm, but maximal mixing becomes possible for a larger $`R`$. A large radius, R

>

102

>

𝑅superscript102R\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$>$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}10^{-2} mm, seemed also to be favored by cosmological arguments. Finally, all the active-sterile neutrino mixing schemes considered as possible solutions to the solar and atmospheric neutrino anomalies were also found realizable in this model.

As mentioned before, the hierarchy problem cannot be solved if there is only one extra dimension. In this paper we therefore extend our previous analysis to the case of two extra dimensions. The two-dimensional extra space is assumed to be compactified on a torus. The torus geometry allows for a flat metric, which makes various mathematical manipulations quite straightforward.

We are interested in figuring out in which respect this more realistic six-dimensional scheme differs from our previously studied five-dimensional model. In particular, we would like to find out how the requirement of sufficiently large extra dimensions – so as to solve the hierarchy problem – restricts the parameter space of neutrino physics, that is, mixing angles and squared mass differences.

We will use a similar field-theoretical fermion-trapping mechanism as used in earlier studies . We introduce a six-dimensional scalar field that has a vortex-like solution, the field vanishing at the center of the vortex . The SM fermions, assumed to be coupled to the scalar field, are then trapped in the core of the four-dimensional vortex, the brane. The periodicity of the scalar field implies that the vortex must have two vis-à-vis antivortices in both of the extra toroidal dimensions. Consequently, the antivortices require then existence of two vortices, so the vortex configuration consists of two vortices and two antivortices. In other words, besides “our” SM brane one has another brane where particles have usual chiralities and two mirror branes containing mirror particles with chiralities opposite to those of their SM counterparts. In addition to gravitons, only right-handed ordinary neutrinos and their opposite-handed mirror partners are free to propagate in the higher-dimensional bulk. Note that our way of reasoning here is perfectly analogous to the case of one extra dimension , except that now the number of branes and mirror branes is doubled.

Note that the vortex structure on a sphere would be simpler with just one vortex-antivortex pair. However, the curvature of a sphere is non-zero and therefore no fermion zero modes exist on a sphere . As a consequence the bulk (inert) neutrino structure and the interplay between the bulk and the brane (active) neutrinos would be much more complicated.

In the following Section we shall introduce the mathematical framework of our six-dimensional scheme and study its effective action in the four-dimensional spacetime. The neutrino mass matrix is derived and a phenomenological analysis of neutrino physics of the model is performed in Section 3. Section 4 is devoted to a summary and conclusions.

## 2 Formulation of the model

In this section we consider a concrete six-dimensional model that exhibits the feature of localizing the left-handed neutrinos on branes and the right-handed mirror neutrinos on mirror branes while letting their gauge inert opposite-handed companions to live in the entire higher-dimensional bulk. The localization of the gauge active neutrinos is achieved by the field-theoretical method that was discussed in e.g. Ref.  and that we applied in our previous analysis of a five-dimensional scenario . The two extra dimensions are assumed to be compactified on a torus with radii $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$. A point in the six-dimensional space is denoted as $`(x^\mu ,y_1,y_2)`$, where $`x^\mu `$ stands for ordinary spacetime coordinates ($`\mu =0,\mathrm{},3`$) and $`y_{1(2)}y_{1(2)}+2\pi R_{1(2)}`$ are periodic coordinates on the torus.

As mentioned above, the scalar field ($`\mathrm{\Phi }`$) causing the localization is supposed to form two vortices and two antivortices. A vortex solution is given by $`\mathrm{\Phi }=e^{i\theta }\varphi (r)`$, with $`\varphi (0)=0`$ and $`\varphi (r=\text{large})`$ const., where $`r`$ is a radial coordinate . For antivortices one simply changes the sign of $`\theta `$. As will be seen soon, neutrinos are trapped inside a vortex, the throat of which can be viewed as a four-dimensional brane.

The neutrino sector of our model consists of six-dimensional chiral spinors, a left-handed spinor $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ and a right-handed spinor $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$, both associated with active neutrinos, together with a spinor $`N`$, which is associated with an inert neutrino and which, as will be seen later, can be chosen right-handed. The fields described by the spinors $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ are confined to branes or mirror branes, whereas $`N`$ exists everywhere in the bulk. This choice is a minimal set-up needed to build a successful model on a torus. However, for technical reasons we will keep for a while both chiral components of the spinor fields in our considerations. Contrary to the five-dimensional case , two active fields have now to be introduced, in order to accomplish the localization of the fields.

The six-dimensional action of our model is taken to be

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^4xd^2y[i\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1\mathrm{\Gamma }^A_A\mathrm{\Psi }_1+i\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_2\mathrm{\Gamma }^A_A\mathrm{\Psi }_2+(g\mathrm{\Phi }\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1\mathrm{\Psi }_2+h.c.)`$ (1)
$`+i\overline{N}\mathrm{\Gamma }^A_AN+(\kappa H^{}\overline{N}\mathrm{\Psi }_1+h.c.)],`$
where $`A=0,\mathrm{},5`$, $`\kappa `$ is a dimensionful Yukawa coupling, and $`H`$ corresponds to the ordinary Higgs field. The gamma matrices read

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu =\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \gamma ^\mu \\ \gamma ^\mu & 0\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Gamma }^4=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1_4\\ 1_4& 0\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Gamma }^5=i\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \gamma ^5\\ \gamma ^5& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(2)
where $`\gamma ^\mu `$’s are the usual four-dimensional gamma matrices, and $`\gamma ^5=i\gamma ^0\gamma ^1\gamma ^2\gamma ^3`$. It is easy to show that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^A`$’s fulfil the six-dimensional Clifford algebra $`\{\mathrm{\Gamma }^A,\mathrm{\Gamma }^B\}=2g^{AB}I_8`$, with $`g^{AB}=\text{diag}(1,1,1,1,1,1)`$. Furthermore, by defining the six-dimensional chirality operators, $`P_\pm =\frac{1}{2}(I_8\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }^7)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^7=\mathrm{\Gamma }^0\mathrm{\Gamma }^1\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^5=\text{diag}(1_4,1_4)`$, one is able to decompose the six-dimensional spinors as $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1=(\mathrm{\Psi }_{1+}\mathrm{\Psi }_1)^T`$ and similarly for $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ and $`N`$111See e.g. Ref.  for an earlier discussion on six-dimensional diracology, chiralities in six and four dimensions, and other related issues.. The subscript \+ denotes a right-handed and the subscript $``$ a left-handed spinor component in the six-dimensional sense.

The reader should note that we have not presented the gauge boson contributions, free scalar parts, nor the non-neutrino (fermion) parts in the action (1), but only the parts essential to read out the neutrino couplings. Gauge bosons are, as mentioned earlier in this paper, trapped to the vortices, so that, effectively, each vortex has its own SM gauge bosons, which couple directly only to fermions on the very same brane. Free scalar parts, on the other hand, are the standard ones, and the non-neutrino parts are out of the scope of the present paper.

Let us further point out some peculiar features of our action. The form of the action (1) follows from the imposition of a global U(1) symmetry, under which the fields $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, $`N`$ and $`H`$ are taken to have quantum numbers 1, -1, 2, 0 and 1, respectively. Especially, as will be seen below, the term $`\mathrm{\Phi }\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ takes care of the localization of the active neutrinos on the branes. Terms like $`\mathrm{\Phi }\overline{N}N`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_i\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_i\mathrm{\Psi }_j(ij)`$, $`H^{}\overline{N}\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ and $`H\overline{N}\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ are forbidden by the U(1) symmetry. Mass terms $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_i\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$ and $`\overline{N}N`$ as well as the bulk neutrino Majorana mass term $`\overline{N}N^c`$, allowed by the symmetry, do not survive as we will put $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{1+}=\mathrm{\Psi }_2=N_{}=0`$ later on. Combinations $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{()}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{1(2)}\mathrm{\Psi }_{1(2)}^c`$ , $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_i\mathrm{\Psi }_j^c(ij)`$ and $`H\overline{N}\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$, on the other hand, vanish when the SU(2) structure is taken into account: $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$’s and $`H`$ are the neutral parts of SU(2) doublets whereas $`N`$ is a SU(2) singlet.

We start to analyze our model by studying the localization of the brane fermions. The equations of motion of the fields $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{1,2}`$ are

$`i\mathrm{\Gamma }^A_A\mathrm{\Psi }_1+g\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`i\mathrm{\Gamma }^A_A\mathrm{\Psi }_2+g^{}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (3)
where a term $`\kappa ^{}HN`$ has been neglected, since it may be regarded as a small perturbation in the lowest order approximation. Using polar coordinates ($`y_1=r\mathrm{cos}\theta ,y_2=r\mathrm{sin}\theta `$), one has

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^4_4+\mathrm{\Gamma }^5_5=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& e^{i\gamma ^5\theta }_r\frac{i}{r}\gamma ^5e^{i\gamma ^5\theta }_\theta \\ e^{i\gamma ^5\theta }_r\frac{i}{r}\gamma ^5e^{i\gamma ^5\theta }_\theta & 0\end{array}\right),$$
(4)
and thus Eqs. (2) can be written in terms of the chiral components of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{1,2}`$ as

$`i\gamma ^\mu _\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ $`=`$ $`ie^{i\gamma ^5\theta }_r\mathrm{\Psi }_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\gamma ^5e^{i\gamma ^5\theta }_\theta \mathrm{\Psi }_1+ge^{i\theta }\varphi (r)\mathrm{\Psi }_{2+},`$
$`i\gamma ^\mu _\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_{1+}`$ $`=`$ $`ie^{i\gamma ^5\theta }_r\mathrm{\Psi }_{1+}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\gamma ^5e^{i\gamma ^5\theta }_\theta \mathrm{\Psi }_{1+}+ge^{i\theta }\varphi (r)\mathrm{\Psi }_2,`$
$`i\gamma ^\mu _\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ $`=`$ $`ie^{i\gamma ^5\theta }_r\mathrm{\Psi }_2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\gamma ^5e^{i\gamma ^5\theta }_\theta \mathrm{\Psi }_2+g^{}e^{i\theta }\varphi (r)\mathrm{\Psi }_{1+},`$ (5)
$`i\gamma ^\mu _\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_{2+}`$ $`=`$ $`ie^{i\gamma ^5\theta }_r\mathrm{\Psi }_{2+}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\gamma ^5e^{i\gamma ^5\theta }_\theta \mathrm{\Psi }_{2+}+g^{}e^{i\theta }\varphi (r)\mathrm{\Psi }_1.`$
Here we consider the localization on a vortex (i.e. $`\mathrm{\Phi }=e^{i\theta }\varphi (r)`$); the case of an antivortex localization proceeds along the same lines, with just the chiralities appropriately reversed (see below).

At this point we return to our original chiral picture by setting $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{1+}=\mathrm{\Psi }_2=0`$. Looking at the first and fourth of equations of (2)222The second and third equation would not have entered at all if we had used chiral fields from the beginning., it is now natural to require that $`\gamma ^5\mathrm{\Psi }_1=\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ and $`\gamma ^5\mathrm{\Psi }_{2+}=\mathrm{\Psi }_{2+}`$. This means that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1=\frac{1}{2}(1\gamma ^5)\mathrm{\Psi }_1\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$, the second sign in the subscript referring to the ordinary four-dimensional chirality of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ (i.e., $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ is left-handed in four-dimensional sense). Similarly $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{2+}=\mathrm{\Psi }_{2+}`$, i.e., the four-dimensional chirality of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ is left-handed, while its six-dimensional chirality is “right-handed”. Furthermore, a solution of the equations of motion apparently exists if $`_\theta \mathrm{\Psi }_1=_\theta \mathrm{\Psi }_{2+}=0`$. Eqs. (2) now reduce to

$`i\gamma ^\mu _\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\theta }(i_r\mathrm{\Psi }_1+g\varphi (r)\mathrm{\Psi }_{2+}),`$
$`i\gamma ^\mu _\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_{2+}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\theta }(i_r\mathrm{\Psi }_{2+}+g^{}\varphi (r)\mathrm{\Psi }_1).`$ (6)
Writing $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1=\phi _1(x)f_1(r)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{2+}=\phi _{2+}(x)f_2(r)`$, where $`f_{1,2}`$ are real functions, and $`\phi _1=v\phi _{2+}`$, one ends up with the equations

$`f_1(r)(i\gamma ^\mu _\mu \phi _1)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\theta }\phi _1(i_rf_1(r)+gv^1\varphi (r)f_2(r)),`$
$`v^1f_2(r)(i\gamma ^\mu _\mu \phi _1)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\theta }\phi _1(iv^1_rf_2(r)+g^{}\varphi (r)f_1(r)).`$ (7)
The l.h.s. of these equations vanish due to the usual four-dimensional Dirac equation for a massless field. If we take $`v=\pm ie^{i\mathrm{arg}(g)}`$, the r.h.s. can be easily shown to have solutions behaving like333This requires that $`f_1(0)=f_2(0)`$. $`f_{1,2}(r)\mathrm{exp}(\pm |g|_0^r𝑑s\varphi (s))`$, where, in order to confine $`f_{1,2}(r)`$ to the vicinity of $`r=0`$, the plus (minus) sign must be chosen for $`\varphi (r)<0(>0)`$. This concludes our demonstration of the trapping of the spinor fields $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ on a vortex by the scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

Two comments are worthwhile at this stage. First, it is straightforward to see what will happen in the antivortex case. Substituting $`\mathrm{\Phi }=e^{i\theta }\varphi (r)`$ to Eqs. (2) and (2), one sees immediately that now a natural choice is $`\gamma ^5\mathrm{\Psi }_{1(2+)}=+\mathrm{\Psi }_{1(2+)}`$, and it is hence the right-handed components $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{1+}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{2++}`$ that get localized on an antivortex. This is of course what one would have intuitively expected to happen a priori. Second, as can be deduced from the second and third of equations of (2), the condition $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{1+}=\mathrm{\Psi }_2=0`$ not only makes life easier, but is necessary if *only* the left-handed neutrinos (ordinary active neutrinos) are wanted to get trapped on a vortex and right-handed neutrinos (active mirror neutrinos) on an antivortex. As is known, there is so far no indication of the existence of mirror neutrinos in our four-dimensional world .

One may now write somewhat symbolically

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\delta (\overline{y})}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ \phi _1(x)\end{array}\right)+\sqrt{\delta (\overline{y}\overline{y}_3)}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ \phi _3(x)\end{array}\right)+\sqrt{\delta (\overline{y}\overline{y}_2)}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ \phi _{2+}(x)\end{array}\right)`$ (17)
$`+\sqrt{\delta (\overline{y}\overline{y}_4)}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ \phi _{4+}(x)\end{array}\right),`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\delta (\overline{y})}\left(\begin{array}{c}\phi _1(x)\\ 0\end{array}\right)+\sqrt{\delta (\overline{y}\overline{y}_3)}\left(\begin{array}{c}\phi _3(x)\\ 0\end{array}\right)+\sqrt{\delta (\overline{y}\overline{y}_2)}\left(\begin{array}{c}\phi _{2+}(x)\\ 0\end{array}\right)`$ (27)
$`+\sqrt{\delta (\overline{y}\overline{y}_4)}\left(\begin{array}{c}\phi _{4+}(x)\\ 0\end{array}\right),`$
where the branes (vortices) are situated at $`\overline{y}_1(=0)`$ and $`\overline{y}_3`$, and the mirror branes (antivortices) at $`\overline{y}_2`$ and $`\overline{y}_4`$. The form of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ is due to the requirement that (see above) $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1(r=0)=\mathrm{\Psi }_{2+}(r=0)`$ modulo a phase factor that can be absorbed to $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (or alternatively to $`g`$) in the original action of Eq. (1). The issue of the Higgs field is now more involved than in the five-dimensional case , and the global behavior of the field is not known in general. However, since $`H`$ can be locally shown to get trapped on a vortex or an antivortex , we write

$$H=\sqrt{\delta (\overline{y})}h_1(x)+\sqrt{\delta (\overline{y}\overline{y}_2)}h_2(x)+\sqrt{\delta (\overline{y}\overline{y}_3)}h_3(x)+\sqrt{\delta (\overline{y}\overline{y}_4)}h_4(x),$$
(28)
where $`h_i`$ can be viewed as the vev of the Higgs field in the $`i`$th brane. By substituting Eqs. (17) and (28), together with a Kaluza-Klein expansion

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}N_+\\ N_{}\end{array}\right)=\frac{1}{2\pi \sqrt{R_1R_2}}\underset{k,l=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\begin{array}{c}N_+^{kl}(x)\\ N_{}^{kl}(x)\end{array}\right)e^{iky_1/R_1+ily_2/R_2},$$
(29)
to Eq. (1), one obtains

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^4x\{i2\overline{\phi }_1\gamma ^\mu _\mu \phi _1+i2\overline{\phi }_{2+}\gamma ^\mu _\mu \phi _{2+}+i2\overline{\phi }_3\gamma ^\mu _\mu \phi _3`$
$`+i2\overline{\phi }_{4+}\gamma ^\mu _\mu \phi _{4+}+{\displaystyle \underset{k,l=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}[i\overline{N}_+^{kl}\gamma ^\mu _\mu N_+^{kl}`$
$`+\overline{N}_{++}^{kl}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{R_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{il}{R_2}}\right)N_+^{kl}+\overline{N}_+^{kl}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{R_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{il}{R_2}}\right)N_{++}^{kl}`$
$`+u(h_1^{}\overline{N}_{++}^{kl}\phi _1+h_2^{}z_2^{kl}\overline{N}_+^{kl}\phi _{2+}`$
$`+h_3^{}z_3^{kl}\overline{N}_{++}^{kl}\phi _3+h_4^{}z_4^{kl}\overline{N}_+^{kl}\phi _{4+}+h.c.)]\},`$
where

$$u=\frac{\kappa }{2\pi \sqrt{R_1R_2}},$$
(31)
$`\kappa `$ is taken to be real, and $`z_j^{kl}=e^{ik\vartheta _jil\omega _j}`$, $`(\vartheta _j,\omega _j)`$ indicating the position of the $`j`$th brane in the extra dimensions (with $`\vartheta _1=\omega _1=0`$). Our analysis complies with a “minimalistic” view in the sense that we have set $`N_{}=0`$, i.e., $`N`$ is taken to be a right-handed chiral field. We remind that this choice made the Dirac and Majorana bulk neutrino mass terms to disappear in the original action (1).

In order to integrate out the massive Kaluza-Klein modes, we proceed along the same lines as we followed in our previous study . This time, however, the ensuing equations are quite lengthy and intransparent and they are mostly omitted in the following presentation. The first ten $`k,l`$-dependent terms of the action (2) disappear due to the equations of motion of the Kaluza-Klein excitations $`N_+^{kl}`$, for example,

$$N_{++}^{kl}=\left(\frac{k}{R_1}+\frac{il}{R_2}\right)^1(i\gamma ^\mu _\mu N_+^{kl}+uh_2^{}z_2^{kl}\phi _{2+}+uh_4^{}z_4^{kl}\phi _{4+}),$$
(32)
and similarly for $`N_+^{kl}`$ (here obviously $`(k,l)(0,0)`$). Substituting these twice to the remaining four h.c.-terms of the action, neglecting higher order derivatives of the bulk fields, and regarding $`h_i`$’s as constants, one obtains

$`_{(k,l)(0,0)}`$ $`=`$ $`u^2R_1(\mathrm{\Xi }_\vartheta (\phi _i)+h.c.)+iu^2\rho R_1(\mathrm{\Xi }_\omega (\phi _i)h.c.)`$
$`+iu^2R_1^2[|h_1|^2s(0,0,\rho )\overline{\phi }_1\gamma ^\mu _\mu \phi _1+|h_2|^2s(0,0,\rho )\overline{\phi }_{2+}\gamma ^\mu _\mu \phi _{2+}`$
$`+|h_3|^2s(0,0,\rho )\overline{\phi }_3\gamma ^\mu _\mu \phi _3+|h_4|^2s(0,0,\rho )\overline{\phi }_{4+}\gamma ^\mu _\mu \phi _{4+}`$
$`+(h_1h_3^{}s(\vartheta _{31},\omega _{31},\rho )\overline{\phi }_1\gamma ^\mu _\mu \phi _3`$
$`+h_2h_4^{}s(\vartheta _{42},\omega _{42},\rho )\overline{\phi }_{2+}\gamma ^\mu _\mu \phi _{4+}+h.c.)],`$
where $`\vartheta _{ij}=\vartheta _i\vartheta _j`$, $`\omega _{ij}=\omega _i\omega _j`$,

$`s_{\vartheta (\omega )}(\vartheta ,\omega ,\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{(k,l)(0,0)}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{k(l)}{k^2+\rho ^2l^2}}e^{ik\vartheta il\omega },`$
$`s(\vartheta ,\omega ,\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{(k,l)(0,0)}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^2+\rho ^2l^2}}e^{ik\vartheta il\omega },`$
$`\mathrm{\Xi }_{\omega (\vartheta )}(\phi _i)`$ $`=`$ $`(+)h_2h_1^{}s_{\vartheta (\omega )}(\vartheta _{12},\omega _{12},\rho )\overline{\phi }_{2+}\phi _1`$
$`(+)h_4h_1^{}s_{\vartheta (\omega )}(\vartheta _{14},\omega _{14},\rho )\overline{\phi }_{4+}\phi _1`$
$`+h_3h_2^{}s_{\vartheta (\omega )}(\vartheta _{23},\omega _{23},\rho )\overline{\phi }_3\phi _{2+}`$
$`(+)h_4h_3^{}s_{\vartheta (\omega )}(\vartheta _{34},\omega _{34},\rho )\overline{\phi }_{4+}\phi _3,`$
and $`\rho =R_1/R_2`$. Combining then Eqs. (2) and (2) (with $`k=l=0`$), we end up with the effective Lagrangian

$`_{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`i\overline{\phi }_1\gamma ^\mu _\mu \phi _1+i\overline{\phi }_2\gamma ^\mu _\mu \phi _2+i\overline{\phi }_3\gamma ^\mu _\mu \phi _3+i\overline{\phi }_4\gamma ^\mu _\mu \phi _4+i\overline{N}_+\gamma ^\mu _\mu N_+`$
$`+u(h_1^{}n_1\overline{N}_{++}\phi _1+h_2^{}n_2\overline{N}_+\phi _2+h_3^{}n_3\overline{N}_{++}\phi _3+h_4^{}n_4\overline{N}_+\phi _4+h.c.)`$
$`u^2R_1(\mathrm{\Xi }_\vartheta (n_i\phi _i)+h.c.)+iu^2\rho R_1(\mathrm{\Xi }_\omega (n_i\phi _i)h.c.)`$
$`+i(\stackrel{~}{a}\overline{\phi }_1\gamma ^\mu _\mu \phi _3+\stackrel{~}{b}\overline{\phi }_2\gamma ^\mu _\mu \phi _4+h.c.),`$
where we have suppressed the chirality indices of $`\phi _i`$’s and the Kaluza-Klein indices of $`N`$’s, rescaled $`\phi _i`$ fields with $`n_i=(2+u^2R_1^2|h_i|^2s(0,0,\rho ))^{1/2}`$, and we have denoted

$`\stackrel{~}{a}`$ $`=`$ $`u^2R_1^2h_1h_3^{}n_1n_3s(\vartheta _{31},\omega _{31},\rho ),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ $`=`$ $`u^2R_1^2h_2h_4^{}n_2n_4s(\vartheta _{42},\omega _{42},\rho ).`$ (36)
Note that $`s(0,0,\rho )`$ is formally a divergent function. Therefore physical cut-offs $`k<R_1M_{}`$, $`l<R_2M_{}`$ have been introduced in the sums. This leads to the expression

$$\rho s(0,0,\rho )2\pi \mathrm{ln}\frac{M_{Pl}}{M_{}}+\pi +\frac{\pi ^2}{3}\left(\rho +\frac{1}{\rho }\right)\frac{2}{M}_{}\left(\frac{1}{R}_1+\frac{1}{R}_2\right),$$
(37)
where $`M_{}=(M_{Pl}^2/R_1R_2)^{1/4}`$.

Finally, by defining

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\phi _1\\ \phi _2\\ \phi _3\\ \phi _4\end{array}\right)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}e^{i\zeta _a}& 0& e^{i\zeta _a}& 0\\ 0& e^{i\zeta _b}& 0& e^{i\zeta _b}\\ e^{i\zeta _a}& 0& e^{i\zeta _a}& 0\\ 0& e^{i\zeta _b}& 0& e^{i\zeta _b}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\xi _1\\ \xi _2\\ \xi _3\\ \xi _4\end{array}\right),\zeta _a=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{arg}\stackrel{~}{a},\zeta _b=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{arg}\stackrel{~}{b},$$
(38)
in order to get rid of the kinetic cross terms, and rescaling $`\xi _i`$’s with $`\stackrel{~}{n}_{1(3)}=(1(+)|\stackrel{~}{a}|)^{1/2}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{n}_{2(4)}=(1(+)|\stackrel{~}{b}|)^{1/2}`$, Eq. (2) may be cast into the form

$`_{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`i\overline{\xi }_1\gamma ^\mu _\mu \xi _1+i\overline{\xi }_2\gamma ^\mu _\mu \xi _2+i\overline{\xi }_3\gamma ^\mu _\mu \xi _3+i\overline{\xi }_4\gamma ^\mu _\mu \xi _4+i\overline{N}_+\gamma ^\mu _\mu N_+`$
$`(𝒜\overline{\xi }_2\xi _1+\overline{\xi }_4\xi _1+𝒞\overline{\xi }_2\xi _3+𝒟\overline{\xi }_4\xi _3+h.c.)`$
$`(\overline{N}_{++}\xi _1+\overline{N}_+\xi _2+𝒢\overline{N}_{++}\xi _3+\overline{N}_+\xi _4+h.c.),`$
where

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u\stackrel{~}{n}_1}{\sqrt{2}}}(h_1^{}n_1e^{i\zeta _a}h_3^{}n_3e^{i\zeta _a}),`$
$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u\stackrel{~}{n}_2}{\sqrt{2}}}(h_2^{}n_2e^{i\zeta _b}h_4^{}n_4e^{i\zeta _b}),`$
$`𝒢`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u\stackrel{~}{n}_3}{\sqrt{2}}}(h_1^{}n_1e^{i\zeta _a}+h_3^{}n_3e^{i\zeta _a}),`$ (40)
$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u\stackrel{~}{n}_4}{\sqrt{2}}}(h_2^{}n_2e^{i\zeta _b}+h_4^{}n_4e^{i\zeta _b}).`$
The explicit expressions of the quantities $`𝒜,,𝒞`$ and $`𝒟`$ are irrelevant for what follows. One should notice that if the phases of $`h_i`$’s are absorbed to the $`\phi _i`$ fields in Eq. (2), one has, $`s(\vartheta ,\omega ,\rho )`$ being real, $`\zeta _a=\zeta _b=0`$, and thus also $`,,𝒢`$ and $``$ can all be made real.

## 3 Neutrino phenomenology of the model

We now move to consider the phenomenological aspects of our scheme, in particular the effects of the multibrane structure on neutrino physics. Apart from gravitons, only sterile neutrinos can mediate contacts between branes and mirror branes through the bulk, thereby affecting neutrino phenomenology at our home brane.

From the effective Lagrangian $`_{eff}`$ in Eq. (2) one infers the following mass Lagrangian for neutrinos:

$$_M=(\overline{\xi }_2\overline{\xi }_4\overline{N}_{++})M\left(\begin{array}{c}\xi _1\\ \xi _3\\ N_+\end{array}\right)+h.c.,$$
(41)
where the matrix $`M`$ is given by

$$M=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}𝒜& 𝒞& \\ & 𝒟& \\ & 𝒢& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(42)
Even though $`M`$ can in principle be diagonalized in its general form, this task becomes more straightforward if the branes are assumed to be distributed symmetrically on the torus444For example $`\vartheta _3=\omega _3=\vartheta _2=\omega _4=\pi `$, $`\omega _2=\vartheta _4=0`$. Then $`s(\vartheta _{31},\omega _{31},\rho )=s(\vartheta _{42},\omega _{42},\rho )=s(\pi ,\pi ,\rho )`$, which is easily calculable numerically.. We have made this assumption in the following. Then, as can be deduced from Eqs. (2), $`\mathrm{\Xi }_\vartheta =\mathrm{\Xi }_\omega =0`$ and consequently $`𝒜==𝒞=𝒟=0`$. As will be seen later, even this simplified scenario leads to diverse neutrino phenomenology. Defining

$$O_\alpha =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{cos}\alpha & \mathrm{sin}\alpha & 0\\ \mathrm{sin}\alpha & \mathrm{cos}\alpha & 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right),O_\beta =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{cos}\beta & 0& \mathrm{sin}\beta \\ \mathrm{sin}\beta & 0& \mathrm{cos}\beta \\ 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(43)
with

$$\mathrm{cos}\alpha =\frac{𝒢}{\sqrt{^2+𝒢^2}},\mathrm{cos}\beta =\frac{}{\sqrt{^2+^2}},$$
(44)
we obtain

$$O_\beta ^TMO_\alpha =\text{diag}(m_1,m_2,m_3),$$
(45)
where the eigenvalues are $`m_1=0`$, $`m_2=\sqrt{^2+𝒢^2}`$ and $`m_3=\sqrt{^2+^2}`$. The corresponding mass eigenstates are

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\chi _1\\ \chi _2\\ \chi _3\end{array}\right)=O_\alpha ^T\left(\begin{array}{c}\xi _1\\ \xi _3\\ N_+\end{array}\right)+O_\beta ^T\left(\begin{array}{c}\xi _2\\ \xi _4\\ N_{++}\end{array}\right).$$
(46)
The neutrino sector thus consists of one massless and two massive Dirac neutrinos. We emphasize that the existence of one massless eigenstate is not an intrinsic feature of our scenario but results from our choice of symmetrically located branes. Another characteristic feature of the model is the imposed right-handed chirality of the bulk field $`N`$. As mentioned before, this choice automatically wipes out the six-dimensional Dirac and Majorana bulk neutrino mass terms, thus removing a usual need to rely on ad hoc arguments.

Let us remind the reader that in Eq. (46) $`\xi _1`$ and $`\xi _3`$ are related to left-handed active neutrinos (through e.g. Eq. (38)), $`\xi _2`$ and $`\xi _4`$ to right-handed active mirror neutrinos and the $`N`$ fields represent sterile bulk neutrinos not confined to any brane. Using Eqs. (38), (43) and (46), taking into account the field rescalings, and normalizing correctly, the original left-handed neutrino of “our” brane is then given by

$$\phi _1=\mathrm{cos}\theta \chi _{1L}+\mathrm{sin}\theta \chi _{2L},$$
(47)
where

$$\mathrm{cos}\theta =\frac{\stackrel{~}{n}_1\mathrm{cos}\alpha \stackrel{~}{n}_3\mathrm{sin}\alpha }{\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{n}_1^2+\stackrel{~}{n}_3^2}}.$$
(48)
As $`\phi _1`$ is the only active neutrino living on our brane, only the mixing angle $`\theta `$ can be experimentally probed. The angle $`\beta `$ is related to the right-handed fields $`\phi _2`$ and $`\phi _4`$, and is therefore a measurable quantity only on the mirror branes.

It should be pointed out that the physical setting of the neutrino mixing differs in one noteworthy respect from the results of our previous five-dimensional study. In  the ordinary left-handed neutrino was found to be mixed with an inert left-handed bulk neutrino. Now, as can be seen easily by repeating the calculations similar to those leading to Eq. (47), the other linear combination (not necessarily orthogonal to Eq. (47)) of $`\chi _{1L}`$ and $`\chi _{2L}`$ is $`\phi _3`$. $`\phi _1`$ is hence mixed with a left-handed active neutrino living on another brane.

Similarly, as seen from Eq. (47), the massless neutrino $`\chi _1`$ and the massive state $`\chi _2`$ appear as mixed in weak interactions. There exist several empirical constraints on their mixing angle $`\theta `$ and the mass $`m_2`$, coming from laboratory experiments, astrophysical observations and cosmological considerations. In Fig. 1 we compile (as a rough step-function approximation sufficient for our purposes) the existing laboratory bounds on the mixing angle $`\theta `$ between the electron neutrino and a heavier neutrino in various mass ranges of the mass $`m_2`$, see Refs. . These bounds follow mainly from the lack of extra kinematical thresholds in the spectra of various particle decays (e.g. beta decay or $`\pi ^+e^+\nu _e`$) or the nonobservation of the heavier neutrino decays like $`\nu \nu _e+e^{}+e^+`$. One should take into account also the upper limit of the electron neutrino mass from the tritium beta decay experiment ,

mνe

<

2.2eV.

<

subscript𝑚subscript𝜈𝑒2.2eVm_{\nu_{e}}\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$<$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}2.2\ {\rm eV}. (49)
This bound should be fulfilled by the mass eigenvalue $`m_2`$, whenever the electron neutrino is predominantly the heavier mass eigenstate $`\chi _2`$. An important constraint at low $`m_2`$ values is given by the oscillation limit from the Bugey disappearance experiment . The upper bound for $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta `$ varies in the range 0.02 to 0.3 for $`m_2^2`$ in the range 0.01 eV2 to 100 eV2.

The active-sterile neutrino mixing is constrained also by cosmology. If the mixing is too large, neutrino oscillations, acting as an effective interaction, would bring sterile neutrinos into equilibrium with the light SM particles before neutrino decoupling. The resulting excess in energy density would endanger the standard scheme of the nucleosynthesis of light elements . This leads to the following bound for $`\nu _e\nu _s`$ mixing :

$$\begin{array}{cc}|\delta m^2|\mathrm{sin}^22\theta <5\times 10^8\text{eV}^2\hfill & \text{for}|\delta m^2|<4\text{eV}^2,\hfill \\ \mathrm{sin}^22\theta <10^8\hfill & \text{for}|\delta m^2|>4\text{eV}^2.\hfill \end{array}$$
(50)
(This bound is avoided if there was a suitable net lepton number in the early universe .)

We will now confront our scheme with these constraints. We will search the allowed regions of the parameter space of the model numerically using a Monte Carlo analysis. We vary three unknown parameters: the radii of the two extra dimensions $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$, and the Higgs vacuum expectation value $`h_3`$. The extra dimension radii are varied from the Planck scale to a millimeter scale and the Higgs vev between $`10^2`$ MeV and $`10^{12}`$ MeV. Both $`R_i`$’s and $`h_3`$ are randomized so that their logarithms are evenly distributed. For $`h_1`$ we use the value 174 GeV, and, as can be seen from Secs. 2 and 3, $`h_2`$ and $`h_4`$ do not affect neutrino physics on our brane.

In addition to these parameters the action depends on the dimensionful Yukawa coupling $`\kappa `$. The natural scale for it can be thought to be set by the higher-dimensional Planck scale $`M_{}`$, and therefore we write (with $`M_{Pl}^2=M_{}^4R_1R_2`$)

$$\kappa =\frac{\kappa ^{}}{M_{}}=\kappa ^{}\left(\frac{R_1R_2}{M_{Pl}^2}\right)^{1/4},$$
(51)
where $`\kappa ^{}`$ is a dimensionless coupling constant. The value of $`\kappa ^{}`$ is not really known, but a plausible choice would be a number relatively close to unity. We have performed our analysis for the values $`\kappa ^{}=1`$ and $`\kappa ^{}=0.001`$.

In Figs. 2 we present scatter plots in the $`(\overline{R},m_2)`$-plane (with $`\overline{R}=\sqrt{R_1R_2}`$) for the two values of the Yukawa coupling ($`\kappa ^{}=0.001`$ and 1). These figures consist solely of “raw data”, i.e. neither the cosmological constraint, Eq. (50), the limits of Fig. 1, nor the Bugey constraint are taken into account. The allowed parameter space is seen to be quite severely constrained by the mathematical structure of the model. Nevertheless, the characteristic extra-dimensional size may vary from the millimeter scale some 30 orders of magnitude all the way down to the Planck scale, and the higher mass eigenvalue $`m_2`$ ranges from $`10^9`$ eV to $`10^{10}`$ MeV, depending on the coupling $`\kappa ^{}`$. The general trend is that small (large) extra-dimensional size corresponds to large (small) mass. Note that the value of $`\kappa ^{}`$ affects the vertical position of the two diagonal borderlines, whereas the wedge-like region below them remains immutable.

Figs. 3 show how the situation changes when the experimental constraints are taken into account. Interestingly, the extreme values on both axes are still allowed and, vaguely speaking, only dots in between are cut out. Numerical investigations suggest that the upper (lower) diagonal borderline reflects the chosen range for the Higgs value $`h_3`$, higher (lower) values enabling mass $`m_2`$ to be still larger (smaller). For the lower diagonal $`\mathrm{sin}\theta 1`$. In the case of $`\kappa ^{}=1`$ the allowed region is split up into two separate parts, the feature that will be seen in all the subsequent figures.

Figs. 4 display the behavior of the mixing angle $`\theta `$ as a function of $`\overline{R}`$. For very small extra-dimensional sizes the mixing is tiny, but above $`\overline{R}10^{16}`$ mm maximal mixing, $`\theta =\pi /4`$, becomes possible. The peculiarity that $`\theta `$ can never be exactly zero is a consequence of the mathematical structure of the model, as may be deduced from Eq. (48). However, for larger values of $`h_3`$ the allowed region would extend to smaller angles. The limit just below $`\mathrm{sin}\theta =10^4`$, on the other hand, is due to the cosmological constraint (50). Note that the obvious change in the scatter plot for R¯

>

1010

>

¯𝑅superscript1010\bar{R}\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$>$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}10^{-10} mm ($`\kappa ^{}=0.001`$) or R¯

>

104

>

¯𝑅superscript104\bar{R}\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$>$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}10^{-4} mm ($`\kappa ^{}=1`$), as well as the tilted rightmost borderline penetrating both of the separate parts in the case of $`\kappa ^{}=1`$, have analogous counterparts in Figs. 3.

Finally, in Figs. 5 is shown the allowed parameter space in the ($`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta ,\delta m^2`$)-plane, where $`\delta m^2=m_2^2`$ as $`m_1=0`$. We have presented in these figures separately those points which correspond to large values of the size $`\overline{R}`$ of the extra dimension, 0.01 mm $`<\overline{R}<`$ 1 mm. With $`\overline{R}`$ in this range, the hierarchy problem can be solved in this model and also the existence of the extra dimensions is testable in the new short-range gravity experiments . The empty areas in the large $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta `$ large $`\delta m^2`$ region are forbidden by the cosmological constraint (50). The other constraints do not have substantial effects to this plot. As mentioned before, the borderline at small $`\theta `$ (now at $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta 10^{13}`$) corresponds to the upper end of the Higgs vev $`h_3`$ range covered by our Monte Carlo data set, and it would move towards smaller values if the maximum value of the parameter $`h_3`$ is increased.

As can be seen from Figs. 5, our model allows for a vast diversity in the possible ($`\delta m^2,\theta `$)-combinations. With the chosen ranges of the free parameters of the model, the squared mass difference of the active-sterile neutrino pair can have values from about $`10^{11}`$ eV2 ($`\kappa ^{}=1`$) or $`10^{17}`$ eV2 ($`\kappa ^{}=0.001`$) up to $`10^{25}`$ eV2 or more. However, squared mass differences δm2=m22

>

1𝛿superscript𝑚2superscriptsubscript𝑚22

>

1\delta m^{2}=m_{2}^{2}\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$>$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}1 eV2 are possible only for very small values of the mixing angle, θ

<

104

<

𝜃superscript104\theta\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$<$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}10^{-4}. If the extra dimension size is in the theoretically and phenomenologically interesting region of R¯

>

0.01

>

¯𝑅0.01\bar{R}\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$>$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}0.01 mm (the hits denoted by circles in Figs. 5), $`\delta m^2`$ is forced to much smaller values. In particular, maximal active-sterile mixing is possible in this case only for quite small values of the squared mass difference: $`\delta m^210^{11}10^9`$ eV2 for $`\kappa ^{}=1`$ and $`\delta m^210^{17}10^{15}`$ eV2 for $`\kappa ^{}=0.001`$. On the other hand, the largest squared mass difference consistent with the large extra dimension size is of the order of $`\delta m^210^6`$ eV2.

Let us still mention that the leftmost points in the small squared mass difference region, δm2

<

1eV2

<

𝛿superscript𝑚21superscripteV2\delta m^{2}\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$<$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}1\ \mbox{eV}^{2}, correspond to $`\theta \pi /2`$, as may be seen particularly well by comparing Figs. 4b and 5b. In this case the predominantly active state, the ordinary neutrino, is the heavier one of the two mass states.

## 4 Summary and conclusions

We have investigated a six-dimensional model with two extra dimensions compactified on a torus. Particles with Standard Model charges are trapped on four four-dimensional branes (vortices) by a scalar field with an appropriate periodic position dependence on the torus. On two of the branes, one of which is the world we live in, particles have the familiar $`VA`$ weak currents, while on the other two, called mirror branes, weak currents are of the $`V+A`$ form. The structure of the model is mathematically quite strictly determined, but there are some free parameters in the theory such as the size of the extra dimensions, characterized by the radii of the torus $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$, and the vev ($`h_3`$) of the counterparts of the SM Higgs field on the other branes. Also the strength $`\kappa ^{}`$ of the Yukawa coupling between the Higgs field, brane neutrinos and bulk neutrinos, as well as the locations of the vortices on the torus, are not a priori restricted.

Right-handed neutrinos and left-handed mirror neutrinos, which lack Standard Model interactions, can propagate in the extra two-dimensional bulk and thereby mediate mixing between active neutrinos of the branes and mirror branes. This affects neutrino phenomenology on our brane. We have confronted the model with existing data on neutrino masses and active-sterile neutrino mixing from laboratory measurements and cosmology. Our main results can be seen in Figs. 5, where we have plotted the ($`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta ,\delta m^2`$)-parameter space covered by our model when the free parameters of the model are allowed to vary within wide ranges of values. In order the model to solve the hierarchy problem, the size of the extra dimensions should be large enough. The corresponding points in Figs. 5 are denoted by circles, and as one can see, the squared mass difference is in that case forced into a quite narrow range of values, in particular when the mixing is maximal.

We have restricted our phenomenological analysis to the electron neutrino, but conclusions would be very similar for the muon and tau neutrinos, since the most important constraint, the cosmological bound for the active-sterile mixing, is quite insensitive to neutrino flavor.

Let us finally emphasize that the model we have considered is not the most general one but we have made a number of simplifying, albeit conceivable, assumptions. Nevertheless, we believe that our analysis has revealed the essential features of the scenario.

## Acknowledgements

This work has been supported by the Academy of Finland under the project no. 40677. One of us (V.S.) has been funded by the Graduate School of Nuclear and Particle Physics of the Academy of Finland.


format: text

text:
# Intersubband absorption linewidth in GaAs quantum wells due to scattering by interface roughness, phonons, alloy disorder, and impurities1footnote 11footnote 1submitted to J. Appl. Phys.

## I Introduction

The intersubband absorption linewidth in semiconductor quantum wells (QWs) closely relates to fundamental problems in the physics of optical transition, such as relaxation Ando:1985 , many-body effects Nikonov:1997 ; Warburton:1998 , and disorder Riemann:2002 ; Luin:2001 . Furthermore, it is a key factor in improving the performance of quantum cascade lasers Faist:1994  and QW infrared photodetectors Levine:1993 .

To investigate the effects of various scattering processes, intersubband absorption linewidths have been measured for various temperatures Allmen:1988 , well widths Campman:1996 , alloy compositions Campman:1996 , and doping positions Dupont:1992  in GaAs and other QWs. These results show that absorption linewidth has a weak dependence on temperature and alloy composition and apparently has little correlation with mobility. Its strong well-width dependence suggests that the main contribution is from interface roughness scattering.

In a previous paper Unuma:2001 , we discussed the effect of interface roughness scattering on linewidth by comparing calculations based on a microscopic theory by Ando Ando:1985  and experimental data for modulation-doped GaAs/AlAs QWs with a well width of $`80\mathrm{\AA }`$. The results made it clear that linewidth is much more sensitive to interface roughness scattering than transport mobility is, because the contribution from the intrasubband scattering in the first excited subband is much larger than that in the ground subband Unuma:2001 . Even in wide GaAs QWs, where interface roughness scattering should be less effective, recent reports Williams:2001 ; Ullrich:2001  showed that interface roughness scattering has a larger effect on linewidth than either electron-electron scattering or bulk impurity scattering.

In the present paper, we apply our theoretical method Unuma:2001  to scattering by LO phonons, LA phonons, alloy disorder, and ionized impurities as well as interface roughness scattering, in order to compare their respective contributions to intersubband absorption linewidth and transport mobility. Numerical calculations for GaAs QWs confirm that the very high sensitivity of linewidth to interface roughness scattering is the key to quantitatively explaining the previously reported experimental results for linewidth in comparison with mobility.

The method presented here follows Ando’s theory Ando:1985 , in which the intrasubband and intersubband energy-dependent single-particle note1  relaxation rates for various scattering mechanisms are first calculated and then included in a formula for the two-dimensional (2D) dynamical conductivity $`\mathrm{Re}\sigma _{zz}(\omega )`$ to give the absorption lineshape for photon frequency $`\omega `$. This method is similar to a familiar method of calculating transport mobility Ando:1982 ; Hirakawa:1986 . It is important to note that intersubband optical absorption is the collective excitation among a confined electron gas. However, our present calculation of single-particle relaxation rates and lineshape is very important and useful, because the absorption lineshape $`\mathrm{Re}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{zz}(\omega )`$ of collective excitation is given by the single-particle dynamical conductivity $`\sigma _{zz}(\omega )`$ via Ando:1977

$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{zz}(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{zz}(\omega )}{1+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{ϵ_0\kappa _0\omega d_{\mathrm{eff}}}}\sigma _{zz}(\omega )}}`$ (1)
in the crudest approximation. Here, $`ϵ_0`$ is the vacuum permittivity, $`\kappa _0`$ is the static dielectric constant of the 2D material, and $`d_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is the effective thickness of the 2D electron gas Ando:1982 .

The collective excitation effects, or many-body interaction effects, on intersubband absorption linewidth have been issues of recent interest in both theoretical and experimental studies. In the limit of small band-nonparabolicity and constant single-particle relaxation rates, Nikonov et al. theoretically showed that many-body effects only cause blue-shifts in absorption spectra (the depolarization shift) and that the linewidth is solely determined by the single-particle relaxation rate Nikonov:1997 .

In largely nonparabolic systems, the variation in energy separation between the ground and first excited subbands produces additional width in the single-particle excitation lineshape $`\mathrm{Re}\sigma _{zz}(\omega )`$. However, many-body effects lead to redistribution of oscillator strength and collective excitation that has a sharp resonance. As a result, the linewidth of the collective excitation spectrum $`\mathrm{Re}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{zz}(\omega )`$ is significantly different from that of the single-particle excitation spectrum $`\mathrm{Re}\sigma _{zz}(\omega )`$ Nikonov:1997 ; Warburton:1996 ; Zaluzny:1991 . Furthermore, nonparabolicity causes difficulties in calculating single-particle relaxation rates and $`\mathrm{Re}\sigma _{zz}(\omega )`$ by Ando’s formalism Ando:1978 . Experiments to elucidate these effects were performed by Warburton et al. on InAs/AlSb QWs Warburton:1998 .

In the more popular systems of GaAs/AlGaAs and InGaAs/InAlAs QWs, however, our present calculation, which assumes small nonparabolicity, is applicable. The purposes of this paper are (1) to calculate intrasubband and intersubband single-particle relaxation rates for relevant scattering mechanisms as functions of in-plane kinetic energy assuming small nonparabolicity and (2) to quantitatively explain previously reported experimental data on linewidth and mobility in GaAs-based QWs, which appeared to have little correlation.

In the next section, we summarize how linewidth and mobility are related to single-particle relaxation rates, and calculate the single-particle relaxation rates for various scattering mechanisms as functions of the kinetic energy $`E`$. It is shown that linewidth and mobility have very different sensitivities to the same scattering mechanism. In Section 3, previously reported experimental data for various temperatures, well widths, alloy compositions, and doping positions are quantitatively explained by numerical calculations.

## II Formulation of the problem

### II.1 General theory of intersubband absorption lineshape and transport mobility in quantum wells

A general theory of intersubband absorption linewidth due to elastic scatterers in 2D systems was formulated by Ando Ando:1985 ; Ando:1978 . According to Ando’s theory, the absorption lineshape of single-particle excitation between the two lowest subbands can be expressed as

$`\mathrm{Re}\sigma _{zz}(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{e^2f_{10}}{2m^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{m^{}}{\pi \mathrm{}^2}𝑑Ef(E)\frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{op}}(E)}{(\mathrm{}\omega E_{10})^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{op}}(E)^2}},`$ (2)
when all electrons are initially in the ground subband. Here,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{op}}(E)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{intra}}(E)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{inter}}(E)\right],`$ (3)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{intra}}(E)`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi {\displaystyle \underset{𝐤^{}}{}}|(0𝐤^{}|H_1|0𝐤)(1𝐤^{}|H_1|1𝐤)|^2\delta \left(\epsilon (𝐤)\epsilon (𝐤^{})\right)|_{E=\epsilon (𝐤)},`$ (4)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{inter}}(E)`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi {\displaystyle \underset{𝐤^{}}{}}|(0𝐤^{}|H_1|1𝐤)|^2\delta \left(\epsilon (𝐤)\epsilon (𝐤^{})+E_{10}\right)|_{E=\epsilon (𝐤)},`$ (5)
$`e`$ is the elementary charge, $`\mathrm{}`$ is the reduced Planck constant, $`m^{}`$ is the electron effective mass, $`f_{10}`$ is the oscillator strength, $`E_{10}`$ ($`=E_1E_0`$) is the intersubband energy separation, $`f(E)`$ is the Fermi distribution function at temperature $`T`$, $`|n𝐤)`$ is the state vector of the electron with subband index $`n`$ and wave vector $`𝐤`$, $`E_n`$ is the quantization energy, $`\epsilon (𝐤)=\mathrm{}^2k^2/2m^{}`$, $`H_1`$ is the scattering potential, and $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes the average over distribution of scatterers. This theory assumes a parabolic conduction band, or a constant effective mass for different subbands; a modification for slightly nonparabolic systems like GaAs QWs will be described in a later paragraph. In this paper we denote the full width at half maximum of the spectrum given by Eq. (2) as $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{op}}`$.

Note, on the other hand, that the transport relaxation time $`\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}(E)`$, or the transport relaxation rate $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tr}}(E)=2\mathrm{}/\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}(E)`$ can be expressed as Ando:1982

$`{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{}}{\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}(E)}}=4\pi {\displaystyle \underset{𝐤^{}}{}}|(0𝐤^{}|H_1|0𝐤)|^2\delta \left(\epsilon (𝐤)\epsilon (𝐤^{})\right)(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )|_{E=\epsilon (𝐤)},`$ (6)
where $`\theta `$ is the angle between $`𝐤`$ and $`𝐤^{}`$. The mobility is given by $`\mu =e\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}/m^{}`$ with an average relaxation time of Ando:1982 ; Hirakawa:1986

$`\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}={\displaystyle 𝑑E\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}(E)E\frac{f(E)}{E}/𝑑EE\frac{f(E)}{E}}.`$ (7)
To enable quantitative comparison between the linewidth $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{op}}`$ and mobility $`\mu `$, we define the transport energy broadening as $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tr}}=2\mathrm{}/\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}=2\mathrm{}e/m^{}\mu `$ Unuma:2001 . In particular, low-temperature transport broadening is given by $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tr}}=2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tr}}(E_F)=2\mathrm{}/\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}(E_F)`$, where $`E_F`$ is the 2D Fermi energy.

There are two relevant many-body effects: static and dynamic screening. The former screens the potentials of elastic scatterers while the latter induces collective charge-density excitation because of the incident optoelectric field.

The static screening effect can be included by replacing the scattering matrix element $`(m𝐤^{}|H_1|n𝐤)`$ with Ando:1985

$`(m𝐤^{}|H_1|n𝐤)+(0𝐤^{}|H_1|0𝐤)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ(q,T)}}1\right]{\displaystyle \frac{F_{(00)(mn)}(q)}{F_{(00)(00)}(q)}}.`$ (8)
Here, $`𝐪=𝐤𝐤^{}`$, $`ϵ(q,T)`$ is the static dielectric function Ando:1982 ; Hirakawa:1986 , and $`F_{(kl)(mn)}(q)`$ is a form factor defined by Ando:1985

$`F_{(kl)(mn)}(q)={\displaystyle 𝑑z𝑑z^{}\zeta _k(z)\zeta _l(z)\zeta _m(z^{})\zeta _n(z^{})e^{q|zz^{}|}}.`$ (9)
The $`z`$ axis is set along the growth direction of samples, and $`\zeta _n(z)`$ is the wave function for the $`n`$-th subband electron motion in the $`z`$ direction, which is chosen to be real. The screening correction only results in dividing $`(0𝐤^{}|H_1|0𝐤)`$ in Eq. (4) by the factor

$`S(q,T)=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ(q,T)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ(q,T)}}1\right){\displaystyle \frac{F_{(00)(11)}(q)}{F_{(00)(00)}(q)}}\right]^1,`$ (10)
and $`(0𝐤^{}|H_1|0𝐤)`$ in Eq. (6) by $`ϵ(q,T)`$. In this paper we only treat symmetrical QWs, so there is no screening factor in Eq. (5). $`ϵ(q,T)`$ significantly increases mobility, while $`S(q,T)`$ hardly affects absorption linewidth because $`S(q,T)1`$.

The dynamic screening effect is counted as a depolarization field, and the absorption lineshape $`\mathrm{Re}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{zz}(\omega )`$ of the induced collective charge-density excitation is given by

$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{zz}(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{zz}(\omega )}{ϵ_{zz}(\omega )}}`$ (11)
with the dynamical dielectric function of

$`ϵ_{zz}(\omega )=1+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{ϵ_0\kappa _0\omega d_{\mathrm{eff}}}}\sigma _{zz}(\omega ).`$ (12)
The resonance energy $`\stackrel{~}{E}_{10}`$ of $`\mathrm{Re}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{zz}(\omega )`$ is blue-shifted from the original resonance energy $`E_{10}`$ of $`\mathrm{Re}\sigma _{zz}(\omega )`$, and

$`\stackrel{~}{E}_{10}=\sqrt{E_{10}{}_{}{}^{2}+(\mathrm{}\omega _p)^2}`$ (13)
with the plasma frequency of

$`\omega _p=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{f_{10}N_Se^2}{ϵ_0\kappa _0m^{}d_{\mathrm{eff}}}}}.`$ (14)
The blue-shift $`\stackrel{~}{E}_{10}E_{10}(\mathrm{}\omega _p)^2/(2E_{10})`$ is called the depolarization shift. The linewidth of $`\mathrm{Re}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{zz}(\omega )`$ is the same as that of $`\mathrm{Re}\sigma _{zz}(\omega )`$ if $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{op}}(E)`$ is independent of energy Nikonov:1997 , though they are different in general. When the depolarization shift is sufficiently small, or

$`\stackrel{~}{E}_{10}E_{10}<2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{op}}(0),`$ (15)
$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{zz}(\omega )`$ is approximately equal to $`\sigma _{zz}(\omega )`$.

Although Eqs. (2)-(5) were derived assuming parabolic bands, we may apply them to slightly nonparabolic systems in which the additional width due to nonparabolicity is small compared with the width due to scattering mechanisms. The condition is expressed as $`(1m_0^{}/m_1^{})E_F<2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{op}}(0)`$ at low temperatures, where $`m_n^{}`$ is the electron effective mass in the $`n`$-th subband. In this case, we can use the present theory by replacing $`E_{10}`$ in Eq. (2) with $`E_{10}(0)(1m_0^{}/m_1^{})E`$ Zaluzny:1991 ; Ando:1978-2 , which has a much larger influence on absorption linewidth than other corrections. Here, $`E_{10}(0)`$ represents the intersubband energy separation at $`𝐤=0`$. For consistency, respective $`\delta `$-functions appearing with the squares of scattering matrix elements $`|(0𝐤^{}|H_1|0𝐤)|^2`$, $`|(1𝐤^{}|H_1|1𝐤)|^2`$, $`|(0𝐤^{}|H_1|0𝐤)(1𝐤^{}|H_1|1𝐤)|`$, and $`|(0𝐤^{}|H_1|1𝐤)|^2`$ in Eqs. (4) and (5) should be replaced by $`\delta (\epsilon _0(𝐤)\epsilon _0(𝐤^{}))`$, $`\delta (\epsilon _1(𝐤)\epsilon _1(𝐤^{}))`$, $`\frac{1}{2}\left[\delta (\epsilon _0(𝐤)\epsilon _0(𝐤^{}))+\delta (\epsilon _1(𝐤)\epsilon _1(𝐤^{}))\right]`$, and $`\delta (\epsilon _1(𝐤)\epsilon _0(𝐤^{}))`$, where $`\epsilon _n(𝐤)=E_n+\mathrm{}^2k^2/2m_n^{}`$. Values of $`m_n^{}`$ obtained from the Kane model are used in our numerical calculations.

In most cases of GaAs QWs examined later in this paper, the depolarization shift $`\stackrel{~}{E}_{10}E_{10}`$ and the nonparabolicity effect $`(1m_0^{}/m_1^{})E_F`$ are small compared with $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{op}}(0)`$, so the absorption linewidth is estimated directly from $`\mathrm{Re}\sigma _{zz}(\omega )`$ in Eq. (2).

### II.2 Scattering mechanisms

In this section, we calculate and compare $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{op}}(E)`$ and $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tr}}(E)`$ due to scattering by interface roughness (IFR), LO phonons, LA phonons, alloy disorder (AD), and ionized impurities (ION). Furthermore, numerical calculations of each individual scattering mechanism are performed for modulation-doped GaAs (or InGaAs)/AlAs QWs. In actual samples, several scattering mechanisms coexist; the total scattering rate can be obtained as the sum of their rates. Namely,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{op}}(E)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{op}}^{(\mathrm{IFR})}(E)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{op}}^{(\mathrm{LO})}(E)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{op}}^{(\mathrm{LA})}(E)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{op}}^{(\mathrm{AD})}(E)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{op}}^{(\mathrm{ION})}(E)+\mathrm{},`$ (16)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tr}}(E)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tr}}^{(\mathrm{IFR})}(E)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tr}}^{(\mathrm{LO})}(E)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tr}}^{(\mathrm{LA})}(E)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tr}}^{(\mathrm{AD})}(E)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tr}}^{(\mathrm{ION})}(E)+\mathrm{}.`$ (17)
For simplicity, we perform numerical calculations in single QWs with a finite barrier height of $`V_0`$ where band bending due to doping is neglected. The origin of the $`z`$ axis is set at the center of the QWs. Material constants of GaAs used in calculations are shown in Table 1.

#### II.2.1 Interface roughness scattering

In GaAs/AlGaAs QWs, dominant monolayer (ML) fluctuations are formed at the GaAs-on-AlGaAs interface (AlGaAs surface covered by GaAs). We assume that the roughness height $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐫)`$ at the in-plane position $`𝐫=(x,y)`$ has a correlation function Ando:1982 ; Sakaki:1987 :

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐫)\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐫^{})=\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{|𝐫𝐫^{}|^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\right),`$ (18)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the mean height of roughness and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the correlation length. The scattering matrix element is given by

$`(m𝐤^{}|H_1|n𝐤)={\displaystyle d^2rF_{mn}\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐫)e^{i𝐪𝐫}}`$ (19)
with

$`F_{mn}=V_0\zeta _m(L/2)\zeta _n(L/2),`$ (20)
where $`L`$ is the well width and $`\zeta _n(L/2)`$ is the wave function at the GaAs-on-AlGaAs interface. Because interface roughness is equivalent to local fluctuations in well width, $`F_{mn}`$ in Eq. (20) can also be expressed as

$`F_{mn}=\sqrt{(E_m/L)(E_n/L)}.`$ (21)
In the case of the infinite-barrier approximation, Eq. (20) can be expressed in an alternative form as Ando:1982 ; Ando:1976

$`F_{mn}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\zeta _m(z)}{dz}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\zeta _n(z)}{dz}}|_{z=L/2},`$ (22)
which is found to be proportional to $`L^3`$.

Substituting Eq. (19) into Eqs. (4) and (5), we get

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{intra}}^{(\mathrm{IFR})}(E)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^{}\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mathrm{}^2}}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\theta \left[{\displaystyle \frac{F_{00}}{S(q,T)}}F_{11}\right]^2e^{q^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/4},`$ (23)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{inter}}^{(\mathrm{IFR})}(E)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^{}\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mathrm{}^2}}F_{01}{\displaystyle {}_{}{}^{2}_{0}^{\pi }}𝑑\theta e^{\stackrel{~}{q}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/4},`$ (24)
where the absolute values of the 2D scattering vectors $`q`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$ are given by Unuma:2001

$`q^2`$ $`=`$ $`2k^2(1\mathrm{cos}\theta ),`$ (25)
$`\stackrel{~}{q}^2`$ $`=`$ $`2k^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2m^{}E_{10}}{\mathrm{}^2}}2k\sqrt{k^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2m^{}E_{10}}{\mathrm{}^2}}}\mathrm{cos}\theta .`$ (26)
On the other hand, we can express the transport relaxation time $`\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}^{(\mathrm{IFR})}(E)`$ Ando:1982-2 , or the transport relaxation rate $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tr}}^{(\mathrm{IFR})}(E)=2\mathrm{}/\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}^{(\mathrm{IFR})}(E)`$ as

$`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tr}}^{(\mathrm{IFR})}(E)={\displaystyle \frac{2m^{}\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mathrm{}^2}}F_{00}{\displaystyle {}_{}{}^{2}_{0}^{\pi }}𝑑\theta {\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{cos}\theta }{ϵ(q,T)^2}}e^{q^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/4},`$ (27)
which is similar to Eqs. (23) and (24).

It is useful here to comment on the similarities and differences in the equations for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{intra}}(E)`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{inter}}(E)`$, and $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tr}}(E)`$. First, all three are proportional to $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$, and also to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ for small $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Second, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{inter}}(E)`$ is much smaller than $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{intra}}(E)`$, because $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$ is smaller than $`q`$. Third, $`(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )/ϵ(q,T)^2`$ appearing in $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tr}}(E)`$ shows that the forward scattering ($`\theta 0`$) does not contribute to transport broadening, and that the screening effect reduces the scattering rates. Finally, and most importantly, they include different factors $`[F_{00}/S(q,T)F_{11}]^2`$, $`F_{01}^2`$, and $`2F_{00}^2`$. $`S(q,T)`$ can be neglected because $`S(q,T)1`$. As is shown below, $`F_{11}`$ is much larger than $`F_{00}`$, because $`E_1`$ is more sensitive to $`L`$ than $`E_0`$. (In the infinite-barrier approximation, $`F_{11}`$ is four times larger than $`F_{00}`$.) As a result, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{intra}}(E)`$ is much larger than $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tr}}(E)`$.

Figure 1 shows $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{op}}(E)`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{intra}}(E)`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{inter}}(E)`$, and $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tr}}(E)`$ in a modulation-doped GaAs/AlAs QW with $`L=80\mathrm{\AA }`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=3\mathrm{\AA }`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=50\mathrm{\AA }`$. These values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are typical for the GaAs-on-AlAs interface Unuma:2001 ; Sakaki:1987 ; Tanaka:1987 . Temperature was set at $`T=0\mathrm{K}`$, and sheet electron concentration was chosen to be $`N_S=5\times 10^{11}\mathrm{cm}^2`$, which gives Fermi energy of $`E_F=17.8\mathrm{meV}`$. The same values of $`L`$, $`N_S`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are also used for calculations of other scattering mechanisms in this section.

In Fig. 1, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{intra}}(E)`$ decreases as $`E`$ increases, and it has a maximum value of $`8.3\mathrm{meV}`$ at $`E=0\mathrm{meV}`$. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{inter}}(E)`$ is almost constant with respect to $`E`$, and its value of $`0.6\mathrm{meV}`$ is much smaller than that of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{intra}}(E)`$. The values of $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tr}}(E)`$ are $`0\mathrm{meV}`$ at $`E=0\mathrm{meV}`$ owing to the screening effect, and $`0.6\mathrm{meV}`$ at $`E=E_F`$, which determines the low-temperature transport broadening. As a result, $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{op}}(E)`$, the sum of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{intra}}(E)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{inter}}(E)`$, is found to be much larger than $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tr}}(E)`$.

Figure 2 shows $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{op}}`$ and $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tr}}`$ as functions of correlation length $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$; they are calculated respectively from Eqs. (2) and (6) in a modulation-doped GaAs/AlAs QW with $`L=80\mathrm{\AA }`$, $`N_S=5\times 10^{11}\mathrm{cm}^2`$, $`T=0\mathrm{K}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=3\mathrm{\AA }`$. $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{op},\mathrm{para}}`$ represents the linewidth calculated without changing $`E_{10}`$ into $`E_{10}(0)(1m_0^{}/m_1^{})E`$ in Eq. (2).

In Fig. 2, $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{op},\mathrm{para}}`$ and $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tr}}`$ are both proportional to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ for small $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with the difference in absolute values being about one order of magnitude. With nonparabolicity, $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{op}}`$ has a lower limit of $`(1m_0^{}/m_1^{})E_F=1.35\mathrm{meV}`$ in addition to $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{op},\mathrm{para}}`$. For large $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the insensitivity of $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tr}}`$ to forward scattering causes its value to be smaller. This shows that the correlation length of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }1/k_F`$ contributes most to $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tr}}`$, where $`k_F`$ is the Fermi wavenumber. In principle, values of the roughness parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ can be uniquely determined if linewidth and mobility are both measured at low temperatures.

As shown above, the main characteristic of interface roughness scattering is its order-of-magnitude different contributions to linewidth and transport broadening (and hence to mobility). This is the key point for understanding the apparent lack of correlation between them.

#### II.2.2 LO phonon scattering

In considering phonon scattering processes, it should be noted that phonons have approximately three-dimensional (3D) properties, since they are hardly confined to QWs. The $`z`$-component momentum conservation in 3D systems requires the scattering matrix element of 2D electrons to be calculated from Price:1981

$`|M_{2\mathrm{D}}|^2={\displaystyle \underset{q_z}{}}|M_{3\mathrm{D}}I(q_z)|^2.`$ (28)
Here, $`M_{2\mathrm{D}}`$ and $`M_{3\mathrm{D}}`$ are the 2D and 3D scattering matrix elements, respectively, and $`I(q_z)`$ is given by

$`I(q_z)=I_{mn}(q_z)={\displaystyle 𝑑z\zeta _m(z)\zeta _n(z)e^{iq_zz}}.`$ (29)
Since the method of calculating the 3D scattering matrix element is well established, the 2D scattering matrix element can be easily obtained.

In polar optical phonon scattering, or simply LO phonon scattering, the 3D scattering matrix element is given by Price:1981

$`|M_{3\mathrm{D}}|^2={\displaystyle \frac{e^2\mathrm{}\omega _{\mathrm{LO}}\left(N_{\mathrm{LO}}+1\right)}{2ϵ_0Q^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa _{\mathrm{}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa _0}}\right)`$ (30)
for phonon emission processes, and by

$`|M_{3\mathrm{D}}|^2={\displaystyle \frac{e^2\mathrm{}\omega _{\mathrm{LO}}N_{\mathrm{LO}}}{2ϵ_0Q^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa _{\mathrm{}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa _0}}\right)`$ (31)
for phonon absorption processes. Here, $`Q`$ is the absolute value of the 3D scattering vector, $`\kappa _{\mathrm{}}`$ is the optical dielectric constant, $`\omega _{\mathrm{LO}}`$ is the LO phonon frequency, and $`N_{\mathrm{LO}}`$ is the LO phonon occupation given by

$`N_{\mathrm{LO}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^{\mathrm{}\omega _{\mathrm{LO}}/k_\mathrm{B}T}1}}.`$ (32)
Since LO phonon scattering is an inelastic process, Eqs. (4) and (5) are not applicable in their original forms. However, by modifying the $`\delta `$-functions in Eqs. (4) and (5),

$`\delta \left(\epsilon (𝐤)\epsilon (𝐤^{})\right)`$ $``$ $`\delta \left(\epsilon (𝐤)\epsilon (𝐤^{})\pm \mathrm{}\omega _{\mathrm{LO}}\right),`$ (33)
$`\delta \left(\epsilon (𝐤)\epsilon (𝐤^{})+E_{10}\right)`$ $``$ $`\delta \left(\epsilon (𝐤)\epsilon (𝐤^{})+E_{10}\pm \mathrm{}\omega _{\mathrm{LO}}\right),`$ (34)
such that total energy is conserved, we can estimate width of the zero-phonon band in an approximation that neglects phonon sidebands. Here, $`\pm `$ indicates phonon absorption ($`+`$) and emission ($``$). Thus, we have

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{intra}}^{(\mathrm{LO})}(E)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^{}e^2\omega _{\mathrm{LO}}}{4\pi ϵ_0\mathrm{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa _{\mathrm{}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa _0}}\right){\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\theta `$ (35)
$`\times [\mathrm{\Theta }(E\mathrm{}\omega _{\mathrm{LO}}){\displaystyle \frac{N_{\mathrm{LO}}+1}{q_\mathrm{e}}}\{F_{(00)(00)}(q_\mathrm{e})2F_{(00)(11)}(q_\mathrm{e})+F_{(11)(11)}(q_\mathrm{e})\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{N_{\mathrm{LO}}}{q_\mathrm{a}}}\{F_{(00)(00)}(q_\mathrm{a})2F_{(00)(11)}(q_\mathrm{a})+F_{(11)(11)}(q_\mathrm{a})\}],`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{inter}}^{(\mathrm{LO})}(E)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^{}e^2\omega _{\mathrm{LO}}}{4\pi ϵ_0\mathrm{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa _{\mathrm{}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa _0}}\right){\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\theta `$ (36)
$`\times \left[\mathrm{\Theta }(E+E_{10}\mathrm{}\omega _{\mathrm{LO}}){\displaystyle \frac{N_{\mathrm{LO}}+1}{\stackrel{~}{q}_\mathrm{e}}}F_{(01)(10)}(\stackrel{~}{q}_\mathrm{e})+{\displaystyle \frac{N_{\mathrm{LO}}}{\stackrel{~}{q}_\mathrm{a}}}F_{(01)(10)}(\stackrel{~}{q}_\mathrm{a})\right],`$
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }(E)`$ is the Heaviside step function. Absolute values of scattering vectors are given by

$`q_\mathrm{e}^2`$ $`=`$ $`2k^2{\displaystyle \frac{2m^{}\omega _{\mathrm{LO}}}{\mathrm{}}}2k\sqrt{k^2{\displaystyle \frac{2m^{}\omega _{\mathrm{LO}}}{\mathrm{}}}}\mathrm{cos}\theta ,`$ (37)
$`q_\mathrm{a}^2`$ $`=`$ $`2k^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2m^{}\omega _{\mathrm{LO}}}{\mathrm{}}}2k\sqrt{k^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2m^{}\omega _{\mathrm{LO}}}{\mathrm{}}}}\mathrm{cos}\theta ,`$ (38)
$`\stackrel{~}{q}_\mathrm{e}^2`$ $`=`$ $`2k^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2m^{}E_{10}}{\mathrm{}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2m^{}\omega _{\mathrm{LO}}}{\mathrm{}}}2k\sqrt{k^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2m^{}E_{10}}{\mathrm{}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2m^{}\omega _{\mathrm{LO}}}{\mathrm{}}}}\mathrm{cos}\theta ,`$ (39)
$`\stackrel{~}{q}_\mathrm{a}^2`$ $`=`$ $`2k^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2m^{}E_{10}}{\mathrm{}^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2m^{}\omega _{\mathrm{LO}}}{\mathrm{}}}2k\sqrt{k^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2m^{}E_{10}}{\mathrm{}^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2m^{}\omega _{\mathrm{LO}}}{\mathrm{}}}}\mathrm{cos}\theta ,`$ (40)
and the subscripts “e” and “a” represent emission and absorption of LO phonons, respectively.

On the other hand, the transport relaxation rate can be expressed as

$`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tr}}^{(\mathrm{LO})}(E)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^{}e^2\omega _{\mathrm{LO}}}{2\pi ϵ_0\mathrm{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa _{\mathrm{}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa _0}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{1f(E)}}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\theta `$ (41)
$`\times [\mathrm{\Theta }(E\mathrm{}\omega _{\mathrm{LO}})\{1f(E\mathrm{}\omega _{\mathrm{LO}})\}{\displaystyle \frac{N_{\mathrm{LO}}+1}{q_\mathrm{e}}}F_{(00)(00)}(q_\mathrm{e})`$
$`+\{1f(E+\mathrm{}\omega _{\mathrm{LO}})\}{\displaystyle \frac{N_{\mathrm{LO}}}{q_\mathrm{a}}}F_{(00)(00)}(q_\mathrm{a})]`$
in the approximation that neglects the “in-scattering term”Hirakawa:1986 . Since LO phonon frequency is high, the screening effect can be neglected.

The four form factors $`F_{(00)(00)}(q)`$, $`F_{(00)(11)}(q)`$, $`F_{(11)(11)}(q)`$, and $`F_{(01)(10)}(q)`$ appearing in Eqs. (35), (36), and (41) are plotted as functions of $`q`$ in Fig. 3. First, $`F_{(00)(00)}(q)`$, $`F_{(00)(11)}(q)`$, and $`F_{(11)(11)}(q)`$ are very close, which makes $`F_{(00)(00)}(q)2F_{(00)(11)}(q)+F_{(11)(11)}(q)`$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{intra}}(E)`$ much smaller than $`F_{(00)(00)}(q)`$ in $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tr}}(E)`$. In other words, the difference in intrasubband scattering matrix elements for the two subbands is small in LO phonon scattering. Second, $`F_{(01)(10)}(q)`$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{inter}}(E)`$ is much smaller than $`F_{(00)(00)}(q)`$.

Figure 4 shows $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{op}}(E)`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{intra}}(E)`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{inter}}(E)`$, and $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tr}}(E)`$ due to LO phonon scattering at $`T=300\mathrm{K}`$. First, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{intra}}(E)`$ is much smaller than $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tr}}(E)`$, because the difference in intrasubband scattering matrix elements for the two subband is small in LO phonon scattering as already shown in Fig. 3. Second, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{inter}}(E)`$ is much smaller than $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tr}}(E)`$ owing to the small form factor of $`F_{(01)(10)}(q)`$ and the large absolute value of scattering vector $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$. Third, when the kinetic energy $`E`$ is larger than the LO phonon energy of $`E_{\mathrm{LO}}=36.5\mathrm{meV}`$, intrasubband LO phonon emission is allowed, which makes $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tr}}(E)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{intra}}(E)`$ larger. As a result, $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{op}}(E)`$ is much smaller than $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tr}}(E)`$ at room temperature.

When systems are cooled down to $`0\mathrm{K}`$, only intersubband LO phonon spontaneous emission is allowed in the case of $`E_{10}>E_{\mathrm{LO}}`$. Therefore, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{intra}}(E)`$ and $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tr}}(E)`$ vanish, and only $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{inter}}(E)`$ has a finite value of about $`1\mathrm{meV}`$.

#### II.2.3 LA phonon scattering

Acoustic phonon scattering via deformation potential coupling, or simply LA phonon scattering, is virtually elastic. The 3D scattering matrix element is given by Price:1981

$`|M_{3\mathrm{D}}|^2={\displaystyle \frac{k_BTD^2}{2c_l}}`$ (42)
for both LA phonon emission and absorption processes, where $`D`$ is the deformation potential constant and $`c_l`$ is the longitudinal elastic constant. Note that Eq. (42) is independent of the scattering vector as a result of the linear dispersion relation of LA phonons. Therefore, we have

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{intra}}^{(\mathrm{LA})}(E)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^{}k_BTD^2}{\pi \mathrm{}^2c_l}}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\theta {\displaystyle 𝑑z\left[\frac{\zeta _0(z)^2}{S(q,T)}\zeta _1(z)^2\right]^2},`$ (43)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{inter}}^{(\mathrm{LA})}(E)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^{}k_BTD^2}{\pi \mathrm{}^2c_l}}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\theta {\displaystyle 𝑑z\left[\zeta _0(z)\zeta _1(z)\right]^2}.`$ (44)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{inter}}^{(\mathrm{LA})}(E)`$ is independent of the kinetic energy $`E`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{intra}}^{(\mathrm{LA})}(E)`$ is also almost independent of it because $`S(q,T)1`$.

On the other hand, the transport relaxation rate is given by Ando:1982 ; Price:1981

$`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tr}}^{(\mathrm{LA})}(E)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2m^{}k_BD^2T}{\pi \mathrm{}^2c_l}}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\theta {\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{cos}\theta }{ϵ(q,T)^2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑z\zeta _0(z)^4},`$ (45)
which has an energy dependence due to the screening effect.

Note here that the $`z`$-integrals of $`\zeta _0(z)^4`$, $`\zeta _1(z)^4`$, and $`[\zeta _0(z)\zeta _1(z)]^2`$ have comparable values ($`3/2L`$, $`3/2L`$, and $`1/L`$, respectively in the infinite-barrier approximation); thus $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{intra}}(E)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{inter}}(E)`$ are nearly equal, and $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{op}}(E)`$, the sum of them, is comparable with $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tr}}(E)`$.

Figure 5 shows $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{op}}(E)`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{intra}}(E)`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{inter}}(E)`$, and $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tr}}(E)`$ at $`T=300\mathrm{K}`$. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{intra}}(E)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{inter}}(E)`$ have almost the same constant values of about $`0.5\mathrm{meV}`$. $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tr}}(E)`$ vanishes at $`E=0\mathrm{meV}`$ owing to the screening effect, and approaches a constant value of about $`1.5\mathrm{meV}`$ as $`E`$ increases.

#### II.2.4 Alloy disorder scattering

When there are alloy layers composed of $`\mathrm{A}_x\mathrm{B}_{1x}\mathrm{C}`$, such as $`\mathrm{Al}_x\mathrm{Ga}_{1x}\mathrm{As}`$ and $`\mathrm{In}_x\mathrm{Ga}_{1x}\mathrm{As}`$, electrons are scattered by conduction band disorder. The scattering matrix element due to alloy disorder is given by Ando:1982-2 ; Bastard:1988

$`|(m𝐤^{}|H_1|n𝐤)|^2={\displaystyle \frac{a^3(\delta E_c)^2x(1x)}{4}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{alloy}}}𝑑z\left[\zeta _m(z)\zeta _n(z)\right]^2,`$ (46)
where $`a`$ is the lattice constant and $`\delta E_C`$ is the difference in conduction band minima of crystals AC and BC (AlAs and GaAs in the case of $`\mathrm{Al}_x\mathrm{Ga}_{1x}\mathrm{As}`$). Note that Eq. (46) is independent of the scattering vector owing to the short-range nature of the scatterers. Therefore, we have

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{intra}}^{(\mathrm{AD})}(E)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^{}a^3(\delta E_c)^2x(1x)}{\pi \mathrm{}^2}}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\theta {\displaystyle _{\mathrm{alloy}}}𝑑z\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta _0(z)^2}{S(q,T)}}\zeta _1(z)^2\right]^2,`$ (47)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{inter}}^{(\mathrm{AD})}(E)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^{}a^3(\delta E_c)^2x(1x)}{\pi \mathrm{}^2}}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\theta {\displaystyle _{\mathrm{alloy}}}𝑑z\left[\zeta _0(z)\zeta _1(z)\right]^2.`$ (48)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{inter}}(E)`$ is independent of $`E`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{intra}}(E)`$ is also almost independent of it because $`S(q,T)1`$.

On the other hand, the transport relaxation rate is given by Ando:1982-2 ; Bastard:1988

$`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tr}}^{(\mathrm{AD})}(E)={\displaystyle \frac{2m^{}a^3(\delta E_C)^2x(1x)}{\pi \mathrm{}^2}}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\theta {\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{cos}\theta }{ϵ(q,T)^2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{alloy}}}𝑑z\zeta _0(z)^4,`$ (49)
which has an energy dependence due to the screening effect.

Since alloy disorder scattering is due to $`\delta E_C`$, it can be regarded as a kind of roughness scattering. If one substitutes $`V_0=\delta E_C`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2=a^2x(1x)/4`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2=a^2/2\pi `$ into Eqs. (23), (24), and (27), one can recognize that the alloy disorder scattering of Eqs. (47)-(49) is expressed as the sum of the “roughness scattering” rates due to the alloy layer at position $`z`$.

Note here that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{intra}}(E)`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{inter}}(E)`$, and $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tr}}(E)`$ for alloy disorder scattering are similar in form to those for LA phonon scattering; thus $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{op}}(E)`$ is comparable with $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tr}}(E)`$, as in LA phonon scattering.

Figure 6 shows $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{op}}(E)`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{intra}}(E)`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{inter}}(E)`$, and $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tr}}(E)`$ in $`\mathrm{In}_{0.1}\mathrm{Ga}_{0.9}\mathrm{As}/\mathrm{AlAs}`$ QWs ($`x=0.1`$) at $`T=0\mathrm{K}`$. We set the lattice constant and conduction band offset to approximately $`a=5.66\mathrm{\AA }`$ and $`\delta E_C=700\mathrm{meV}`$, respectively. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{intra}}(E)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{inter}}(E)`$ have almost the same constant values of about $`0.2\mathrm{meV}`$. $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tr}}(E)`$ vanishes at $`E=0\mathrm{meV}`$ owing to the screening effect, and approaches a constant value of about $`0.57\mathrm{meV}`$ as $`E`$ increases.

#### II.2.5 Ionized impurity scattering

When dopant donors of Si are ionized, electrons supplied to QWs suffer from scattering by the Coulomb potential of the donors. The scattering matrix element due to an ionized impurity at position $`Z`$ is given by Ando:1985

$`(m𝐤^{}|H_1|n𝐤)={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{2ϵ_0\kappa _0q}}{\displaystyle 𝑑z\zeta _m(z)\zeta _n(z)e^{q|zZ|}}.`$ (50)
Therefore, we have

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{intra}}^{(\mathrm{ION})}(E)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^{}e^4}{4\pi ϵ_0{}_{}{}^{2}\kappa _{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{}_{}^{2}}}{\displaystyle 𝑑ZN(Z)_0^\pi 𝑑\theta \left[\frac{1}{q}𝑑z\left\{\frac{\zeta _0(z)^2}{S(q,T)}\zeta _1(z)^2\right\}e^{q|zZ|}\right]^2},`$ (51)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{inter}}^{(\mathrm{ION})}(E)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^{}e^4}{4\pi ϵ_0{}_{}{}^{2}\kappa _{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{}_{}^{2}}}{\displaystyle 𝑑ZN(Z)_0^\pi 𝑑\theta \left[\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{q}}𝑑z\zeta _0(z)\zeta _1(z)e^{\stackrel{~}{q}|zZ|}\right]^2},`$ (52)
where $`N(Z)`$ is the 3D impurity concentration at position $`Z`$. The transport relaxation rate, on the other hand, is given by Ando:1982 ; Hirakawa:1986

$`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tr}}^{(\mathrm{ION})}(E)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^{}e^4}{2\pi ϵ_0{}_{}{}^{2}\kappa _{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{}_{}^{2}}}{\displaystyle 𝑑ZN(Z)_0^\pi 𝑑\theta \frac{1\mathrm{cos}\theta }{q^2ϵ(q,T)^2}\left[𝑑z\zeta _0(z)^2e^{q|zZ|}\right]^2}.`$ (53)
Figure 7 shows $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{op}}(E)`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{intra}}(E)`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{inter}}(E)`$, and $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tr}}(E)`$ in a $`\delta `$-doped GaAs/AlAs QW with $`60\mathrm{\AA }`$ spacer layers ($`Z=100\mathrm{\AA }`$) at $`T=0\mathrm{K}`$. First, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{intra}}(E)`$ is much smaller than $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tr}}(E)`$, because the difference in intrasubband scattering matrix elements for the two subbands is small in ionized impurity scattering. Second, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{inter}}(E)`$ is much smaller than $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tr}}(E)`$ owing to the large absolute value of scattering vector $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$. As a result, $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{op}}(E)`$ is much smaller than $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tr}}(E)`$.

## III Comparison with experimental results

In this section, the absorption linewidth $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{op}}`$ and transport energy broadening $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tr}}`$ are calculated for some GaAs (or InGaAs)/AlAs (or AlGaAs) QWs as functions of temperature, well width, alloy composition, and donor doping position. These results are compared with previously reported experimental data.

### III.1 Temperature dependence

Experimental measurements of the temperature dependence of absorption linewidth are expected to clarify the effects of phonon scattering. We previously reported absorption linewidths in comparison with transport mobilities in a modulation-doped $`\mathrm{GaAs}/\mathrm{AlAs}`$ single QW with a well width of $`L=80\mathrm{\AA }`$ and a sheet electron concentration of $`N_S=9.8\times 10^{11}\mathrm{cm}^2`$, at temperatures ranging from 4.5 to $`300\mathrm{K}`$ Unuma:2001 . The absorption spectrum observed at $`4.5\mathrm{K}`$ is shown in Fig. 8. The low-temperature linewidth $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{op}}`$ was $`11.1\mathrm{meV}`$ and the low-temperature transport broadening $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tr}}=2\mathrm{}e/m_0^{}\mu `$ was $`1.2\mathrm{meV}`$, which was calculated from the mobility $`\mu `$ of $`2.9\times 10^4\mathrm{cm}^2/\mathrm{Vs}`$. Note that linewidth was one order of magnitude larger than transport broadening at low temperatures. The temperature dependences of linewidth and transport broadening are plotted in Fig. 9 by solid and open circles, respectively.

We performed the corresponding calculations of linewidth and transport broadening by considering interface roughness (IFR) scattering with $`\mathrm{\Delta }=4\mathrm{\AA }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=43\mathrm{\AA }`$, LO phonon scattering, and LA phonon scattering. The contribution of alloy disorder scattering was absent because the GaAs QW had AlAs barriers, and the influence of ionized impurity scattering was sufficiently reduced by the spacer layers.

The calculated results for the linewidth $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{op}}`$ versus temperature are also shown in Fig. 9 by dashed (IFR), dash-dotted (IFR+LO), and solid (IFR+LO+LA) curves, in comparison with the transport broadening $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tr}}`$. Additional width due to nonparabolicity is already included in these three curves, making small corrections compared with the contribution of interface roughness scattering, as seen in Fig. 2. At low temperatures, interface roughness scattering contributes $`10.4\mathrm{meV}`$ to linewidth, and LO-phonon spontaneous emission contributes $`0.7\mathrm{meV}`$. Phonon scattering processes become more active as temperature rises, and LO and LA phonon scattering contribute $`1.8`$ and $`0.7\mathrm{meV}`$, respectively, to linewidth at room temperature. These calculated results are in good agreement with the experimental data shown by solid circles. Note that the increase in dashed line (IFR) with increasing temperature is due to the nonparabolicity effect; the contribution of interface roughness scattering itself slightly decreases with increasing temperature, as expected from the energy dependence in Fig. 1.

For the transport broadening $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tr}}`$, interface roughness scattering makes a dominant contribution of $`0.73\mathrm{meV}`$ at low temperatures, which nearly explains the experimental value of $`1.2\mathrm{meV}`$. As already pointed out in the previous section, this value of $`0.73\mathrm{meV}`$ is an order of magnitude smaller than the contribution of $`10.4\mathrm{meV}`$ to linewidth. In the temperature range above $`80\mathrm{K}`$, the contribution of LO phonon scattering to transport broadening rapidly increases as temperature rises, and reaches a dominant value of $`9.3\mathrm{meV}`$ at $`300\mathrm{K}`$, as is well known. Such an effect of LO phonon scattering on transport broadening is very different from that on linewidth. The contribution of LA phonon scattering to transport broadening is $`1.2\mathrm{meV}`$, which is comparable with that to linewidth.

As a result, linewidth and transport broadening have very different dependences on temperature. Similar behavior of linewidth versus temperature was also reported for $`\mathrm{GaAs}/\mathrm{Al}_{0.3}\mathrm{Ga}_{0.7}\mathrm{As}`$ QWs by Allmen et al.Allmen:1988 .

### III.2 Well-width dependence

Interface roughness scattering is expected to give absorption linewidth considerably strong well-width dependence. Campman et al. reported low-temperature linewidths and mobilities in modulation-doped GaAs/Al<sub>0.3</sub>Ga<sub>0.7</sub>As QWs with $`N_S6\times 10^{11}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ for various well widths in the range $`L=75110\mathrm{\AA }`$ Campman:1996 . Here, we calculate linewidth and transport broadening for the same structures. As scattering mechanisms, interface roughness scattering with $`\mathrm{\Delta }=3\mathrm{\AA }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=85\mathrm{\AA }`$ and LO phonon scattering are included one by one.

Figure 10 shows the calculated results for low-temperature linewidth versus well width in the range $`L=75110\mathrm{\AA }`$. First, the well-width dependence of linewidth due to interface roughness scattering, shown by the dashed curve (IFR), is not so strong for small $`L`$, because the confinement of the first excited state is weaker and thus $`F_{11}=E_1/L`$ is considerably smaller in $`\mathrm{GaAs}/\mathrm{Al}_{0.3}\mathrm{Ga}_{0.7}\mathrm{As}`$ QWs than in infinite-barrier QWs. Second, the contribution of LO phonon scattering slowly increases as QWs become wider, which makes the well-width dependence of linewidth slightly weaker. The solid curve (IFR+LO) is in good agreement with experimental results shown by solid circles Campman:1996 . If barriers are higher, as in GaAs/AlAs QWs, the first excited state is more strongly confined and the interface roughness scattering contributes much more to linewidth than LO phonon scattering does, which will lead to a much stronger well-width dependence of linewidth.

On the other hand, the well-width dependence of low-temperature transport broadening is shown in Fig. 11. The transport broadening considered here is determined only by interface roughness scattering, because intrasubband LO-phonon emission and absorption are impossible at low temperatures. $`F_{00}{}_{}{}^{2}=(E_0/L)^2`$ in Eq. (27) is proportional to $`L^6`$ in the infinite-barrier approximation, and this leads to a strong well-width dependence of transport broadening even in finite-barrier QWs. The calculated curve explains the experimental results plotted by open circles Campman:1996  very well.

### III.3 Alloy composition dependence

Experimental measurements of the alloy composition dependence of linewidth are expected to show the effects of alloy disorder scattering. Campman et al. reported low-temperature linewidths and mobilities in modulation-doped $`\mathrm{In}_x\mathrm{Ga}_{1x}\mathrm{As}/\mathrm{Al}_{0.3}\mathrm{Ga}_{0.7}\mathrm{As}`$ QWs with $`L=100\mathrm{\AA }`$ and $`N_S8\times 10^{11}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ for various compositions in the range $`x=00.1`$ Campman:1996 . We calculate linewidth and transport broadening for the same structures. As scattering mechanisms, interface roughness scattering with $`\mathrm{\Delta }=3.5\mathrm{\AA }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=40\mathrm{\AA }`$, LO phonon scattering, and alloy disorder (AD) scattering are included one by one.

Figure 12 shows the calculated results for low-temperature linewidth versus alloy composition $`x`$ in the range $`x=00.1`$. The contribution of interface roughness scattering is $`1.6\mathrm{meV}`$ at $`x=0`$, and slowly increases as $`x`$ increases because QWs become deeper. LO phonon scattering contributes approximately $`1\mathrm{meV}`$ to linewidth, almost independently of $`x`$. Although the contribution of alloy disorder scattering is proportional to $`x`$ for small $`x`$, it is as small as $`0.24\mathrm{meV}`$ even at $`x=0.1`$. Our calculations explain the experimental observation of linewidth being insensitive to alloy composition, plotted by solid circles Campman:1996 .

On the other hand, transport broadening is shown in Fig. 13 as a function of $`x`$. Interface roughness scattering contributes $`0.1\mathrm{meV}`$ to transport broadening, while alloy disorder scattering makes the larger contribution of $`0.27\mathrm{meV}`$ at $`x=0.1`$; this shows that transport mobility drops remarkably as $`x`$ increases. Our calculations explain the experimental results plotted by open circles Campman:1996 . The small disagreement may be due to clustering in alloy layers, where the effective correlation length of alloy disorder in terms of roughness scattering may be larger than $`a/\sqrt{2\pi }`$ in actual samples grown by molecular beam epitaxy (MBE) or metalorganic chemical vapor deposition (MOCVD).

It should be noted that the one-order-of-magnitude different contributions of interface roughness scattering to linewidth and transport broadening are important in explaining their different behaviors versus alloy composition. Alloy disorder scattering in itself contributes fairly equally to linewidth and transport broadening, as mentioned in the previous section.

### III.4 Doping position dependence

If the donor doping position is varied, then the contribution of ionized impurity scattering to linewidth should change. Dupont et al. measured low-temperature linewidths in $`\delta `$-doped $`\mathrm{GaAs}/\mathrm{Al}_{0.25}\mathrm{Ga}_{0.75}\mathrm{As}`$ QWs with $`L=76\mathrm{\AA }`$ and $`N_S1\times 10^{12}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ for two different doping positions: $`Z=0`$ and $`112\mathrm{\AA }`$ Dupont:1992 . We calculate linewidth and transport broadening for the same structures. As scattering mechanisms, interface roughness scattering with $`\mathrm{\Delta }=5.66\mathrm{\AA }`$ (2 MLs) and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=70\mathrm{\AA }`$, LO phonon scattering, and ionized impurity (ION) scattering are included one by one.

Figure 15 shows the calculated results for low-temperature linewidth versus doping position $`Z`$ in the range $`Z=0120\mathrm{\AA }`$. Interface roughness scattering and LO phonon scattering contribute $`5.8`$ and $`0.8\mathrm{meV}`$ to linewidth, respectively. When donors are doped in barriers, at $`Z=100\mathrm{\AA }`$ for example, the contribution of ionized impurity scattering is as small as $`0.3\mathrm{meV}`$. When donors are doped in QWs, at the center $`Z=0\mathrm{\AA }`$ for instance, the contribution of ionized impurity scattering is $`2.8\mathrm{meV}`$, which is smaller than that of interface roughness scattering. Our calculations explain the experimental results plotted by solid circles Dupont:1992 .

Note that the wave function $`\zeta _1(z)`$ of the first excited state penetrates largely into the low barriers in these narrow $`\mathrm{GaAs}/\mathrm{Al}_{0.25}\mathrm{Ga}_{0.75}\mathrm{As}`$ QWs, so the effect of ionized impurity scattering is greatly enhanced even in barrier-doped QWs. If wave functions are more strongly confined, for example, as in the narrow GaAs/AlAs QWs used in our experiment, the contribution of ionized impurity scattering to linewidth is less than $`0.1\mathrm{meV}`$ for barrier-doping.

On the other hand, low-temperature transport broadening is shown in Fig. 15 as a function of $`Z`$. Interface roughness scattering contributes $`0.44\mathrm{meV}`$ to transport broadening, while ionized impurity scattering contributes $`12.2\mathrm{meV}`$ at $`Z=0\mathrm{\AA }`$ and $`0.33\mathrm{meV}`$ at $`Z=100\mathrm{\AA }`$. Therefore, mobility greatly decreases when donors are doped in or near QWs; rather thick spacer layers, more than $`150\mathrm{\AA }`$ in this case, are necessary to completely remove the influence of ionized impurity scattering on mobility.

## IV Summary

We have formulated the microscopic energy-dependent relaxation rate $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{op}}(E)`$ of intersubband optical transition in QWs due to scattering by interface roughness, LO phonons, LA phonons, alloy disorder, and ionized impurities, and have numerically calculated the absorption linewidth $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{op}}`$ for GaAs-based QWs in comparison with the transport energy broadening $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tr}}=2\mathrm{}e/m^{}\mu `$ related to the mobility $`\mu `$.

The sensitivity of linewidth to interface roughness scattering is about one order of magnitude higher than that of transport broadening, because the contribution from the intrasubband scattering in the first excited subband is larger than that in the ground subband. This provides an essential insight for understanding experimental values for linewidth and the apparent lack of correlation between linewidth and mobility.

The contribution of LO phonon scattering to linewidth is small, about $`2\mathrm{meV}`$ in narrow GaAs-based QWs even at room temperature, because the difference in intrasubband scattering matrix elements for the two subbands is small owing to the cancellation of form factors. In addition, intersubband LO-phonon spontaneous emission contributes approximately $`1\mathrm{meV}`$ to linewidth at low temperatures. Therefore, linewidth has a very weak temperature dependence, while mobility is greatly lowered by LO phonon scattering in the temperature range above $`80\mathrm{K}`$.

LA phonon scattering and alloy disorder scattering give matrix elements that are independent of scattering vectors, and lead to a linewidth comparable with transport broadening. The contribution of LA phonon scattering is, for example, about $`1\mathrm{meV}`$ at room temperature in narrow GaAs-based QWs, and this is small for linewidth compared with the contribution of interface roughness scattering. Alloy disorder scattering contributes, for instance, about $`0.3\mathrm{meV}`$ in $`\mathrm{In}_x\mathrm{Ga}_{1x}\mathrm{As}`$ QWs with $`x=0.1`$. This is negligible for linewidth but predominant for transport broadening, causing a remarkable drop in mobility as $`x`$ increases.

Ionized impurity scattering contributes little to linewidth in modulation-doped QWs, because the difference in intrasubband scattering matrix elements for the two subbands is small. On the other hand, rather thick spacer layers, more than $`150\mathrm{\AA }`$ in narrow $`\mathrm{GaAs}/\mathrm{Al}_{0.3}\mathrm{Ga}_{0.7}\mathrm{As}`$ QWs for example, are necessary to remove the influence of ionized impurity scattering on mobility.

## V Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Professor T. Ando for helpful discussions and showing us his unpublished formulation of intersubband optical transition. This work was partly supported by a Grant-in-Aid from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan. One of us (T. U.) also thanks the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science for financial support.